View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages Part 9

The guild mentioned above at Canterbury was, in all probability, a voluntary a.s.sociation: so at Dover we find the burgesses' guildhall, gihalla burgensium. p. 1.

Many of the pa.s.sages in Domesday relative to the state of burgesses are collected in Brady's History of Boroughs; a work which, if read with due suspicion of the author's honesty, will convey a great deal of knowledge.

Since the former part of this note was written, I have met with a charter granted by Henry II. to Lincoln, which seems to refer, more explicitly than any similar instrument, to munic.i.p.al privileges of jurisdiction enjoyed by the citizens under Edward the Confessor. These charters, it is well known, do not always recite what is true; yet it is possible that the citizens of Lincoln, which had been one of the five Danish towns, sometimes mentioned with a sort of distinction by writers before the Conquest, might be in a more advantageous situation than the generality of burgesses. Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis Lincoln, omnes libertates et consuetudines et leges suas, quas habuerunt tempore Edwardi et Will. et Henr. regum Angliae, et gildam suam mercatoriam de hominibus civitatis et de aliis mercatoribus comitatus, sicut illam habuerunt tempore predictorum, antecessorum nostrorum, regum Angliae, melius et liberius. Et omnes homines qui infra quatuor divisas civitates manent et mercatum deduc.u.n.t, sint ad gildas, et consuetudines et a.s.sisas civitatis, sicut melius fuerunt temp. Edw. et Will. et Hen. regum Angliae. Rymer, t. i. p. 40 (edit. 1816).

I am indebted to the friendly remarks of the periodical critic whom I have before mentioned for reminding me of other charters of the same age, expressed in a similar manner, which in my haste I had overlooked, though printed in common books. But whether these general words ought to outweigh the silence of Domesday Book I am not prepared to decide. I have admitted below that the possession of corporate property implies an elective government for its administration, and I think it perfectly clear that the guilds made by-laws for the regulation of their members.

Yet this is something different from munic.i.p.al jurisdiction over all the inhabitants of a town. [Note IV.]

[39] Madox, Hist. of Exchequer, c. 17.

[40] Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 1. There is one instance, I know not if any more could be found, of a firma burgi before the Conquest. It was at Huntingdon. Domesday, p. 203.

[41] Madox, p. 12, 13.

[42] Id. p. 21.

[43] I have read somewhere that this charter was granted in 1101. But the instrument itself, which is only preserved by an Inspeximus of Edward IV., does not contain any date. Rymer, t. i. p. 11 (edit. 1816).

Could it be traced so high, the circ.u.mstance would be remarkable, as the earliest charters granted by Louis VI., supposed to be the father of these inst.i.tutions, are several years later.

It is said by Mr. Thorpe (Ancient Laws of England, p. 267), that, though there are ten witnesses, he only finds one who throws any light on the date: namely, Hugh BiG.o.d, who succeeded his brother William in 1120. But Mr. Thorpe does not mention in what respect he succeeded. It was as _dapifer regis_; but he is not so named in the charter. Dugdale's Baronage, p. 132. The date, therefore, still seems problematical.

[44] This did not, however, save the citizens from paying one hundred marks to the king for this privilege. Mag. Rot. 5 Steph. apud Madox, Hist. Exchequer, t. xi. I do not know that the charter of Henry I. can be suspected; but Brady, in his treatise of Boroughs (p. 38, edit.

1777), does not think proper once to mention it; and indeed uses many expressions incompatible with its existence.

[45] Blomefield, Hist of Norfolk, vol. ii. p. 16, says that Henry I.

granted the same privileges by charter to Norwich in 1122 which London possessed. Yet it appears that the king named the port reeve or provost; but Blomefield suggests that he was probably recommended by the citizens, the office being annual.

[46] Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 23. Hickes has given us a bond of fellows.h.i.+p among the thanes of Cambridges.h.i.+re, containing several curious particulars. A composition of eight pounds, exclusive, I conceive, of the usual weregild, was to be enforced from the slayer of any fellow. If a fellow (gilda) killed a man of 1200 s.h.i.+llings weregild, each of the society was to contribute half a marc; for a ceorl, two orae (perhaps ten s.h.i.+llings); for a Welshman, one. If however this act was committed wantonly, the fellow had no right to call on the society for contribution. If one fellow killed another, he was to pay the legal weregild to his kindred, and also eight pounds to the society. Harsh words used by one fellow towards another, or even towards a stranger, incurred a fine. No one was to eat or drink in the company of one who had killed his brother fellow, unless in the presence of the king, bishop, or alderman. Dissertatio Epistolaris, p. 21.

We find in Wilkins's Anglo-Saxon Laws, p. 65, a number of ordinances sworn to by persons both of n.o.ble and ign.o.ble rank (ge eorlisce ge ceorlisce), and confirmed by king Athelstan. These are in the nature of by-laws for the regulation of certain societies that had been formed for the preservation of public order. Their remedy was rather violent: to kill and seize the effects of all who should rob any member of the a.s.sociation. This property, after deducting the value of the things stolen, was to be divided into two parts; one given to the criminal's wife if not an accomplice, the other shared between the king and the society.

In another fraternity among the clergy and laity of Exeter every fellow was ent.i.tled to a contribution in case of taking a journey, or if his house was burned. Thus they resembled, in some degree, our friendly societies; and display an interesting picture of manners, which has induced me to insert this note, though not greatly to the present purpose. See more of the Anglo-Saxon guilds in Turner's History, vol.

ii. p. 102. Societies of the same kind, for purposes of religion, charity, or mutual a.s.sistance, rather than trade, may be found long afterwards. Blomefield's Hist. of Norfolk, vol. iii. p. 494.

[47] See a grant from Turstin, archbishop of York, in the reign of Henry I., to the burgesses of Beverley, that they may have their _hanshus_ (i.e. guildhall) like those of York, et ibi sua statuta pertractent ad honorem Dei, &c. Rymer, t. i. p. 10, edit. 1816.

[48] Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 189.

[49] Idem, pa.s.sim. A few of an earlier date may be found in the new edition of Rymer.

[50] Lyttelton's History of Henry II., vol. ii. p. 170. Macpherson's Annals of Commerce, vol. i. p. 331.

[51] Macpherson, p. 245.

[52] Id. p. 282.

[53] Cives Lundinenses, et pars n.o.bilium qui eo tempore consistebant Lundoniae, c.l.i.tonem Eadmundum unanimi consensu in regem levavere. p. 249.

[54] Chron. Saxon. p. 154. Malmsbury, p. 76. He says the people of London were become almost barbarians through their intercourse with the Danes; propter frequentem convictum.

[55] Londinenses, qui sunt quasi optimates pro magnitudine civitatis in Anglia. Malmsb. p. 189. Thus too Matthew Paris: cives Londinenses, quos propter civitatis dignitatem et civium antiquam libertatem Barones consuevimus appellare. p. 744. And in another place: totius civitatis cives, quos barones vocant. p. 835. Spelman says that the magistrates of several other towns were called barons. Glossary, Barones de London.

A singular proof of the estimation in which the citizens of London held themselves in the reign of Richard I. occurs in the Chronicle of Jocelyn de Brakelonde (p. 56--Camden Society, 1840). They claimed to be free from toll in every part of England, and in every jurisdiction, resting their immunity on the antiquity of London (which was coeval, they said, with Rome), and on its rank as metropolis of the kingdom. Et dicebant cives Lundonienses fuisse quietos de theloneo in omni foro, et semper et ubique, per totam Angliam, a tempore quo Roma primo fundata fuit, et civitatem Lundoniae, eodem tempore fundatam, talem debere habere libertatem per totam Angliam, et ratione civitatis privilegiatae quae olim metropolis fuit et caput regni, et ratione antiquitatis. Palgrave inclines to think that London never formed part of any kingdom of the Heptarchy. Introduction to Rot. Cur. Regis. p. 95. But this seems to imply a republican city in the midst of so many royal states, which seems hardly probable. Certainly it seems strange, though I cannot explain it away, that the capital of England should have fallen, as we generally suppose, to the small and obscure kingdom of Ess.e.x.

Winchester, indeed, may be considered as having become afterwards the capital during the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, so far as that it was for the most part the residence of our kings. But London was always more populous.

[56] Drake, the historian of York, maintains that London was less populous, about the time of the Conquest, than that city; and quotes Hardynge, a writer of Henry V.'s age, to prove that the interior part of the former was not closely built. Eborac.u.m, p. 91. York however does not appear to have contained more than 10,000 inhabitants at the accession of the Conqueror; and the very exaggerations as to the populousness of London prove that it must have far exceeded that number. Fitz-Stephen, the contemporary biographer of Thomas a Becket, tells us of 80,000 men capable of bearing arms within its precincts; where however his translator, Pegge, suspects a mistake of the MS. in the numerals. And this, with similar hyperboles, so imposed on the judicious mind of Lord Lyttelton, that, finding in Peter of Blois the inhabitants of London reckoned at quadraginta millia, he has actually proposed to read quadringenta. Hist. Henry II., vol. iv. ad finem. It is hardly necessary to observe that the condition of agriculture and internal communication would not have allowed half that number to subsist.

The subsidy-roll of 1377, published in the Archaeologia, vol. vii., would lead to a conclusion that all the inhabitants of London did not even then exceed 35,000. If this be true, they could not have amounted, probably, to so great a number two or three centuries earlier. But the numbers given in that doc.u.ment have been questioned as to Norwich upon very plausible grounds, and seem rather suspicious in the present instance. [Note V.]

[57] This seditious, or at least refractory character of the Londoners, was displayed in the tumult headed by William Longbeard in the time of Richard I., and that under Constantine in 1222, the patriarchs of a long line of city demagogues. Hoveden, p. 765. M. Paris, p. 154.

[58] Hoveden's expressions are very precise, and show that the share taken by the citizens of London (probably the mayor and aldermen) in this measure was no tumultuary acclamation, but a deliberate concurrence with the n.o.bility. Comes Johannes, et fere omnes episcopi, et comites Angliae eadem die intraverunt Londonias; et in crastino praedictus Johannes frater regis, et archiepiscopus Rothomagensis, et omnes episcopi, et comites et barones, et cives Londonienses c.u.m illis convenerunt in atrio ecclesiae S. Pauli.... Placuit ergo Johanni fratri regis, et omnibus episcopis, et comitibus et baronibus regni, et civibus Londoniarum, quod cancellarius ille deponeretur, et deposuerunt eum, &c.

p. 701.

[59] The reader may consult, for a more full account of the English towns before the middle of the thirteenth century, Lyttelton's History of Henry II. vol. ii. p. 174; and Macpherson's Annals of Commerce.

[60] Frequent proofs of this may be found in Madox, Hist. of Exchequer, c. 17, as well as in Matt. Paris, who laments it with indignation. Cives Londinenses, contra consuetudinem et libertatem civitatis, quasi servi ultimae conditionis, non sub nomine aut t.i.tulo liberi adjutorii, sed tallagii, quod multum eos angebat, regi, licet inviti et renitentes, numerare sunt coacti. p. 492. Heu ubi est Londinensis, toties empta, toties concessa, toties scripta, toties jurata libertas! &c. p. 627. The king sometimes suspended their market, that is, I suppose, their right of toll, till his demands were paid.

[61] These writs are not extant, having perhaps never been returned; and consequently we cannot tell to what particular places they were addressed. It appears however that the a.s.sembly was intended to be numerous; for the entry runs: scribitur civibus Ebor, civibus Lincoln, et caeteris burgis Angliae. It is singular that no mention is made of London, which must have had some special summons. Rymer, t. i. p. 803.

Dugdale, Summonitiones ad Parliamentum, p. 1.

[62] It would ill repay any reader's diligence to wade through the vapid and diluted pages of Tyrrell; but whoever would know what can be best pleaded for a higher antiquity of our present parliamentary const.i.tution may have recourse to Hody on Convocations, and Lord Lyttelton's History of Henry II. vol. ii. p. 276, and vol. iv. p. 79-106. I do not conceive it possible to argue the question more ingeniously than has been done by the n.o.ble writer last quoted. Whitelocke, in his commentary on the parliamentary writ, has treated it very much at length, but with no critical discrimination. [Note VII.]

[63] Madox, Hist. of Exchequer, c. 17.

[64] The only apparent exception to this is in the letter addressed to the pope by the parliament of 1246; the salutation of which runs thus: Barones, proceres, et magnates, _ac n.o.biles portuum maris habitatores_, necnon et clerus et populus universus, salutem. Matt. Paris, p. 696. It is plain, I think, from these words, that some of the chief inhabitants of the Cinque Ports, at that time very flouris.h.i.+ng towns, were present in this parliament. But whether they sat as representatives, or by a peculiar writ of summons, is not so evident; and the latter may be the more probable hypothesis of the two.

[65] Thus Matthew Paris tells us that in 1237 the whole kingdom, regni totius universitas, repaired to a parliament of Henry III. p. 367.

[66] Brady's Introduction to Hist. of England, p. 38.

[67] Convocatis universis Angliae prelatis et magnatibus, necnon cunctatum regni sui civitatum et burgorum potentioribus. Wykes, in Gale, XV Scriptores, t. ii. p. 88. I am indebted to Hody on Convocations for this reference, which seems to have escaped most of our const.i.tutional writers.

[68] Hoc anno ... convenerunt archiepiscopi, episcopi, comites et barones, abbates et priores, et de quolibet comitatu quatuor milites, et de qualibet civitate quatuor. Annales Waverleienses in Gale, t. ii. p.

227. I was led to this pa.s.sage by Atterbury, Rights of Convocations, p.

310, where some other authorities less unquestionable are adduced for the same purpose. Both this a.s.sembly and that mentioned by Wykes in 1269 were certainly parliaments, and acted as such, particularly the former, though summoned for purposes not strictly parliamentary.

[69] The statute of Marlebridge is said to be made convocatis discretioribus, tam majoribus quam minoribus; that of Westminster primer, par son conseil, et par l'a.s.sentements des archievesques, evesques, abbes, priors, countes, barons, et tout le comminality de la terre illonques summones. The statute of Gloucester runs, appelles les plus discretes de son royaume, auxibien des grandes come des meinders.

These preambles seem to have satisfied Mr. Prynne that the commons were then represented, though the writs are wanting; and certainly no one could be less disposed to exaggerate their antiquity. 2nd Register, p.

30.

[70] Brady's Hist. of England, vol. ii. Appendix; Carte, vol. ii. p.

257.

[71] This is commonly denominated the parliament of Acton Burnell; the clergy and commons having sat in that town, while the barons pa.s.sed judgment upon David prince of Wales at Shrewsbury. The towns which were honoured with the privilege of representation, and may consequently be supposed to have been at that time the most considerable in England, were York, Carlisle, Scarborough, Nottingham, Grimsby, Lincoln, Northampton, Lynn, Yarmouth, Colchester, Norwich, Chester, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Hereford, Bristol, Canterbury, Winchester, and Exeter. Rymer, t. ii. p. 247.

"This [the trial and judgment of Llewellin] seems to have been the only business transacted at Shrewsbury; for the bishops and abbots, and four knights of each s.h.i.+re, and two representatives of London and nineteen other trading towns, summoned to meet the same day in parliament, are said to have sat at Acton Burnell; and thence the law made for the more easy recovery of the debts of merchants is called the Statute of Acton Burnell. It was probably made at the request of the representatives of the cities and boroughs present in that parliament, authentic copies in the king's name being sent to seven of those trading towns; but it runs only in the name of the king and his council." Carte, ii. 195, referring to Rot. Wall. 11 Edw. I. m. 2nd.

As the parliament was summoned to meet at Shrewsbury, it may be presumed that the Commons adjourned to Acton Burnell. The word "statute" implies that some consent was given, though the enactment came from the king and council. It is ent.i.tled in the Book of the Exchequer--des Estatus de s...o...b..ry ke sunt appele Actone Burnel. Ces sunt les Estatus fez at Salopsebur, al parlement prochein apres la fete Seint Michel, l'an del reigne le Rey Edward, Fitz le Rey Henry, unzime. Report of Lords'