Geoffrey de Mandeville: A study of the Anarchy

by John Horace Round

Here at length we return to the concessions of Henry I., with which this charter of John ought to be carefully compared. With the exception of the former's provision about the "justiciar" (an exception which must not be overlooked), the concessions are the same. The subsequent raising of the firma to £400 (in 1270), and its eventual reduction to £300 (in 1327), have been already dealt with (pp. 358, 359).

We see then that, in absolute contradiction of the received belief on the subject, the shrievalty was not in the hands of the citizens during the twelfth century (i.e. from "1101"), but was held by them for a few years only, about the close of the reign of Henry I. The fact that the sheriffs of London and Middlesex were, under Henry II. and Richard I., appointed throughout by the Crown, must compel our historians to reconsider the independent position they have assigned to the City at that early period. The Crown, moreover, must have had an object in retaining this appointment in its hands. We may find it, I think, in that jealousy of exceptional privilege or exemption which characterized the régime of Henry II. For, as I have shown, the charters to Geoffrey remind us that the ambition of the urban communities was analogous to that of the great feudatories in so far as they both strove for exemption from official rule. It was precisely to this ambition that Henry II. was opposed; and thus, when he granted his charter to London, he wholly omitted, as we have seen, two of his grandfather's concessions, and narrowed down those that remained, that they might not be operative outside the actual walls of the city. When the shrievalty was restored by John to the citizens (1199), the concession had lost its chief importance through the triumph of the "communal" principle. When that civic revolution had taken place which introduced the "communa" with its mayor—a revolution to which Henry II. would never, writes the chronicler, have submitted—when a Londoner was able to boast that he would have no king but his mayor, then had the sheriff's position become but of secondary importance, subordinate, as it has remained ever since, to that of the mayor himself.

The transient existence of the local justitiarius is a phenomenon of great importance, which has been wholly misunderstood. The Mandeville charters afford the clue to the nature of this office. It represents a middle term, a transitional stage, between the essentially local shire-reeve and the central "justice" of the king's court. I have already (p. 106) shown that the office sprang from "the differentiation of the sheriff and the justice," and represented, as it were, the localization of the central judicial element. That is to say, the justitiarius for Essex, or Herts., or London and Middlesex, was a purely local officer, and yet exercised, within the limits of his bailiwick, all the authority of the king's justice. So transient was this state of things that scarcely a trace of it remains. Yet Richard de Luci may have held the post, as we saw (p. 109), for the county of Essex, and there is evidence that Norfolk had a justice of its own in the person of Ralf Passelewe.[1085] Now, in the case of London, the office was created by the charter of Henry I., granted (as I contend) towards the end of his reign, and it expired with the accession of Henry II. It is, therefore, in Stephen's reign that we should expect to find it in existence; and it is precisely in that reign that we find the office eo nomine twice granted to the Earl of Essex and twice mentioned as held by Gervase, otherwise Gervase of Cornhill.[1086]

The office of the "Justiciar of London" should now be no longer obscure; its possible identity with those of portreeve, sheriff, or mayor cannot, surely, henceforth be maintained.

[1009] On the somewhat thorny question of the right extension of "Lond'" (Londonia or Londoniæ) I would explain at the outset that both forms, the singular and the plural, are found, so that either extension is legitimate. I have seen no reason to change my belief (as set forth in the Athenæum, 1887) that "Londonia" is the Latinization of the English "Londone," and "Londoniæ" of the Norman "Londres."

[1010] "Vicecomitatus de Londonia et de Middelsexa ... pro ccc libris."

[1011] "Vicecomitatum Lundoniæ et Middelsex pro ccc libris."

[1012] Madox's Firma Burgi, p. 242, note.

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

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