London City

by Walter Besant

“It occurs to me to say that in any case of interpreting spellings, the date of the spelling is of the greatest service. We now know the meanings of all the vowel symbols at all dates. If we can obtain a few early spellings of Aldgate, with approximate dates, we ought to be able to decide it. We have to remember that all, in composition meant ‘wholly,’ and was adverbial as in Al-mighty, and ‘wholly gate’ gives no sense. If ‘for all’ were intended, it would be alra, aller, or alder, the genitive of plural. This is not a question of etymology but of grammar. On the other hand, if the M.E. Ald [now spelt Old] were meant, I have proof that a Norman scribe would be apt to omit the d; so that Alegate would, in fact, be quite regular. And it would not necessarily become Oldgate in course of time; just as Acton, though it means Oaktown, is called Acton still. This is due to what we call the preservation of a short or shortened vowel, owing to stress.”

And again, writing on 21st September, he says:

“The list of spellings which you send me is most interesting, but it is not easy to explain it. I can remember a time when I should have drawn the conclusion that they are very much against connecting the word with the Old Mercian ald, which we now spell old. But my recent investigations tell the other way; not only were perfectly common words persistently (but regularly) mis-spelt in Domesday and early charters, from the time of the Conquest till about 1350, but in many instances (as would likely be the case in official documents) such habits became stereotyped. The early scribes were nearly all Norman, and they brought in Norman spelling to that extent that the whole of modern English is pervaded by it; indeed, no one who does not know the phonetic laws of Anglo-French can explain why the word house is spelt with ou, or the word build with ui.... The explanation of the spelling Ald in 1270 is probably simply this: that this particular charter (contrary to practice) was entrusted to an English scribe. It is a simple supposition—English spellings began to prevail in these matters in the period from 1350-1400, and it is just here that we get two instances. The Normans learnt Latin easily: to an English scribe it was a foreign language. This is why the French scribes were preferred for writing Latin documents. After 1400 such French spellings as affect the true sound are rare; this is why, after that the E. form prevails. But we must remember that many Englishmen do not fully pronounce the d in Aldgate even now, but slur it over; and in days of phonetic spelling such things were reproduced. I should say the evidence can only be explained, on the whole, from the supposition that the English word was Ald, preserved in composition instead of being turned into old (as it did when standing alone); and this will explain eald also, as eald is the Wessex form of Ald, adopted in 1598 as a mere bit of pedantry, but at the same time showing that the belief then prevailed. This is all I have to say about Aldgate.”

The gate was rebuilt by Norman, first Prior of Holy Trinity. The weigh-house for weighing corn was in the gateway.

After the Fire, Aldgate was used for the prisoners who had been confined in the Poultry Compter.

In 1374 the gate was let on lease to Geoffrey Chaucer. Here followeth the lease itself:

“To all persons to whom this present writing indented shall come, Adam de Bury, Mayor, the Aldermen, and the Commonalty of the City of London, greeting. Know ye that we, with unanimous will and assent, have granted and released by these presents unto Geoffrey Chaucer the whole of the dwelling-house above the gate of Algate, with the rooms built over, and a certain cellar beneath, the same gate, on the South side of that gate, and the appurtenances thereof; to have and to hold the whole of the house aforesaid, with the rooms so built over, and the said cellar, and the appurtenances thereof, unto the aforesaid Geoffrey, for the whole life of him, the said Geoffrey. And the said Geoffrey shall maintain and repair the whole of the house aforesaid, and the rooms thereof, so often as shall be requisite, in all things necessary thereto, competently and sufficiently, at the expense of the same Geoffrey, throughout the whole life of him, the same Geoffrey. And it shall be lawful for the Chamberlain of the Guildhall of London, for the time being, so often as he shall see fit, to enter the house and rooms aforesaid, with their appurtenances, to see that the same are well and competently, and sufficiently, maintained and repaired, as aforesaid. And if the said Geoffrey shall not have maintained or repaired the aforesaid house and rooms competently and sufficiently, as is before stated, within forty days after the time when by the same Chamberlain he shall have been required so to do, it shall be lawful for the said Chamberlain wholly to oust the before-named Geoffrey therefrom, and to re-seise and resume the same house, rooms, and cellar, with their appurtenances, into the hand of the City, to the use of the Commonalty aforesaid; and to hold the same in their former state to the use of the same Commonalty, without any gainsaying whatsoever thereof. And it shall not be lawful for the said Geoffrey to let the house, rooms, and cellar, aforesaid, or any part thereof, or his interest therein, to any person whatsoever. And we, the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty aforesaid, will not cause any gaol to be made thereof, for the safekeeping of prisoners therein, during the life of the said Geoffrey; but we and our successors will warrant the same house, rooms, and cellar, with their appurtenances, unto the before-named Geoffrey, for the whole life of him, the same Geoffrey, in form aforesaid: this however excepted, that in time of defence of the city aforesaid, so often as it shall be necessary, it shall be lawful for us and our successors to enter the said house and rooms, and to order and dispose of the same, for such time, and in such manner, as shall then seem to us to be most expedient. And after the decease of the same Geoffrey, the house, rooms, and cellar aforesaid, with their appurtenances, shall wholly revert unto us and our successors. In witness whereof, as well the Common Seal of the City aforesaid as the seal of the said Geoffrey, have been to these present indentures interchangeably appended. Given in the Chamber of the Guildhall of the City aforesaid, the 10th day of May, in the 48th year of the reign of King Edward, after the Conquest the Third” (Riley’s Memorials, pp. 377-378).

“This,” says Stow, “is one and the first of the four principal gates, and also one of the seven double gates, mentioned by Fitzstephen. It hath had two pair of gates, though now but one; the hooks remaineth yet. Also there hath been two portcloses; the one of them remaineth, the other wanteth, but the place of letting down is manifest.”

“This gate being very ruinous, was pulled down Anno 1606; when, in digging for a new foundation, divers Roman coins were discovered, two of which Mr. Bond, the Surveyor, caused to be cut in stone, and placed in the east front on each side the passage. The first stone of this edifice was laid Anno 1607, at the depth of sixteen feet, and finished Anno 1609.

“Here was only one postern, and that on the north side, for foot-passengers; and a water-conduit at the south-east angle thereof; but the last being disused for many years, two houses were erected in lieu of it, in the year 1734, and a postern made on the south side of the gate. The apartments over this gate are appropriated to the use of one of the Lord Mayor’s Carvers, and at present are lett to the Charity School founded by Sir John Cash” (Maitland, vol. i. pp. 22-23).