Docstoc

Chapter 8

Document Sample
Chapter 8 Powered By Docstoc
					                                       Chapter 8

                               ‘Burhs’   and Boroughs1

During the twelfth century, England’s overseas commodity export trades had
undergone a massive expansion.2 All along the eastern coastline of the English realm,
as has been shown, from Newcastle in the north to London and the Kentish ports in
the south, particularly during the years 1145-1157, 1176-1190, 1196-1204 and 1208-
1215/25 these commodity trades had boomed. By 1203/4, when John imposed a
fifteenth on foreign trade turnover, the tax, collected at thirty-five ports, yielded some
£4,958, representing a cargo value of at least £75,000.3 To set this figure in context it
is equal to the annual value assigned to all the lands of lords more than a century
earlier in Domesday Book.4




Over the previous century ‘old’ coastal boroughs had been redeveloped and ‘new’
ones created to service this trade,5 the 1203/4 customs returns providing some idea of
the relative importance of each at that time (map 8.1). With the exception of
                                                                                     152


Southampton, of which more anon,6 all of the major ports in 1203/4 were located on
the eastern English seaboard, with a particular concentration of activity at the ports of
the Wash and the Thames. A burgeoning volume of bulk cargoes, carried in an
increasing number of bigger, deeper-draught ships had led, as has been suggested
above, to the concentration of trade in these ports. New or remodelled mercantile
facilities had been constructed. These settlements gained new waterfronts and
warehousing. They also gained, like the other boroughs of the realm, buildings
suitable for manufactory and residential usage. In major centres of trading activity,
such as Lynn, the settlement had undergone a fundamental topographical and
commercial transformation during the course of the twelfth century. 7 Lesser centres
involved in overseas trade like Orford, Suffolk, were no less affected. 8 Orford is best
known for the castle and keep built by Henry II, but along with the castle the king also
built port facilities to ensure the castle’s supply lines, and, perhaps, to promote the
site’s economic fortunes. Between 1164-5 and 1184-5, the king apparently kept the
port directly in hand, and the sheriff of Suffolk was required to report on customs
revenue collected there. The amounts fluctuated significantly from one year to
another, which suggests that the sheriffs were reporting real income from the port
rather than a conventional amount. The port was a great success in its early years. In
1164-5, the sheriff reported a healthy income of more than £16 for the port, and in
some subsequent years revenues exceeding £40 were collected. At a minimum, these
amounts must represent total annual cargo values of several hundred pounds. In the
1180s, the port appears to have declined, but it continued to be commercially active
well into the thirteenth century.9
     The foreign trade sector of the economy thus made a significant direct
contribution to the ‘urbanisation’ of England in the form of some thirty-five ports, re-
modelled or newly created in the twelfth century. This overseas-trade boom,
moreover, had a knock-on effect, which resulted in the creation of a host of ‘new’
inland boroughs through which the burgeoning volume of export wares passed to
these ports at this time. Primary products- wool, lead and tin- involved in the export
trade passed from where they were produced directly to the ports. Manufactured
wares –woollen cloth- passed to the ports from the ‘new’ cloth towns which, as has
been shown, emerged in the twelfth century.10 Amongst these in 1201/2 Lincoln was
well ahead of any other clothing town, followed by York and Newcastle. Other
considerable centres were Beverley, Leicester, Winchester, Northampton, Gloucester,
Stamford, Exeter, Worcester, Coventry, Norwich, Bury St. Edmunds and Hereford;
whilst Hedon, Nottingham, Grimsby, Bedford, Warwick, Reading, Huntingdon,
Berkhamsted, Newark, Chesterfield, St Albans, Sudbury, Sleaford and Barton-on-
Humber were of smaller significance. These clothing towns were supplied with raw
materials through their own distinct secondary supply networks. Within the interstices
of these trading networks, moreover, other settlements acquired borough status as
their merchants acted as intermediaries channelling, directly or indirectly, the
burgeoning volume of export wares to the ports. In the case of wool, woollen-cloth
and tin twelfth-century sources afford only glimpses of these trade networks.
     In the case of one consumer- the Crown- and one product- lead for its
construction sites- however the picture is a little clearer. When, the northern silver-
lead workings began to experience acute resource depletion problems, before
production finally collapsed in 1171/2, the Crown was forced, in an environment of
rapidly increasing prices, to look elsewhere for the lead it required from new
production centres which emerged during the crisis years.11 Soonest to respond to the
new conditions were the custodians of the Furzhill mine in western Devon, who in
                                                                                    153


favourable market conditions for the sale of both lead and tin increased production
within their enterprise. Soon, however, supplies on south-western English markets
were further augmented as prospectors ranging the southern Shropshire mining field
re-opened the old Roman Snailbeach mine, which before the decade was out had
established a dominant position not only in the South-west but in the national industry
as a whole.




For a brief moment, thanks to the responsiveness of local producers, the lead industry
of the Southwest had established a national supremacy and as abundant supplies of
the base metal flooded the market prices fell from their previous crisis level. Such was
not, however, the case elsewhere in England. Here new production centres only
slowly emerged, notably in Derbyshire and in Swaledale, Yorkshire. Expansion of
output in the Richmond mine was slow, however, and from c. 1175-80 it shared the
market with Northumberland ‘sterile’ lead emanating from the old Blanchland silver
mine, which underwent a brief recovery before collapsing in 1180/1. With the
collapse of production in the northern silver mine, however, Yorkshire finally came
into its own. Thanks to the efforts of the mining entrepreneurs, operating on the new
                                                                                   154


‘mining frontier’ during the years, 1171/2-85/6, the Crown was provided with a wide
range of sources from which it could obtain lead.
     It took full advantage, moreover, of the new environment in which it found itself,
acquiring large quantities of the base metal, in spite of prices doubling (outside the
Southwest) during the years, 1171/2-86/7. Indeed, the King indulged himself in
increasingly grandiose building programmes, which demanded ever-greater amounts
of lead in conditions of declining production.12 In England, apart from the royal works
at Windsor, Henry II demanded lead for royal construction sites at London (the royal
houses at Westminster and the Tower), Winchester (the king’s houses), Woodstock,
Colchester (the castle), Dover (the castle) and Clarendon (the king’s chapel). He also
made generous gifts of lead to English religious houses: Waltham and Amesbury
Abbeys. His bounty was not confined to his English lands, moreover, for extravagant
gifts of lead were also made to the continental European churches at Clairvaux and
Gramont, as well as supplies of lead being provided for work on the king’s chamber at
Gizors.13
     To obtain the lead he required, Henry II availed himself, moreover, of the
services provided by a completely new lead distribution system (map 8.2). Within this
new system, during the years, 1171/2-85/6, lead could be obtained, not only by direct
order from producers, but also, on occasion, from developed lead markets at Boston,
Lynn, Colchester, London, Henley-on-Thames and Southampton. The Crown’s choice
of market orientation seems largely to have been conditioned by the size of the
purchase it made.
     The existing combined export and east/south-coastal trade route remained of
paramount importance within this new lead distribution system. Initially, from
1171/2-4/5, William the Lion of Scotland’s invasions threw the northern British lead
markets, supplying the export or east/south-coastal trades, into total disarray.
Thereafter, moreover, Northumberland ‘sterile’ lead emanating from the old
Blanchland silver mine, which underwent a brief recovery from 1175/6 before
collapsing in 1181/2, made only a minor contribution to supplying the export or
east/south-coastal trade. During these years it was lead from the new High Peak mines
of Derbyshire (1171/2-6/7 and 1185/6-6/7) and the Richmond mines of Yorkshire
(1179/80-83/4), which continually poured forth to provision these trades. Thus in
1171/2 the Northumberland sheriff, William de Vesci, unable to obtain lead, worth
£13. 13s. 4d. (c. 13 northern carretatis) from the ‘Carlisle Minery’ to meet his
outstanding obligations to the Crown, cast around for alternative supplies of the metal
in Yorkshire. His account for the following year 1172/3, however, reveals his singular
lack of success in obtaining the supplies he needed.14 Indeed, it was not until 1175/6,
with the brief recovery of production in the old Blanchland silver mine, that the
Crown could once more resort to the ‘Carlisle Minery’ to obtain supplies of ‘sterile’
lead and then mainly to export the metal directly abroad. It secured, moreover the lead
it required, exclusively from the successive firmarii of the ‘Carlisle Minery’, William
the son of Erembald (1175/6-78/9) and the brothers Richard and Hunfrid together
with Richard de Edmodeshall and his nephew Roelin (1180/1-81/2), in part settlement
of their outstanding debts. Each of the lessees delivered this lead to Newcastle-on-
Tyne. William the son of Erembald delivered his supplies to the sheriff. The latter, in
1175/6 and 1178/9, hired the ships needed to transport the lead for Gramont to La
Rochelle and the Clairvaux lead to Rotterdam. In the first instance, the freight
contacts negotiated by the sheriff for the Gramont lead were scrutinised by two local
worthies, Ralph Baard and William Monetarius. In the second he assumed sole
responsibility for the arrangements.15 In 1180/1, however, the sheriff’s services were
                                                                                    155


set aside and the new lessees, the brothers Richard and Hunfrid and Richard de
Edmodeshall and his nephew Roelin delivered their lead, destined for the church of
Clairvaux, to an agent of that house, Reinero, who arranged its transportation.16 In the
next year, 1181/2, a similar procedure prevailed. The lessees delivered their lead,
destined for Waltham Abbey, to one Walter of Ghent who arranged in 1181/2 and
1182/3 the shipment of the lead from Jarrow to Stratford on the Thames.17 The
Crown in acquiring its lead from the ‘Carlisle Minery’ during the years, 1175/6-
1180/1 thus continued much as before, but force majeure not by choice. It now
received that lead in part settlement of successive impoverished lessees’ outstanding
debts. It used that lead only marginally, moreover, for its proliferating number of
construction sites in Southeast England, rather exporting the bulk directly abroad.
With a lack of commercial-shipping facilities moreover the Crown was forced to
undertake the provision of the required services. Orders thus passed to sheriff of
Northumberland, not only to acquire necessary supplies of lead but also on taking
delivery, to hire the necessary carts and/or ships for its transportation to London or
abroad. The Newcastle ‘sterile’ lead trade was thus marginalised.
     Rather the Crown now turned to a newly emergent distribution system centred on
recently created production centres to acquire most of the lead it needed for
construction sites in Southeast England. Initially this involved purchases from
Derbyshire. Even as production at the ‘Carlisle Minery’ was brought to a halt in
1171/2 by the incursions of the Scots king, new mines were being opened up in the
High Peak. Seemingly cognisant of this, the king dispatched in that year an order to
the sheriff of Nottingham and Derby to acquire some forty carretatis (of 2,100 lbs.
each) of lead from thence for work on the king’s houses at Winchester.18 Thereafter,
from 1171/2-6/7 and again in 1185/6-6/7 the Derbyshire mines became a primary
source of royal lead supplies. The metal passed from the High Peak to the Humber
where it was either shipped abroad19 or dispatched to southern England. Alternatively,
the sheriff of Nottingham and Derby utilised a route he had previously employed
transporting lead to Torksay on the edge of his jurisdiction. From Torksay it was
transported by the sheriff of Lincoln, along the Fossdyke20 to the sea where it was
trans-shipped to the King’s works at Windsor. In such a manner not only could the
Derbyshire producers displace in 1186/7 those of the ‘Carlisle Minery’ and Richmond
in provisioning the church of Clairvaux,21 but they could also supply lead in 1172/3-
5/6 to the king’s works at Woodstock and Windsor.22 Nor did the Crown’s purchases
seemingly exhaust Derbyshire supplies. Large quantities of lead remained for others
to purchase and during these years regular lead markets emerged all along the
east/south coastal trade route south of the Humber. At Boston, Lynn, Colchester,
London, Henley-on-Thames and Southampton, lead was available for those who
wished to buy it and here the Crown purchased small quantities of lead whenever it
was required. 23
     Only briefly, moreover, during the decade 1176/7-85/6, was Derbyshire’s
hegemony in supplying this combined export and east/south coastal trade route
challenged. During these years yet another new lead producer – the Richmond mines
of Yorkshire – entered the fray, briefly from 1179/80 to 1183/4, displacing both the
‘Carlisle Minery’ and its erstwhile rival in the High Peak of Derbyshire in
provisioning the combined export and east/south coastal trade route. As early as 1174
one Samson of Tiverton paid the Crown £1 6s 8d, “for (the use of) a simple device for
the crushing of lead (ore)” in Yorkshire, perhaps marking the re-establishment of
production at the Richmond mine.24 It was another five years, however, before
production finally came on line, allowing the sheriff in 1179/80 to fulfil the
                                                                                        156


instructions of the Crown and buy some 100 carretatis (of 3,360 lbs. each) at 13s 4d a
‘cartload’ for use at Waltham Abbey. In 1180/1 such quantities paled into
insignificance, however, as the Crown ordered a further 261 carretatis (of 3,360 lbs.
each) for use at Clairvaux, bringing the total shipped in that one year on the king’s
behalf to 516 ‘cartloads’ (=774 tons). This was, however, the high point in royal
purchases from the Richmond mines. Through 1181/2-3/4 it dispatched only some 40
‘cartloads’ each year to be employed at Waltham, before making a final shipment of
20 ‘cartloads’ on the Crown’s behalf for work on the king’s chamber at Gizors.25 This
marked the beginning of the end of the Crown’s involvement in the Richmond mines
and in 1186/7 the sheriff accounted for the sale of the lead ore raised in that
jurisdiction.26 In that year the products of the Richmond mines had been displaced
amongst royal purchases by lead from a resurgent Derbyshire industry, 100
‘cartloads’ of which were shipped from the High Peak each year in 1186/7 and 1187/8
to Clairvaux.27 For a brief period, 1179/80-85/6, however, the Richmond mines had
reigned supreme in provisioning the combined export and east/south coastal trade
route with lead. At this time, moreover, a new commercial route was added to the
emergent distribution system. Richmond lead was carted from the mine to the river
Ouse at Boroughbridge where it was transhipped to York28 for export abroad, or to
Selby29 for transportation south along the east/south coastal trade route.
     During the years of the ‘silver crisis,’ 1171/2-86/7, the ‘sterile’ lead of the
‘Carlisle Minery’ had been eclipsed, enjoying only a marginal place amongst royal
procurements for shipment abroad. Instead, the Crown bought its lead from a newly
emergent distribution network, encompassing the Derbyshire High Peak and
Yorkshire Richmond mines from which poured forth prodigious quantities of lead,
produced from non-argentiferous ores, provisioning the combined export and
east/south coastal trade route with abundant supplies of the metal. Nor did the
enormous Crown purchases seemingly exhaust either Derbyshire or Yorkshire
supplies. Large quantities of lead remained for others to purchase and during these
years regular lead markets emerged all along the east/south coastal trade route south
of the Humber. At Boston, Lynn,30 Colchester, London, Henley-on-Thames and
Southampton, lead was available for those who wished to buy it and here the Crown
purchased small quantities of lead whenever it was required.
     Nor was this lead distribution system the only one to emerge at this time. Far to
the west another trade network was established centred on the mines of Shropshire.
Here a new and major lead production centre had emerged which attracted the
attention of the King not only in his capacity as mineral overlord but also as a
purchaser of lead for the works at Amesbury. For these works at Amesbury in 1180/1
it had more than a quarter of the output of the mines: 60 carretatis in lieu of payment
of the firma and 120 carretatis, which it acquired on the Shrewsbury market.
Thereafter the king drew each year on supplies from the mine, but in steadily
dwindling amounts until 1184/5 when it transferred its purchases to the Llanymenych
mine. The lead was obtained either directly from the mines or from a developed
commercial lead market at Shrewsbury and from either it was then transported to
Gloucester before passing down-river to Bristol and the church at Amesbury. 31
     During the specific years of the ‘silver crisis,’ 1171/2-86/7, therefore, the ‘sterile’
lead of the ‘Carlisle Minery’ enjoyed only a marginal place amongst royal
procurements and then exclusively for shipments abroad. Instead, the Crown bought
its lead for English construction sites from a newly emergent distribution network,
encompassing the Derbyshire High Peak, the Yorkshire Richmond mines and the
Shropshire Snailbeach and Llanymenych mines, from which poured forth prodigious
                                                                                   157


quantities of lead, produced from non-silver bearing ores. The Derbyshire-Yorkshire
mines provisioned the all-important combined export and east/south coastal trade
route. The Shropshire mines provisioned that of the Severn valley. Nor did the
enormous Crown purchases seemingly exhaust Derbyshire, Yorkshire or Shropshire
supplies. Large quantities of lead remained for others to purchase and during these
years regular lead markets emerged all along the east/south coastal trade route south
of the Humber. At Boston, Lynn, Colchester, London, Henley-on-Thames and
Southampton, lead was available for those who wished to buy it and here the Crown
purchased small quantities of lead whenever it was required. Similarly in the
Southwest, the dealers on the Shrewsbury market could offer lead on a year-round
basis to anyone who required it. During the years 1171/2-86/7 a completely new and
enduring lead distribution network had been created within which integration with
regular commercial shipping facilities resulted in a major fall in freight charges. 32
     Even considering this one, relatively minor, export commodity, therefore, as lead
passed from the mines to consumers at home and abroad it was handled by a whole
series of intermediaries, independent markets for the metal emerging, including those
at Boston, Lynn, Colchester, London, Henley-on-Thames, Southampton and
Shrewsbury. Merchants in these boroughs, like those involved directly in the export
trade or acting as intermediaries in the wool, woollen-cloth and tin trades, grew rich.
As both groups dispersed during the twelfth century their new- found wealth,
moreover, they transformed the urban centres within which they operated. At the
micro-economic level of the region, they also provided an inflow of coin into the
countryside. Thereby they freed the inhabitants from the shackles of conducting their
business on the basis of bi-lateral transactions in either labour or kind and opened up
completely new opportunities for a multi-lateral intensive pattern of trade. In these
circumstances there was an introduction of increasingly specialised agricultural
techniques as the peasantry were able to reorganise its output in terms of comparative
advantage. Able, directly or indirectly through their lords, to gain access to
investment funding,33 the peasantry were, moreover, soon able to realise these plans
and in the process they effected a major transformation in the surrounding
countryside.34 In the process, however, as has been suggested above, not only their
agrarian activity was affected. The new techniques, by altering the peasants’
intra-annual pattern of work-time on their holdings,35 provided them with new
opportunities to engage in manufactory and when these were realised, through the
application of mercantile capital, a new rural industrial labour force was born.36
During the twelfth century market forces began to permeate each and every area of
the economy effecting a major transformation in ‘town’ and country alike. The
institutions associated with this process – markets and fairs- proliferated.
     A substantial number of fairs and markets had become operational in the century
prior 1200. From some eight fairs in 1086 a further 138 fairs had been established by
the end of the twelfth century, and a number of these achieved international
standing.37 Virtually all of the major fairs, which were established in England during
the High Middle Ages, like Boston, St. Ives, Winchester, Lynn and Northampton,
were created before 1200. Business, moreover, in a number of these twelfth-century
fairs was brisk.38 A vacancy account for the bishopric of Lincoln in 1184/5 records an
income of more than £15 for the fairs held in Stow.39 A similar account for the
bishopric of Hereford reveals that the fair held in the bishop’s seat was generating an
income of £20 in 1166/7.40 When Boston fair was in the king’s hands in the 1170s
and 1180s, royal officials regularly reported incomes above £60 a year, and in one
exceptional year (1181/2) reported an income above £90.41 An astonishing total of
                                                                                                158


£146 flowed into the coffers of the bishop of Winchester from his fair of St. Giles in
1189.42 These figures probably represent income from all sources associated with the
fairs, including the rent of stalls, tolls, and court perquisites, but are nonetheless
impressive.
     The growth of weekly markets in the twelfth century was somewhat less
spectacular than that of fairs. Only 60 markets are mentioned in Domesday Book, of
which 17 were situated in boroughs.43 During the years from c. 1100 to about 1225,
however, most markets that had long-term viability were established.44 More than 350
such markets were active before 1200.45 Some of these can be traced back to
Domesday Book and a few to an even earlier date, but most of the markets operating
in 1200 had been created in the preceding century. Weekly markets generated much
lower revenues than fairs in the twelfth century. When in 1164 a market was established at
Chesterfield and its toll revenues- £1.2s. 7d- accounted for at the Exchequer by the sheriff; we are
afforded for the first time with information concerning commercial activity in this new borough.46
From the establishment of the market in 1164 activity increased, tolls increasing to £1. 11s.6d in
116847 before settling down to a fixed sum of £1. 9s. 0d.48 The ‘new’ market in Trentham,
Staffordshire, generated a revenue of £2 in what appears to have been its first year of
operation in 1173-4, and was bringing in £3 per annum by the end of the decade.49
Trentham’s ability to generate revenue is particularly surprising because the village
shows few other indications of commercial life at any point after the 1180s. Markets
in Rayleigh, Essex, and Caistor, Lincolnshire, in the early 1180s generated similar
revenues. The market in Betton, Shropshire, was said to produce £3 10s per annum in
the 1180s, but the sheriff who accounted for Betton’s revenues in 1186-7 noted that
he fell short that year because an adulterine market had siphoned off some of Betton’s
business.
     During the twelfth century market forces operating through a proliferating
number of markets and fairs began to permeate all areas of the economy, effecting a
major transformation in ‘town’ and country alike. In the remainder of this chapter this
‘urban’ transformation will be considered in relation to the boroughs indicated on map
8.3, examining the processes of topographical, jurisdictional and functional change.


                    From ‘Burh’ to Borough: Topographical Change50


When in 880-940, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria all fell under Viking
domination and Wessex, ruled by King Ælfred, was left to defend itself as best it
could, the incoming Vikings entered an already well-settled land, wherein economic
activity was already organised on the basis of the ‘multiple estate’.51 Such estates
consisted of groups of hamlets and scattered homesteads administered from, and
appending on a caput, containing the lord’s villa52 and minster,53 which provided the
property with its secular and religious identity. Such a villa was normally un-fortified
but was often located in proximity to an ancient Iron Age hill-fort where the
population of the estate could retreat with their livestock when threatened. The estate
thus also had a defensive functionality for its inhabitants. Economically its agrarian
functionality has been stressed by scholars who have correctly observed “evidence for
a deep-seated territorial and economic reciprocity with (settlements) in the lowlands
having land in the hills, the lowlands producing grain, the uplands supporting stock
and providing a hunting ground for the lord of the estate.”54 This reciprocity was
given organisational expression in the ‘multiple estate’, which, as has been suggested,
                                                                                  159



                                       Map 8.3

                      Agricultural Development and Urban
                          Evolution, c. 1040-1270: Key



       (a) Agricultural Systems ca. 1270

       Key                   Land Draught          Crop rotation         Animal
                             value animals
       husbandry
       _______________________________________________________________

       A/B1                  6-8d+ 2-4 ox/horse multi-rotational  non-work
                                                                  stock predom.
                                                                  (cattle & horse)
       A1-2                  6-8d+ 2-4 ox/horse 2-3 field system non-work
                                                                  stock predom.
                                                                  (cattle & horse)
       B1-2                  4-6d 4-6 ox/horse 2-3 field system balanced system
                                                                (sheep & oxen)
       C1-3                  2-4d 6-8 ox/horse monocultural      draught animals
                                                                 only

     Source: Bruce M. S. Campbell, “Towards an agricultural geography in
     medieval England”, Agricultural History Review, XXXVI, 1 (1988), pp. 87-98
     and data concerning land values (from IPMs) kindly supplied me by Professor
     Campbell.

       (b) Urban Evolution, ca. 1040-1270

       Key                  Phase I              Phase II              Phase III
                      (c. 1040-1140)        (c. 1140-1208/14)      (c. 1225/40-1340)

       A1-2                  

      A/B1                                        

       B1-2                                        

       C1-4                                                               

Source: Identification and information concerning sources for the case studies
used here will be found in note 1
                                                                                     160




comprised scattered settlements all in a territorial block and owing services at the
central villa. The lord of such an estate had lands under his direct control that were
also often scattered- including home farms, where grain was grown and ‘wicks’ where
his animals were pastured. His chief rights as lord, however, were over the dependent
populations, living in the hamlets and homesteads scattered over his estate.55 They, as
has been suggested, provided services at the villa.56 They also were subject to the
lord’s authority to enforce tol, a payment on certain types of sale within the estate,
and team, the right to hold a court in which those suspected of having stolen cattle
could call witnesses to warrant their honesty.57 Such licit and illicit commercial
activities all took place within the bounds of the estate. It also embraced, however, all
of the economic functions of the later borough- manufactory and trade. The villa was
not only the residence of the lord, with temporary accommodation provided for the
visits of his intimates. It was also a place of manufactory where high-status craftsmen
                                                                                     161


made those luxury wares required by the lord to adorn his own person and residence
and often to sell, providing those items which comprised the lord’s ‘merchant’s’
wares when he engaged in contemporary long-distance, foreign trade.58 The
externalities of estate activity took place within a commercial framework provided by
the king. Estates, and particularly those estates, upon which a hundred was centred,
possessed a market. It was upon such hundreds that in the mid-tenth century Eadgar
lay responsibility for the discovery and punishment of dishonest trade- they were to
elect twelve officers to attest all commercial transactions. He established thereby an
enduring administrative framework, which persisted in the more ‘backward’ areas of
England into the twelfth- and thirteenth centuries.59 In as far as the wares leaving the
estate entered into foreign trade they were encompassed within another jurisdictional
framework provided by the king.60 Whilst sea-going ships were able to penetrate
along river-ways deep into their realms, royal administration of international trade had
taken place within what might be called a ‘portus-system’. The king’s direct interest
in men who came across his frontiers was manifested in positive attempts to contain
the activities of such traders to a defined frontier location- the ‘portus’ or ‘gateway’-
beyond which inland the alien would experience major legal disadvantages.61 At the
‘portus’, the king directly or through his agents maintained royal control over long-
distance trade. The king of Wessex appears to have maintained a villa regalis at
Hamwih-Hamtun and one also existed in or near Ipswich. The king of Kent held
property in London late in the seventh century and early in the next century the bishop
of Worcester obtained exemption from taxes on his trade within this ‘portus.’ Able to
take passage along the rivers deeper into the king’s realm, however, traders could
avoid such exaction levied and inspections undertaken by the royal port-reeve and
accordingly the ‘portus-system’ had to be extended to include such river ways. Thus it
was forbidden, for instance, that any ship should ply at any hithe in Cambridgeshire
except that of Cambridge itself and prohibited the lading of any ship except there.62 A
second line of river ‘portus’ thus reinforced the primary coastal ‘portus’. The Anglo-
Saxon ‘portus’ had not only a jurisdictional identity arising from the king’s desire to
contain the activities of foreign traders to a defined frontier location and impede their
passage into his realm, however, but also a functional one. It was a place where
consumers and the merchants who supplied them with the luxury goods, which were
the staple of international trade, met. Lords or their agents took passage each year,
during the summer ‘shipping season’ to the ‘portus’, where the lords and their familia
took up residence in that house, which was little more than a spatially distant
extension of the rural villa from which they had departed. Anglo-Saxon Saxon
England was thus a land of ‘multiple estates’, which encompassed not only agrarian
activities but also embraced all of the economic functions of the later borough-
manufactory and trade. It lacked any independent organisational form associated with
these latter activities.
     When East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria all fell under Viking domination and
Wessex, ruled by King Ælfred, was left to defend itself as best it could, however,
another organisational form evolved- the ‘burh’ or fortified place. In beleaguered
Wessex Ælfred founded such settlements at a single stroke as fortified townships “in
which the rectilinear street-plan is a deliberate expression of the organisation and
apportionment of land for permanent settlement.”63 A little earlier the Mercian centre
of Hereford was similarly laid out.64 These were defensive entities, however, and need
not be associated, at least until the waning of the Scandinavian threat, with any
significant level of commercial activity. In Danelaw the ‘seven burhs’ created, had a
similar but more aggressive function, being bases and provisioning centres for the
                                                                                  162


Viking host. Only with the waning of the Scandinavian threat in the late tenth century
did they, like their English counterparts, assume a commercial character, becoming
foci within the ‘hundred-market-’ and ‘portus’-systems described above.65 In this
context, however, the ‘burh’ became a place, which like the ‘portus’ was where
consumers and the merchants who supplied them with goods, met. Lords took passage
on occasion to the re-modelled ‘burh.’ Here they and their familia took up residence
in that ‘house’, which was little more than a spatially distant extension of the rural
villa from which they had departed.66 From this ‘house’ they were able to conduct
their political, administrative and business affairs.67
      Such was the way that business activity- manufactory and trade- was undertaken
in Anglo-Saxon England. From the late eleventh century these organisational forms
encompassing manufactory and trade activity began to disappear. They were replaced
by a new institution- the borough- which the Norman and Angevin kings endowed
with monopoly rights with regards to manufactory and trade, and which assumed a
completely new topographical, jurisdictional and functional identity.

I. THE EAST ANGLIAN REGIONAL NETWORK AND          THE   KENTISH REGIONAL NETWORK
(PHASE 1: REGIONS A1-2, c. 1040-1140).




Prior to the draining of the Fens68 the emergence of these new ‘urban’ institutions
during the years, c. 1040-1140 was largely restricted to, and most clearly revealed in
the triangular area bounded by Stamford, Peterborough and Northampton.
Peterborough (map 8.3, no.1 and map 8.4) grew from a monastic foundation of the
seventh century. It was an extremely rich Abbey from its foundation and gained after
its re-foundation in the tenth century substantial other estates from Bishop Aethwold
of Winchester.69 The Abbey itself and its precinct had been walled by Abbot Kenulf
(992x1005), and thus constituted a ‘fortified place’ or ‘burh,’ housing some sixty
monks and forty servants. There were said to be in 1125x1128 thirty-two ‘full
                                                                                        163


villeins’ or virgaters. Later evidence suggests that of this number thirteen were in
Peterborough itself, resident in Bondgate to the north and east of the Abbey precinct,
in close proximity to the parish church and ‘old’ market place, and the others lived in
two hamlets, seventeen in Dogsthorpe and five in Eastfield. To the west, without the
precinct walls, were the residences of the Abbey’s knights who were said to have
“eighteen hostels in Peterborough and their servants have six”, possibly located, if
later evidence can again be relied upon, along Westgate and Howgate. Also to the
west, without the precinct walls, along both Cowgate and Priestgate did Abbey
officials and craftsmen, hold in serjeanty tenements for which they might work or pay
rent. Peterborough, at this date was an almost classic example of a caput of a
‘multiple estate’, whose adult male population numbered some 147. But then Abbot
Martin of Bec (1133x1155) “the gate of the monastery and the market and the ships’
landing place and the town he greatly changed for the better, and he improved many
things.” West of the remodeled Minster gate, the market place, which judging by the
reference to eighteen burgages in 1125x1128 had already at that time been transferred
there together with a ‘new’ parish church, was extended, possibly by the construction
of Cumbergate. It was probably at this time that the ‘new’ ships’ landing place’ or
hithe was built. Prior to, and even after, its construction ships utilized the Bell Dike,
from, which access to the Abbey precinct could be been gained by the Bolhithe Gate.
As a trading center and ‘portus’, however, Peterborough was of minor importance
taking second place to the ‘portus’ at Yaxley, five miles to the south, which had an
ancient hithe or landing place on its branch of the River Nene.70 Yet by the time of
Bishop Martin of Bec, 1133x1155, the diminutive group of eighteen burgesses
resident in 1125x1128 had increased some two- to three-fold in numbers.
     The other two towns, which displayed a precocious ‘urban’ development here
during the years, c. 1040-1140 had both been Danish ‘burh’. Indeed, Stamford (map
8.3, no. 2) first appears to view in the late ninth and early tenth centuries as just such a
settlement. With the uplands of Rutland to the west and the Fens to the east, Stamford
controlled an important crossing over the Welland on the road which linked the
Danish strongholds in East Anglia and the North, and dominated the topographically
discrete regions of Kesteven and Holland. A Danish army at Stamford thus became
well placed to hold the territory between the Welland and Witham. Subsequently, in
942 Edmund freed the Danes at Stamford, like those at Lincoln, Leicester,
Nottingham and Derby, from their tutelage to York. These five ‘burhs’, now in
alliance with Wessex, were organised by him into a confederacy designed to foster an
identity in the settlers of the East Midlands and to thereby isolate an unstable and
potentially hostile North.71 It was at about this time that the Edwardian ‘burh’ was
created across the river from the pre-existing Anglo-Danish ‘burh’. Within the bounds
of these essentially military settlements, there is archaeological evidence of
manufactory- iron working and pottery production- and trade. Whether this activity
was for the provisioning of the Viking or Anglo-Saxon hosts or whether it relates to
the period when, with the waning of the Scandinavian threat in the late tenth century
the ‘burhs’, assumed a commercial character, becoming foci within the Anglo-Saxon
‘hundredal-market-’ and ‘portus’-systems, however, is uncertain. Retrospective
evidence suggests the latter. Like other such commercial ‘burhs,’ in 1086 a number of
tenements in Stamford were attached to rural estates. Their lords, here as elsewhere,
took passage on occasion to the re-modelled ‘burh’ where they and their familia took
up residence in one or more of these properties from which they were able to conduct
their political, administrative and business affairs. Such were the nine mansiones
rendering dues to the manor of Uffington that Lewin had held in 1066 and which by
                                                                                     164


1086 had passed to Alfred of Lincoln. By this time, however, such properties had
been submerged in a welter of new building within an extended administrative
structure. In 1066 Stamford was divided into six wards, five in Lincolnshire and one
across the bridge in Northamptonshire. There were at least 283 mansiones at this time.
In 1086 moreover there were 128½ for which no pre-conquest details are given. This
made the population of new borough, according to whichever household multiplier is
adopted; some 1,000-1,500.These inhabitants occupied tenements, which were of
varying status. 170, which “used to render all customs,” were part of the borough
proper. Some were subject to the lawmen and others, as has been suggested, were
appending to rural properties and were little more than a spatially distant extensions
of a lord’s rural property. All were encompassed within an area centred on Broad,
High and St. Mary’s Streets, on the site of the defunct Danish ‘burh’, in that southern
suburb, across the river which owed its existence to the ‘burh’ built by Edward the
Elder in 918, and along Scotgate to the Northwest. Quite separate and distinct, in
terms of both jurisdiction and topography, were those lands, held in 1066 by Queen
Edith and in 1086 by the king, which, had once constituted part of the great ‘multiple
estate’, known as ‘Roteland’. At about the beginning of the tenth century the hundred
of Witchley, the eastern portion of this estate immediately to the west of Stamford had
been separated from it. Queen Edith’s fee, which subsequently passed to the king, was
attached to this portion, assuming a status similar to any other property within the
estate. By 1086 the 70 mansiones on this land, which is said to have once “belonged
to Roteland” appear in the account for Stamford, the estate having been transferred
from ‘Roteland’ to Stamford between 1066 and 1086, possibly to make way for the
building of the castle. This manor and the borough of Stamford were never fully
integrated, but whether in royal hands or from 1156 seigniorial ones, a careful
distinction was made between the two. The court of the castle was the court of
Stamford but the burgesses were aware of the different roles of this court, and as
Stamford became in the twelfth century one of the premier cloth-making boroughs of
the realm, they became increasingly jealous of their rights. The lord of this prosperous
borough was probably by this time only lord in as far as he received its issues, but as
lord of the manor he had a more direct control over his manorial tenants through the
court of Stamford in its capacity as manorial court.
     Northampton (map 8.3, no 3 and map 8.5) had a far longer history during which it
served as an Anglo-Danish ‘burh’ for only a relatively short time. It was already
during the late eighth century an important centre, within which was located a large
timber hall, distinguished by its size (16.7 metres long x 8.35 metres wide, with
additional annexes 6.35 metres square at each end) and by the precision with which it
was laid out.72 This hall was the focal point of a major, possibly royal, villa-complex
covering some eight hectares, within which were smaller timber structures located to
the north-west, west and south-west of the hall. Possibly early in the ninth century this
timber hall was replaced by an even more elaborate and larger (37.5 metres long x
11.5 metres wide) rectangular stone hall, which was subsequently extended to the
west, with the addition of an extra two rooms (bringing the total length to 43.5
metres). To the west of this hall was discovered the remains of the east-end of a
church, which extended westward under the present St. Peter’s church. Like its
predecessor this hall now embellished with a church was the focal point of an
important, possibly royal, villa-minster complex, encompassing a number of
associated smaller timber buildings - the caput of a substantial ‘multiple estate’. The
stone hall seems to have fallen out of use or was demolished at the end of the ninth
century, possibly when Northampton became a major centre for the Danish army.
                                                                                    165


This would certainly have provided a suitable context for the decay or destruction of
the villa-minster complex.




      Now began Northampton’s existence as a Danish, and from 917 Anglo-Danish,
‘burh,’ which topographical evidence suggests was provided with defences and
covered an area of some twenty-four hectares. Unfortunately it is unclear, at what
stage during the Danish or subsequent occupation the defensive line was established.
It is, however, fortunately much clearer when the ‘burh,’ which it enclosed, came to
an end. A series of excavations at St Peter’s Street within the bounds of the Anglo-
Danish ‘burh,’ (map 8.5, site 5) all reveal that the timber buildings of the ‘burh’ were
overlaid by a general green layer. This layer is probably indicative of dereliction when
the site was temporarily abandoned at some time in the late eleventh century and
environmental evidence recovered tends to confirm such abandonment. Northampton
thus from the early part of the tenth- to the late-eleventh century became an Anglo-
Danish ‘burh.’ When in this period activity within the ‘burh’ directed towards the
provisioning of the Viking or Anglo-Saxon hosts was displaced by activity of a more
commercial character conducted within the context of the Anglo-Saxon ‘hundred-
market-’ and ‘portus’-systems, is uncertain. The same St Peter’s Street excavations do
reveal, however, a two-phase development of the site during the years, c. 900- c.
1040/1100. During the first of these phases, which has been dated to the tenth
century,73 only the western end of the site was occupied with two sets of timber, post-
built houses (buildings 1,3 and 5-6) built north and south of a metalled area. Towards
the end of that century or the beginning of the next, probably in c. 1010 when
Northampton assumed ‘portus’-status, a new phase began as a metalled surface was
laid down over the top of these barrack-like buildings. The whole area at the west-end
of the site now became a single metal working complex with new housing (buildings
                                                                                     166


2 and 4) from which a small metal working furnace has been recovered and about
which were discovered several pits containing, copper as well as iron, slag. The
middle section of the site remained unoccupied. To the east, however, further new
buildings were constructed. Here were built, in a multiphase development, four
Grubenhaüer, sunken-floored huts. Their functionality is uncertain though an
‘industrial’ assemblage of iron and worked animal bones/antler waste is suggestive.
They probably formed part of a complex including a hall (in as yet un-excavated
areas). Indeed, the picture gained from the site, as a whole is one of concentrations or
nuclei of activity whether social or economic, focussed on building complexes
comprising timber halls, Grubenhaüer, yard area, pit area and cultivated land, not
dissimilar to those found at Hamwih.74 Such complexes were found all over the
‘burh’. One has also been excavated on the site of the later Norman castle. In their
construction, however, the builders at Northampton eschewed any attempt to
accommodate the buildings to any Wessex-style rectilinear street plan. Their building
clusters were not primarily dependent on a street but were more or less regularly
disposed about a yard and set within a fairly informal ‘urban’ framework. These
clusters of buildings provided accommodation for lords, who here as elsewhere, took
passage on occasion to the re-modelled ‘burh.’ Here they and their familia took up
residence in such nuclei of activity at which they conducted the political,
administrative and business affairs, which occupied their time. To such nuclei the
surplus from their estates – most of it at least – was delivered to them for the
household’s consumption. Otherwise each such nuclei was largely self-contained
particularly with respect to the owner’s requirements for manufactures. In ‘burhs’,
such as Northampton, other than in the case of the imported wares, there is little
evidence that such manufactured items were obtained from specialist suppliers.
Within the settlement, as a whole there is little indication of specialised manufactory.
Such was life in the Anglo-Danish ‘burh’ at least until the late eleventh century when
such arrangements decayed, the ‘burh’ became derelict, and a completely new
Norman borough was created.
     This new borough already encompassed some 291-301 houses and 36 waste
plots, which had still not been built upon, in 1086 and rendered a farm of £30. 10s.
This made the population of new borough, which may have numbered, according to
whichever household multiplier is adopted, 1,000-1,500, denizens of a settlement, that
judging by the size of its farm, ranked twentieth amongst the boroughs of the realm.
Subsequently during the early twelfth century Northampton prospered mightily. The
farm in 1130 amounted to £100, more than treble the Domesday assessment- a quite
remarkable increase. Northampton was rapidly rising up the hierarchy of English
boroughs and was well on the way towards that sixth place which it would assume
under Henry II. This new borough, however, was a very different entity from the old
‘burh’. Topographically it was larger. Within the defensive walls, traditionally
attributed to Simon de Senli I, was encompassed a built-up area of some one hundred
hectares, embellished with a Norman castle and since c. 1100 with the Cluniac priory
of St Andrew and embracing the novus burgus of French settlers brought here by the
king’s orders. A new and enduring pattern of building was established, moreover, on
this land. The St Peter’s Street excavations, referred to above, reveal the construction,
in the late eleventh- and early-twelfth centuries on specifically delineated house plots,
of small (6/8 x 4 meters), rectangular timber buildings, respecting and fronting onto
the line of the newly created street. What was emerging here at this time is in fact the
normal building pattern found within medieval towns- individual house plots arranged
along both sides of the street with buildings set on the street frontage and parallel to
                                                                                    167


the street. The occupants of these houses moreover enjoyed a life-style very different
from that of their predecessors, a situation well illustrated in the case of the pottery
with which they equipped their kitchens or upon which they consumed their
prodigious meals. At a date probably in the later ninth century competent potters,
using a throwing technique and proper wheels, had been locally established and
remained the main source of supply for the inhabitants of the ‘burh’ until its demise in
the late eleventh century. After the Conquest, probably in the late eleventh- and early
twelfth century, the character of the pottery found at Northampton begins to change
with the introduction of a wider range of shapes, larger cooking pots and subtle
differences in manufacturing techniques. Nor at this time was this pottery produced
on any scale in Northampton. By c. 1200 most, if not all of the old kilns inherited
from potters who had inhabited the ‘burh’ had disappeared. Those of a new
manufactory, which at times showed a marked degradation in potting ability and
which owed little or nothing to existing traditions, had supplanted them. This
manufactory by the end of the twelfth century, moreover, only served the bottom of
the market. Most of the pottery consumed in Northampton at this time comprised
wares, which were brought from specialist producers’ kilns at Lyvedon and Stanion,
Northamptonshire; Olney Hide, Buckinghamshire and Harrold, Bedfordshire to the
borough market before All Saints church. Here since the late eleventh century the
inhabitants had bought such items in ever increasing amounts. They probably supplied
themselves with many other items at this market, but the above discussion well
illustrates those forces, which, in the twelfth century, transformed the life of the
average Northampton family. Such families no longer produced for themselves the
items they required. Rather they acquired them through a market within which
increasingly specialized producers operated on a large-scale in terms of their
comparative advantage. Within this market Northampton enjoyed its own particular
place, becoming in the twelfth century one of the major English cloth-producing
centres wherein some three hundred weavers, who with their families comprised at
least a third of the borough’s population, were employed in c. 1200.
     During the years, c. 1040- c. 1140, prior to the draining of the Fens, the
emergence of new ‘urban’ institutions had thus been largely restricted to, and most
clearly revealed in the triangular area bounded by Stamford, Peterborough and
Northampton. Already by 1086 increasing commercial activity, which engendered the
growth of these centers, had led to the development of intermediary markets, through
which raw materials, trade goods and other produce could be channeled to them.75
Oundle, held by Peterborough Abbey, already had such a market in 1086, which was
valued at twenty-five shillings. According to the Liber Niger of the abbey, between
1125-8 it rendered £4 3s 1d. Indeed, so valuable was it, as an asset to the Abbey, and
so precarious was its title that the Abbey’s scriptorum forged a charter, at this time,
by which it attempted to establish its long-held rights to the “market and toll” at
Oundle. Similarly in the Southwest part of the area, Higham Ferrers, had such a
market in 1086, which was valued at twenty shillings. Through these markets raw
materials, trade goods and other produce were channeled to the new and rapidly
growing boroughs.
     Towards the end of the economic-cycle of c. 1040- c. 1140, moreover, the
maturity of this ‘advanced’ region’s economy was revealed as on its periphery fairs
were established. Through these fairs its high-productivity manufactories could
‘export’ their low-priced wares to the more ‘backward’ area of the economy, and
manufacturers could ‘import’ the raw materials they required. Just over the region’s
border, to the north of Stamford, one such fair at Stow, already in existence in 1053 x
                                                                                        168


5 but undergoing a massive extension of its annual temporal-span in 1102-7 was later
supplemented by another at Sleaford in 1136 x 1140. In the Southwest of the region
Northampton itself was the site of such a fair. It, moreover, was already sufficiently
important, before the economic-cycle drew to its close, to allow the borough’s lord,
Simon de Senli II, to make a grant a tenth of the profits of the fair, which was held in
the church and churchyard of All Saints, to St Andrews Priory. To the Southeast of
the region, just over the ‘border’ from Peterborough, Henry I, in 1110 granted to St
Benedict of Ramsey the right to establish such a fair at St Ives, a right which was he
subsequently confirmed in 1129 and 1135. On this latter occasion he also temporally
extended the operations of the fair. At about the same time, in 1107 x 1122 he granted
similar rights to the Priory of St Neots to establish a fair near the priory, a right, which
was also confirmed to them by Stephen. Finally, in completing this circuit of fairs
located on the ‘periphery’ of this ‘advanced’ region, was the fair at Crowland
established by the monks in 1136 x 1154 in connection with a grant by Stephen to the
monks. By c.1140 the lands in the triangular area bounded by Stamford, Peterborough
and Northampton, were encompassed within a circle of fairs, located just over the
‘borders’ of the region. These fairs serviced the requirements of traders from the more
‘advanced’ area, and all pre-dated the establishment of a market at the site, catering
for the needs of local customers. The lands in the triangular area bounded by
Stamford, Peterborough and Northampton had become thoroughly commercialized,
and the inhabitants of these lands, working at new high productivity levels, had
experienced the joys of steadily rising per capita incomes. Those living beyond the
bounds of this ‘advanced’ region did not enjoy such benefits.
     Elsewhere in England, at this time, c. 1040- c.1140, it was only in eastern and
northern Kent that such changes took place. Here Canterbury (map 8.3, no. 4) and
probably Rochester, underwent similar changes to those observed at Stamford,
Peterborough and Northampton. Here also the increasing commercial activity, which
engendered the growth of Canterbury and Rochester, also by 1086 resulted in the
development of a network of intermediary markets, through which raw materials,
trade goods and other produce produced within this ‘advanced’ region could be
channeled to the boroughs. The high-productivity manufactories located in these
boroughs were also from the beginning of the twelfth century able to utilize the
facilities of fairs, established at Rochester in 1101-7 and at Canterbury in 1103.
Through these fairs they were able to ‘export’ their low-priced wares to the more
‘backward’ area of the economy, and ‘import’ such additional raw materials, as they
required from these ‘backward’ areas.
     It was through these fairs, located on the periphery of the more ‘advanced’
regions, moreover, that the forces, which subsequently during the years, c. 1140-
1208/14 and 1225-40, would transform the adjacent regions (map 8.3, region A/B1,
B2), were released. Geographically this process of diffusion did not, as is so often
declared, create a North-South division of England. Rather it involved a movement
from the bi-nodal eastern ‘cores’, described above, to a ‘periphery’ of lands, which
were predominantly situated to the West, Northwest and Southwest of the ‘cores’. To
these lands the high-productivity manufactories located in the major boroughs of the
‘cores’, ‘exported’ their low-priced wares for which they received raw materials and
moneys, the ‘core’ lands experiencing a positive balance of trade in relation to the rest
of England. As coin entered the ‘core,’ monetary stocks there were enhanced and the
inhabitants were able to satisfy their growing ‘transactions demand’ for money. The
corollary was that in the more ‘backward’ lands on the periphery, monetary stocks
and prices of raw materials in particular fell. ‘Core’ manufacturers bought up more
                                                                                    169


and more of these ‘cheap’ raw materials from the lands on the ‘periphery’, and
transformed them into products, which they sold in increasing quantities at home and
abroad. A burgeoning volume of raw materials thus passed during the years, c. 1140-
1208/14 and 1225-1240, to the inland and coastal boroughs of the ‘core’ lands, and
the intermediaries in this trade from the ‘periphery’ to the ‘core’ grew rich. Thereby
these intermediaries were able to effect a major transformation of commercial activity
within the ‘peripheral’ lands adjacent to the pre-existing ‘cores’.

II. THE EAST ANGLIAN REGIONAL NETWORK, THE MIDLANDS AND THE NORTHEAST
REGIONAL NETWORKS (PHASE 2: REGIONS A/B1 AND B2, C.1140-1208/14 AND 1225-
40). Of central importance here were the changes taking place during these years, as a
result of the drainage of the Fens, which led to a fundamental transformation of the
East Anglian regional network (Map 8.3, region A/B1). As new grazing was created
out of the old wetlands with the corresponding transformation of the adjacent
agricultural regimes, a new ‘urban’ order was born. Overseas trading activity was
displaced down-river to the east as new centers were created at Boston and Lynn.
Boston (map 8.3, no. 7),76 which by 1203/4, ranked second only to London in
England’s overseas trade, unfortunately, partly because it was administered as a
manor of the poorly documented Earldom of Richmond77 and, partly because there is
no surviving borough archive, has been sadly neglected by historians. Nor has there
been a systematic program of archaeological excavation to alleviate this lack of
documentary evidence. At Lynn (map 8.3, no. 6), as has been suggested above, 78 the
situation is very different. At the end of the eleventh century the settlement here was
the home of a salt producing but still basically agricultural community, living in close
proximity to salt marsh and an estuarine lake. Then in 1096 Bishop Herbert of
Norwich, having founded a community of Benedictine monks to serve his new
Cathedral, gave these monks a church he had begun to build in honor of St Margaret
in the marsh at Gaywood at Lynn. Thereby he provided a second parochial church for
the use of those living at the seaward end of his manor. The gift also included a
number of secular privileges within the new parish. The monks were to have soke
over all those living between the two fleets, the profits of the Saturday market and of
the fair held on the feast of St Margaret. There is also mention of a number of
salterns, which were transferred to the monks and of a new mill just built by them in
Gaywood marsh, which gave its name to the Mill Fleet. The gift of the fair and
‘portus’-status was confirmed by Henry I in 1106. Thus, already during the initial
economic-cycle of c. 1040-1140, Lynn had begun to establish itself as an outport of
the great manufacturing boroughs of the contemporary ‘core’ lands in the triangular
area bounded by Stamford, Peterborough and Northampton. Then in the mid-twelfth
century, between 1146 and 1173 there was an expansion in the topographical layout
of the borough through the planning of the ‘New Land’ by Bishop William and the
foundation there of St Nicholas’ Chapel and a second market. This markedly
increased the size, and perhaps prosperity of the population during the second half of
the twelfth- and early thirteenth century. It also changed the character of the borough.
It continued to grow, on the basis of a burgeoning foreign trade. It also grew, during
the years, c. 1140-1208/14 and 1225-1240 by the provision of goods and services to
the prosperous arable and pastoral economy in the surrounding countryside. This
‘new’ domestic trade of the borough helped to support the borough’s, Saturday (est.
1101x1119) and Tuesday (est. 1146 x 1174)79, markets and its population of
craftsmen and retailers. In many of the fifty or so tenements established in the
Newland, c. 1140-1250, as in those of the ‘old’ town between the Purfleet and
                                                                                    170


Millfleet, the inhabitants combined residential usage with manufactory. The tenement
excavated at present-day Baker Street had, during the years, c. 1140-1250; four
houses built in succession on it. The chronologically first two such houses were
inhabited by families of leather-workers, the last two by families engaged in textile
manufactory. The borough’s prosperity, by the beginning of the thirteenth century
rested not only on its foreign trade but also on a ‘new’ domestic trade, provisioning
with goods and services a prosperous arable and pastoral economy in the surrounding
countryside, which had been transformed by the draining of the Fens.




Old established centers at Lincoln (map 8.3, no.8 and map 8.6) and Norwich (map
8.3, no.5) were also transformed. Both Lincoln and Norwich by 1203/4 had become
important, if not first rank ports. Both, moreover, at this time enjoyed a premier place
amongst cloth-making centers: Lincoln in the production of high-quality woolen
cloths and Norwich in the production of similarly high-quality, worsteds.80 Both are
                                                                                     171


well documented and have been subjected to extensive excavations but, for reasons of
space, Lincoln alone will be considered here. Lincoln, like Stamford and
Northampton, had been a Danish and Anglo-Danish ‘burh’. Extensive excavations at
Flaxengate (map 8.6, site no.8) reveal the creation of this ‘burh’ in the mid-870s, on a
long-abandoned site within the still-standing Roman walls of the lower town. The
new Flaxengate, like other streets in the ‘burh,’ was laid down at this time, receiving a
surface of tightly packed cobbles and soon afterwards a wooden drain. The creation of
the street was contemporary with the construction of the buildings and below each
was a turf layer, indicative of the previous long period of abandonment. The first three
barrack-like buildings were contemporary and free standing. They were plank-built,
with upright posts set directly into the ground. The two northern-most buildings were
gable-ended onto Flaxengate and all three had internal hearths situated towards the
rear of the buildings. The third was gable-ended onto present-day Grantham Street
suggestive that this was also laid down at this time. Subsequently houses on the site
were replaced at about twenty five-year intervals, each re-building often being
undertaken on a new alignment and involving the incorporation of new constructional
techniques.
     In the course of the eleventh century, however, the layout of the site changed
completely. At this time the street at Flaxengate no longer had any proper surface and
it was encroached upon by a property boundary evidenced by a row of stake holes.
These stake holes marked the eastern boundary of a housing-complex. This complex
comprised two buildings, each some 13-meters long with their axis parallel to
Grantham Street, with another building extending north from the westerly building to
form the western side of a court-yard which extended eastward to the previously
mentioned boundary fence. It has been suggested that this building-complex was in
the eleventh- and early twelfth century in single ownership. It has also been suggested
that the southern buildings of the complex on the corner plot of the two streets were
for residential usage. Elsewhere within the complex the buildings housed
manufactories- at one time or another copper and iron metal working together with
silver cupelation, glass making, bone- and antler working, leather and textile
manufactory and jewelry fabrication. Such a house was largely self contained with
respect to the owner’s requirements for manufactures. Such was the volume and
quality of these goods, moreover, that it may be suggested perhaps that these owners
were of high status. Probably these were the residences of lords or their agents who
took passage each year, during the eleventh- and early twelfth century, to the ‘burh’
where they conducted their political, administrative and business affairs.
     Then in c. 1180 here, in Flaxengate, as also at Danes Terrace and Steep Hill (map
8.6, sites nos. 9a-b, 10 respectively), which had all been well-settled parts of the
Anglo-Danish ‘burh’, all of the existing timber buildings were razed and the sites
levelled-up. New stone buildings were erected. One such stone building was
constructed on the corner of Flaxengate and Grantham Street. At the time of its
building Flaxengate remained un-surfaced, though now in the construction of the
house the earlier western edge of the street was respected. A stone-lined drain,
contemporary with the construction of the house ran eastward into Flaxengate, but
soon after it had been built the street was re-metalled, the new surface filling and
covering the drain, which was not subsequently used. The house was an impressive
one, whose stone walls were more substantially built than those of any of the later
structures on the site. Access to Grantham Street was by means of a doorway towards
the Southeast corner of the building, and in that Southeast corner a recessed hearth
was built of clay and stone. A stone-built garderobe, again integral with the
                                                                                     172


construction period, had been built into the Northwest corner of building, and
continued in use until the middle of the thirteenth century, when it was in-filled as a
new hall was added at the back of the house. Such houses were built on all of the
above mentioned sites, the builders at Danes Terrace and Steep Hill showing great
ingenuity in successfully adapting the buildings to their construction on the
particularly steep (1:10) slope up to the cathedral and castle. The area, which
encompassed these sites, enjoyed a period of great prosperity in the late twelfth- and
early thirteenth centuries.81 Excavations in the southern part of the ‘Lower Town’-at
Silver Street and Saltergate (map 8.6, sites nos. 6 & 7 respectively)- only revealed a
waterlogged terrain, within which the Friary was surrounded by a few flimsy timber
structures. This largely unoccupied land separated the heavily settled northern focus
of the borough from Newland, an area of reclaimed land, which had been drained
during the years, c. 1163-6 and was situated beyond the dilapidated but still standing
southern Roman city wall. Newland was also, during the late twelfth- and early
thirteenth century, enclosed on both its eastern and western sides with new defensive
walls and towers extending as far as the river, suggestive of the importance that
contemporaries attached to it at this time. This was Lincoln’s new port, the fourth
most important in the realm, through which in 1203/4 some £9,850-worth of custom-
able foreign trade passed. Excavations here at Dickinson’s Mill and Brayford Wharf
(map 8.6, sites nos. 2 & 3 respectively), reveal something of the river- front facilities
provided for those who laded and unloaded their ships here. On the northern side of
the Brayford pool there was an early thirteenth century timber revetted quay, but until
larger-scale investigation is carried out on other sites adjacent to this northern
waterfront the topographical features of Newland will remain obscure. On the eastern
side of the Brayford Pool the picture is a little clearer. Here was discovered, a man-
made shelving waterfront dating from the tenth and early-eleventh centuries, similar
to, and contemporary with those excavated on the London waterfront. 82 Some ninety
metres westward, on land subsequently recovered in the twelfth century as a result of
natural silting and deliberate reclamation, was revealed, an early thirteenth century
timber wharf, serving as a braced revetment for a thick layer of organic material,
which had been dumped on its landward side. These riverfront quays seem to have
associated with a contemporary settlement, south of the river along the line of Ermine
Street (High Street), which has been revealed by excavations on High Street and at St
Marks (map 8.6, sites nos. 1 & 4 respectively). Pottery recovered from the levels
overlying the latest Roman deposits showed that the site had been reoccupied by the
mid-tenth century and post-holes discovered during the excavations suggest the
existence of small wooden houses aligned with the road, in an area where small-scale
industrial activity was undertaken. This settlement was associated with the church of
St Marks. A tenth- or eleventh century graveyard, extending along Ermine Street
beyond the northern and southern limits of the excavation and covering the ground
from the Street some 22 metres westward, has been discovered but not the associated
church. The earliest excavated and documented church was a two-celled stone
building with massive foundations, probably dating from the late eleventh century.
During the twelfth century a tower was added to the west-end of the nave, which was
built on even more massive foundations and at some time in the thirteenth century the
nave and chancel were enlarged.
     Lincoln, like Norwich, had thus in the late twelfth century become a major centre
of manufactory and trade. The denizens of these boroughs had become rich and
through their disbursements of money created intensive networks of intermediary
markets, through which raw materials, trade goods and other wares produced within
                                                                                  173


this ‘advanced’ region (map 8.3, region A/B1) could be channeled to these boroughs.
By the mid-thirteenth century Lincoln had a long history as a commercial center
behind it and its contemporary trade networks represent a palimpsest incorporating
many earlier trade routes. There was a late eleventh century route-way, which had
passed from Torksay, described in Domesday Book as a ‘suburb’ of Lincoln,
overland, before accessing at Lincoln a route to the coast by way of Partney and Old
Bolingbroke. This was displaced, however, with the re-opening of the Fossdyke in
1121, which during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries allowed ships to pass directly
between the Trent and the Witham at Lincoln before sailing on, down that river to
Boston. As a result of the opening up of this new route-way Willingthorpe, or
Westgate, in Lincoln became a borough in 1126 and down river at Boston in 1125 x
1135, a new fair was established in the cemetery of the church of St Botolph. This
remained a major artery of the region’s trade during the years, c. 1120-1240 and with
the transformation of the region’s economy, c.1140-1208/14 and 1225-40, it provided
a series of foci for the development of subsidiary market-networks. On the Trent a
string of markets and fairs were established at this time,83 where goods could be
traded, prior to their transhipment along the Fossdyke. At Lincoln, the borough itself
became the focus of a local network of markets at which the inhabitants of the burgus
et civitas could buy perishable wares.84 Boston formed the focus of a similar local
network of markets, almost all of which received charters in 1202-5.85 The main
impetus to the creation of new markets, however, was the drainage of the Fens. The
fair established at Louth in c. 1155 became the focal point for each of the new
markets that were created as the Lincolnshire coastal marshes were drained.86 Caistor
market performed a similar function in relation to the markets created as the North
Lincolnshire-Humber marshes were drained. Most spectacular, however, was the
proliferation of markets resulting from the de-watering of the Holland, Deeping and
Morris-North Fens. By 1240 these reclaimed wetlands were encompassed within a
circle of markets and fairs, at which dealers traded in the produce of these lands.87
     A similar new ‘urban’ order also evolved in Norfolk during the years, c.1140-
1208/14 and 1225-40. As in Lincolnshire the great boroughs of the county- Lynn and
Norwich- provided the focus for dense local network of markets.88 The main impetus
to the creation of new markets here, as in Lincolnshire, was, however the drainage of
the Fens and the transformation of the adjacent agricultural regimes. The northern
coastal salt marshes extending from Hunstanton to Gimmingham had a particularly
high density of markets.89 A similar concentration of markets characterised the lands
adjacent to the western Fenlands of the county.90 The most impressive development of
market facilities, however, was in the central Norfolk heath-lands, which served as a
bridge between the lush grazing land of the newly drained western Fenlands of the
county and the highly productive agricultural regime of Northeast Norfolk. 91
     Building on the foundations lain down during the years c. 1040-1140, the
inhabitants of these lands in eastern England had during the subsequent years c.1140-
1208/14 and 1225-40 transformed the region (map 8.3, regions A1, A/B1) into the
most productive and highly commercialized part of the realm. During this latter
economic-cycle moreover, it was encircled on all but its southern side by lands (map
8.3, region B2), which were undergoing a similar transformation.
     Unfortunately there is a singular lack of archaeological evidence concerning the
evolution in the period c.1140-1208/14 and 1225-40 of the new ‘urban’ centers in the
East Midlands and Yorkshire (Region B2, map 8.3). Perhaps representative of the
myriad small boroughs established here at this time, however, are Ripon (map 8.3,
no.13) and Hedon92 in Yorkshire and Chesterfield in Derbyshire. At Ripon the
                                                                                       174


Archbishop of York’s borough occupied Allhallowgate, extending along both sides of
that road from the top of the eponymous hill at its western end to the crossroads,
which constituted the Northwest corner of the Minster precinct, at its eastern end. At
its western extremity was the forum archiepiscopi where was held during the feast of
St. Wilfrid on 24th April the fair granted by Henry I to Archbishop Thurstan of York
and confirmed and temporally extended to some five days by Stephen in 1136.
Thereafter the population of the borough seems to have grown. Such was this increase
in population moreover that in the late twelfth century provision had to be made to
extend the cemetery “in the angle of the … road junction with the Chapel of St. Mary
(the ‘Ladykirk’),” to provide extra burial space for it. Here, as elsewhere, however, it
is not until the reign of Richard I that this seigniorial borough, by attracting the king’s
attention, is revealed, by documentation on the Pipe Rolls. In these documents Ripon
is referred to as a borough for the first time in 1194, some fifty years after its first
creation- and what a borough. In that year Ripon was paying the substantial sum of
£73 6s.8d for the farm of the borough,93 a figure seventy-five percent more than the
amount paid by the great cloth-making borough of Beverley for its farm at this time.
In 1197 the burgesses of Ripon, moreover, paid the king ten marks (£6. 13s 4d) for
having their (unspecified) liberties. The years, c.1140-1208/14 thus saw the
emergence of a major new seigniorial borough at Ripon.
     The development of a borough at Hedon followed a broadly similar course. Until
the mid-twelfth century Hedon comprised a small agricultural hamlet located about
the chapel of St Augustine, which was situated on a hillock, from which roads passed
to Paull, Burstwick and to Preston, the manor in relation to which both hamlet and
chapel were dependencies. Then charter evidence of 1138 x 1143 suggests that a new,
grid-plan borough was being established, to which the lord of Hedon attempted to
attract merchants or craftsmen by exempting them from tolls therein. By the time the
then lord of Hedon, Count of Aumale, William le Gros (1156-72/3) obtained from
Henry II the borough charter it was already an important commercial centre with a
population that had grown some three- to four-fold over the last thirty years. It
possessed Wednesday and Saturday markets and an annual eight-day fair, which was
held on Magdalen Fields to the east of the borough. On the eastern side of the
borough, to the south and west of Magdalene Hill two dykes flowing from Burstwick
united to become the Hedon Fleet, which being joined by a further dyke downstream
then became known as the Hedon Haven. Probably when the borough was laid out, c.
1138 x 1143, the Fleet was widened and wharves provided on its eastern side. This
was the port of Hedon, which shortly after John confirmed the borough charter in
1201, had a foreign-trade turnover worth almost £1,000. Once again therefore the
years, c.1140-1208/14 saw the emergence of yet another major new seigniorial
borough at Hedon.
     Chesterfield, the final example to be discussed here was the second most
important ‘town’ in Derbyshire94 and was situated in the Rother valley between the
fork provided by that river and its tributary the Hyper. Unlike Derby, which could
trace its descent as a royal borough uninterrupted, except perhaps for a short
mediation in Stephen’s reign,95 back to Domesday Book, Chesterfield was a new
royal creation of the twelfth century. At the end of the eleventh and beginning of the
twelfth century the site of the later borough was occupied by a small rural hamlet.
This constituted one of six berewicks of the royal manor of Newbold- Whittington,
Brimington, Tapton, Chesterfield, Boythorpe and Eckington- which together were
valued at £6 in 1066 and £10 in 1086.96 Slightly more than a century later in the Pipe
Roll of 1199 when the sheriff of Nottingham and Derby, William Brewer, rendered
                                                                                    175


his account of a tallage, levied particularly on tenants of the royal demesne, the entry
records a sum of £6. 13s. 4d delivered by the burgus of Chesterfield, with a further
£1. 6s. 8d derived from the soke of Chesterfield. He also accounted for £2 from
Whittington and its soke bringing the total render to £10.97 Throughout the twelfth
century therefore Chesterfield formed part of the royal demesne. It also by c. 1157/8
had acquired the judicial institutions- hallmote and wapentake courts- associated with
manorial status98 and the forms of commercial organisation- a weekday market in c.
1164 and annual fair in c. 1171- that would become the cornerstone of mercantile
activity in the burgus of 1199.99 Then in 1204 John granted to the said William
Briwere the royal manor of Chesterfield, with Brimmington and Whittington, and the
soke and whole wapentake of Scarsdale with all immunities and appurtenances. He
was also permitted to maintain the borough with a market on Tuesdays and Saturdays
and a fair on the 14th September each year.100 This charter was confirmed to his son
in 1215101 and his concord with the burgesses has also survived102 conceding them the
rights he had gained from the crown. During the latter half of the twelfth century a
borough, thus had been created from and formed a part of the royal manor of
Chesterfield and associated soke, which subsequently in 1204 was granted by John to
his faithful servant William Briwere and his heirs.
     Much earlier Chesterfield had also become the mother church of an extended
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. By a writ dated 1093 of William II to Thomas, archbishop
of York, Earl Robert of Chester, the sheriff, Henry de Ferrers and William de Peverel,
he informed them of the grant of four Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire churches and
their chapels. The church of Chesterfield like the other of these churches was granted
to the church of St Mary of Lincoln and to Bishop Robert and his successors.103 At
Lincoln Cathedral the early twelfth century saw the creation of four major new
episcopal administrative posts including the chairman of the chapter – the dean - who
received the major part of the Chesterfield parish income and acted as rector of the
church. Pope Eugenius III confirmed these arrangements in 1146. 104 Again in 1163
there was a similar confirmation by Pope Alexander III.105 In the interval a writ of
Henry II was issued in the year 1157/8 to the sheriff. It required that Chesterfield
church should enjoy the same liberties, customs and holdings in meadows, pastures
and woods as they had in the reign of Henry I, as certified by lawful men of the
manorial hallmote and wapentake courts. The church was also to hold all the lands
and rents given to it by the parishioners since the death of Henry I, as witnessed by a
charter of Roger, bishop of Chester.106 Shortly after in 1162-5 Henry issued another
writ confirming the charter of 1093.107 Thus were the properties and jurisdictions of
the church of All Saints in Chesterfield secured. The extent of the parish can only be
established by later documentation when- to the North Newbold, Dunston and
Whittington to the East Brimmington, Tapton and Calow, to the South Hasland,
Normanton and Wingerworth and to the West Walton and Brampton- were included.
Amongst these Whittington, Brampton and Wingerworth in the twelfth century
established independent chapels subordinate to the mother church. The establishment
of such chapels created major administrative difficulties. Thus in 1129-38
Wingerworth was involved in a major jurisdictional dispute with Chesterfield. Roger,
bishop of Chester gave formal notification of its settlement. 108 The church of
Chesterfield had claimed that the church of Wingerworth had been wrongly
constituted within the boundaries of the parish. The person who had probably
financed the erection of the chapel was Nicholas de Wingerworth, first manorial lord
of the township.109 He also claimed to be its patron. However, Chesterfield managed
to retain as its parishioners the people of Hasland and Tapton who de Wingerworth
                                                                                    176


had attempted to divert to his chapel. Thus although the chapel continued to serve the
hamlet of Wingerworth it remained a daughter church of Chesterfield, giving the
latter’s rector the power to present/depose its clerk or chaplain. The rector of
Chesterfield was also directed to acknowledge that he had received from Nicholas
four bovates of land, a dwelling house for the priest and an additional tithe that had
been imposed on each carucate above the six thraves, which Chesterfield church was
accustomed to have. He received this from Nicholas not in the latter’s alleged
capacity as the patron of the chapel but as from one, who had freely made this grant in
alms. The bishop of Chester at his synod at Derby confirmed the formal agreement
settling this conflict.
     Within a recently established manorial and parochial jurisdictional framework a
new borough had been created during the late twelfth century. Being granted from the
royal demesne in 1204 by John to William Brewere it became a seigniorial borough,
whose burgesses enjoyed their liberties obtained from the crown through the
intermediary of their feudal lord.
     This seigniorial borough, which was created from and formed part of the manor
of Chesterfield, was not coterminous with the ‘town’, however, and was only one of
three jurisdictions therein. The manor of Chesterfield comprised a capital messuage,
three pieces of meadow, Brierly Wood, two water mills and various tenements in free
and servile tenure whose inhabitants owed suit at the leet court of the manor. So also
did those holding free burgages or leasing the revenues from the markets and fairs
who also owed suit there, but at sessions specially prorogued with juries, who had
especial knowledge of custom and practice prevailing in the borough. Within this
complex of tenements the inhabitants, who owed suit in the later Middle Ages at the
manorial courts- free burgesses, free tenants and commoners of the borough- held
their properties of the lord of Chesterfield. Outside the manor and borough, but within
the ‘town’ were two other jurisdictions. First, there was that of the Dean of Lincoln.
The Dean’s rights over property in the ‘town’ had been built up in the twelfth and
early thirteenth centuries.110 The second independent jurisdiction was that of the Prior
of St. John of Jerusalem.111 The Order’s properties were largely acquired in the
twelfth century and were clearly distinguished by a cross on the door. The ‘town’ thus
comprised three separate jurisdictions but together they made only a very small
whole. The ‘town’s’ population was housed in an area extending 660 metres west
from the Rother and 550 metres north from the Hyper.
     Prior to the establishment of the borough, the homines of Chesterfield in 1157
like the other men of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire had to use the marketing
facilities of Nottingham to conduct their trade. By a charter granted by Henry II to the
burgesses of Nottingham it was declared that “ …the men of Derbyshire and
Nottinghamshire ought to come to the borough of Nottingham on Friday and Saturday
with carts and sumpter beasts.” He added that he would guarantee the safety of all that
attended the market there.112 When in 1164 a market was established at Chesterfield
and its toll revenues- £1.2s. 7d- accounted for at the Exchequer by the sheriff;
however, we are afforded for the first time with information concerning commercial
activity in the new borough.113 Thereafter commercial activity within the ‘town’, if
these tolls collected at the Saturday market and from 1171 at the autumn fair (figure
8.1) provide an index of this, seems to have been paralleled by changes in the levels
of market rents for ‘urban’ properties.114 From the establishment of the market in
1164 activity increased, tolls increasing to £1. 11s.6d in 1168115 before settling down
to a fixed sum of £1. 9s. 0d.116 With the establishment of the fair and the assignment
by John, as count of Mortmain, of its revenues to the hospital of St Leonard, located
                                                                                                                               177


to the east of Chesterfield, in 1171 a further £6-worth of tolls were collected. These
revenues they held until 1198 when a rent charge was assigned to them replacing the
revenues from this fair.117 Judging by changes in property rentals this first commercial
boom came to an end, however, in the commercial crisis associated with ‘the first
great bullion famine’ of 1195/1200-1215/25.118 Thereafter toll revenues again
increased, displaying a pattern of commercial activity, which would continue to be
played out during the remainder of the Middle Ages. 119 High toll revenues (£8.13s.4d
a year) once more seem to have been collected in the late thirteenth century before
they again collapsed in 1353-61 in the aftermath of the Black Death. They seem,
however, to have recovered rapidly after this set back, re-attaining their former level
by c. 1390. Thereafter, successive commercial crises, in 1392-1412 and 1455-63, in
reducing trade caused toll revenues again to fall, before there was a recovery, during
which, toll revenues once again increased establishing themselves once more on the
path to re-attaining their former level. This evidence would suggest, if no more than
tentatively, therefore that, save when subjected to severe external demographic-
commercial shocks in 1190-1225, 1353-61, 1392-1412 and 1455-63 commercial
activities and property values in this diminutive rural borough were maintained at
high levels.

                                                                     Figure 8.1.
      Toll (£) Rent: multiple of
            10    chief rent                           Commercial Tolls and Property Rents




            8




            6

                                                                                                   Toll of Fair Exalt. S C



            4

                                                                                   Toll Saturday
                                                                                       Market

                                          Property rental
            2                                                                                         Passage, stallage
                                                                                                       & toll of ferries




            0
                1150   1180        1210    1240     1270    1300   1330   1360   1390      1420    1450       1480      1510


     It is regrettable, that, due to inadequate source materials, the principal centres of
trade and manufactory in this northern part of the region under consideration (map
8.3, region B2) - York, Derby and Nottingham - cannot be incorporated into this
analysis. Yet, as at least one authority has pointed out120 some two-thirds of all
English boroughs were ‘seigniorial’ being under the rule of a lay or ecclesiastical lord,
like those described above, and they were small, their populations numbering in the
hundreds rather than thousands. Small in size, but large in numbers, these ‘small’
boroughs possibly included collectively, half of the ‘urban’ population of England.121
     It is with regret, but not too much concern, therefore, that the analysis of the
southern and western areas of this region (map 8.3, region B2) must continue, in part at
least, on the basis of the analysis of such relatively ‘small’ boroughs- Stratford-upon-
Avon (map 8.3, no.10) and Evesham (map 8.3, no.9). Yet here larger boroughs-
                                                                                        178


Worcester (map 8.3, no.11 and map 8.7), Bedford122 and Warwick123- can also be
investigated. Worcester, Bedford and Warwick had all been ‘burhs,’ information
available for Worcester providing a particularly fascinating picture of the nature of
such a settlement. It provides what might be called a ‘burh’s’ deed of foundation. It is
the record of the agreement made between c. 889 and 899 between on the one side
Ealdorman Æthelred and his wife Æthelflæd, and on the other side Bishop Wærferth
and the Church of Worcester. The agreement, approved by King Ælfred, concerns the
construction of the city’s new fortifications and the arrangements for regulating the
‘burh’s’ affairs. The building of the ‘burh’, for the protection of the people, is said to
have taken place at Wærferth’s request. Æthelred and Æthelflæd granted to the Church
of Worcester half of all their rights of lordship in the city. This involved their rights in
the market, ceapstowe, or the street, both within the fortification and without; and the
profits from the ‘burh’ in the form of land-rents and the proceeds of justice which
would all be shared equally with the bishop. The sharing of the rights of lordship in the
streets and market presumably referred to the tolls on trade, as well as the various
profits of justice that are named. What the Worcester ‘burh’ seems to have been at this
time is what the agreement says it is. It was a fortification built for the protection of the
folce or people. Worcester indeed looks like the traditional perception of the ‘burh’ as
emergency military centre and refuge.
     As elsewhere, however, the Worcester ‘burh’ underwent a fundamental functional
and topographical change, in this instance, probably dating from St. Oswald’s
appointment to the bishopric in 961. Both the area of the ‘burh’ and the northern part
of the Church’s own defended area were subjected, after the removal of substantial
stretches of the ramparts, at this time to a programme of ‘town’- planning. To layout
four large, primary plots on the eastern side of the High Street entailed the removal of
the eastern side of the ‘burh’s’ defences. These plots also pushed back into the ditch at
some time before eleventh- and early twelfth-century pottery types appeared – these
being present in pits cut into the ditch fill. The plots matched a similar series laid out
on the western side of the High Street, perhaps at the same time. At the southern end of
the High Street, north of the cathedral, a substantial stretch of the massive defences of
the old Roman City disappeared in an earth-moving operation so thorough that it left
no subsequent trace in the topography of the area. Streets and plots around the
churches of St Helen and St Alban, within what had been the old, pre-‘burh’ ‘city’,
were laid out at the same time as the new cathedral precinct was established. The line
of Lich Street formed the new boundary between the ecclesiastical quarter and the new
secular development. Within the bounds of this restructured Worcester ‘burh’ from the
end of the tenth century, the population consisted predominantly of the households of
mainly episcopal but also royal retainers. Here as at Warwick they resided in
concentrations or nuclei of activity whether social or economic, which were focussed
on building complexes comprising timber halls, yard area, pit area and cultivated land.
Such households may well have been provisioned from the owner’s rural estates, the
surplus from these estates – much of it at least – being delivered to them in the city for
the retainers and their familia to consume.
     Such topographical arrangements continued here, as at Bedford, until about the
middle of the twelfth century. On the eastern side of High Street (map 8.7, site no.8),
as has been suggested above, the pit areas of the aristocratic housing complexes
continued in use during the eleventh- and early twelfth-century. Broken pottery of that
period was disposed of in pits cut at that time into the ditch-fill, which formed a
component part of these properties. That aristocratic housing complex on the west side
of High Street, discovered during the Deansway excavations (map 8.7, sites nos. 1-2),
                                                                                      179


similarly disappeared in about the mid-twelfth century. There was constructed at some
time in the late twelfth- or early thirteenth century, on the cleared site, on specifically
north-south aligned house plots, rectangular stone buildings, gable-ended in relation to
the line of Broad street, which had been recently laid out at some time prior to 1196-
1203.124




Within the new city walls, built after Stephen’s wasting of the city in 1150, which were
approaching completion in c. 1200, moreover, similar developments took place in
intra-mural Sidbury (map 8.7, site no 12).125 Here, on a tenth-century haga which had
been granted at that time to an episcopal retainer, a defensive bank was built in c.
1150,126 enclosing an area upon which was constructed, on specifically delineated
house plots, small, rectangular timber buildings, gable-ended to the street. These were
the residences in the late-twelfth and early-thirteenth centuries of bone- and metal
working craftsmen. The four large, primary plots on the eastern side of the High Street
and the similar four large, primary plots on its western side, originally laid out in the
late tenth century, and Sidbury, which was external at that time to the ‘burh’s’
defences, were thus all subject to redevelopment in the late-twelfth and early-thirteenth
centuries. The pre-existing aristocratic housing complexes, which with their timber
halls, yard areas, pit areas and cultivated land, had occupied haga whose rents were
paid to the bishops or to such lay lords as had acquired such properties prior to the
                                                                                      180


Conquest, were displaced. What emerged here in their place was the normal building
pattern found within medieval towns- individual house plots arranged along both sides
of the street with buildings set on the street frontage and parallel or gable-ended to the
street. Elsewhere within the rather grandiose new city walls such development was,
however, in the late-twelfth and early thirteenth centuries slight. North of Broad Street,
excavations (map 8.7, site no. 7)127 revealed only a twelfth-century field which was not
developed until the mid-fourteenth century whilst eastward at Talbot Street (map 8.7,
site no. 9)128 a twelfth-century empty plot was only developed in the late thirteenth
century. Similarly at the southern end of the High Street, north of the cathedral, where
a substantial stretch of the massive defences of the old Roman city had disappeared in
an earth-moving operation of the late tenth century, excavations (map 8.7, sites nos.
10-11)129 have also revealed a complete absence of development before the mid-
fourteenth century. In c. 1200, within the thirty-two hectares of intramural Worcester,
therefore, much land remained unoccupied, whilst the old land rents collectable from
the haga therein now bore no resemblance to the real value of the properties which had
been newly built upon these plots. Accordingly during the years 1170-1240 successive
bishops disposed of these rents, whilst retaining those they held in the suburbs - St
John’s, the Tything, Lowesmoor, and extra-mural Sidbury- for which regrettably
neither documentary nor archaeological evidence is available to illuminate the
contemporaneous change in topographical structure.
     Unlike Worcester and Bedford, which could trace their descent as boroughs back
to Domesday Book and as ‘burhs’ back to at least the ninth century, Stratford-on-Avon
(map 8.3, no.10), like Evesham (map 8.3, no. 9) was a new creation of the twelfth
century. In 1086 Stratford was only a small rural settlement which, as in early Saxon
days, was situated close to the ‘streetford,’ where the Roman road crossed the Avon.
Both at the Conquest and in 1086 this rural property formed part of an estate held by
Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester, one of the few Saxon bishops who remained in office
under the new regime, and it continued to be held by his successors until the sixteenth
century. Almost a century after Domesday Book, in 1182, a survey undertaken for the
then Bishop of Worcester, reveals a somewhat larger but broadly similar rural
settlement here. Then, within a few years of this survey striking developments took
place. John de Coutances, Bishop of Worcester from 1196 to 1198 had not been in
office long when he determined to establish a new borough. On the 25th of January
1196 he obtained from the king a charter for a weekly Thursday market. Thereby he
secured for himself the right to hold a market and to take for himself the profits
accruing from it, such as rents for stalls and pitches, tolls on goods bought and sold and
dues for the use of standard measures. With his market rights secured, the Bishop
formally created his borough. He laid it out in uniform building plots, or ‘burgages’,
each c. 57½ metres (=200 feet) long by 17¼ (=60 feet) wide, to be held in burgage
tenure at a money rent of one shilling a year and suit at the court of the borough at the
three lawmoots or whenever required. Over the next half century, 1196-1251/2, the
new borough, which in the interval in 1214 had secured the right to hold a fair at the
feast of the Holy Trinity, prospered. It attracted significant numbers of settlers, most of
who came from within a 26 km-radius of the new borough to form a community of
craftsmen and traders. Most prominent amongst the craftsmen were those engaged in
the clothing trades- those concerned with leather-working and woollen-cloth
manufactory. Six, of the 64 whose craft may be identified in a total burgess population
numbering 234, were tanners. While some of these appear to be wealthy men, like
Richard le Tanur who held four burgages, two half-burgages and a piece of land, some
were of far more modest means holding only a half or quarter burgage. Another two
                                                                                     181


are described as shoe makers and there was one parmentarius, a worker of skins. Two
men described as weavers; two as fullers and three as dyers represent cloth making.
There were also three tailors. Thus Stratford could supply all types of clothing,
including gloves and shoes. Different kinds of metalworking are indicated by the
presence of three ‘white smiths’ (albus faber), two smiths and one locksmith. Wood
working and building is represented by one carpenter, three tilers, four coopers and a
wheelwright. There were also oil-makers, possibly using nuts from the bishop’s woods,
and a rope maker. Finally a butcher, baker and cook as well as two millers represented
the food trades. There is also mention of two ovens for which rents of one shilling and
one shilling and six pence were paid. The mills were in the manor rather than the
borough and instead of the one in use in 1182 there were now, in 1251, four including
one fulling-mill, which were collectively farmed out for £13. 6s. 8d. Traders and
craftsmen inhabited the new borough and utilised the fourteen shops (soldae) and ten
stalls (stalla), largely located along Bridge Street, which were provided by the lord, for
the burgesses or outside folk to display their wares. Thus within half a century of its
creation in 1196 a new and vigorous community had developed at Stratford, recruited
from the surrounding countryside, for which it provided goods and services and a
convenient market centre.

Building on the foundations lain down during the years c. 1040-1140, the inhabitants
of eastern England had during the subsequent years c.1140-1208/14 and 1225-40
transformed the region (map 8.3, regions A1, A/B1) into the most productive and
highly commercialized part of the realm. During this latter economic-cycle moreover,
these lands were encircled on all but their southern side by territories (map 8.3, region
B2), which were undergoing a similar transformation. By 1208/14 this latter region
(map 8.3, region B2) had also developed an extensive but less dense pattern of market
networks.130 Just beyond the boundaries of this new ‘advanced’ core region (map 8.3,
regions A1, A/B1 and B2), moreover, there was established a circle of new or re-
modelled fairs- Westminster, Winchester and Hereford.131 Through these fairs the
high-productivity manufactories of this extended and more ‘advanced’ core region
could ‘export’ their low-priced wares to the more ‘backward’ areas of the domestic
economy (map 8.3, regions C1-4), from which manufacturers could also ‘import’ the
raw materials they required. Existing fairs - at Boston, Lynn, Stow, St Ives and
Northampton132- also prospered during the years, c.1140-1208/14 as through the first
two ports-fairs they became integrated into another- international- market system,133
within which the English fairs lay on the ‘periphery.’ Clothiers and other producers
of wares, operating at these fairs, continued, during the years, c. 1158-98, to conduct
business in much the same manner, as had their predecessors. They arrived on the
opening day of the fair, with their stock in trade, after a short journey of a few days.
Immediately, during the ‘entry’ days assigned for the task, they set up shop, quite
literally, and got themselves and their wares ready to do business. As the schedule of
the fair progressed they sold the cloth or other wares that they had brought and
acquired raw materials for their businesses; then, in the last period of the fair, they
settled their accounts and attempted to balance their books. If such clothiers or other
commodity producers had been lucky and had disposed of all their wares they
probably now returned home with such raw materials as they had been able to acquire
and perhaps cash in hand. Sometimes they were not so fortunate, perhaps because
they had not sold all of their produce or because they were unable to acquire the raw
materials they required, due to a lack of cash or their unavailability. In such
circumstances they might commence on a journey to the next fair or return home
                                                                                       182


dejected. Their fortunes, however, were dependent on their position as ‘price-takers’
at these fairs, the terms on which they traded being set by the foreign merchants who
bought their cloth and other wares at the fair or sold them raw materials.

III. THE LANDS ON THE ‘PERIPHERY’ (REGIONS C1-4) IN C.1140-1208/14. Only
following the ‘crisis’ of 1195-1208/14,134 during the subsequent years c. 1215/25-40,
was the economic-cycle of c.1140-1208/14 finally completed and new forms of urban
society began to emerge in the southern, western and northern lands on the
‘periphery’ of the twelfth-century ‘advanced’ economic-‘core.’ A considerable body
of both archaeological and documentary evidence exists illustrating this process of
thirteenth-century change, which will be discussed in a later chapter,135 in relation to
these four main regions (map 8.3, regions C1-4). For the moment, however, these
regions will be considered, only in relation to their position at the end of the twelfth
century when economic activity and social forms, though cloaked by Scottish and
English kings in feudal ciphers and formulae, continued to conform to ‘Dark Age’
organisational forms. These were still in c. 1200 lands wherein the ‘multiple estate’
and ‘burh’ continued to provide the foci for economic and social activity and trade,
still linked into the commercial systems of the ‘Irish Sea Province’, 136 remained
encompassed with a ‘portus-system’. The situation in Scotland and the northern
British lands, which passed back into English hands in 1157 (map 8.3, region C4), has
already been discussed.137
      To the west of the ‘core’ in c. 1200 lay the largest and perhaps most ‘backward’
region (map 8.3, region C3), embracing lands in the West of England, Wales and
Ireland. In Wales138 and Ireland139 the establishment of settlements of borough-status,
during the years, c.1140-1208/14 was closely related to English martial activity
therein. In particular, in relation to Ireland, the Norman invasion which began in 1169
initiated a period of borough foundation and reconstruction which in its temporal
concentration and spatial characteristics was unequalled in the settlement history of
the island. This is not to say that prior to Henry II’s invasion, Ireland lacked centres of
trade and manufactory. The existence of Hiberno-Norse trading posts, including
Dublin,140 Wexford, Waterford, Limerick and Cork,141 provides evidence of
commercial activity. As elsewhere in the more ‘backward’ areas of the British Isles
and Ireland, however, whilst these centres of commercial activity continued during
the years, c. 1040-1169 to provide a focus for a diminutive level of international trade
they did so within a ‘portus-system.’ Indeed, as has been suggested above, such
jurisdictional and commercial arrangements continued to be sufficiently familiar to
thirteenth-century Irishmen, living beyond the Pale, that they understood fully the
story in the Laxdaela Saga,142 which tells of the return thence of the Olaf, son of an
Irish slave princess. His companion, Orn says “I don’t think we have landed at a good
place, for this is far from the harbours and market towns, where foreigners are
supposed to have safe-conduct, and here we are left high and dry like sticklebacks on
a beach. I think I’m right in saying that under an Irish law they can confiscate all our
goods,143 for they claim everything as flotsam even when the sea has ebbed less from
a ship than it has here.” In these Hiberno-Norse trading posts manufactory also
continued in the eleventh century at least, although perhaps only because of low
labour costs. Shoe making remained important at Dublin, together with comb-making
and the fashioning of gaming pieces144 – and Irish cloth continued to be exported to
Scotland and England at least until the early twelfth century. Elsewhere, the principal
pre-Norman monasteries, often assuming the form of a fortified ‘burh,’ also acted as
centres of non-primary production and exchange.145 The Norman invasion of 1169
                                                                                    183


only resulted in the English king’s cloaking of these ‘Dark Age’ organisational forms
in feudal ciphers and formulae, whilst leaving their functional identity largely intact.
The coastal ports of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Limerick and Cork, once captured,
acted as bridgeheads for Norman expansion and were the first settlements to secure
borough charters, but both topographically and commercially in the twelfth century
they retained their earlier form. The re-organisation of the Irish Church in the twelfth
century and the introduction of a territorial diocesan hierarchy after the Synods of
Rathbreisail in 1111 and Kells in 1152 had led to the establishment of a number of
cathedral churches, many of which continued long monastic associations at their
respective locations. About forty-one cathedrals were in existence in 1170, of which
about fifteen were outside the area of Norman control, and within a century
seventeen, nearly all of which were associated with principal pre-Norman monasteries
became the locations of boroughs. In these instances, therefore, old ‘Irish’
organisational forms merely assumed new ‘Norman’ names. These settlements,
however, only constituted a small, although important, portion of the 174 identifiable
boroughs established between 1170 and c. 1300 in Ireland. Some of the boroughs
within the large residual group existed only on paper. What have been called ‘rural-
boroughs’ possessed burgage tenures but were entirely agricultural in character and
assumed this form in order to attract settlers by offering them this form of free
tenure.146
     Most boroughs within this large, residual group were created, however, in
connection with the new ‘Norman’ land settlement within the island.147 The initial
step taken by the English king in relation to this settlement was the allocation of land
to several major grantees, a process particularly characteristic of eastern Ireland. The
two outstanding examples were Henry II’s grant of the Liberty of Meath to Hugh de
Lacy and the even larger grant of much of Leinster to Richard de Clare, Earl of
Pembroke. The magnates further sub-divided their grants, sub-infeudating lands
amongst various tenants, whilst retaining significant areas for themselves as
seigniorial manors. The sub-infeudated areas were often very large. When the eastern
area of the Liberty of Meath was so sub-infeudated, c. 1174-5, seven of the principal
grants were equivalent to a future barony in extent, de Lacy retaining about one-
quarter of the area as seigniorial manors.148 In Uriel (present-day Louth) and northern
Munster, the Crown, without the preliminary major territorial land grant to a single
magnate, directly parcelled out the land to tenants. Once again substantial areas were
involved. A grant to one Theobald Walter involved the entire northern half of present-
day Tipperary. In addition considerable areas were given to the Church or, as in the
case of the Vale of Dublin, were retained by the Crown. Very little direct evidence
has survived as to the dating and formation of manors, but a tentative reconstruction
in two principal land grants - Skreen and Deece- within the Liberty of Meath,
suggests that by the end of the twelfth century these two areas had been subdivided
into approximately sixteen manors.149 It was in these areas - Meath, Uriel, Leinster
and northern Munster - which were settled thoroughly and early in the ‘Norman’
diffusion and which represented the heartland of the English lands within the Pale,
that the large, residual group of boroughs was created during the years 1170 and c.
1300.
     An examination of the estates here reveals something of the process. 150 Within
Hugh de Lacy’s Liberty of Meath a motte-and-bailey was constructed on each
seigniorial manor, the sites chosen for these castles often having long ecclesiastic
associations. Both Kells and Trim, two of the most important pre-conquest monastic
sites, became boroughs in 1194 and 1199 respectively.151 In 1194 also a further
                                                                                   184


seigniorial borough was created at Drogheda, which had no monastic association but
was the lowest bridging point on the then-navigable River Boyne.152 It was not,
however, until the commencement of the third economic-cycle of 1225/40-1340 that
these Irish lands, like others within the ‘peripheral’ region C3, became subject to a
widespread intensification of economic activity, which resulted in the creation of new
boroughs and market networks. From 1217/25-1230 the settlements involved were
either capite baroniae, like Nobber or Dunboyn, or manorial boroughs, like New
Town Trim153 or Greenoge.154 This process of manorial borough creation continued
until 1250, but when at that time a sub-tenant of one of de Lacy’s sub-tenants granted
a charter to Sydden,155 his act, like that of many English contemporaries, lacked
substance, the settlement remaining little more than a manorial village with a
grandiose title. Within the Lordship of Leinster the principal seigniorial manor was
the port of Wexford, one of the Hiberno-Norse trading posts which acted as
bridgeheads for the ‘Norman’ invasion which obtained a borough charter in 1172.156
At the turn of the century, 1200-1216, the seigniorial borough of Kilkenny, the centre
of the Diocese of Ossory, was established on the then-navigable river Nore157 as was
Leighlin, another pre-conquest diocesan centre at a crossing point of the then-
navigable river Barrow and Kells-in-Ossory.158 Once again, however, it was not until
the commencement of the third economic-cycle of 1225/40-1340 that these Irish lands
became subject to a widespread intensification of economic activity, which resulted in
the creation of new boroughs and market networks. During the years 1217/25-30
additional boroughs were created, including Callan (Co. Kilkenny), Moone (Co.
Kildare), Carlow and Inistiogue (Co. Kilkenny)159 but it was not until c. 1245 that
manorial boroughs, like Aghour, Clonmour and Derevald, began to be chartered.160 In
North Munster, as has been suggested above, John directly parcelled out the area in c.
1190. As in Leinster, it was the port of Limerick, one of the Hiberno-Norse trading
posts, which first obtained a borough charter in 1197.161 Yet, as in Meath and
Leinster, it was not until the commencement of the third economic-cycle of 1225/40-
1340 that North Munster became subject to a widespread intensification of economic
activity, which resulted in the creation of new boroughs and market networks. The
first indication of these changes is provided by grants of market rights, the first, of
which was made in 1217 to Emly (Co. Tipperary), which, had been one of the most
important pre-conquest monastic sites in Munster. This was followed by further grants
to Athassel (Co. Tipperary) and Mungrett (County Limerick) in 1224, Clonmell (Co.
Tipperary) in 1225, Knockany (Co. Limerick) in 1226 and Cashel (Co. Tipperary) in
1228.162 Athassel and Clonmell were part of a chain of Norman settlements located
along the then-navigable River Suir. Mungrett was a pre-existing monastic site and
Cashel was the pre-conquest seat of the Kings of Munster and the centre of an
archbishopric. It became in 1230 the first of these settlements to become a borough.163
During the last quarter of the twelfth century, therefore, old ‘Irish’ organisational
forms maintained their pre-conquest functional identity merely assuming new
‘Norman’ names. It was not until the commencement of the third economic-cycle of
1225/40-1340 that the Irish lands, like others within the ‘peripheral’ region C3,
became subject to a widespread intensification of economic activity, which resulted in
the creation of new boroughs and market networks.
     Such was also the case in the West of England. Here both Gloucester and
Hereford (map 8.3, nos. 17-8) had been Mercian ‘burhs.’ Gloucester (map 8.3, no.17
and map 8.8) already during the ninth century existed as a constituent part of an
important royal villa- complex, which was to remain a major centre of royal authority
in the area until the thirteenth century. The caput of this great ‘multiple estate’ was
                                                                                     185


not, however, located at Gloucester. The villa regalis was probably situated at
Kingholm (King’s Barton), which lay to the east, emphatically outside the ancient
Roman walls that still dominated the settlement at Gloucester.164 Within these Roman
walls, excavations (map 8.8 sites nos.1, 5 and 8)165 have revealed at this time a
relative scarcity of occupational debris amongst thick deposits of animal manure and
other organic matter dated from the seventh century onward. A regular pattern of
major cattle markets and fairs rather than the day-to-day activities of a settled
population are thus suggested. The intra-mural area remained largely open ground at
that time. The ninth-century church of St Mary (map 8.8, site no. 2), a timber-framed
structure on stone footings built within and incorporating elements of the remains of a
fifth-century ‘mausoleum,’ was situated without the walls and existed as the solitary
edifice of the ‘city’.
     In this form intramural Gloucester served as a suitable refuge in which the Danish
army could over-winter in 877-8. Its attraction to the invader lay not only in its
Roman walls but also in the availability within of enough space to accommodate a
bivouacking army. As well as the need to erect temporary shelters or booths, there
would have been winter-stores and booty- including large numbers of animals- for
which room had to be found. The only major building - the church of St Mary- and its
archives were looted.




      With the defeat of the Danes in 878 a fateful decision was made in relation to this
devastated site, which would shape its development for the next quarter of a
millennium – the creation of the Mercian ‘burh’- a relatively simple task involving
little more than repairs to the Roman walls and gates which already defended a large
area. Within this area a new street-grid was laid out centred on Northgate- and
Southgate Streets. Beyond the bounds of this defended area, the Ealdorman Æthelred
and Æthelflæd, founded a new church - the New Minster- and in 909 the relics of St.
                                                                                        186


Oswald were brought into Mercia from Bardney in Lincolnshire, and laid to rest in a
mausoleum-like chapel and crypt constructed at about this time at the church’s east
end. The two principal foci of life in Gloucester – the secular ‘burh’ and ecclesiastic
Minster - had, in the short space of twenty-five years, been created. For the next three
hundred years- c 900- c 1200 - they would dominate the topographical evolution of
the city.
     Founded by the Mercian Ealdorman Æthelred and Æthelflæd, as a Minster church
before c. 900, St Oswald’s (map 8.8, site no. 14) was the primary focus of
Gloucester’s religious life until the late eleventh century. It again occupied a low-
lying, extra-mural site immediately to the north of the rebuilt St Mary’s, its precinct
being bounded by a water-filled early medieval ditch, following the curved line of
present-day St Mary’s Street on the north and by one or other of the channels of the
Fulbrook on the south. Its parish was principally rural and lay without the ‘burh’
defences, including a suburban element, which embraced the Hare Lane-
Wateringstead lands towards the royal villa and chapel of Kingsholm. None of its
properties paid landgable to the Crown and several tenants of land within the parish
paid chief-rents to St Oswald’s. The boundaries of the parish thus appear to follow
those of the land that was given to the New Minster at its foundation. Such was the
extensive estate of Gloucester’s principal church at least until the late eleventh
century when in 1070 it suffered a severe and as it turned out irreversible decline in
status when it lost most of its lands to the archbishopric of York. By the end of the
eleventh century the New Minster, the church of St Oswald now subject to the
archbishops of York, had fallen upon hard times. It had lost most of its temporal
possessions and subsequently after the Minster’s reform as a house of Augustinian
canons in 1153 the archbishops exercised directly their right to appoint successive
priors. The eclipse of St Oswald’s was final and thereafter it remained a minor
religious house. St Peter’s took its place in the hierarchy of Gloucester’s churches.
The existing diminutive Minster had been reformed as a house of Benedictine monks
in 1022 and in 1058 a new church of St Peter had been consecrated. Its ascendancy
began with the appointment of the forceful Serlo as abbot in 1072. A measure of its
previous neglect was the discovery, on his arrival, of only two monks and eight
novices. When he died in 1104 there were sixty monks and a new church- on which
building had begun in 1089- which had been consecrated in 1100. This now became
the primary ecclesiastic focus of the city and one, which left a major topographically
imprint on it. Perhaps as early as the re-siting and rebuilding of the Minster church in
1058, construction work had necessitated the removal of a section of the Roman west
wall. The building of a precinct wall took place between 1104 and 1113, the
construction of the church-complex and precinct wall necessitating the acquisition of
extra lands from St Oswald’s, in 1104-1113 on the north side of the precinct and in
1218 involving land north of the new abbey’s refectory. By the latter date the precinct
enclosed an area, which was some four-times greater than either of its predecessors-
St Mary’s (map 8.8, site no.2) and St Oswald’s (map 8.8, site no. 14). It had by 1218
certainly left a definitive imprint on the landscape of Gloucester.
     The mid-eleventh century also witnessed equally fundamental changes in the
nature of the ‘burh’. Until this time the new buildings of the ‘burh’ had remained
largely confined within the refurbished Roman walls. Within these Roman walls,
those thick deposits of animal manure and other organic matter, which, as has been
shown, had overlain the successor-forum from the seventh century onward, began to
be built upon (map 8.8, sites nos. 1, 5, 8), at the time of the creation of the ‘burh’ in c.
900. It was probably about this time or slightly later that houses began to be
                                                                                      187


constructed on both the eastern (map 8.8, site no. 9) and western sides of Southgate
Street.166 It was not, however, until the late eleventh century that the focus of new
construction work began to shift westward, extensive excavations at present-day
Berkeley Street (map 8.8, sites nos. 6-7) revealing the construction of new housing-
involving work which again necessitated the demolition and levelling of a section of
the West Roman wall. Clearly at some time about the mid-eleventh century the
defensive arrangements of the old ‘burh’ were regarded as superfluous. The reason is
not hard to find- the construction at this time of the first ‘Norman’ castle, a
rectangular bailey with a motte in the Northwest corner built on a slight natural knoll
just within the Roman West wall.167 To construct the castle some 16-24 houses were
demolished, possibly like that building excavated within the castle bailey, which
housed a farrier’s workshop that dated from the late tenth or early eleventh century
before its demolition for the castle.168 With the new precinct of St Peters, this castle
dominated Gloucester during the twelfth century until it was replaced by a new royal
castle in the early thirteenth century, built to the west of it, without the Roman walls.
     These two institutions – the royal castle and ecclesiastic Minster- dominated life in
twelfth-century Gloucester. Within the bounds of the restructured settlement from the
tenth- until the beginning of the thirteenth century, the population consisted
predominantly of the households of episcopal and royal retainers. Here as elsewhere
they resided in concentrations or nuclei of activity whether social or economic, which
were focussed on building complexes comprising timber hall, Grubenhaüer which
were often used for manufactory, yard area, and pit area. Multi-elemental examples of
such building complexes (map 8.8, sites nos. 5-7, 24) or single component elements of
them (map 8.8, sites nos. 8-9, 19) have been excavated all over the built-up area of the
city. As at the end of the eleventh- and in the twelfth century both its secular and
ecclesiastic institutions grew politically in importance, moreover, the built-up area was
extended. New building complexes were constructed at that time on land about the
magnum aulam domini regis- the great hall of the lord king- beyond the demolished
West Roman wall (map. 8.8, sites nos. 10-12), against the southern wall of St Peter’s
precinct (map 8.8, site no.4) and south of St Marys (map 8.8, site no.13). Such
households from the tenth- until the beginning of the thirteenth century may well have
been provisioned from the owner’s rural estates, the surplus from these estates – much
of it at least – being delivered to them in the city for the retainers and their familia to
consume.
     As elsewhere in region C3, Gloucester, like Hereford was located in the twelfth
century in a landscape characterised by a very low level of market facilities.169 It was
not until the commencement of the third economic-cycle of 1225/40-1340 that the
West of England, like other areas within the ‘peripheral’ region C3, became subject to
a widespread intensification of economic activity, which resulted in the creation of
new boroughs and market networks.

The search for a capital city: Winchester (map 8.3, no.14) and London (map 8.3, no.
20). Setting to one side for future consideration that anomalous Essex-Suffolk
enclave (map 8.3, region C1) this study of the twelfth-century market situation in the
lands on the ‘periphery’ (map 8.3, region C1-4) may be brought to a conclusion by an
investigation of conditions in the Itchin-Avon Basin (map 8.3, region C2). Here as
elsewhere in the twelfth-century lands on the ‘periphery,’ ‘urban’ settlements like
‘Old Sarum’ (map 8.3, no. 16170) retained their ‘Dark Age’ forms until c. 1226. In the
Anglo-Saxon period, this Iron-Age hill fort was the site of the ‘burh’ of Salisbury,
held by the bishops of Wiltshire who also held estates known as ‘Old Salisburys’
                                                                                      188


(veteres Sarisberias) by the river Avon. Shortly after the Conquest it became the site
of a royal castle, the Normans throwing up a ring work in the centre of the area
enclosed by the ramparts. In 1078, the see of Ramsbury, Wiltshire and Sherborne,
Dorset was transferred here and Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury (1078-99) constructed a
cathedral in the Northwest quadrant of the land within the ramparts. Throughout the
next century and a half these two institutions– the royal castle and the ecclesiastic
Minster- dominated life in ‘Old Sarum’. They restricted the housing stock of the
borough to some, two-and-a half hectares extending across the Southwest quadrant of
the hill fort. In 1101x1118, Queen Matilda, granted all her right of toll, which had
previously belonged to the farm of Wilton to the church of St Mary of Salisbury, to be
applied at its prescriptive market within this diminutive borough of ‘Old Sarum.’171
Both the market and the grant of the toll are again referred to in 1130. 172 There was
also a prescriptive fair held by the bishop on the vigil of the feast of Peter in Cathedra
(22 February) on a site next to the castle of Salisbury. In 1212, 6s. 9½d of revenues
were collected from this fair.173 Such was the commercial and residential character of
‘Old Sarum’ in the twelfth century, a tiny seigniorial borough subject to acute
overcrowding. As early as the late eleventh century the then bishop, Osmund was
forced to create extra accommodation “before the castle gate of Salisbury” laying out
“land on each side of the road for the requirements of Canon’s gardens and
dwellings.”174 More than a century later, in 1217, when plans were already in hand to
transfer the Cathedral to nearby ‘New Salisbury,’ a Papal bull stated that the
Cathedral clergy did not have enough houses within the existing precinct and were
consequently obliged to rent from soldiers, houses located within the castle bailey. A
subsequent Bull issued in the next year, 1218, refers to the renting of houses of
laymen, burgesses as well as the military occupants of the castle. Such houses were,
however, hard to come by and many of the clergy found the rents prohibitive. As the
commencement of the third economic-cycle of 1225/40-1340 brought to the lands of
the Itchin-Avon Basin that widespread intensification of economic activity observable
in the other areas within the ‘peripheral’ region (map 8.3, C1-4), the old ‘Dark Age’
institutional forms of ‘urban’ life, which had persisted through the twelfth century,
were no longer viable. From 1219, Richard Poore, bishop of Salisbury, resolved the
problem, establishing a new ‘town’ and cathedral at ‘New Salisbury’, moving down
from his cathedral and borough on the nearby hill. Here, as elsewhere, in the lands of
the Itchin-Avon Basin region (map 8.3, C2), however, until 1208/14 the old forms
remained.

(A) WINCHESTER (MAP 8.3, No.14). Paradoxically, however, in this ‘backward’ area of
twelfth-century England was located the greatest fair in the kingdom- the bishop of
Winchester’s fair of St. Giles, which yielded him in 1189 an astonishing total of
£146175- and Winchester’s outport- Southampton- which in 1203/4 was the third most
important port of the realm, with an annual trade turnover of some £10,607. From the
establishment of the ‘burh’ by Ælfred in c. 880/6 Winchester (map 8.3, no.14 and map
8.9) was an important royal centre. Whilst the Wessex and subsequently English court
continued to pursue a peripatetic course, however, locally it was only one of a number
of such centres- Worthy, King’s Sombourne, Andover- all of which contributed to the
maintenance of the king and his household, either in kind or according to a standard
monetary render in the early eleventh century. King Edward in the mid eleventh
century, probably maintained a treasury in Winchester, but no more than two royal
officials, the treasurer and king’s cook, can be identified as resident in the ‘burh’ at
this time. It is possible that a permanent and specifically royal, administrative
                                                                                      189


establishment was developing in the city under the last of the Anglo-Saxon kings. If
so, this was a development, which continued with an astonishing rapidity following
the Conquest. Within two months of city’s surrender its Southwest corner was
embanked to form the site of a new castle which by 1072 contained at least one stone
structure, a richly appointed chapel, which was deemed a sufficient setting for the
important Easter council of that year. The enlargement of the Anglo-Saxon royal
palace in the centre of the city to something like double its former size took place c.
1070. The city thus benefited almost immediately after the Conquest from a massive
public-works programme, which was to continue unabated for the next fifty or sixty
years. The enlargement of the royal palace, and the construction of a new hall and
accompanying buildings, was rapidly followed by the rebuilding of the cathedral (map
8.9, sites 2-4, 7). By the second decade of the twelfth century, as the latter building
was approaching completion, further works were already in progress, the building of
Hyde Abbey without the city’s bounds, the reconstruction of Nunnaminster and the
rebuilding of the bishop’s palace at Wolvsey (map 8.9, site 5). The reconstruction of
the palace and cathedral was intended to demonstrate the success and finality of the
Norman acquisition of the Anglo-Saxon State, and in particular the annexation of its
‘capital.’ Here was the king’s principal residence. Winchester also was the principal
repository of the king’s treasure, now evolving into a working department, whilst
sessions of the Exchequer began to be regularly held here soon after the beginning of
the twelfth century. Here, also, these changes were symbolised by the Norman kings’
continuation of their predecessors’ practice of wearing their crown at Easter, the most
important feast of the Christian year. Under the first two Norman kings, therefore,
Winchester had begun to assume the characteristics of a ‘capital’ city. The death in
the New Forest and burial at the Cathedral of William II in 1100, however, marked
the beginning of the end of this phase in the city’s development. During the first
decade of the twelfth century the custom of the royal court in celebrating Easter at
Winchester was broken and by the end of Henry I’s reign the castle seems to have
replaced the royal palace, not only as the repository of treasure, but also as the king’s
residence in the city. Henceforth, the castle strengthened and remodelled from the
beginning of the twelfth century was to be the sole royal house in Winchester (map
8.9, site 1). By the second half of that century there existed within its walls that whole
complex of halls, chambers and chapels which constituted a royal palace. Winchester
remained moreover the seat of the financial administration of the kingdom until at
least the 1180s. Royal officials, accordingly continued to form one of the wealthiest
and distinctive groups of property owners in the city, but were by the 1180s a far less
numerous body than in c. 1110.
     Whilst during the twelfth century Winchester was declining to the status of an
important but no longer exceptional royal residence, however, the position of the
Church therein was increasing. From the ‘burh’s’ inception the Church had held an
important position within the city, and from the reform of Winchester’s monasteries
in 964 all- the priory of Old Minster, the abbey of New Minster founded in 901 and
the Nunnaminster- were enclosed within a distinct and discrete precinct.176 The
ground immediately adjacent to the monasteries was cleared of houses and the whole
area walled or fenced. The buildings of all three Minsters were reconstructed and
enlarged during the latter part of the tenth century and as a result of the reform of the
Old Minster, a separate residence for the bishop was provided in the south-eastern
corner of the walled city. The ecclesiastic presence in the ‘burh’ at this time was
probably more important than the royal one. Indeed a number of essentially royal
responsibilities in this ‘capital’ of the kings of Wessex- reception of important visitors
                                                                                    190


from abroad, local defence, relief from the ravages of attack and perhaps the
maintenance of the royal residence- were specifically deputed to the more
institutionalised and less peripatetic ecclesiastic authorities. There was in addition a
close topographical association between the royal residence and the cathedral church
of Old Minster. The west end of the Minster, directly opposite the palace seems in the
late tenth century have been specially designed to accommodate the monarch on
ceremonial occasions. Old Minster and New Minster, with their tombs of kings and
relics of saints, enshrined the heart of the old English kingdom. And so it remained
until the Norman Conquest when, as has been suggested above, the reconstruction of
the palace and cathedral was utilised by the new rulers to demonstrate the success and
finality of the Norman acquisition of the Anglo-Saxon State, and in particular the
annexation of its ‘capital’ - a city of some 1,130 tenements and perhaps 4,000-5,500
people.




When from the second decade of the twelfth century there was a gradual weakening
of the relationship between the king and the city, however, the position of the bishop
of Winchester was enhanced, with major topographical implications. The completion
of the Norman Cathedral and its monastic buildings, (map 8.9, sites 3 & 7) possibly
before the end of bishop William Gifford’s episcopate (1100-1129) was accompanied
by the acquisition of an extensive area to the north of the church, following the move
of the New Minster to Hyde in 1110. This process was completed after the destruction
of the royal palace in the 1140s. Simultaneously, the bishop’s palace at Wolvesey
                                                                                    191


(map.8.9, site 5) was transformed. Bishop Gifford added an enormous stone hall to
the existing late Anglo-Saxon complex in c. 1110. Intended as a residential block and
incorporating a new chapel, this hall transformed the existing building into a veritable
‘palace.’ It was under Gifford’s successor, Henry de Bois (1129-71), however, that
the authority, wealth and patronage of the bishop balanced the departure of the king.
In addition to the power de Bois wielded by virtue of ecclesiastical offices and
personal wealth he exercised during his brother’s reign a major political and
administrative authority over the counties within his diocese, and in Winchester
occupied an almost regal position. The remodelling of the bishop’s palace of
Wolvesey reflected this, with the construction of a magnificent hall, intended for
public functions, and the elaboration by stages of its separate structures into a
compact but enormous ‘palace’ of court-yard plan. As elsewhere, on the ‘periphery’,
but on a much more massive scale – the royal castle and Cathedral- dominated life in
twelfth-century Winchester.
     The political establishment of the ‘capital’ city- officials of the royal household
and administration, barons and magnates, i.e. bishops, abbots and earls, the latter two
groups, acquiring hospices where they could reside during visits to the ‘capital’- made
up about a third of the identifiable property-owning population of Winchester. The
ecclesiastical establishment, even excluding the bishops and other ecclesiastical
magnates – comprising archdeacons, priests, clerks and chaplains- constituted the
other great group of property owners in the city, holding about a fifth of such
tenements. There were in addition, at least in the mid-eleventh century, tenements,
ranging from a single house (domus) to eight or nine haga in size, which were
administered as part of the rural estate to which they were attached. The owners of
these Hampshire estates and their familia, as elsewhere, probably on occasion took up
residence in that ‘urban house’, which was little more than a spatially distant
extension of the rural villa from which they had departed. From this ‘house’ they were
able to conduct their political, administrative and business affairs. With the massive
growth of both secular and ecclesiastic establishments during the years, c. 1070- c.
1140, however, these latter dependent properties seem to have become subject to the
operations of the ‘urban’ land market, their owners becoming assimilated into the
group of ‘private’ property-owners, amongst whom local interests were a prime
characteristic. As a ‘capital’ city, Winchester was very different from other boroughs,
‘new’ or ‘old’. The presence of a massive, by contemporary standards, secular and
religious bureaucratic population, whose incomes were paid by the Royal and
Episcopal Exchequers, and who often lacked local rural estates, created an equally
massive consumer demand which tended to shape both the topographical form of the
city and economic activity therein.
     Their demands were partly met through the bishops’ fair. In 1096 William II had
granted to St Peter the Old Minster, Walchelin the bishop and the monks a fair of
three days in September at the church of St Giles on the eastern hill of Winchester. In
1110 Henry I extended the period to eight days, whilst Stephen granted six more days
in 1136. In 1155 Henry II, ignoring Stephen’s grant doubled the period allowed by his
grandfather. During the sixteen days of the fair the bishop’s jurisdiction on St Giles’s
hill, in the city and for seven leagues thereabouts was absolute. In the thirteenth
century merchants descended from the hill with their goods after the sixteenth day and
continued the fair in the city for the rest of September. Thanks to the demands of a
large and rich group of consumers in Winchester activity at the fair was brisk. By the
reign of Richard I it was nearing a peak, yielding the bishop in 1189 an astonishing
total of £146.177 In the early thirteenth century it achieved that peak, the bishop’s
                                                                                      192


revenues rising to £162-163 a year in 1238-39 and 1250, before entering on a phase
of relentless and irreversible decline.178 In the mid-twelfth century a group of
Christian merchant-moneyers, analogous to those contemporaneously active in
London,179 that included in its ranks the great financier William Cade who maintained
a house in the city in 1148,180 provided one of the principal elements in the
Winchester representatives amongst the dealers at the fair. Another group, as at
London, were Jewish traders and money lenders, two of whom had already
established themselves in Scowrtenestret (later known as Jewry Street) in 1148, laying
the foundations of that large and wealthy Jewish community which established itself
in the city by the century’s end.
     As from c. 1070- c. 1140 Winchester experienced that massive growth of both
secular and ecclesiastic establishments in the city, moreover, problems of over-
crowding began to emerge, which engendered major topographical changes, often
linked to how the vastly enlarged population would provision itself. By the latter date,
as has been suggested above, there still remained a few relics of a bygone age, those
concentrations or nuclei of activity whether social or economic, which here as in other
‘burh’, focussed on building complexes comprising residential halls with yard- and pit
areas, within which the landlords exercised a private- sake and soke- jurisdiction. One
such praedium or haga, later known as Goodbegot, measured 38 metres along High
Street and 43 metres north to south and contained as well as residential property, a
church, shambles and subsidiary dwellings.181 Private jurisdictions of this type,
however, were probably already disappearing as the twelfth century dawned and by
mid-century there would have been little physical evidence of the earlier layout of
such tenements. By the 1140s they had been almost completely displaced by
residential buildings, newly constructed on specifically delineated house plots with
frontages of about seven metres respecting the line of the street. Most of these houses
were timber-built, two-storey structures and were set either parallel or at a right angle
to the street. Extensive excavations at present-day Brook Street (map 8.9, site 6) in
1961-1967 revealed this new form of housing constructed in the late eleventh- and
early twelfth centuries. The houses parallel to the street, measured some seven metres
or slightly less in length and were shorter than the gable-ended houses that were ten to
eleven metres long.182 The houses lying parallel were set back some two and a half
metres from the street frontage and the intervening space was occupied by subsidiary
single-storey buildings, which in Tannerestret appear to have been built over channels
carrying water from the stream running down the middle of the street. Such houses,
first built in the late eleventh-and early twelfth centuries, with minor modifications
remained in use here as late as the beginning of the thirteenth century. Intermingled
amongst these wooden buildings, moreover, were also contemporaneously
constructed two-storey stone buildings, of similar dimensions to the wooden
structures, but in the case of the Tannerestret house183 possessing a barrel-vaulted first
storey, within which, in the late twelfth century, an elaborate fireplace was inserted.
The discrete character and spatial narrowness of the area investigated, however, poses
questions about the typicality of these structures. It is thus fortunate that minor
excavations, undertaken in 1963 at Gerestret (map 8.9, site 1) allow a somewhat
wider spatial investigation to be undertaken. These revealed an early tenth- century
staked area suggestive of the existence at that time of a popularis plataea or market,
somewhere near the West Gate, over which were five successive street metallings of
flint and gravel, each rutted and deeply hollowed- Gerestret- first laid-out in the latter
part of the reign of Edward the Elder or shortly thereafter. On the western side of the
street were found the floor levels of three houses, each of which was first built in the
                                                                                     193


late eleventh century and continued in use until the beginning of the thirteenth
century. The single-storey houses were entirely of wood of sill-beam and post
construction. They measured some 13 metres in length and were 5½ metres wide, set
end on to the street and comprised a single un-partitioned room with clay-chalk floors.
In plan and proportions these houses were quite different from those of the twelfth
century excavated in Brook Street. Earlier excavations of a stone house184 located
some 8¼ metres east of Snidelingestret (map 8.9, site 10) parallel to the street
alignment revealed yet another very different form of twelfth-century housing. To the
north the house abutted on a small stone chapel, which may have been the private
chapel of the occupant. His residence was substantial, measuring some 5½ x 11
metres internally. The lower storey was subterranean and was probably used only for
storage but above ground it had two storeys and thus provided far more
accommodation than any of the other buildings so far discussed. Another stone house
in the fashionable Calpestret was different again. It measured only 5½ x 8½ metres
providing an internal floor space on each of its two floors of c. 46¾ square metres. It
was thus much smaller than either the Tannerestret or Snidelingestret houses but with
its ground floor vaulted in two quadripartite bays was far more elaborate. The housing
stock of intramural Winchester during the years, c. 1070- c. 1200 was thus quite
unique in relation to that of any other ‘burh’ located within the lands of the constantly
shifting twelfth-century ‘periphery.’ Its vast, by contemporary standards, population
of some 5,000-6,000 people within the walls and perhaps 8,000 in all if the suburban
areas are included, put ‘urban’ real estate at a premium, and caused specifically
delineated house plots measuring c. 8¼ x c. 13 metres to be laid out. Such plots were
normally fully occupied by the owner’s house and they certainly lacked the space to
undertake the self-provisioning of either manufactures or foodstuffs. Owners of such
houses, rich or poor alike, were accordingly forced to enter the market to provision
their households.
      The presence of large royal and diocesan establishments in the city whose
members’ incomes were paid by the Royal and Episcopal Exchequers, and who often
lacked local rural estates, moreover, created a distinctive high-value market demand.
Merchants resident in the city, who operated at the great St Giles’s Fair, as has been
suggested above, in part satisfied this latter demand. Their houses were widely
distributed within the walls and without, one of their number, Peter the Mercer and his
immediate family, having property, like others of his kind, in High Street. Elite
demand was also catered for by a remarkably numerous group of goldsmiths. They
held property in Goldestret, Calpestret, and Mensterstret among the houses of royal
officials, barons and magnates and alongside those other workers of precious metals-
the moneyers- whose forgia or fabrica were located south of the High Street and east
of the former site of the palace. Such craftsmen producing or trading in high value-
added wares could afford, and of necessity had to live amongst their rich clientele.
      Those dealing in the more mundane wares required by the population, rich and
poor alike, who in the mid-twelfth century lacked the space to undertake self-
provisioning of either manufactures or foodstuffs, were not so well placed. In these
trades a distinctive pattern of property ownership thus emerged during the years, c.
1070- c. 1150. Within High Street (map 8.10), the commercial heart of the city, there
were several marked areas of specialisation transforming this thoroughfare in the
twelfth century into something like its modern counterpart.
                                                                                    194




     High Street was the preserve of Winchester’s richest property owners. In the case
of those members of the royal or episcopal establishments who figured amongst the
richest property owners, they did not, reside on High Street but maintained a
significant proportion of their real estate portfolios in properties, with high rental
values, located there. In the rare instances where the tenants, who paid these high
rents, can be identified they were drawn from the city’s merchants and manufacturers.
It was this group of merchants and manufacturers who dominated property ownership
on the street. The butchers held stalls along High Street between Alwarnestret and
Flesmangerestret. They provided the focus of what might be called the provisioners’
section of the street. Here the king’s Larderer, Herbert, held a property (map 8.10, no.
59185) which was fronted by a stall of one of the butchers, Richard. He, like others in
the town, bought his provisions from suppliers here. Clustered about his house were
butchers, like the above-mentioned Richard, one Bernard, and a William Peak and
just across the road one named Turold. Most important amongst the butchers,
however, were the Bentworths, who had become one of the most substantial property-
owning families in the city. They possibly become rich by Martin Bentworth’s acting
as purveyor of meat to the king. In 1148 Martin had just died and his widow, having
                                                                                     195


provided housing for her sister-in-law (map 8.10, no. 144) conducted with Martin’s
heirs the family business. To this end whilst living in the house she had once shared
with her husband in Alwarnestret (no. 487) she kept a High Street butcher’s stall in
hand (no. 28) whilst the heirs held another there (no. 17). Otherwise she was a
landlady letting out some seven butchers’ stalls extending northward from High Street
up Alwarnestret (no. 43) and Flesmangerestre (no.56) as well as drawing rents from a
whole series of properties not associated with her butchery business – in
Sildwortestret (nos. 565-6), the fashionable Mensterestret (nos. 139, 795, 808 and
809, in which the famous William Cade took up residence), Calpestret and Goldestret
(nos. 825, 854) and High Street (no. 103) - which she had probably inherited from her
husband. Here also on both sides of the street were the more substantial brewers-
Silvester (nos. 61-2, 98) and Harding (no. 109)- bakers- Baldwin (no. 68)- and cooks
(no.61), details of some of the properties revealing the manufacturing activity
conducted therein. Each ran in 1148 large-scale businesses. Silvester maintained a
‘pub’ in each of the streets north of High street with particular concentrations of such
properties in the easterly manufactory districts. Harding apart from his brewery in
High Street maintained a drinking house in Snidelingestret (no. 379). Baldwin the
baker occupied extensive lands in the southern suburb (nos. 998-9, 1020) from which
he supplied bread to the colony of weavers.
     Moving eastward along High Street one entered the clothing (linen, woollen-cloth
and leather working) sector of the thoroughfare. The Sewi family dominated the
activities of the linen drapers. Their principal residence, for which they paid the
bishop the substantial rent of one bezant, seems to have been located in the southern
suburb of the city. They maintained however a workshop in High Street (no. 55) and
that substantial selda, Chapman’s Hall (no. 69), the principal market for linen cloth,186
with its own church, for which Sewi in 1148 and one Osbert the linen draper in 1157-
8 was responsible. They also owned manufacturing capacity, which they leased out, in
the easterly Bucchestret and beyond the walls in the east suburb of the city (nos. 699,
751, 764, 780). It was also in the eastern part of the city, that, attracted to the best-
watered streets in the city, Tannerestret and Buchhestret, which lay leeward of the
main inhabited area, one finds the tanners and woollen-cloth manufactories. The
tanners were not significant property owners and already by the mid-twelfth century
seem to have been moving out of Tannerestret into the area of Buchhestret to the east.
Two of the properties excavated in Tannerestret (map 8.9, site 6) contained timber-
lined pits of eleventh-century date which would have been suitable for bating or
tanning, and both properties included wide timber-lined water channels where skins
could be washed. In c. 1110 two tanners held properties in Tannerestret. In 1148 none
were living there. By the latter date Tannerestret had become an area producing
woollen cloth rather than leather. The properties of dyers and fullers were located
here, where there was also open meadow ground on which tenters could be erected for
drying and stretching the cloth. The Tannerestret properties of Mainard and Ralf son
of Ansfrid both of who were described as parmentarius may perhaps, as will be
suggested below, indicate the entrepreneurial interest in the manufactory. Dyers also
held property in High Street, but principally at its eastern end, near the entry to
Tannerestret. Here at the eastern extremity of High Street the manufacturing activity
of the side streets intruded into the thoroughfare. One branch of the woollen-cloth
manufactory, however, had already in 1148 moved out of the walled city into the
suburbs. That suburb outside of King’s Gate was the home of woollen-cloth weavers.
They, as has been shown, in 1130 made a yearly payment of one gold mark or £6 in
silver to the royal exchequer for their guild,187 and regularly continued to make this
                                                                                   196


render throughout the years 1156-65/6. In 1165/6 the weavers’ payment was doubled,
important testimony of their prosperity in the twelfth century. 188 It was only as that
century drew to its close that there are signs of difficulties. The Winchester weavers
defaulted on their render in 1198 and in 1202 both weavers and fullers were in arrears
super paupertatem. Their farms were then transferred to the city authorities and in
1228 Henry III remitted to the guilds the debts they had owed his father.189 The nature
of this woollen-cloth manufactory during its heyday in the mid-twelfth century is
difficult to establish. The weavers, resident in the King’s Gate suburb, however seem
to have formed an almost self-contained community, there being a very high
correlation there between the distribution of the properties of victuallers, especially
cooks and bakers, and those of workers in the clothing trades. In the finishing trades,
the properties of dyers and fullers, as has been shown, were located in Tannerestret
where there was also open meadow ground on which tenters could be erected for
drying and stretching the cloth. Here also there was a concentration of properties
belonging to members of the victualling trades.
     The organisation of production does not seem to have lain at this time, however,
with the dyers who seem to have assumed that role only in the thirteenth century.
Control of the manufactory in the mid-twelfth century seems to have resided with the
parmentarius, literally a worker of skins, but probably one who acquired furs, which
were used to embellish the clothing that they traded amongst the many large
households of the city. They are found in each of the major centres for the
manufactory of clothing and accessories in the city. Two of their number, Mainard
and Ralf son of Ansfrid, as has been shown, maintained properties (nos. 622 and 636
respectively) in Tannerestret, in the woollen cloth finishing district. The greatest
concentration was found, however, in the westerly Sniderelingestret and Gerestrete
from whence activity seems to have spilt over into the northern and western suburbs.
Long established on the intra-mural streets, the parmentarius here –Baldwin (no. 392)
and Stigand (no.387), Iwen (no.1071) and Robert (no.373)- seem to have tailored the
clothes made up in the manufactory, being supplied with the tools of their trade by the
needle-makers whose houses (nos.19-20, 22 and 24) on the western part of High
Street clustered about the entry to Sniderelingestret. Latecomers who established
themselves in the suburbs- Gunter (no. 250), Herewic (no.190) and Oin (no 299) in
the western suburb and Sired (no 334) in the northern- tended to deal in more
specialist accoutrements- saddles and horse furniture (bits, spurs, horse shoes etc).
Such was also the case with regards the parmentarius who established themselves in
the other suburbs of the city. In the southern suburb two of their number- Walter (no.
992) and Wulfric (no. 922)- probably traded in the shoes manufactured there. Most of
these parmentarius owned a single property, in which they lived and worked. Such
was not the case with regard to the eastern suburb. Activity in the manufactory here,
which again tended again to produce more specialist items- saddles and horse
furniture -was dominated by one, Raymond. He held two prime properties of the
abbess of Winchester (nos. 40 and 85) on High Street, where he probably displayed
his wares, and substantial lands in the eastern suburb (nos. 734 and 777) where, with
his neighbour, Roger parmentarius (no. 735), he organised their manufacture.
Residents of the large households of the city, could acquire all types of clothing,
including gloves and shoes, as well as saddles and horse furniture, from the
parmentarius.
     Those manufacturers supplying the parmentarius, seem, however, to have had
another outlet for their wares. In the southern suburb accessed by the South and
King’s Gates, the members of the Weavers’ Guild, probably disposed of some of their
                                                                                      197


wares to the two drapers- Walter (no. 945) and Hugh (no. 994)- resident there and to
one member of the merchant Peter le Mercer’s family- Ernald his brother (no. 904)-
who probably acted as his agent here. The properties held by Peter (nos.200, 210, 238,
265), particularly those in the shoe-making district of the western suburb, may have
performed a similar function there. These merchants, as suggested above, probably
acquired the goods to sell, either at the St Giles Fair or at Southampton from whence
they would be exported.
      The new harbour of Southampton (map 8.3, no.15) first established in the late
eleventh century, on the opposite side of the peninsula to the now decayed Hamwih,
as has been suggested above, served as the outport of Winchester. 190 Functionally the
new harbour area continued to operate at this time in much the same way as the old
‘portus.’ It remained an extensive settlement, now straggling across a wide area,
trailing eastward towards the abandoned Hamwih and northward along the king’s
highway towards Winchester. It was girdled to the east, south and west by salt marsh
and mudflat. Unfortunately, within these bounds, few excavations of late eleventh-
and twelfth-century sites have been undertaken. Located on the western shoreline
north of the later town wall, along the king’s highway towards the southern shore, and
far to the east on the bounds of ‘ancient’ Hamwih, these sites do not provide a
comprehensive survey of the ‘new’ borough. They do display, however, a distinct
chronology. Both western and eastern sites to the north of the later town wall revealed
long-established huts, which were either allowed to decay as on the easterly site or, as
on the westerly site were replaced in the late eleventh century by substantial timber-
built houses. These substantial timber-built houses on the western shore of the
peninsula were, moreover, constructed contemporaneously with similar structures
unearthed on sites along the king’s highway towards the southern shore. There is also
evidence from these southern houses of workshops, on one site at least involving a
manufactory of bone artefacts. There is also evidence on another site here of on-site
butchering of livestock. Documentary evidence, moreover, also reveals that such
timber-built structures also extended inland from the western shoreline to the king’s
highway and that as the twelfth century drew to its close, a fall in the cost of building
materials resulted in the construction here of similar substantial stone-built structures.
Across the settlement area of the new harbour life thus seems to have continued
during the years, c. 1050-1225 in much the same way as before. The substantial
timber-built houses held at the end of the Anglo-Saxon period as tenancies-in-chief of
the king continued to be so held under Norman and Angevin kings. From c. 1086, the
great lords, whose substantial houses were little more than appendages of their rural
estates, however, had to live alongside nearly a hundred French- and English-born
settlers brought to the new borough in that year by the inducement of the king. These
were the forbears of those merchant-burgess who, serving the king, came to dominate
the borough in the twelfth century.
      It was this group of merchant-burgess who assured the borough’s prosperity, a
prosperity, which was reflected in its substantial ‘farm’ of £300 a year in the mid-
twelfth century.191 The activity of the king and his agents in the port undoubtedly
advanced the fortunes of the burgesses and the borough. The founders of all the great
merchant houses who would dominate commercial activity in the port for some one
hundred and fifty years begin to regularly appear in the royal accounts of the late
twelfth century. Here are chronicled the activities of the Fortins, Isembards, the
Gloucesters, the St Lawrences and the Barbfletes. They were brought together in the
services of the king, but other alliances and inter-relationships were still more
permanently binding than this. A St Lawrence, Joan, married an Isembard, Ralph.
                                                                                        198


Their daughter, Petronilla, married John, son of Walter le Fleming. Another St
Lawrence, Alice, sister of Joan married John de la Bulehouse, the founder of another
major merchant house of the early thirteenth century. For these families, it was the
king’s favour that determined their fortunes. It was in the royal service, that Fortin
and Walter of Gloucester, joined John the ‘counter tallyer’ in supervision of work at
the castle in 1173.192 In 1190-1 Walter of Gloucester, in association on this occasion
with Gervase ‘the Rich’ of Hampton, again acted as clerk-of-works for the king.193
Robert Isembard and Robert de Barbflete were amongst the group of Southampton
burgesses who made a large purchase of wines for the king in 1195-6.194 Walter
Fortin, probably the son of the Fortin of 1173, assumed in 1202-3 the role previously
held by his father as supervisor of the castle works.195 These activities were
indigenous to the port itself, which the king used for laying up or assembling his
ships,196 provisioning his domestic and overseas residences,197 and stocking his wine
cellars.198 Probably far more important for the fortunes of the merchants and for the
borough, however, was Southampton’s role as the outport through which a host of
exotic wares passed to the Winchester. Amongst these, the wines of Anjou, the Île-de-
France, and Maine, in the twelfth century199 as later200, figured greatly. A probable
by-product of the wine trade, the crudely incised jugs of Normandy, decorated with a
wavy or zig-zag pattern, were imported in increasing numbers during the twelfth
century. Of a cream buff and carrying decorative applied strips, broad and thumb-
pressed, along their lengths these wares were very different from the heavy, round-
bottomed cooking pots of the domestic industry.201 Particularly from the 1170s, as
shipping freights fell heavily,202 Southampton also became a primary market for
construction materials. Imported Caen stone was a habitual ingredient of late twelfth-
century construction work at Southampton, Winchester and elsewhere. Devon slate
was used as a roofing material in 1185203 but thereafter Derbyshire lead was used for
this purpose.204 Fine pieces of architectural stone sculpture from Flanders were also
transhipped at the port from vessels, carrying southern spices and mercery and
northern furs,205 obtained at the Low Countries’ marts. Many if not most of these
latter wares were disposed of at the St Giles’s Fair, where they were acquired by those
Winchester craftsmen and merchants whose activities have been described above. It
was probably this trade which during the years c. 1050- c. 1150 underpinned the
prosperity of Southampton and its merchants. There were certainly few other markets
outlets in the region (map 8.3, region C3) where the wares could be sold.206
     This prosperity was reflected in its substantial ‘farm’ of £300 a year in the mid-
twelfth century. Already at this time, however, there were signs of the fragility of this
prosperity. The firmarius, who paid this sum at the Exchequer during the years 1158-
63, retired owing a considerable debt to the crown. This caused sufficient concern
amongst the king’s financial officers for them to appoint custodes- the burgesses
Roger son of Milo, Fortin and Robert of St Lawrence- to collect the moneys due and
in 1167 to reduce the ‘farm’ to £200. It was this lower ‘farm’ that was levied upon the
next lessee, Robert of St Lawrence and his successor Gervase ‘the Rich,’ but neither
of them were ever out of debt to the Exchequer. In as far as the borough ‘farm’
reflected the prosperity of the port and its trade with Winchester, from c. 1160 both of
these were in decline.
     The late-twelfth and early-thirteenth centuries were a difficult time for both
Winchester and Southampton. Trade between the two centres seems to have declined.
The Winchester weavers who, as has been suggested above, disposed of at least some
of their wares at the St Giles’s Fair to those who would export them via Southampton,
got into serious difficulties. Yet overall activity at the Fair rose to a peak, yielding the
                                                                                    199


bishop revenues amounting to £162-163 a year, in 1238-1239 and 1250, before
entering on a phase of relentless and irreversible decline.207 Activity at Winchester
and its outport seems to have been changing. Business connected with the kings’ and
bishops’ Winchester ‘courts’ seems to have been in decline, as London became the
new ‘capital’ city. Both centres, however, as will be suggested below, seem to
benefited from the commencement of the third economic-cycle of 1225/40-1340,
which brought to the lands of the Itchin-Avon Basin that widespread intensification of
economic activity observable in the other areas within the ‘peripheral’ region (map
8.3, C1-4).

(B) LONDON (MAPS 8.3, No. 20 AND 8.11-14): ‘FROM COMMUNE TO CAPITAL CITY’
London’s rise to the position of a ‘capital’ city is a thirteenth-century phenomenon. At
the beginning of that process in c. 1216, however, it was already an important
commercial centre. Its commercial origins may be traced back to the seventh, eighth
and early-ninth centuries when activity was based around the Strand foreshore vicus,
which was controlled by the king’s ‘port-reeve’, the king being initially the Kentish
king, possibly Æthelbehrt, followed by the kings of Essex, Mercia and Wessex (map
8.11). 208




This was the “emporium of many people coming by land and sea’ referred to by the
Venerable Bede,209 In contrast to the area further east within the Roman city walls,
which remained largely empty, save for the cathedral, the vicus on the Strand
foreshore was a flourishing and well-populated emporium. Laws of Kent issued in the
670s and 680s indicate that the men of Kent bought and sold their wares there and
were required to make a report of all their transactions to the resident royal agent. It
was as a ‘portus’ of successive kings of Kent, Essex, Mercia and Wessex, however,
that the vicus Lundoniae, prospered, attracting traders from the Rhineland (millstones
and large wine jars) and northern France (evidenced by pottery from thence) to this
“famous place and royal town.” As the place of exclusive access to these traders and
their wares, it attracted the attention of those English magnates wishing to acquire
such goods. These people, as has been suggested above, or their agents thus obtained
from these kings exemptions from taxes on their trade within the ‘portus.’210 Early in
                                                                                     200


the eighth century the bishop of Worcester obtained such exemption from taxes on his
trade within the London ‘portus’ together with a court or enclosure- a curtis- there
between the streets called Tiddbertistret and Savinstret.211 Nor was he the only one to
receive such grants in London at this time. Five were made to the abbesses of
Minster-in-Thanet, two to bishops of London and one each to the church at Reculver
and the bishop of Rochester.212 Excavations at Covent Garden, the Strand and
Whitehall, reveal something of these housing complexes, owned by magnates, which
as elsewhere comprised timber halls, Grubenhaüer often associated with
manufactory, yard area and pit area.
     Then about the middle of the ninth century commercial activity here, as
elsewhere, changed as a result of the insecurity occasioned by the incursions of
Viking raiders. London was first attacked in 842, when English chroniclers reported a
“great slaughter”, and was assailed again in 851, when a fleet of 350 Viking ships
stormed London and Canterbury. As a result the vicus Lundoniae, sited on the Strand,
was abandoned and reverted to agricultural use to be remembered only as ‘Aldwych’-
the ‘old wic’. Subsequently during the third quarter of the ninth century, however,
during a lull in this martial activity, trade seems to have been restored to a sufficient
level to encourage magnates like the bishop of Worcester to acquire in 857
Ceolmundingchaga in the area about St Paul’s within the city walls.213 This period of
buoyant commercial activity was, however, short lived and was brought to a close
when the ‘Great Army’ wintered in the city in 871-2. Only after Ælfred’s recapture of
London in 886 and his establishment there, as elsewhere, of a new ‘burh’ (map 8.12),
which he placed under the Mercian ealdorman Æthelred, his son-in-law, could there
be a return to normality.




He is said to have “refurbished the walls, repopulated the City and, during a
conference [in 898] to discuss its restoration, assigned to various magnates plots of
land bounded by streets.”214 The topographical and jurisdictional structure of the
‘civitas - burh’ for the next one and fifty years (c. 890- c. 1040) was being
established. The old Roman roads between the gates, re-metalled at this time, and the
grid-plan street system of the new ‘burh’, constituted a network of viae regalis, and
provided the framework within which the settlement would evolve. Churches and
housing-complexes were distributed haphazardly throughout the rectangles formed by
                                                                                      201


the network of streets rather than being aligned with those streets. Most of these
housing complexes were located within its own enclosure or haga, comprising a
hedge or wall. Pathways provided access from the street to these ‘courts’ or empty
plots. Excavations have revealed that, as elsewhere, these housing complexes
included residential structures with either an upper floor over a cellar or more
substantial structures with a wooden frame erected at ground level, measuring some
11 metres in length and 5½ metres in breadth (map 8.12, sites A-C). Within the site
boundaries but without the residence they also included Grubenhaüer, sunken-floored
huts, whose functionality is uncertain though ‘industrial’ assemblage including
spindle-whorls, iron and bronze and worked animal bones/antler waste is suggestive.
There were also outhouses, shallow wells as well as cesspits and rubbish pits.
Included amongst the magnates who occupied these residences was again the bishop
of Worcester, on this occasion Wærferth, who according to a charter dated 898 was
granted valuable riverside property æt Hwætmundes stane, near what must have been
a new ‘quay’ on the riverfront, with appropriate commercial privileges. 215 Similarly
he and Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury were each granted a plough land (iugera)
of arable there- at Ætheredeshyd. At such properties the magnates216 and the
merchants who supplied them with internationally traded goods, met and conducted
their business. Until the construction of the New London Bridge in the late-tenth
century ships could easily access this ‘quay’ at Ætheredeshyd, but thereafter the
bridge constituted an impediment to navigation at a time when London’s trade was
expanding. Accordingly Ætheredeshyd in the late tenth century became only one of
three ‘common quays’ with the establishment of waterfront facilities at Billingsgate
and St Botolph’s Wharf downstream below the bridge. The archaeological evidence
for these hithes reveals that at this time they consisted, at St Botoph and Dowgate at
least, of a man-made sloping beach.217 Excavations undertaken at New Fresh Wharf
near St Botolphs, Billingsgate218 reveal, moreover, the continuing existence of such a
man-made sloping beach until the eleventh century. At these ‘quays’ foreign
merchants unloaded their wares, preparatory to selling them to the magnates or their
agents who inhabited the neighbouring housing-complexes. Ælfric, writing at the end
of the tenth century, listed the exotic goods such merchants might carry: silks,
precious stones, gold, wine, oil, ivory, bronze, glass and other luxuries.219 The earliest
known regulations governing trading activity in London which date from c. 1000 -
Law Code IV of Aethelred II220 - list the king’s dues levied at Billingsgate, and reveal
a much broader and more specific picture of trade at that time. Amongst the more
mundane wares unloaded here were timber-planks, cloth, fish, chickens, eggs and
dairy produce. Besides the local women dealing in cheese and butter and paying two
pence a year for the privilege, there were merchants of Rouen, with cargoes of wine
or ‘blubber fish’, others from Ponthieu, Normandy or the Île-de-France who exhibited
their wares and paid toll, as did the men from Huy, Liège and Nivelle who were only
passing through London. The men of the Emperor, arriving at Billingsgate were
entitled to the same privileges as locals. They each, however, also had to deliver to the
king two lengths of grey and one of brown cloth, 10 lbs. of pepper, five pairs of
gloves and two saddle-kegs of vinegar at Easter and Christmas, illustrating the
diversity of their trade. In the mid-eleventh century, therefore, London was already a
major English trading centre.
     Over the next century (c. 1040- c.1140), like the neighbouring and associated
region of eastern and northern Kent (Map 8.3, Region A2),221 however, London
became subject to a phase of widespread intensification of economic activity, which
led to a complete topographical, jurisdictional and functional transformation of the
                                                                                  202


city. By 1203/4 it had, with an annual trade turnover of some £12,550, become the
greatest port of the realm and had become established on that path towards it’s
becoming the nation’s capital. With a population in c. 1200 of perhaps as many as
30,000, or some two to three times more than in 1086, it was also the largest borough
within the realm. The twelfth century thus saw Londoners’ lives change beyond all
recognition.




I. Westminster

Under the last of the Anglo-Saxon kings- Edward the Confessor- the pattern of future
topographical development was set (map 8.13). In his later years he devoted much of
his energy and much of the royal treasury to the building of a new abbey, St Peter’s
Westminster, the ‘west monastery’ on an island at the marshy mouth of the River
Tyburn where it entered the Thames 1½ miles west of London. Edward reorganised
the existing monastery there, granting it extensive estates and had a great new church
built. Unlike his predecessors he also restricted the number of places where his
council was to be held, as has been suggested to Gloucester and Winchester, but also
London, or rather Westminster, where he built a royal hall. Any royal residence inside
the walls of London was abandoned. At Westminster Edward had his palace and his
church, the abbey, a royal centre distinct from the busy commercial city. Henceforth
this division between London and Westminster as twin but separate centres, one of
trade and manufactory the other of law and government was perpetuated.
     The respective development of these two centres over the next century was,
however, very different. Writing in the 1170s William fitz Stephen describes
Westminster in much the same terms, as might have been used a century earlier:

    “Upstream to the west the Royal Palace [of Westminster] rises high above the
    river, a building beyond compare, with an outwork and bastions, two miles
    from the City and joined thereto by a populous suburb. On all sides, beyond the
    houses, lie the gardens of the citizens that dwell in the suburbs, planted with
    trees, spacious and fair, adjoining one another. On the north are pasturelands
    and a pleasant space of flat meadows, intersected by running waters, which
                                                                                    203


    turn revolving mill wheels with a merry din. Hard by there stretches a great
    forest with wooded glades and lairs of wild beasts, deer both red and fallow,
    wild boars and bulls. The corn-fields are not of barren gravel but rich…and fill
    the barns of their farmers.” 222

The Isle of Thorney itself had changed but little since the late eleventh century,
though the vast royal palace, measuring some 75 metres in length with stone walls
and a roof of Irish oak, which so excited fitz Stephen’s admiration, had only been
built on the instructions of William II in 1097-9 as a replacement for that of the
Confessor. As from c. 1110 the royal bureaucracy- the Council and Exchequer, if
not until the thirteenth century the Treasury- shifted from Winchester to
Westminster, where the court was increasingly in residence, however, the impact of
these changes tended to be indirect rather than direct ones. Besides needing to
attend royal assemblies, many magnates came to Westminster to be within range of
the court or to seek justice before those royal judges who were beginning to make
Westminster a permanent centre of their activities. By the mid-twelfth century it
was becoming vital for both ecclesiastical and secular lords to maintain households
close to these centres of power and influence.




              Figure 8.2. Cellar of the de Warenne House, Southwark

        Archaeologia, XXIII, 1831 (1830), pp.299ff and pls. XXIII-XXIV

Accordingly, along the Strand in the twelfth century bishops and nobles began
building houses.223 On visits to Westminster the archbishop of Canterbury stayed
the last night of his journey on his own territory at Croydon before passing on to
Lambeth, which down to the last decade of the twelfth century was a manor of the
bishops or monks of Rochester, who usually afforded him hospitality. When Hubert
Walter came to combine the offices of Archbishop of Canterbury, Papal Legate
and, in 1195-1198, Royal Justiciar, however, he used his authority to establish here
a chapel, which became a nucleus of Lambeth Palace. The bishop of Winchester
had a manor in Southwark, and the whole south bank lay within his diocese. He
thus much earlier built his palace a little to the west of London on his own land not
                                                                                      204


far from Westminster.224 Close to the bishop’s house, moreover, a fine stone-
vaulted cellar (figure 8.2) that lay beneath the hall of a large twelfth-century house,
possibly built for the earls of Warenne, one of the most important Norman families
in Surrey, survived until the nineteenth century, providing a picture of the
magnificence of such magnates’ houses. Magnates, i.e. bishops, abbots and earls,
were thus in the course of the twelfth century moving out of London, into what
subsequently were to become the suburbs. They left a legacy, however, which
would trouble property developers within the city walls throughout that century.

II.   London: Early Twelfth-Century Property Markets

London’s property market, on the day Edward was alive and dead, was an extensive
one, characterised, as has been suggested above, by a chaotic pattern of hagae: of
enclosures representing little enclaves of City property belonging to an indigenous
community, a manor or individual in the country. Within their bounds lords enjoyed
legal jurisdiction- sack and soke- in the case of ‘urban’ properties dependent on
rural manors, here as elsewhere, administered through the manorial court. Access to
the London market through a house in or near the city, as has been suggested
above, was desired by many country landowners in the mid-eleventh century.
London thus, like other boroughs, contained houses appurtenant to rural estates.
The Domesday description of Surrey supplies numerous examples. The archbishop
of Canterbury had seventeen mansurae in London belonging to Mortlake, the
bishop of Bayeux had one mansura belonging to Banstead, Miles Crispin had lost
to Earl Roger of Shrewsbury thirteen mansurae belonging to Beddington, Count
Eustace of Boulogne had fifteen mansurae in London and Southwark belonging to
Walkhampton near Godstone... A closer examination of this latter property reveals
something of how such estates were administered.225 In relation to the fifteen
properties located in London and Southwark, Eustace is known to have held the
court of his honour at his soke of Aldersgate in the city and to this court the men of
his hagae in Southwark were summoned. The same Eustace was also lord of Oxted
in Surrey. One house in Southwark worth two pence a year, six villeins and nine
bordars were attached to this manor. They formed part of the community of the
parent manor and were under the jurisdiction of its lord. No dweller in any of such
sokes might be arrested in his house or penticium, or anywhere except in the middle
of the road. Distraint within a soke was a complicated business, only to be
accomplished after invoking the soke-reeve. Temporary dwellers within a soke
owed nothing by way of customary payments to anyone but the lord of the soke. All
disputes between the men of the same soke would be settled privately in the archaic
atmosphere of the wereguild and monetary emendation for personal violence.
Whether subject and under the jurisdiction of rural manors, or of city institutions-
the cathedral, monasteries and priories- individuals living in London were only
marginally subject to the direct authority of the king’s officials- rather they were
primarily subject to the authority of their lord. Most barons of superior consequence
possessed a privileged estate in London, as did many of the most important clerics,
and such was the concept of immunity in their minds that only those portions of the
city outside the jurisdiction of a private court were described collectively in the
twelfth century as the king’s soke. The king’s authority was thus residual. A man
who committed an offence in the street was subject to the king’s justice, at least
until he passed into one of the hagae where he would have to defend himself before
the lord who had sake and soke, a jurisdiction which might extend over men or
                                                                                     205


land. In this fragmented and anarchic system of law, it was extremely difficult to
enforce the complex law-codes of the English kings. This task was perhaps
delegated at this time to that obscure institution, the cnihtena guild. The guild is
perhaps best interpreted as being a voluntary association of the principal men of
London, Middlesex and neighbouring areas, for mutual aid, the pursuit of thieves
and the compensation of victims. London was governed for the king by his
portreeve, responsible for collecting royal taxes and revenues. Royal decrees
concerning London were addressed jointly to the portreeve and the bishop of
London and could be conveyed to the inhabitants of the city at their open-air
assembly, the folkmoot, which met beside St Paul’s Cathedral to discuss the affairs
of the city. Having been published by the bishops and reeves of London at the
folkmoot, however, these decrees were then established by pledges in the cnihtena
guild.226
     Such a system survived the Conquest, William I placing one of his leading
supporters, Geoffrey de Manville, in the office of portreeve and addressing to him
in that capacity- jointly with the Bishop of London- a ‘charter’ guaranteeing the
citizens rights:

    “William the king greets William the bishop and Geoffrey the portreeve
    and all the citizens in London, French and English, in friendship. I inform
    you that I intend you to have all the rights in law you had in the days of
    King Edward…”227

The legal-administrative system described above thus continued under the new regime.
Norman authority rested here, as elsewhere, on the castles they built to control “the
restlessness of [the city’s] large and fierce population.”228 One of these castles was
probably that known later as Baynard’s Castle, south of Ludgate. With an adjacent
castle, the Tower of Montfichet it dominated St. Paul’s Cathedral, symbolic centre of
the city, and the road to Westminster. Both were demolished c. 1275. William had,
however, also started work on a better-known and longer-lived castle in the Southeast
corner of London. The fortification was completed, on the north and west facing the
city, by the construction of a new palisade and ditch. Prior to 1080, however, work
began on a more substantial structure within this enclosure, a fortified stone palace- the
White Tower or the present-day Tower of London
     Such seems to have been the only major impact of the change of political regime,
over the century (c. 1040- c.1140). As London, like the neighbouring and associated
region of eastern and northern Kent, however, became subject to a phase of widespread
intensification of economic activity, the impact of these economic changes on the city
was enormous. From c. 1070- c. 1140 London experienced a massive growth in its
economy, and problems of over-crowding began to emerge, which engendered major
topographical changes, often linked to how the vastly enlarged population would
provision itself. By the latter date, the dominant form of property-unit of a bygone age,
the praedium or haga, which comprised a concentration or nuclei of activity whether
social or economic, focussed on building complexes comprising residential halls with
Grubenhaüer, wells and yard- and pit areas, within which the landlords exercised a
private- sake and soke- jurisdiction, had largely disappeared. Private jurisdictions of
this latter type, however, continued to exist throughout the twelfth century. Indeed, in
1130 x 1133 they were formerly recognised and protected in the great charter of
liberties, which Henry I issued to London229 and their continuing existence is attested
during the years 1194 to 1197 when such a soke of William de Mohun passed into the
                                                                                       206


king’s hands.230 But by the mid-century these jurisdictions though sometimes started as
hagae, were no longer in themselves spatial areas of jurisdiction but bundles of rights;
the soke involved nothing more than a court, however slight or occasional, to which
tenants owed suit. In a rapidly developing land market, in which there was much
buying, selling, exchange and usurpation, by the mid-twelfth century there would have
been little physical evidence of the earlier layout of hagae, within which such
jurisdictions existed and thus the sokes became divorced from them and were
anachronistically scattered across an ‘urban’ landscape which had been totally
transformed. In such circumstances lawyers resorted to the creation of legal myth, a
feature of such periods of dramatic economic change.231 Thus in the late thirteenth
century a jury fabricated an identification between the parish of St Andrew by the
Wardrobe and the soke of Robert fitz Walter, lord of the honour which had once
included Baynard’s Castle. They may have incorporated into the myth a genuine
tradition, but used it, in the interests of those represented, to desperately paper over the
cracks of their title.232 Similarly the queen’s soke in the early twelfth century included
both Queenshithe and the soke of Aldgate, where Queen Matilda founded Holy Trinity
Priory.233 There is no reason to believe, however that either was ancient, though the
disembodied soke may have been in the king’s gift about 1100. By the 1140s the
‘ancient’ hagae had been almost completely displaced, leaving their associated private-
sake and soke- jurisdictions disembodied, still profitable, but requiring the creation of
legal myths to justify their existence.
     London’s property markets, like those of Winchester, had during the years, c.
1070- c. 1140 been transformed. By the latter date, the dominant form of property-unit
of a bygone age, the praedium or haga, had largely disappeared, its legal ties to rural
manors, or city institutions, had been severed. Residential buildings, newly
constructed on specifically delineated house plots with frontages respecting the line of
the street had displaced it. Unfortunately rescue excavations at sites like Milk Lane
and documentary evidence of property boundaries have proven rather inadequate in
providing a description of such London houses. One author provides, however, at least
an impression of their form, suggesting that most London buildings in the twelfth
century were of timber, with a roof of thatch. Such residential structures either
comprised, as earlier, an upper floor over a cellar or were more substantial structures
with a wooden frame erected at ground level, measuring some 11 metres in length and
5½ metres in breadth.234 He also suggests that wealthy merchants were from about the
1170s building stone houses of similar dimensions and that they probably were simple
rectangular buildings with a hall- the living accommodation- on the upper floor
reached by an outside staircase, a shop or warehouse below.235 If this description bears
any resemblance to reality then Londoners in the twelfth century experienced similar
problems to their Winchester counterparts- but for very different reasons. In
Winchester, the twelfth-century shortage of building land was a result of the demand
placed on supplies by the political establishment of the ‘capital’ city- officials of the
royal household and administration, barons and magnates, the latter two groups,
acquiring hospices where they could reside during visits to the ‘capital’. The
ecclesiastical establishment, even excluding the bishops and other ecclesiastical
magnates – comprising archdeacons, priests, clerks and chaplains- constituted the
other great group of property owners in the city. Together these members of the royal
and episcopal establishments dominated Winchester property markets, crowding out
other investors and causing a reduction in the size of high-value building plots. In
London, this group, as has been shown, acquired properties not in the city but along
the road to Westminster and south of the river at Southwark and Lambeth. The
                                                                                   207


twelfth-century shortage of building land in the borough of London resulted from its
ability to attract immigrants to that city to which merchandise was imported from all
over the known world. Employment in the distribution of this burgeoning volume of
imported merchandise expanded rapidly as it did in those manufactories provisioning
the reciprocal export trades and as numbers grew so did their demand for housing,
putting pressure on available supplies of building land and causing a reduction in the
size of high-value building plots. In both instances the process was, moreover, self -
reinforcing. As building plots became smaller they were normally fully occupied by
the owner’s house and they certainly lacked the space to undertake the self-
provisioning of either manufactures or foodstuffs. Owners of such houses, rich or poor
alike, were accordingly forced to enter the market to provision their households. A
secondary group of traders and manufacturers thus emerged to satisfy this demand,
their demand for accommodation putting yet more pressure on available supplies of
building land.
     Whilst Winchester struggled unsuccessfully during the twelfth century to
accommodate both the royal and episcopal establishments and traders and
manufacturers within its walls, the latter activity spilling over into the suburbs,
London successfully followed the path established by Edward the Confessor.
Westminster, with its abbey and royal palace became the focus about which the royal
and episcopal establishments built their houses, forming a narrow ribbon of properties
along the Strand and creating isolated palaces south of the river in Southwark and
Lambeth. London became a quite separate and magnificent centre of trade and
manufactory.

III.   London: Commercial and Financial Activity

A brilliant evocation of twelfth-century London as a commercial centre was provided
c. 1160 by the French poet Thomas who describes in his Tristan how the hero’s
friend Caerdin sailed into the Thames on an errand for Ysolt disguised as a merchant.
He brought with him “silken wares worked in rare colours and rich plate from Tours,
wine of Poitou and birds of the chase from Spain.” He sails up-river with his
merchandise and within the mouth, outside the entry to the port, he anchored his ship
in a haven. Then, in his boat, he goes straight up to London beneath the bridge, and
there displays his wares, unfolds and spreads his silks. “London is a very noble city;
there is none better in Christendom or any of higher worth, of greater renown or
better furnished with well-to-do people. For they much love honour and munificence
and bear themselves very gaily. London is the mainstay of England… At the foot of
its wall there flows the Thames, by which merchandise comes from every land where
Christian merchants go.” 236 At the time of his writing the old wooden bridge still
spanned the Thames, impeding passage along the river so that, as has been suggested
above, only at Billingsgate and Botolph’s Wharf down-stream from the bridge had
the new-fangled quays, with jetties and timber revetments, been built.237 With the
construction during the years, 1176-1209 of a sturdier stone bridge, this situation
changed. A quarter of a mile long, on nineteen piers with a drawbridge in the middle
to allow larger ships through, it was one of the earliest stone bridges in medieval
Europe, admired by all later visitors to London. Now large ships could pass upstream
and from c. 1200 the new quays with jetties and timber revetments were built there,
at Dowgate, Ætheredeshyd and the Bishop’s wharf above the bridge, associated
warehousing now extending all along London’s waterfront. By the opening years of
the thirteenth century London was well equipped with the latest waterfront facilities-
                                                                                    208


the new quays with jetties and timber revetments, cranes for unloading bulk cargoes
and warehousing to store the merchandise- its port, now the largest and busiest in the
realm, was thronged with ships.
     Its trade had grown massively over the previous century. This boom began in the
1130s, when, as has been suggested above, at London, in the parish of St Antonin,238
there had been gathered a group of moneyers-exchangers and goldsmiths whose
business, was exemplified by the activity of one of its prominent members Deorman.
His affairs involved not only the provision of financial services, but also
encompassed a not inconsiderable volume of commercial activity. In terms of this
trade, only the most valuable of commodities, particularly spice-medicines, were
involved. Far more important to members of this group was their commerce in
specie. Utilising that access, which their peripatetic work as moneyers gave them to a
wide range of money exchanges, they were able to accumulate large stocks of silver.
This they exported to Spain. Here, particularly at Compostella, Burgos and the
neighbouring mint town of Palencia, they were able to trade not only for the spices-
medicines they required but also for that Muslim gold239 which, as a result of their
activities, now passed beyond the boundaries of Christian Spain to Britain.
Exploiting conditions of acute bi-metallic imbalance, the Londoners, thus
participated, during the 1130s, in a highly profitable exchange of British silver for
Spanish gold.240 Nor were they alone in taking advantage of these trading
opportunities. Jewish merchant-financiers, who were excluded from the office of
moneyer, found no obstacle to their participation in the exchange of silver for coin,
whether this took the form of accepting silver vessels in pawn, or exchanging ingots
or foreign coin for English pennies. In the 1130s and 1140s, Jewish settlements may
be discerned in many a ‘town’ containing a mint-exchange.241 Indeed, the specie
supply systems of the Jewish and Anglo-Saxon bullion dealers formed a closely
interwoven network, the former group settling and acquiring silver in those centres,
which lay outside the itineraries of the peripatetic ‘royal’ moneyers, where either the
burgesses or ‘local’ moneyers farmed the mints-exchanges.242 In such circumstances
it would be surprising if, during the 1130s, the Jewish dealers did not employ the
silver, which they acquired in the same manner as their Anglo-Saxon counterparts,
forming links with their co-religionists in Spain. They probably also undertook at this
time that bi-metallic exchange, involving the export of British silver and import of
Spanish gold, which continued until the temporary re-alignment of Spanish ratios in
the 1140s.243
       The picture of activity in the other branches of the British bullion trade, which
did not involve bi-metallic exchanges but rather entailed a mono-metallic outflow of
silver from Britain to the lands of the Franks and Flemings where the metal was
exchanged for commodities, is unfortunately much more obscure. In the 1140s,
however, they may be discerned at London where, as part of a close-knit group which
also included Lotharingians and Lombards, they probably engaged in a similar
exchange of goods for specie obtained perhaps from those Anglo-Saxon and Jewish
traders whose activities have been described above.244 The abundant specie supplies at
London thus, at this time, attracted the attention of Frankish, Flemish and
Lotharingian traders whose commerce did not involve bi-metallic exchanges. Rather
they engaged in a monometallic export of the precious metals to their homelands and
a countervailing trade in commodities.245 As silver and gold imports to Flanders,
Frankia and Lotharingia led to the incorporation of these ‘nations’ into the western
European ‘hard’ monetary zone the augmentation of specie stocks there, however,
tended to condition the nature of the reciprocal trade to the specie-rich nations of the
                                                                                   209


trading system. Merchants who wished to acquire specific wares for this trade, with a
given amount of silver, had a choice. They could either acquire a small quantity of
such goods from domestic producers who operated at high cost levels, expressed in
terms of silver, or could deploy their silver elsewhere in lands, encompassed within
the ‘soft’ monetary zone beyond the Rhone-Rhine axis. Beyond this Rhone-Rhine
axis factor costs, expressed in terms of the same metal, were much lower and they
could acquire far more goods for their money. Thus during the years c. 1125-55 one
may discern the merchants of Dinant and Huy amongst other Low Country traders at
Koblenz and Köln buying, with local dealers, those ‘cheap’ (measured in terms of
silver) Rhenish wines which in 1130 figured prominently on the London market.
Others of that ilk could also be found at the havens of Schleswig, Aarhus and
Oldenburg acquiring ‘cheap’ Baltic furs and wax.246
       London during the first half of the twelfth century, as a source of abundant
silver, thus attracted to itself merchandise from every land where Christian merchants
went. Wine and fish, as in the early eleventh century, figured largely amongst the
cargoes of the men of Rouen, who also shipped quantities of dyestuffs, in particular
woad,247 and whose privileges and the use of ‘the port of Dowgate’, which they
claimed to have had since the time of King Edward,248 was guaranteed by Duke
Henry in 1150-1.249 Down to the loss of Normandy in the first decade of the thirteenth
century the wine, which came from Rouen, remained an important element in
London’s trade. John so favoured these thin wines of the Paris region that in his
charter to Rouen he exempted them from his own prisage, he was to have, for his own
drinking and to give away, two barrels for every wine ship, but he was to pay
compensation for it. 250 Alongside these Franks, who seem to have settled in the
vicinity of Dowgate, as has been suggested above, Lotharingians who were subjects
of the Emperor, and Flemings also flocked to London during the early twelfth
century. Indeed about 1125 the city was said to be bursting with wealth and
merchants, coming from every land but particularly from ‘Germany.’ 251 The
Flemings’ and Lotharingians’ ‘German’ trades, as has been shown, were intertwined.
Flemish merchants of Dinant and Huy amongst other Low Country traders at Koblenz
and Köln acquired ‘cheap’ Rhenish wines, which transported westward found in 1130
a ready sale on the London market.252 Like the Franks, the Flemings claimed an
ancient right to a property known as Wermansacre with wharf, rights and customs, in
London, allegedly granted to the Church of St Peter of Ghent by King Edward.253
Amongst their number, however, the men of St Omer more surely established their
rights to trade in London. Shortly after Henry II acceded to the throne they secured
from him the right to choose lodgings where they would, to sell their goods without
view of the justiciar or sheriff and without paying dues for their exposure, to go to
fairs and markets throughout England.254 The denizens of the coastal towns of the
Low Countries – Tiel, Bremen and Antwerp- also traded to London possibly in Baltic
furs. They, however, were not allowed to pass upstream beyond London Bridge
“unless they will be ruled by the law of London.”255 Lotharingians, like their Flemish
counterparts also acquired at this time Rhenish wines at Mainz, which they
transported to England. Both Fleming and Lotharingian, moreover, travelled with
their wares in consort with denizens of the ‘German’ towns, Köln and Mainz, who not
only secured special privileges relating to their trade in London, but also by the mid-
twelfth century in the case of the Köln merchants possessed a Guildhall, near
Dowgate.256 With respect to the Lotharingians, however, their trade in Rhenish wines
represented only a small part of their commerce with London. They were
intermediaries in the mid-twelfth century overland trade to the Mediterranean lands,
                                                                                    210


which passed from Constantinople by the Danube and Regensburg to the Rhine,
before crossing the narrow seas to London beyond. They brought to London cups of
gold and silver, beautifully crafted, and so marvellously described in the early twelfth
century by the German monk-craftsman Theophilus,257 and precious stones. They
brought luxury silk and half-silk (linen/hemp-silk) cloths manufactured in
Constantinople and/or Venice and acquired at Regensburg,258 transporting these wares
via Mainz, where they obtained fine linens.259 Finally they carried spices, pepper, wax
and fustian, and when English harvests failed, boatloads of grain. On arrival in
London the king, through his chamberlain, and in view of the sheriff of London had
the right of pre-emption of these wares. After him the men of London might buy what
they wished, then the men of Oxford, then those of Winchester before the sale was
thrown open to others.260 Foreign merchants thus in the early twelfth century settled in
increasing numbers in London, some, like the Flemings, in lodgings scattered across
the city, others like the Franks and Köln merchants, in the Vintry by the Dowgate
Wharf (map 8.14).




      Their indigenous counterparts displayed a similar pattern, the houses of the
English merchants being distributed widely across the city, the Jews in their own
quarter. The Jewry seems thanks to the patronage of the William I, to have been an
element wholly new in the city during his reign. Thereafter, however, it went from
strength to strength due to the active support of William II261 and Henry I,262 ushering
in a period of some two hundred years when they stood at the centre of the London
money market. Old Jewry and St Lawrence Jewry marked the centre of their London
quarter. The London Eyre of 1244263 shows Jews living there and blocking lanes to
extend their properties behind St Mary Colechurch and near Coneyhope, and they
even lived as far to the Northwest as the prosperous quarter near Cripplegate. The
                                                                                     211


London Jewry was the chief centre of Jewry in England264 and one of the chief centres
of finance and money lending in London. In the reign of Henry I, as has been
suggested above, they were associated with Anglo-Saxon moneyers in the acquisition
of silver, which they put out on loan or exported via London. 265 At this time the
leading member of the London Jewry was the Rabbi Rosce of Rouen, whose sons
Isaac and Abraham were leading moneylenders and business associates in the mid-
twelfth century. Isaac bought a house on Cheapside from Gervase de Cornhill.266
Then in c. 1160 when Henry II was able to assure sound money and stable prices to
all of his subjects, however, the operations of both Christian and Jewish financiers
began to transcend their previously spatially restricted networks and they came into
their own. The most eminent figure in the English Jewry at that time was Aaron of
Lincoln267 who maintained a house in London, though his main base of operations
was in Lincoln. In the early part of Henry II’s reign the above mentioned Isaac and
Abraham, the sons of Rabbi Rosce, were lending money to the king but it was not
until the mid- and late 1170s that he borrowed large sums from Jewish financiers.
Two syndicates were formed, the first in c. 1175, the second, in which Aaron was
involved, which took the form of a rescue operation, in 1177.268 Following a crisis in
royal financial operations in 1173-4 such operations had been put on a safe footing
and the London Jewry established itself at the centre of what has been described
above as a national money market.269 Nor were the Jews the only group to become
involved in the London money market in Henry II’s reign. That other great financial
giant of the age, William Cade,270 was also active. He was a native of St Omer and
continued to maintain his merchant-house and was active within that ‘town’ until his
death in c. 1166. He was involved in the burgeoning Anglo-Flemish wool trade of the
1150s271 and enjoyed extensive connections throughout contemporary European
trading networks within which he operated through a number of partners and
associates. His closest partners were his son Eustace and his brother Ernulf. He and
they were frequent visitors to London and Winchester, where they maintained houses
and he was during the years before his death a central figure on the London money
market, his debtors, as has been suggested above, encompassing a wide spectrum of
English society.272 Amongst their numbers were monasteries, particularly the
Cistercians to whom he paid out moneys in advance to secure their wool crop.273 They
also included bishops and lesser clergy together with leading barons and some earls.
Also amongst his clients were sheriffs, who experienced difficulties in making
payments and had problems with sorting out the bundles of talleys and writs, and
cartloads of silver coins that were needed to sort out their affairs before the barons of
the Exchequer. William Cade and Aaron of Lincoln were the great financiers of their
age but there was a host of others with money to put out. William Trentegeruns, a
leading citizen of Rouen until his death in 1159, for instance, combined his trade to
Southampton with making loans to, amongst others the young duke Henry before he
acceded to the English throne. After his death his wife continued his business
collecting in the sales-credits and loans.274 London, like Southampton, outport of
Winchester, in the twelfth century thus attracted to itself not only merchandise from
every land where Christian merchants went, but also capital flows, as merchants and
financiers, domestic and foreign, flooded to the city to exploit the new commodity
market and investment opportunities opening up at that time in England.
                                                                                    212


IV.   London: Manufactory

As merchandise from every land where Christian merchants went, flooded into the
city, moreover, opportunities were opened up for those who would fabricate these
wares. At the corner of Friday Street, on its eastward side was found in the twelfth
century the Aurifabria, the goldsmiths’ quarter. As at Winchester they were
numerous. An early grant by Bernard son of Ralph the goldsmith to St Paul’s was
witnessed by no less than eight persons following this craft. In c. 1130, however, the
Lotharingians imported most of the beautifully crafted cups of gold and other
artefacts, to be sold in London and elsewhere. The imported ‘Spanish’ gold which
was brought to the city until c. 1140 seems to have passed exclusively to a group, who
was kept permanently attached to the king’s service by an allowance of £3. 0s. 10d for
the purchase of charcoal. From 1130 onwards the Pipe Rolls record the allowance to
this group who were generally called “the king’s goldsmiths” and who in 1194
numbered eight in all.275 Included in this group at that time was one Otto son of
William, descendent of a long line of craftsmen, who was not only a goldsmith, but a
hereditary royal servant with his headquarters in or near London and a substantial
country estate.276 In the second half of the twelfth century, if not earlier, however, a
new group of goldsmiths established themselves in the city, their presence being
revealed in 1179-80 when one Ralph Flael, alderman of their adulterine guild, fined
with the king for some forty-five marks (£30) to obtain a licence for their
organisation.277 It was probably from amongst their ranks that one Robert of London
who settled in Genoa, which from c. 1136-1175 was the principal centre of the
contemporary ‘Sicilian-African’ gold trade,278 came. In the 1170s he presided over a
substantial English community in Genoa, which maintained close contacts with
London. One of their number, Jordan of London was linked with one of London’s
leading citizens, Jordan de Turri, who was often found in the company of the city’s
first mayor as the century drew to a close. In the 1170s the English community in
Genoa was quite large, but as the ‘Sicilian-African’ gold trade subsequently declined
it contracted in size, only a few goldsmiths remaining as the thirteenth century
dawned.279
     The import of pepper and other spices from Spain, as has been suggested above,
was until c. 1140 the preserve of those Anglo-Saxon moneyers, like the Deormans,280
who resided in Sopers Lane on the corner of Watling Street, between Cheapside and
Dowgate in the parish of St Antonin, whose church served as their private chapel.281
Like the goldsmiths, these moneyers were hereditary royal servants and both groups
seem to have enjoyed a close association. From c. 1136-75, however, the trade in
spices seems to have been re-routed, passing at this time from Constantinople, either
directly along the Danube or, carried by the Venetians, going via Pavia and then by
way of Alpine passes, to Regensburg and the Rhine, before crossing the narrow seas
to London beyond. The pepper and other spices were, moreover, brought to London
by very different merchants- the Lotharingians282- who acted as intermediaries in the
trade and sold their spices wholesale283 to a new group of retail traders in London,
whose presence was revealed in 1179-80 when Ædwardus alderman of the adulterine
guild of pepperers fined with the king for sixteen marks (£10. 13s. 4d) to obtain a
licence for their organisation.284 This new group of retail traders in London had after
the import-trade crisis of the 1150s replaced that which been associated with the
Deorman - Theoderic families in the parish of St Antonin. All of these spicers who
appear in English records from that time until the beginning of the thirteenth century
are conspicuous for their connection with the Court or great ecclesiastical
                                                                                    213


households.285 The royal spicers provided medicines for the court, as well as
‘electuaries’, expensive concoctions of spices, which served as both medicines and
luxurious deserts. The purchasing power of the court meant that it was vital that the
Pepperers should maintain their access to it. The guild may therefore have emerged in
response to the ending of the Pepperers’ ties with the powerful families who had
previously presided over their trading quarter. They needed to replace one patron with
another – perhaps Edward Blund, King’s Chamberlain and chief purchaser for the
Royal Household in London from c. 1160-82. Certainly he would have been an ideal
candidate to be patron of the guild, his position requiring him to license foreign
merchants visiting London and to exercise the Crown’s rights of prise and pre-
emption. Besides exercising the right of pre-emption he also controlled entrée to the
royal market. The need to maintain the Pepperers’ links with the royal market and to
find a substitute for their previous patrons may therefore have contributed to the
emergence of the twelfth-century guild. Probably more important, however, was the
growth of the spice trade itself during the last third of the twelfth century. With the
equilibration of European monetary stocks from c. 1160 and the rise of the
Champagne Fairs286 and associated fall in transaction costs, the ‘real’ price of spices
fell and the trade went from strength to strength. 287 The Lombards, whose presence in
London in 1140 has already been noted, now flocked to that city. They served as
traders, supplying the city on the Thames with spices transported from their Levantine
trading bases, via Genoa and Pisa, the Rhone valley and the Champagne Fairs before
crossing the narrow seas to London beyond. They also served as financiers who lent
money to the Crown in 1191. Mediterranean merchants had not, however, gained
complete control over the spice trade. From as early as the 1160s London merchants
began to penetrate their preserves, their presence at Genoa has already been noted,
whilst the Spanish Jew Benjamin de Tudela reported their presence at Montpellier and
even Alexandria, the great centre of the trade in spices imported, via the Red Sea,
from the lands of the Indian Ocean by Muslim merchants. Such was the growth of the
spice trade at this time that within the London community trading in those wares a
degree of specialisation began to emerge.288 The term ‘pepperer’ seems to have been
increasingly used to describe men who concentrated more on the wholesale side of the
business and foreign trade and who continued to live in Sopers Lane. The name
‘spicer’ became increasingly reserved for the members of that group of retailers who
acted as apothecaries and who by the end of the twelfth century resided on the Cheap.
Like the London goldsmiths’ trade at Genoa, however, the associated London
pepperers’ trade289 through that city subsequently declined, finally disappearing in the
early thirteenth century. At this time in 1204/5- c. 1215 an increased hardening of the
exchange as John’s monetary reform overvalued sterling, tended to undermine the
England’s overseas trade. Overpriced on foreign markets English goods could not be
vented and the export trade declined. Attracted by high prices and a relatively ‘hard’
currency, foreign merchants flooded the realm with imports, bringing goods, which
the pepperers had themselves once imported from Italy and Northern Spain.290 Strive
as London might to enforce the trading privileges of its freemen, it could no longer
control the distributive trades when alien importers could land their wares at other
ports and distribute them through the fairs. In this environment the London pepperers’
guild disappeared, and supplying the royal court became the prerogative of the
Cahorsins.
     Amongst other imports, which attracted the attention of William fitz Stephen in
the 1170s were furs, which he associated with two countries- Russia and Norway. The
use of furs was already well established in 1127 when an English church council
                                                                                     214


passed legislation against the excesses of abbesses and nuns, forbidding them to wear
garments more precious than those of lambs’ wool or black cats’ fur. A mere ten years
later in 1138 such items were clearly regarded as but poor stuff by the nuns, when it
became necessary for a later church council to forbid them wearing furs of ‘vair’,
variegated fur of grey and white; ‘gris’, a grey fur, both obtained from the winter coat
of the Scandinavian and Russian squirrel; sable, ermine, marten or beaver. 291 Nor
were such extravagances confined to members of the Church. It may be discerned
amongst the laity even in Scotland, where St. Margaret, the old English princess
brought up in Hungary, was noted for her fondness of such items of luxurious dress as
well as for her acts of piety, characteristics, which she passed on to her daughter
Matilda, Henry I’s Queen. In the upper echelons of British society a new age was
dawning and successive Angevin kings, indulged themselves, in the case of furs,
increasingly buying in large quantities the most select skins. Henry II arranged to
have northern squirrel bought for his robes for Christmas and an occasional sable
skin, and the fur-lined cloak he suggested that Thomas Becket might give to the
beggar, on whom they both took pity, was lined with northern squirrel.292 Richard I
was willing to pay as much as £13 for a fur of ermine and four sables, £12 to have two
ermine linings sent overseas to him from England. John also wore sable and ermine,
squirrel and otter skins and on furs for liveries spent generously for squirrel, Lindsey
lambs’ skins and coney-skins.293 It is from the purchases of John, moreover, that a
first insight into how and where these furs were fabricated may be gained. A major
supplier to the king was the prominent Londoner, Radulphus Pelliparius or le
Parmenter. It was he who produced the luxurious silks and furs in which John
delighted: furs of ermine and ‘vair’, coverlets of otter and ‘gris’ and one of samite294
and sable, edged with ermine. He eventually rounded off a career in the royal service
by marrying the granddaughter and heiress of Henry fitz Aylwin, London’s first
mayor.295 Operating at the highest levels of society he cannot be regarded as typical of
the London pelliparii but functionally his production of albeit extremely valuable,
clothing and bed coverings, in a similar way to his Winchester counterparts, 296 is
suggestive. Perhaps, like them, the London pelliparii provided residents of the large
households in the city, with all types of clothing, including over-garments trimmed or
lined with fur, gloves and shoes, as well as saddles and horse furniture. It is surely no
accident that they were concentrated in the Peltry in West Cheap, their shops and
homes extending southward on the banks of the Walbrook to the Thames- adjacent to
the Mercery and Coney Market and to the properties of the cordwainers (shoemakers)
near St Mary-le-Bow and the lorimers (harness makers) and saddlers on Forster
Street. Whether, as has been suggested a prosperous London fur trade, supplying the
city’s pelliparii, only really developed in late thirteenth century must perforce remain
an open question.297 Certainly in the twelfth- and early thirteenth centuries London
does not seem to have been the principal marketing centre for furs- that was
Northampton- the fair there being supplied with northern furs through Boston and
Lynn. When Londoners wanted to buy or dispose of furs beyond the bounds of their
own city it was at Northampton. A London citizen for instance may be discerned in
1226 displaying furs for sale at Northampton. The scale on which some Northampton
pelliparii were trading, moreover, was remarkable. Northampton skinners are
revealed in 1246-9 when they sold furs worth some £190. 14s 2d to the king and in
1250 when one of their number, Benedict Dod and another merchant sold to the king
furs worth £81. 13s. 6d and were paid in 1254 a further £68 6s. 8d. As they also sold
their wares at Winchester, St Ives, Stamford, Boston and Bury St Edmunds, as well as
Northampton, these seem to have been the principal dealers in furs until the mid-
                                                                                     215


thirteenth century, and the Northampton fair a major source of supplies for the
London pelliparii.298
     It seems unlikely, however, given their clientele, that the London pelliparii,
served, as did their Winchester counterparts, as entrepreneurs in the local woollen-
cloth manufactory. They may have organised the fabrication of clothing made of
woollen-cloth, silk or fustian but they probably did not control the production of these
fabrics. The imported mercery- silks and fustians- they used to make clothing, they
obtained from an increasingly clearly defined group of mercers. 299 In 1123 x 1130,
the earliest references to such a mercer, Stephanus mercer/mercator, reveals that he
conducted his affairs in the parish of St Antonin, alongside those moneyers,
goldsmiths and pepperers, who were engaged at that time in the Anglo-Spanish trade.
By 1140 his neighbours included one Lumbarthus (‘the Lombard’), who had probably
arrived in the city as a result of that realignment towards the trans-continental
overland routes about that time.300 As, due to these changes in their commercial
activity, their trade expanded, however, the increasingly clearly defined group of
mercers seems to have sought a new location for their shops. In the 1160s the
mercers’ family businesses had become concentrated amongst the seldae, where they
displayed their wares, in Honey Lane, All Hallows parish. Here, at this time resided
the seriously rich, Serlo le Mercer, and prosperous, Adam le Mercer, Herbert le
Mercer of Antioch, Anger de la Barra and Hugh de Curtune. The Cheapside frontage
opposite the church of St Mary-le-Bow and the territory of All Hallows was a prime
site: it contained several seldae, like the double one with a Cheapside frontage and
another behind it extending north into the parish of St Lawrence Jewry, which Adam
le Mercer granted c. 1200 to the Priory of St Mary Overy in Southwark. Subsequent
tenants of this property continued to be in the mercery trade: Hugh de Curtune,
mercer, and Thomas of Colchester, linen draper, were there around 1192-1212. The
mercer, Anger de la Barra, prospered during the first two decades of the thirteenth
century and enlarged his shop in All Hallows as well as acquiring, in partnership with
one Saloman of Basing, two other shops at the Cheapside end of Bow Lane. Herbert
le Mercer of Antioch bought two stone houses on Honey Lane, with an entrance from
Milk Street where he resided amongst mercer neighbours- Alan, William, Herman
and Richard. An examination of the property dealings of the greatest of this group of
mercers- Serlo- moreover, reveals something of the relocation of the Mercery, from
this site to a new thirteenth-century location on the south side of Cheapside. By the
early 1200s, he had a substantial share in the corner site on the west of Honey Lane on
Cheapside, comprising a selda on the Cheapside frontage, shops and solars above and
houses. By 1231-5 the property was in the possession of Halliwell Priory- the object
of Serlo’s pious bequests. Between these dates he bought a considerable share in a
block of property on the south side of the West Cheap, east of St Mary-le-Bow,
containing a selda behind a row of shops with solars above them and yet another
block to the south, comprising dwellings, gardens, yards and industrial and storage
areas. He was succeeded here, in 1246, by another wealthy mercer, Aketin of
Auvergne (d. 1277) and his son. During the late twelfth century, therefore, the
mercers’ family businesses were concentrated amongst the seldae, where they
displayed their wares, in Honey Lane, All Hallows parish. Here wives, remained at
home and ran the workshop and shop, and dealt with demanding customers, her
husband or factor travelled to buy new stocks and raw materials and sell her goods:
dress accessories, laces, loops and tassels and every type of girdle; braids of all types
from simple edging to elaborate embroidered ophreys. All could be sold by a mercer
and made by him, his wife and household. These small merceries were the wares of
                                                                                    216


any pedlar with his pack on this back, unlike the silk cloths, which the mercers sold to
rich merchants and the London pelliparii who used them to make up items like the
coverlets of samite (a silk-twill) and sable edged with ermine referred to above.
     The London pelliparii, moreover, eschewed the locally manufactured product in
their acquisition of woollen cloths, rather buying those fine scarlets and other
luxurious cloths of Lincoln, Stamford and Beverly, which passed through London,
were worn in London and in the late twelfth-century were exported in London ships,
but were not made there. These they acquired at the Drapery, located beside the
Mercery on Cheapside until rivalry between the two caused the drapers to seek in the
thirteenth century pastures new in Candlewick Street and St Swithin’s Lane, amongst
the candlewrights or chandlers.301
     The London woollen-cloth manufactory produced a completely different product-
‘burel’- a simple and cheap, three-shed twill woven in brown wool, combining
combed and woollen yarns, for which the London pelliparii had but little use.302
Subjected in the late eleventh century to a major technological transformation,
judging by the ‘firma’ of £16 paid by Robert son of Leveson, representative of the
London gilda telariorum in 1130, it had established itself, however, as the premier
English woollen-cloth manufactory at that time. The products of that English
manufactory, however, during the early twelfth century, as has been suggested above,
were but little known abroad.303 They merely acted as ‘import substitutes’,
dominating, as will be shown below, the domestic market throughout that century.
Within that domestic market, the London manufactory, moreover, enjoyed a special
niche and clientele- the ‘urban’ poor- the disenfranchised individuals, whose
excavated residences reveal a minimalist assemblage of material artefacts, and who
only existed in that most populous of all English ‘urban’ centres, London, and one or
two other, Winchester and York, very large ‘towns’.304 In London, it is possible to
view this large but otherwise neglected sector of ‘urban’ society, if only through the
somewhat jaundiced eyes of the late twelfth-century Winchester monk, Richard of
Devizes, who declared that:

    “All sorts of men gather there from every country under the heavens. Each
    race brings its own vices and its own customs to the city…Every quarter of
    it abounds in grave obscenities. The greater a rascal a man is, the better a
    man he is accounted… Do not associate with the crowds of pimps; do not
    mingle with the throngs in eating-houses; avoid dice and gambling, the
    theatre and the tavern…The numbers of parasites is infinite. Actors,
    jesters, smooth-skinned lads, Moors, flatterers, pretty-boys, effeminates,
    pederasts, singing and dancing girls, quacks, belly-dancers, sorceresses,
    extortionists, night-wanderers, magicians, mimes, beggars, buffoons: all
    this tribe fill all the houses”305

This large and disreputable London underworld, together with the equally numerous
group of London’s ‘respectable’ poor, who though gainfully employed eked out a
miserable existence, formed, in the early twelfth century, a sufficiently large market
to elevate London’s gilda telariorum to the premier position in the English woollen-
cloth manufactory. With, from the 1150s, an increasing export of English-cloth to
continental Europe and beyond, that market expanded. Accordingly in 1154 x 1158
the weavers obtained from Henry II a reaffirmation of all the liberties, which they had
possessed in the reign of Henry I. They also secured from him a prohibition,
preventing anyone not of their guild occupying themselves in their craft in London,
                                                                                     217


Southwark or other place belonging to London, paying for these privileges, like their
Winchester counterparts a firma of two marks of gold or £20 of silver coin yearly.306
This was the heyday of the London weavers, however, for as English production
became during the years, c. 1166/74-90, 1196-1204 and 1208-15, increasingly
orientated towards supplying the export sector of the English economy, in London as
elsewhere, those exporting English cloth, attempted to extend their grip over the
manufactory.307 Thus in 1202 the ‘citizens of London’ paid sixty marks (£40) for the
total destruction of the guild of weavers by royal charter. 308 At the beginning of the
next trade boom in c. 1208, acting in collusion with their counterparts in Winchester,
Marlborough, Oxford and Beverley, this group declared that the weavers and fullers
were not free citizens with civic privileges and that they could only become so by
abjuring their crafts and paying a large fine. Nor were they permitted to organise the
selling of their wares. These rules survive in an early thirteenth-century London legal
collection and glosses are added to two of them, indicating that the laws apply to, or
are derived from, the privilege and custom of London ‘as it is said’.309 Throughout the
twelfth century, therefore, the London weavers maintained an active business selling
cheap cloth to the city’s poor, who made up a significant part of a population, which
by c. 1200 perhaps numbered as many as 30,000. By that date, however, the members
of that guild, like their Winchester counterpart, experienced the first of a series of
setbacks, which would ultimately lead during the thirteenth century to their demise.

V.   London: Shops and Shopping

Disreputable and respectable, rich and poor alike, because of the enormous size of
London’s population, perhaps numbering as many as 30,000 in c. 1200, all those who
lived in the city had to enter the market to provision themselves with goods- food and
manufactures- and services. To satisfy their demands, accordingly during the twelfth
century, an institutionalised distribution-system evolved in the city, which had no
counterpart anywhere else in England. Fortunately, a slightly later treatise on this
distribution-system survives, which provides a remarkable picture of shops and
shopping in London in c. 1220.310 The author lists some nineteen urban occupations,
which were found in London and proceeds to describe them in turn. The vintner, who
might be found in the Vintry by the Dowgate wharf, he declares, should have wine of
Anjou, Gascony, the Île-de-France, and Auvergne, rosé wine, spiced wines, grape
juice, perry, vinegar, cider, and mead. He should serve wine to his customers in gold
cups, mazers, and lidded cups. Drapers sell their wares both at fairs and in seldae
(covered bazaars), located in twelfth-century London in the Drapery on West Cheap.
A draper should stock a variety of predominantly English cloths, both cheap and
expensive, including English broadcloths, heavy cloths for making hoods, and finer,
lighter cloths for making robes for the better-dressed. His range of goods should also
include scarlets, burnets, russets, cordium and cordicium and habergets, and grisetum,
evidently a grey woollen cloth from Totnes and Cornwall 311 and imported imperials,
together with burels made in either London or Beauvais. Next came sellers of
foodstuffs, whose markets had their centres in the two Cheaps of West and East. The
anonymous author lists more than two dozen types of fresh sea fish and freshwater fish
that fishermen and fishmongers should sell. In the early twelfth century this was still
undertaken in a market next to St Pauls, an element in the West Cheap, but later
shifted to a new fish market closer to the river. Butchers he declared sell carcasses and
joints, both salted and fresh, of beef, pork, goat, and mutton, and also offal, lard,
tallow, cowhides and sheepskins. Their stalls in the Shambles were located at the
                                                                                     218


western extension of the Cheap, immediately adjacent to Newgate. Poulterers sell all
kinds of wild birds as well as domestic ones. Bakers offer a variety of fine and coarse
breads. Pastelers sell pasties, well-spiced and filled with meat, fish, poultry, or game,
while flan-makers sell flans made of eggs, bread and cheese, and waferers sell wafers
and little cakes cooked in irons or ovens. Lastly, the anonymous author looks at the
metal and leather crafts. The goldsmiths located in Sopers Lane he felt should
maintain a stock, which includes altar plate, crowns, crosses, candelabra, tableware,
and jewellery. Cutlers make various kinds of knives, razors, scissors, and shears.
Girdlers sell belts of silk, linen, or leather, with iron or copper rivets; some of the
girdles are plain, and some are decorated with round or square studs. Glovers offer a
variety of lined and unlined gloves, including heavy work gloves; thin gloves for those
who do no manual work; large, lined gloves for falconers; and seamless knitted
gloves. Skinners, concentrated in the Peltry in West Cheap, their shops and homes
extending southward on the banks of the Walbrook to the Thames, sell leather
garments and fur linings and trimmings made of a wide range of skins and furs, from
those of cats, dogs, and sheep, to those of dormice, squirrels and sables. Nearby in the
vicinity of St Mary-le-Bow the cordwainers worked in tawed leather made of goatskin
or sheepskin, from which they make a wide range of fine footwear. Both the hosier
and the cobbler, however, work in cowhides. Cobblers make both leggings and shoes,
but hosiers make leggings only and not shoes. On neighbouring Forster Street saddlers
sold both saddles and shields in various styles. This treatise then ends abruptly with a
description of the wares of the lorimers who lived in the same neighbourhood. They
sell horse tack and spurs, in a variety of styles. Londoners, traversing the East or West
Cheap and the streets passing down from them to the river were thus by the end of the
twelfth century regaled from a diversity of shops and stalls with a cornucopia of
goods, foreign and domestic, which they could choose to buy according to their
means.

VI.   London: Late Twelfth-Century Property Markets and Civic Administration.

London had, as has been suggested above, in the early twelfth century experienced a
complete transformation of its property market.312 By c. 1140, the dominant form of
property-unit of a bygone age, the praedium or haga, had largely disappeared, its legal
ties to rural manors, or city institutions, had been severed, leaving the associated
private- sake and soke- jurisdictions disembodied, still profitable, but requiring the
creation of legal myths to justify their existence. Residential buildings, newly
constructed on specifically delineated house plots with frontages respecting the line of
the street had displaced it, and, in the context of Norman and Angevin centralism, a
new form of civic administration had evolved.
     Under the last of the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, the king’s authority in the city, as
has been suggested above, had been residual. London was governed for the king by his
portreeve, responsible for collecting royal taxes and revenues. Royal decrees
concerning London were addressed jointly to the portreeve and the bishop of London
and could be conveyed to the inhabitants of the city at their open-air assembly, the
folkmoot, which met beside St Paul’s Cathedral to discuss the affairs of the city.
Having been published by the bishops and reeves of London at the folkmoot, however,
these decrees were then established by pledges in the cnihtena gild.313 This guild is
perhaps best interpreted as being a voluntary association of the principal men of
London, Middlesex and neighbouring areas, through which the king’s decrees were
implemented. Such a fragmented and anarchic system of law was, however, anathema
                                                                                     219


to the centralising tendencies of successive Norman and Angevin kings. The cnihtena
gild remained a reality in the earliest years of the twelfth century, both William II and
Henry I confirming to its members the guild and its land with all those privileges that
they had enjoyed in the time of King Edward and William I. In 1125 however its
members in return for spiritual benefits gave all its lands to the newly founded priory
of Holy Trinity, Aldgate. The guild was remarkably well endowed, for its lands
included the large tract outside the east wall of the city, afterwards called Portsoken.
Such sokes, as has been suggested above, continued to be numerous throughout the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and over such issues as the rights of sanctuary, like
those exercised by St Martin-le-Grand, conflict could arise with the city. Most sokes,
however, were petty liberties whose only serious effect was to offer some hindrance to
shrieval distraint for debt.314 A royal justice decided in 1221, moreover, that to be
viable a soke must have regular records and a court of twelve freemen, a decision,
which must have crippled many of these franchisal courts. Even before the growing
popularity of action by writs had finally undermined them these courts had become
common rather than proprietary in character.315 The folkmoot, at which royal decrees
had been conveyed to the inhabitants of the city before being established by pledges in
the cnihtena gild, enjoyed a more enduring existence but was functionally transformed
during the twelfth century. By the end of that century it had become the great formal
gathering of the citizens, meeting three times a year at the Cross of St Paul’s. It
remained the principal setting for a proclamation of outlawry, in which respect it
ranked with the provincial shire court. Attendance remained compulsory for all
freemen on penalty of a £2 fine. Three sessions only were held each year- at
Michaelmas, Christmas and Midsummer. The Michaelmas session met to know who
the new sheriff should be and to hear his command. The Christmas meeting took
cognisance of the keeping of the wards, whilst the Midsummer session made recurrent
provisions against fire. Yet by this time the record also speaks of prudhommes being
summoned, for the complicated life of a great city could hardly be regulated by a mass
meeting.316 With the difficulties of identifying freemen in a mass meeting and the
complexity of public business, the folkmoot lost much of its vitality. By the mid-
thirteenth century it seemed archaic and moribund and in 1285 its very site
disappeared into the churchyard of St Paul’s. During the course of the twelfth century,
each of the pre-existing elements of civic administration- the soke, which had
sometimes started as hagae, but which by the early thirteenth century were nothing
more than a court, however slight or occasional, to which tenants owed suit; the
folkmoot, at which royal decrees had been conveyed to the inhabitants of the city
before being established by pledges in the cnihtena gild- had all decayed and had been
replaced by a new administrative order.
     The ward, of which some twenty of a possible twenty-four can be identified in
1127,317 displaced the cnihtena gild and soke as the fundamental unit of local justice
and administration in Norman London. Coincident with neither parish nor soke, the
ward was normally named after the alderman who presided over it and its court, the
wardmoot. The moot, presided over by the alderman and directed by his clerk,
registered freemen, examined victuallers and hostel-keepers, appointed scavangers,
ale-conners and other officers, sealed measures. A long series of series of articles,
similar to the general assizes, were presented to it and answered by appointed juries.
For actions upon wardmoot verdicts, the city turned to its courts. The profits of justice
done in these assemblies, which were the jurisdictional equivalent of the rural
hundred, were the king’s but its authority was limited by the continuing but
diminishing authority of the independent jurisdictions of the lords of sokes which, as
                                                                                      220


has been suggested above, continued to be throughout the twelfth- and thirteenth
centuries scattered across the ‘urban’ landscape. In the twelfth century most of the
aldermen were provided by a handful of rooted civic dynasties, that exercised an
almost hereditary authority. All were freemen of the ‘more sufficient’ sort.318 From
their ranks were drawn members of the great central court of Husting, the city’s major
tribunal, which from c.1130 met each Monday at the Guildhall and heard all pleas
except those of the Crown. It was the recognised court for civil business, for pleas of
debt, for disputes about land. It had cognisance of cases to which foreign merchants
were parties, it controlled weights and measures. The volume of its business must have
been immense. Within the Husting, there was a body of men of superior status, the
occupiers of the so-called ‘four benches’. They were the worthy ‘better’ citizens,
learned in the lore of city custom, who formed the nucleus of the court. They were
reinforced by probi regularly summoned from the wards, to provide jurors and pass
upon inquests. For the common pleas, the wards sent six men, for land pleas they sent
twelve. Such was the ‘new’ legal and administrative organisation of London in the
twelfth century, within which the aldermen played a central role, a group of dominant
families who by the reign of Henry I were coalescing into an estate. A product of the
massive growth of trade, finance and manufactory in the city, the social hegemony of
this group crystallised into a form of dynastic government, which was forged through
its relationship with the king and his sheriff.
      Early in the Norman period, the offices of borough- or port-reeve and sheriff of
London seem to have been united in the person of the king’s trusty servant Geoffrey
de Mandeville I319. Retrospective evidence of the 1140s, moreover, suggests that
Geoffrey de Mandeville I paid a firma of £300 a year for all the revenues, which
otherwise the port-reeve and sheriff would have collected.320 Whether in the years
prior to c. 1128 this involved only the joint tenure or the amalgamation of the two
offices is uncertain. Certainly in 1130 the Pipe Roll suggests that the two offices were
subsumed in one- the sheriff- the king’s chief financial officer in the London-
Middlesex shrievalty. It also reveals that four men had recently paid a large sum to be
relieved of debts incurred during their incumbency of the London-Middlesex
shrievalty. Each of them- William Lelutre, Ralph son of Herlewin (uncle of Gervase
de Cornhill), William de Balio and Geoffrey Bucherell- moreover, was a member of
that group of dominant families, who at that time were coalescing into a form of
dynastic civic government. That group was granted administrative recognition,
moreover, at some time during the period between Michaelmas 1130 and July 1133,
by the charter of liberties, which Henry I granted to London. 321 In one respect this
charter merely confirmed existing liberties- the citizens do not plead outside the city
walls and their debtors must pay or plead in London; they are exempted from certain
taxes; they cannot be compelled to give hospitality to members of the royal household;
they are quit of toll throughout the land and the jurisdictional rights of soke-holders in
the city were confirmed. It further confirmed and simplified existing legal procedures.
That ancient procedure whereby the breach of a precise verbal formula in the Hustings
court or Folkmoot was punished with a fine was abolished, and a regular Monday
session of the Husting ordained. It also confirmed the citizens’ ancient right to hunt in
the Chilterns, Middlesex and Surrey. In another respect, however, it afforded that
group of dominant families, who at that time were coalescing into a form of dynastic
civic government, with a new sense of identity, the opening clauses of this remarkable
charter indicating:
                                                                                    221


    “Know that I have granted to my citizens of London the shrievalty of
    London and Middlesex to farm for £300 by tale, for themselves and their
    heirs, of me and my heirs; in such fashion that the citizens may place one of
    themselves, such as they will, as sheriff, and whomsoever of themselves and
    of whatever quality they will as justice to keep the pleas of my crown and
    watch over their pleading. And no-one else shall be justiciar over the men of
    London.”322

From the late 1120s the citizens began to play a part in the financial-legal
administration of London, which meant that some of their leaders acted as sheriffs
and justices. Whether they were chosen by the city fathers or by the king, usually
during the years, c. 1130- c.1190, is unclear, but was clearly highly conditioned by
political circumstance.
      A mere eight to ten years after Henry I’s charter, however, the city fathers
revealed a high degree of corporate cohesiveness and identity when, with the
imprisonment of the king after the Battle of Lincoln in 1141, they gave expression to
their corporate sense of identity in the establishment of a ‘commune.’ William of
Malmesbury reveals the circumstances, relating that at the Council convened after
the battle, “the Londoners came and…said that they had been sent by the commune,
as they call it, of London…to ask that their lord the king might be freed from prison,
and that all the barons who had already been received into their commune very
earnestly begged this of the lord legate, and the archbishop and clergy.”323
International recognition came from the Archbishop Hugh of Rouen, who in an
epistle thanking them for their fidelity to King Stephen addressed them as “ the
illustrious senators, the honoured citizens, and all the commune of London.”324 The
subsequent passage of London into the hands of the Empress Matilda broke the
power of the ‘commune’ and led to the re-establishment of a feudal element in
London society. She granted the shrievalty and farm to Geoffrey de Mandeville II for
£300 and King Stephen soon after confirmed it.325 These were desperate measures,
however, favours to a great baron in conditions of civil war. Geoffrey’s insecurity at
this time is revealed by his attempt to establish a dubious hereditary claim to the
shrievalty.326 The Empress’s charter reveals the basis of that insecurity, when she
observed that the citizens of London were his mortal enemies. With his fall from
grace in 1143 and death in 1144, however, there was a return to the status quo ante.
Sheriffs, whether they were chosen by the city fathers or by the king, were from, c.
1144-c.1190, drawn from the ranks of those who had a substantial stake in London.
Some were merchants, some local landlords with property in the city, some
financiers. Both the city oligarchs and the king had a vested interest in maintaining
this position which ensured smooth relationships between king and City – and for the
former a reasonable money flow- at least until the accession of Richard I.
     In conditions analogous to those of 1141, fifty years later in 1191 a ‘commune’
again showed its face to the world. In the autumn of that year a political crisis broke
within which London was to play a central role and out of which, by agreement with
Walter de Coustance, the newly recognised justiciar, and John, who took the title
‘supreme governor of the whole realm’, the ‘commune’ was born. Those within the
‘commune’ took an oath of loyalty at this time to their king, Richard I, and to the
mayor, the new titular head of the civic administration, Henry fitz Ailwin (c. 1191-
1212), and his associates (echèvins).327 Consistent with their oath of loyalty to the
king in the spring of 1193 the mayor acted as one of the treasurers responsible for
collecting the ransom to free Richard, then a prisoner in Germany. 328 When John
                                                                                      222


raised the banner of rebellion against his brother in the following year, moreover,
Henry fitz Ailwin arrested an envoy sent by John and handed him over to Hubert
Walter, the king’s justiciar. After Richard’s return yet more money was delivered into
the king’s hands. Nor did such efforts go un-rewarded. Before he left again on foreign
adventures Richard confirmed his father’s charter to the city, but it was not until 1199
that the key privilege of appointing their own sheriffs was acknowledged and 1215
before the office of mayor was formally recognised. In practice, however, during
Richard’s reign the mayor continued in office and the sheriffs, drawn from the ranks
of London’s oligarchy, continued to pay the farm, which had been reduced in 1190/1
from £500 to £300. De facto London thus kept the privileges won in the crisis of
1191. Chronically short of money John, on coming to the throne, proved only too
willing to give legal recognition to London’s privileges- at a price. As has been
suggested in the first year of his reign he granted to citizens the key privilege of
appointing their own sheriffs, men who held such office being still answerable at the
Exchequer court but retaining their rights as London citizens to be tried under city
law. The privilege also came at a price- 3,000 marks (=£2,000)- the first of a whole
series of financial impositions, which, during the years, 1199-1206, reduced, as
Mathew Paris related half a century later, the inhabitants “almost to the condition of
slaves.”329 Who exactly was impoverished and ‘enslaved’ by John’s exactions is an
open question, however, for the ruling elite seems to have been able to shift the
incidence of this ‘taxation’ onto the disenfranchised of the city, and precisely during
this period, they created a civic administration capable of undertaking such a task.
From the inception of the ‘commune’ the ‘new’ mayor presided over the great central
court of Husting. Already in the 1190s there are documents witnessed by the mayor in
Husting and by the early thirteenth century it was coming to be the common practice
for the mayor, sheriffs and a group of leading citizens to witness deeds with a
common form and formality at meetings of the Husting. In such a manner Henry fitz
Ailwin was able to preserve traditional oligarchic government through an epoch of
threatened revolution and change. Power was concentrated in the hands of the mayor,
the sheriffs, from 1199 appointed from and by the elite, and in 1200/1 and 1206, a
council, elected on an ad hoc basis from members of that elite. This power was
exercised in the interests of the elite. Exporters particularly during the trade booms of
1196-1204 and 1208-15 utilised their newly found authority to extend their grip over
the manufactories supplying them with goods.330 In general during the years 1199-
1206 it enabled them to shift the incidence of John’s ‘taxation’ onto the
disenfranchised of the city. Increased ‘taxation,’ in conditions of harvest failure and
from 1196-1208 acute monetary inflation, reduced the disenfranchised of the city to a
dire state and made them susceptible to xenophobic and revolutionary influences.
These were brought to a head at the beginning of the ‘crisis’ in 1196 by the
charismatic William fitz Osbert who embarked on a well-nigh-revolutionary
course.331 He championed the cause of the oppressed majority and built up a large
following. He soon, however, found it necessary to visit the king, for protection. The
two got on well together. But he had aroused the enmity not only of the civic
authorities but also that of the king’s justiciar, Hubert Walter. After killing a man sent
to arrest him he sought sanctuary in the church of St Mary-le-Bow but when this was
fired he was forced to surrender. Taken to the Tower, he was tried with nine of his
associates, condemned to death and hanged at Smithfield. As over the next decade the
incidence of John’s rapidly increasing ‘taxation’ was imposed on the ‘poor’ who had
supported him, however, he became a martyr, the site of his death becoming a centre
of pilgrimage for those visiting the city. The city fathers had won, but resentment still
                                                                                    223


simmered just below the surface. What the civic administration gained, however, the
king lost, with the incidence of his ‘taxation’ (tallage together with aids and
‘arbitrary’ gifts) falling on the ordinary townspeople rather than the wealthy minority,
a strong resentment arose amongst the former’s ranks and any popularity John may
have had quickly disappeared. To alleviate this intolerable situation in 1206 he had to
intervene into the city’s internal affairs, ordering its barons to elect twenty-four
citizens; the committee so formed to look into the collection of the tallage, which had
hitherto been born by the general population rather than the wealthy minority.332
Having in 1196 dealt with the popular threat to their financially privileged position in
1206 the civic administration faced a similar threat but now from the king. From that
date, accordingly, the city was drawn into a series of plots against the king, which
came to a head in 1212 when in the autumn the mayor Henry fitz Ailwin died. In the
power vacuum so created, plots were uncovered which implicated Robert FitzWalter,
lord of Baynard’s Castle, procurator of London and leader of its forces in time of
war, who fled to France. Whilst absent John took his revenge on Robert FitzWalter by
razing Baynard’s Castle to the ground. Any hopes that this action might quell
opposition, however, disappeared when John left England in 1214, leaving a small
nucleus of disaffected barons behind who soon gained the sympathy of the Londoners
who were struggling to pay the tallage of 2,000 marks (=£1,333 6s 8d) recently levied
upon them. Early in the next year the king met with his rebellious subjects in London
and appreciating the temper of the Londoners, on the 9th May gave them what they
wanted, formally recognising the position of the mayor, who should be elected each
year, and acknowledging all their accustomed liberties.333 But the Londoners were not
appeased and the city became host to the rebellious barons who secured the active
support of the rich, whilst the cowing the poor into inactivity.334 Forced into an
impasse by the loss of London, John finally negotiated with his enemies- the result
was Magna Carta, which in spite of the difficulties in its implementation finally
confirmed the supremacy of London’s ruling elite and removed that threat to their
security- arbitrary royal ‘taxation’.

IV. FROM ‘BURH’ TO BOROUGH, TOPOGRAPHICAL CHANGE IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY:
AN OVERVIEW. During the half-millennium, 850-1350, the foundation of new ‘burhs’-
boroughs (figure 8.3)335 displayed a distinct cyclical pattern. The first foundation-
cycle rose to a point of peak activity in the late tenth- and early eleventh centuries
before declining to a low in about 1140. Thereafter a new foundation-cycle began,
rising to a new peak at an even higher level in the late twelfth century before again
declining to a cyclical low point in about 1340. The first foundation-cycle, c 840- c
1140, as has been suggested above, was associated with the creation of Anglo-
Scandinavian ‘burhs’, initially established for defensive purposes but subsequently
from the late tenth century re-modelled to accommodate commercial-administrative
functions, and with the Conquest re-named and endowed with borough status. Such
boroughs recorded in Domesday Book were overwhelmingly royal creations.
Subsequently, Norman and Angevin kings continued to found new boroughs but their
role in this process was becoming smaller and smaller, such activity at the peak of the
second foundation-cycle, c. 1140- c. 1340, being far lower than during the previous
one. As the total number of such foundations increased in the twelfth century
therefore the onus of borough creation thus passed to ecclesiastic and lay seigniors.
Their activities assumed the form of three successive foundation sub-cycles- c. 1040-
c. 1140, c.1140- c 1240 and c.1240- c 1340- each sub-cycle peaking in c. 1090, c.
1190, and c. 1290. In a very real topographical sense during the first two of these sub-
                                                                                                         224


cycles, c. 1040- c. 1140 and c. 1140-c.1208/14 - 40, an English ‘urban’ environment
was created.
     Anglo-Saxon Saxon England had been a land of ‘multiple estates’. Such estates
consisted of groups of hamlets and scattered homesteads administered from, and
appending on a caput, containing the lord’s villa and minster, which provided the
property with its secular and religious identity. Such a villa was normally un-fortified
but was often located in proximity to an ancient Iron Age hill-fort where the
population of the estate could retreat with their livestock when threatened. The villa
was not only the residence of the lord, with temporary accommodation provided for
the visits of his intimates. It was also a place of manufactory where high-status
craftsmen made those luxury wares required by the lord to adorn his own person and
residence and often to sell, providing those items which comprised the lord’s
‘merchant’s’ wares when he engaged in contemporary long-distance, foreign trade.
Until the ninth century England lacked any independent organisational form
associated with these latter activities.
     120


                       Figure 8.3
             Borough Foundation Prior to 1340
     100




      80

                                                                                               TOTAL


      60
                                                                                       Lay Seigniorial


      40

                                                                                          Ecclesiastic
                                                                                           Seigniorial
      20

                                                                                             Royal


      0
           <10C     10-11C       DB      1087-1150   1151-1208   1215-50   1251-1300       1301-40


     Beyond the bounds of such estates there was however from the period of Viking
incursions another organisational form - the ‘burh’ or fortified place. These were
originally ‘defensive’ entities, however, and need not be associated, at least until the
waning of the Scandinavian threat in the late tenth century, with any significant level
of commercial activity. Only then did they become foci, within the ‘hundredal-
market-’ and ‘portus’-systems of the Anglo-Saxon kings, for the diminutive,
contemporary levels of commercial activity. In this context the ‘burh’ became a place,
which like the ‘portus’ was where consumers and the merchants who supplied them
with goods, met. Lords took passage on occasion to the ‘portus’ or re-modelled
‘burh.’ Here they and their familia took up residence in that ‘house’, which was little
more than a spatially distant extension of the rural villa from which they had departed.
These ‘houses’ took the form of building complexes comprising timber halls,
Grubenhaüer, sunken-floored huts often associated with manufactory, outhouses,
yard area, pit area and cultivated land. Such complexes were found all over the ‘burh’.
In their construction, the builders, other than in Wessex, normally eschewed any
attempt to accommodate the buildings to any rectilinear street plan. Their building
                                                                                      225


clusters were not primarily dependent on a street but were more or less regularly
disposed about a yard and set within a fairly informal ‘urban’ framework. Such a
house was largely self contained with respect to the owner’s requirements for
manufactures. They also may well have been provisioned from the owner’s rural
estates, the surplus from these estates – much of it at least – being delivered to them in
the city for the retainers and their familia to consume. Such was the volume and
quality of these goods, moreover, that it may be suggested perhaps that these owners
were of high status. Probably these were the residences of lords or their agents who
took passage each year, during the tenth- and early eleventh centuries, to the ‘portus’
or ‘burh’ where they conducted their political, administrative and business affairs.
Such was the way that business activity- manufactory and trade- was undertaken in
Anglo-Saxon England.
     From the late eleventh century, however, these organisational forms
encompassing manufactory and trade activity began to disappear. They were replaced
by a new institution- the borough- which the Norman and Angevin kings endowed
with monopoly rights with regards to manufactory and trade, and which assumed a
completely new topographical, jurisdictional and functional identity. Topographically
the ‘new’ borough was very different from the old ‘burh.’ A new and enduring pattern
of building was established within the new and usually larger ‘urban’ organisation.
Construction, was undertaken on specifically delineated house plots, of small,
rectangular buildings, respecting and fronting onto the line of a newly created street.
What was emerging during the years, c. 1040-c.1240 is in fact the normal building
pattern found within medieval towns- individual house plots arranged along both
sides of the street with buildings set on the street frontage and parallel or gable-ended
to the street. Initially, during the year c.1040-c1140 such developments were largely
restricted to what may be described as the East Anglian regional network and the
Kentish regional network, the latter encompassing London and the neighbouring and
associated region of eastern and northern Kent (Map 8.3, regions A, A1-2). Building
on these foundations lain down during the years c. 1040- c. 1140, the inhabitants of
eastern England subsequently during the years c.1140-1208/14 transformed the region
(map 8.3, regions A1, A/B1) into the most productive and highly commercialised part
of the realm. During this latter economic-cycle moreover, these lands were encircled
on all but their southern side by territories (map 8.3, region B2), which were
undergoing a similar transformation. Geographically this process of diffusion did not,
as is so often declared, create a North-South division of England. Rather it involved a
movement from the bi-nodal eastern ‘cores’, described above, to lands, which were
predominantly situated to the West, Northwest and Southwest. Beyond these lands at
the end of the twelfth century still lay a ‘periphery’ (map 8.3, regions C1-4) where
economic activity and social forms, though cloaked by Scottish and English kings in
feudal ciphers and formulae, continued to conform to ‘Dark Age’ organisational
forms. These were still in c. 1200 lands wherein the ‘multiple estate’ and ‘burh’
continued to provide the foci for economic and social activity and trade remained
encompassed with a ‘portus-system.’ It was not until the commencement of the third
economic-cycle of 1225/40-1340 that the West and South of England, like other areas
within the ‘peripheral’ regions C1-4, became subject to a widespread intensification
of economic activity, which resulted in the creation of new boroughs.
     By 1208/14, moreover within the more ‘advanced regions’ (map 8.3, regions A1,
A/B1 and B2) each of the new boroughs provided the focus for an extensive network
of markets and fairs. Just beyond its boundaries, there was contemporaneously
established a circle of new or re-modelled fairs- Westminster, Winchester and
                                                                                    226


Hereford. Through these fairs the high-productivity manufactories of this extended
and more ‘advanced’ core region could ‘export’ their low-priced wares to the more
‘backward’ areas of the domestic economy (map 8.3, regions C1-4), from which
manufacturers could also ‘import’ the raw materials they required. Fairs established
during the first economic-cycle of c 1040-c1140- at Boston, Lynn, Stow, St Ives and
Northampton- also prospered during the years, c.1140-1208/14 as through the first
two ports-fairs they became integrated into another- international- market system,
within which the English fairs lay on the ‘periphery.’ Clothiers and other producers
of wares, operating at these fairs, continued, during the years, c. 1158-98, to conduct
business in much the same manner, as had their predecessors. They arrived on the
opening day of the fair, with their stock in trade, after a short journey of a few days.
Immediately, during the ‘entry’ days assigned for the task, they set up shop, quite
literally, and got themselves and their wares ready to do business. As the schedule of
the fair progressed they sold the cloth or other wares that they had brought and
acquired raw materials for their businesses; then, in the last period of the fair, they
settled their accounts and attempted to balance their books. If such clothiers or other
commodity producers had been lucky and had disposed of all their wares they
probably now returned home with such raw materials as they had been able to acquire
and perhaps cash in hand. Sometimes they were not so fortunate, perhaps because
they had not sold all of their produce or because they were unable to acquire the raw
materials they required, due to a lack of cash or their unavailability. In such
circumstances they might commence on a journey to the next fair or return home
dejected. Their fortunes, however, were dependent on their position as ‘price-takers’
at these fairs, the terms on which they traded being set by the foreign merchants who
bought their cloth and other wares at the fair or sold them raw materials.
     Such had been the growth in the numbers of markets and fairs during the twelfth
century that by c. 1200 there was a sufficiency. This necessitated that the king should
henceforth control new creations, which threatened to take away trade from
established centres.336

                                Jurisdictional Identity

Changing ‘urban’ topographical forms, in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries,
necessitated a fundamental transformation of civic administrative organisation.
Anglo-Saxon England, as has already been suggested, was already a well-settled land,
wherein economic activity was organised on the basis of the ‘multiple estate’. The
chief rights of the lords of such estates were over the dependent populations, living in
the hamlets and homesteads scattered over their lands. They provided services at the
villa.337 They also were subject to the lord’s authority to enforce tol, a payment on
certain types of sale within the estate, and team, the right to hold a court in which
those suspected of having stolen cattle could call witnesses to warrant their honesty.
Such licit and illicit commercial activities all took place within the bounds of the
estate. It also embraced, however, all of the economic functions of the later borough-
manufactory and trade. The villa was not only the residence of the lord, with
temporary accommodation provided for the visits of his intimates. It was also a place
of manufactory where high-status craftsmen made those luxury wares required by the
lord to adorn his own person and residence and often to sell, providing those items
which comprised the lord’s ‘merchant’s’ wares when he engaged in contemporary
long-distance, foreign trade. The externalities of estate activity took place within a
commercial framework provided by the king. Estates, and particularly those estates,
                                                                                       227


upon which a hundred was centred, possessed a market. It was upon such hundreds
that in the mid-tenth century Eadgar lay responsibility for the discovery and
punishment of dishonest trade- they were to elect twelve officers to attest all
commercial transactions. He established thereby an enduring administrative
framework, which persisted in the more ‘backward’ areas of England into the twelfth-
and thirteenth centuries.338
     Beyond the bounds of such estates there was however from the period of Viking
incursions another organisational form - the ‘burh’ or fortified place. These were
originally ‘defensive’ entities, however, and need not be associated, at least until the
waning of the Scandinavian threat in the late tenth century, with any significant level
of commercial activity. Only then did they become foci, within the ‘hundredal-
market-’ and ‘portus’-systems of the Anglo-Saxon kings, for the diminutive,
contemporary levels of commercial activity. In this context the ‘burh’ became a place,
which like the ‘portus’ was where consumers and the merchants who supplied them
with goods, met. Lords took passage on occasion to the ‘portus’ or re-modelled
‘burh.’ Here they and their familia took up residence in that ‘house’, which was little
more than a spatially distant extension of the rural villa from which they had departed.
These ‘houses’ took the form of building complexes comprising timber halls,
Grubenhaüer, sunken-floored huts often associated with manufactory, outhouses,
yard area, pit area and cultivated land. Such a house was largely self contained with
respect to the owner’s requirements for manufactures. They also may well have been
provisioned from the owner’s rural estates, the surplus from these estates – much of it
at least – being delivered to them in the city for the retainers and their familia to
consume. These were the residences of lords or their agents who took passage each
year, during the tenth- and early eleventh centuries, to the ‘portus’ or ‘burh’ where
they conducted their political, administrative and business affairs. Such was the way
that business activity- manufactory and trade- was undertaken in Anglo-Saxon
England.
     This activity, moreover, took place within a distinct and specific jurisdictional
framework. In the case of the ‘portus’ its creation had arisen from the king’s direct
interest in men who came across his frontiers, an interest which manifested itself in
positive attempts to contain the activities of such traders to a defined frontier location-
the ‘portus’ or ‘gateway’- beyond which inland the alien would experience major
legal disadvantages.339 The king’s interests within the ‘portus’- involving the
collection of tolls on domestic and foreign trade and the examination of contracts, the
gathering of land-rents (landgable) and the proceeds of justice and the making of
defensive arrangements - were looked after by his appointee- the portreeve. A similar
arrangement prevailed within the ‘burh’. Here within the defences the king’s
portreeve also assumed responsibility for the collection of land-rents and the proceeds
of justice and undertook defensive arrangements. He also from the creation of the
‘burh’ exercised the king’s right of ceapstowe, the collection of tolls and the
dispensing of justice, in the street or market. Subsequently from the late tenth century,
with the waning of the Scandinavian threat, the re-modelling of the ‘burh’ and the
rapidly increasing volume of edicts of the Anglo-Saxon kings concerning commercial
matters it became his responsibility to enforce these edicts. In either ‘portus’ or
‘burh’, however, the property market, on the day Edward was alive and dead, was
characterised by a chaotic pattern of mansurae, or ‘houses’ and hagae or enclosures
representing little enclaves of ‘urban’ property. On these properties were built the
residences of lords or their agents who took passage each year, during the tenth- and
early eleventh centuries, to the ‘burh’, where they conducted their political,
                                                                                     228


administrative and business affairs. These lords held these properties of the king, in a
form similar to that which would later be called a ‘tenancy in chief’. Within the
bounds of these properties lords enjoyed legal jurisdiction- sack and soke- in the case
of ‘urban’ properties dependent on their rural estates administered through the estate’s
court. They formed part of the community of the parent estate and were under the
jurisdiction of its lord. No dweller in any of such sokes might be arrested in his house
or penticium. Distraint within a soke was a complicated business, only to be
accomplished after invoking the soke-reeve. Temporary dwellers within a soke owed
nothing by way of customary payments to anyone but the lord of the soke. All
disputes between the men of the same soke would be settled privately in the archaic
atmosphere of the wergild and monetary emendation for personal violence. Where,
the ‘burh’ was created within an existing lay or ecclesiastical estate, without the
‘burh’ defences none of the properties paid landgable to the Crown and tenants of
land here paid chief-rents to the estate lord. Individuals living in either ‘portus’ or
‘burh’ were thus only marginally subject to the direct authority of the king’s officials-
they were primarily subject to that authority exercised by their lord. The king’s
authority was thus residual. It extended to those living and paying landgable within
the ‘burh’ and to the exercise of the crown’s rights in the market, or the street,
ceapstowe, both within the fortification and without.

I. BURGESSES’ STATUS AND BURGAGE TENURE: ROYAL BOROUGHS.                 Nor did these
jurisdictional arrangements initially greatly change with the Conquest, except in
name, in the ‘newly’ defined royal boroughs. Unlike in Scotland, however, in England
even before the close of Henry I’s reign (1100-35) such jurisdictional arrangements
were encapsulated in charters (or more accurately at this time writs). One of the
earliest of these post-Conquest borough writs (1066 x 1075) related to London. It
simply, as has been shown above, confirmed the rights the inhabitants had enjoyed in
the reign of King Edward the Confessor.340 Unfortunately many of the other royal
borough charters, which were granted before the close of Henry I’s reign, were lost
during the subsequent ‘Anarchy’341 and are only revealed in confirmations granted
during the opening decade of Henry II’s reign. Where originals have survived -for
Dunstable (1112-7) and Wilton (1129-35)- however, the king simply granted to these
boroughs the same rights, which the inhabitants of London and Winchester had long
enjoyed.342 Few, about ten per cent, of the surviving royal borough charters from this
period, whether originals or confirmations, however, claim that such rights should be
related to earlier charters or to enshrine customary practices from the time of King
Edward the Confessor or before. The great majority was allegedly first granted in the
reign of Henry I and seems to incorporate much the same formulae as the charters of
Dunstable and Wilton noted above. The use of such a formula, moreover, ensured that
the clerks compiling these charters enjoyed a considerable flexibility in describing the
jurisdictional identity of the ‘new’ provincial boroughs. As the precocious growth of
London, c. 1040-1140 necessitated jurisdictional changes, which were incorporated in
the great charter of liberties, which Henry I issued to that city in 1130x1133, these
jurisdictional changes were, where appropriate, automatically applied in relation to
those other boroughs following in London’s wake.
     These changes (particularly in regions A, A1-2, map 8.3) arose in part from
topographical changes within some of the boroughs. They also, however, and perhaps
more importantly, arose from the imposition by successive Norman and Angevin
kings of a completely new royal conception of the borough, which involved a re-
definition of its economic, administrative and legal identity in terms of the ‘new’
                                                                                     229


feudal society. In the case of London such re-definitions were, as has been suggested
above,343 primarily concerned with delineating, within a pre-established jurisdictional
and judicial framework, the relationship between the citizens and the city’s royal
officials- sheriff and justiciar. Elsewhere such re-delineation had to be undertaken in
the context of jurisdictional changes. Wallingford in Berkshire, whose surviving
charter dates from 1156, provides a particularly fine example of this process. Like the
charters referred to above it was in part a confirmation of earlier borough writs, Henry
II granting “to them for ever all their liberties and laws and customs … as they best
and most honourably had in the time of King Edward and in the time of King William
my great-grandfather and of his son King William the second and in the time of King
Henry my grandfather. All these laws and customs and liberties and quittances I give
and grant to them for ever, and all others which they can show their ancestors had, as
freely, quietly, honourably, as my citizens of Winchester ever best had.”344 It also
incorporated, however, the completely new royal conception of the borough as
applied in this instance to a hundredal estate that included a ‘burh’.345
Topographically little changed in Wallingford during the twelfth century, although the
burgesses secured exemption from obligations related to the defences 346 and their
properties within the ‘burh’-borough’s walls.347 Jurisdictionally and judicially,
however, the borough became a discrete entity, becoming “quit of shires and hundreds
and suits of shires and hundreds,”348 its denizens not having to “answer in any manner
except in their own portmoot.”349 In this context, the burgesses also secured, like their
London counterparts, administrative autonomy creating a new relationship between
the citizens and the principal royal official in the borough- the portreeve. The latter
was ordered “… that he shall decree no custom in Wallingford which shall injure the
burgesses of the estate (villae)… And if the reeve implead them on any occasions
without an accuser, they shall not answer.”350 This immunity was also extended to the
king’s other officials it being granted that “if my ministers or any justice shall
challenge them by any plea or charge, or wish to drag them into any cause, I forbid,
and order that they shall not answer in any manner except in their own portmoot.”351
Legally the borough had become a discrete entity, whose denizens endowed with
monopoly rights with regards to manufactory and trade, which will be discussed in a
later sub-section, also now assumed a new jurisdictional and administrative identity.
     Where a new borough was created by the king prior to the end of the reign of
Henry I in 1135, as in the case of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the charter,352 apart from
endowing the borough with monopoly rights with regards to manufactory and trade,353
and ensuring its court’s autonomy in all save matters relating to the crown, and except
before the justices in eyre,354 was predominantly concerned with the establishment of
burgesses’ rights in their persons and properties. It was declared “if a rustic
(rusticus)355 come to reside in the borough, and there resides for a year and a day as a
burgess in the borough, he shall entirely remain, unless there has been a previous
agreement by him, or his lord for his residence there for a certain time” and his
children would continue this right in perpetuity.356 Having become a burgess,
moreover, all impediments of personal servility were removed, there being “no
merchet (merchet was a fee for a lord’s permission for his villein’s daughter to
marry), heriot (a death duty payable to the lord of a deceased villein), blodwit (a fine
for an assault drawing blood), nor stengesdint (penalty for striking with a stick) in the
borough. Any burgess may have his own oven and hand-mill if he wishes, saving the
rights of the king’s oven.” His status in relation to country dwellers, moreover, was
defined.357 He was thus a freeman and he also held his property in freehold,
‘burgage,’ tenure, it being declared that “whosoever has held land in the borough for a
                                                                                   230


year and a day justly and without adverse claim and the claimant is within the
kingdom need not answer the claimant. But if the claimant is a boy not being of age to
plead, he shall answer him” 358 whilst “any burgess can sell his land and go where he
will, unless his land is in (such) challenge.”359 The strategic and commercial position
of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, however, ensured that it did not secure administrative
autonomy until the end of the twelfth century. The (port-) reeve, who was responsible
for collecting royal taxes and revenues and for conveying royal decrees to the
inhabitants, continued during the twelfth century to govern the borough for the king.
Limits were placed upon his authority, however, it being ordered that “any forfeiture
(being) imposed on a burgess, he shall pay (only) six ounces (øre) to the reeve.” 360
     Across the realm, in ‘old’ and ‘new’ royal boroughs alike, before the close of the
reign of Henry I in 1135, successive Norman kings had thus created and applied a
completely new royal conception of the borough, which involved a re-definition of its
economic, administrative, jurisdictional and legal identity in terms of the ‘newly
created’ feudal order. Subsequently under their Angevin successors, the kings’ clerks,
working within this framework, created an incredibly sophisticated form of
diplomatic for the new borough charters, which accommodated local differences in
‘urban’ topography and jurisdiction and elaborated on the component elements of the
completely new royal conception of the borough.
     London and Winchester, whose privileges had in the early twelfth century been
utilised as universal archetypes in the formulation of charters for other royal
boroughs, now, in the second half of that century, no longer performed this function.
They constituted only two of some half dozen hierarchically ordered regional
networks, within which a major local borough provided the archetype form for the
formulation of new charters. In the North (region C4, map 8.3), Newcastle-upon-Tyne
played this role. Both royal – Hartlepool (1201)361 - and seigniorial – Alnick
(1157/85),362 Norham and Gateshead (1153/95),363 Wearmouth (1162/85)364 and
Durham (1153/93)365 – boroughs modelled their original or confirmatory charters on
those granted by Henry I and confirmed by his grandson to the borough on the banks
of the Tyne.366 York enjoyed a similar position in relation to that shire’s regional
network (region B2-north, map 8.3). Even in the reign of Henry I, in c. 1130, that
city’s privileges had provided the model for the rights granted, with the king’s
permission, by Thurstan, Archbishop of York, to the men of Beverley. 367 Royal-
Appleby (1181)368 and Scarborough (1155)369- and seigniorial- Hedon (1154/73)370-
boroughs within the shire followed suit. Hedon’s charter, however, revealed that it
was very much on the periphery of York’s sphere of influence and that its burgesses
as readily looked to Lincoln as a model for the formulation of their charter. Lincoln,
whose own charter of 1157371 confirming grants by Edward, William I-II and Henry I
was based on that of Northampton, provided one of the nodes of an extended regional
network encompassing what was economically in c.1200 the most productive region
(region A-1, A/B2, map 8.3) of the realm. Other nodes within this network, each of
which based their original or confirmatory charters on that of Northampton, were
Norwich372 and Grimsby,373 the latter Lincolnshire borough with Lincoln providing
the archetype for the formulation of Yorkshire- Pontefract (1194)374 and by one
remove Leeds (1208)375- seigniorial charters. Returning to the lands surrounding the
economic ‘core’, which underwent significant ‘urbanisation’ during the years, c.1140-
1208/14 and 1225-40, (region B2 map 8.3), Nottingham, whose charter of 1157
confirmed a grant of Henry I,376 provided a similar template for charters granted by
John in 1204 to the East Midland royal boroughs of Derby377 and Chesterfield.378
Oxford, which had received a charter, formulated in terms of London’s ‘customs’,
                                                                                       231


from Henry I and a confirmation from his grandson,379 played a similar role in the
Home Counties. Contemporaneously with its original grant, its privileges served as a
model for a charter granted to the seigniorial borough of Burford380 in its shire and in
Henry II’s reign it provided a similar template for a charter granted in 1189 to
Bedford.381
      By the end of the twelfth century within the economically more ‘advanced’
regions (regions A1-2, A/B1-2, map 8.3) of the realm, ‘old’ and ‘new’ royal boroughs
alike had evolved spatially adjusted, jurisdictional and legal systems facilitating the
operation of their property markets, which during the previous century had been
transformed by a fundamental process of topographical change. Both in their persons
and property the burgesses of these boroughs had established in principal, long before
the death of Henry I in 1135, their personal freedom and the right to dispose of their
moveable and immovable property as they wished. Subsequently it was defined more
closely how they could hold and dispose of their property.382 By the second third of
the twelfth century it was generally agreed that burgesses “shall justly have their lands
and tenures and mortgages and debts,” and specifically that “the burgages and their
places” were “to be held and had to them and their heirs in fee and by hereditary
right, for ever.” The method of transmission of these properties to heirs, and the
latter’s rights were also defined. 383 These established, moreover, the framework
for an elaboration of laws concerning the burgesses’ purchase, sale or
mortgaging of their real estate or chattels. 384 By the end of the twelfth century
within the economically more ‘advanced’ regions of the realm, an efficient
standardised system of law had been created within royal boroughs facilitating the
operation of their property markets, which, as has been suggested above, had been
transformed, during the previous century, by a fundamental process of topographical
change.
      Such was not the case in the ‘backward’ regions (regions C2-3, map 8.3)- in West
and Southwest England, Wales and after 1170 Ireland)- on the ‘periphery’ of this
‘advanced’ economic-‘core’. Here economic activity and social forms, though
cloaked by English kings in feudal ciphers and formulae, continued to conform to
‘Dark Age’ organisational forms. These were still in c. 1200 lands wherein the
‘multiple estate’ and ‘burh’ continued to provide the foci for economic and social
activity and trade remained encompassed with a ‘portus-system.’ The increasingly
anomalous and unique nature of these social, economic and commercial
organisational arrangements in this part of the kingdom, meant that the royal clerks in
creating charters for boroughs here, had no template on which to base the document.
There was accordingly little in the way of intra-regional networks of charters, each
borough’s charter being a unique creation, formulated in terms of its own peculiar
jurisdictional form. In the English part of these regions, Bristol provides a good
example of the procedures involved.385 Bristol’s identity as a commercial centre is
first clearly apparent in the early eleventh century. The town grew rapidly thereafter,
especially during the twelfth century. It was identified as a borough in 1086.386 The
main market, first recorded in 1147 x 1183,387 appears to have occupied the streets
within the defended area (the ‘burh’) between the rivers Avon and Frome in the
vicinity of the church of St Mary le Port. The Michaelmas fair, recorded in 1121/2 x
1147, when Earl Robert of Gloucester granted to Tewkesbury abbey the tithe of the
rents of the stalls of his fair at Bristol,388 seems to have occupied a site to the east of
this enclosure and the castle. Suburban expansion particularly during the twelfth
century, involving the hamlet of Redwick (Gloucestershire) and Redcliffe on the
Somerset side of the river Avon, was remarkable.389 Jurisdictionally, these economic
                                                                                    232


changes took place within what was a hundredal estate (villa) that included a borough
(the fortified ‘burh’ or urbs) and township (villatae), which together made up a
city (civitatis). The clerks, in compiling its charter of 1188, used such terms
cautiously and without complete conceptual understanding, in describing the
borough’s spatial identity and form of jurisdiction. “Bristol, within and without the
walls,” was said to have extended “as far as the boundary of the estate (villa), that is
to say as far as Sandbrook and Bewell and Brickenbrigge and the spring- in the way
near Aldbery de Knolle.”390 All the burgesses’ “tenements within and without the
walls as far as the boundaries aforesaid in messuages, in orchards, in buildings over
the water and elsewhere wherever they may be within the estate (villa),” were to be
held “in free burgage, that is to say, by the service of landgable, which they render
within the walls”391 and “concerning their lands and tenures within the town (urbem)
right shall be done to them according to the custom of the city (civitatis).”392 Actions
concerning land and debt were thus determined according to the custom of the city
(civitatis)393 and “no burgess of Bristol” should “plead without the walls of the
town for any plea, except pleas of foreign tenements, which do not pertain to the
hundred-moot of the estate (villae).”394 It was thus through this rather unique
borough court- the once weekly hundred-moot- that Bristol gained a legal identity
and the completely new royal conception of a borough and its burgesses. As
elsewhere the latter involved a rationalisation of legal procedures, 395 a guarantee of
the burgesses’ personal freedom396 and a declaration of their inalienable rights in
relation to their lands, tenements and mortgages.397 In such a manner by the charter of
1188 the somewhat anomalous and unique nature of the social and economic
organisational forms found at Bristol was assimilated in the growing corpus of
twelfth-century borough law, illustrating a process, which may also be discerned in
such West Country boroughs as Hereford,398 Shrewsbury399 and Gloucester.400
     Setting aside for the moment the borough charters of Wales and Ireland, which
were predominantly seigniorial grants, across the remainder of the realm, in ‘old’ and
‘new’ royal boroughs alike, successive Norman kings had created and applied a
completely new royal conception of the borough, which involved a re-definition of its
economic, administrative, jurisdictional and legal identity in terms of the ‘newly
created’ feudal order. Subsequently under their Angevin successors, the kings’ clerks,
working within this framework, created an incredibly sophisticated form of
diplomatic for the new borough charters, which accommodated local differences in
‘urban’ topography and jurisdiction and elaborated on the component elements of the
completely new royal conception of the borough. By the end of the twelfth century an
efficient standardised system of law had been created in relation to royal boroughs
facilitating the operation of their property markets, whether these had been
transformed, during the previous century, by a fundamental process of topographical
change (in regions A1-2, A/B1-2, map 8.3) or not (in regions C1-4, map 8.3).

II. BURGESSES’ STATUS AND BURGAGE TENURE: SEIGNIORIAL BOROUGHS.             The first
borough foundation-cycle, c 940- c 1140, as has been suggested above (figure 8.3),
was associated with the creation of Anglo-Scandinavian ‘burhs’, initially established
for defensive purposes but subsequently from the late-tenth century re-modelled to
accommodate commercial-administrative functions, and with the Conquest re-named
and endowed with borough status. Such boroughs recorded in Domesday Book were
overwhelmingly royal creations. Subsequently, Norman and Angevin kings continued
to found new boroughs but their role in this process was becoming smaller and
smaller. Regarding such activity at the peak of the second borough foundation-cycle
                                                                                     233


of c. 1140- c. 1340, the numbers of new creations was far lower than during the
previous one. As the total number of foundations increased in the twelfth century
therefore the onus of borough creation thus passed to ecclesiastic and lay seigniors.
Their activities assumed the form of three successive foundation sub-cycles- c. 1040-
c. 1140, c.1140- c 1240 and c.1240- c 1340- each successive sub-cycle peaking in c.
1080, c. 1180, and c. 1280. As the volume of England’s domestic and foreign trade
increased rapidly during the years, 1040 to 1208/14-40 both lay and ecclesiastic lords
wishing to profit from involvement in such activity, sought the king’s permission to
establish a new borough on their estates.401 The role of these discussions with the king
in the ultimate formulation of the lord’s charter to his burgesses varied greatly. In the
great majority of instances there is no internal evidence of any significant royal orders
being carried out, but as has been shown above, on occasion the lord adopted for his
charter the model provided by a royal borough within his immediate regional charter-
diffusion network.
     Once permission had been granted the lord set about implanting a borough in one
of his rural properties. Normally, as in the case of Reginald, Earl of Cornwall’s
grant of 1147 x 1175 to his burgesses of Bradninch (Devon), 402 this involved
“their places,” which “were delivered and assigned to them.” The nature of such
‘places,’ in the boroughs of the more ‘advanced’ areas of twelfth -century
England (in regions A1-2, A/B1-2, map 8.3), within which the newly created built-
upon plots were aligned along and respected each side of a street, the form of
plot was almost taken for granted by the clerks who composed the charters. In
royal Scarborough’s charter of 1155, for instance, in establishing burgage rentals
the clerks merely indicated that “for each house in Scarborough whose gable is
turned towards the street four pence, and for those houses whose sides are turned
towards the street, six pence,” 403 illustrating the already established classic form of
‘medieval’ ‘town’ plan. If a new borough was created on a virgin site, as in the
case of Stratford-upon-Avon, occasionally the size of the building plot was
defined.404 On the ‘periphery’ (in regions C1-4), however, the situation was very
different. Within these lands the burgesses’ ‘places’ reflected the rural
environment within which the seigniorial borough was established. Their lords
granted the burgesses their ‘places’ or plots on which to build their house but also
a whole series of rights in adjacent agrarian resources – orchards and gardens by
their houses, arable land in the town fields, 405 wood from the lord’s forest and
hunting rights therein, 406 woodland and moorland pasture for grazing their
livestock.407 Although described as appurtenances to the basic burgage plot, and as
such afforded the same legal status, the usage of these resources had to be defined
in order not to infringe on the lord’s jurisdictional rights in the manor-‘multiple
estate’ within which the borough was established. Thus although it was not
uncommon to grant burgesses pastoral rights within the lord’s moor- and wood-
lands, these were normally restricted to common grazing and in woodland the lord
restricted the number of animals that could be grazed and reserved his right to
‘pannage’ (payment for feeding pigs on mast). 408 The situation at Corbridge
(Northumberland) reveals very clearly the nature of such grazing rights. “He (John
filius Robert in c. 1212) … granted them common of pasture in the … wood and
other places as they were wont and ought to have it. Provided that they do no
damage to any in going or returning, and if perchance they do damage, they shall
make amends. And all swine, fed and living continually within the burgages, shall
be quit of pannage: but all other swine fed in the field or the wood shall pay
pannage, as they were wont.”409 The burgesses inhabiting seigniorial boroughs on
                                                                                    234


the ‘periphery’ of the more ‘advanced’ economic-‘core’ of twelfth-century
England thus continued to live in a rustic environment within which economic
and jurisdictional separation from the host manor-‘multiple estate’ was a slow
and piece-meal process. The jurisdiction of the manor-estate, to be discussed in
the next chapter, was the setting and reality for most of its free and servile
inhabitants of whom the burgesses were only one group, their identity being
conditioned on the grants made by their lord to them. These were specific grants,
however, and did not negate, as the example of Corbridge above shows, their
payment of manorial dues for the use of resources not granted to them.
     As to these rights granted to them they were enforced in a court to which they
could appeal, but the nature of these courts varied widely. In twelfth-century
hundredal estates this was normally the hundred court. This possessed as in the
‘Dark Ages’ “sake and soke, (jurisdiction and right to hold a court),” civil law
jurisdiction, “toll and team (regulating commercial transactions within the
estate)” and criminal law jurisdiction, “infangthef (theft by possession)
hamsoken (assault on someone in his own dwelling) and bloodwite (a fine for
shedding blood), fightwite and peacebreach (breach of the peace), ordeal, and
judicial combat (establishment of guilt by a painful task or dual) and flemenfret
(penalty for harbouring fugitives).” 410 It continued to exercise authority both
within the borough and in the hundred without. Where the borough was in the
twelfth century the successor to an ancient ‘burh,’ redress could be sought for
breach of privilege in the Portmanmot.411 Within newly created manors, either
seigniorial or royal like Chesterfield, 412 where during the latter half of the twelfth
century a borough, had been created from and formed a part of the royal manor and
associated soke, the manorial leet served as the primary court within the jurisdiction.
The inhabitants of the manor who held tenements in free and servile tenure owed suit
at the leet court of the manor. So also did those who held free burgages. They also
owed suit there, but at sessions specially prorogued with juries, who had especial
knowledge of custom and practice prevailing in the borough. Within this complex of
borough tenements the inhabitants, who owed suit in the Middle Ages at the manorial
courts- free burgesses, free tenants and commoners of the borough- held as of their
lord.
     The burgesses’ rights protected in these seigniorial courts tended to conform in
the twelfth century to those embodied in successive Norman and Angevin kings’ new
royal conception of the borough, although each lord introduced his own idiosyncratic
elements. Almost universally, in either seigniorial or royal boroughs, having become a
burgess, all impediments of personal servility were removed, there being no merchet
or heriot leviable in accord with his person.413 He was a freeman and held in free
burgage tenure. Yet, as has been suggested, whilst in the royal borough’s burgesses
were able to secure laws concerning their free purchase, sale or mortgaging of
their real estate or chattels, in the seigniorial boroughs the situation was not quite
so clear cut. In Whitby (Yorkshire) and Walsall (Staffordshire) lords enjoyed pre-
emptive rights in relation to any sale of burgage property. 414 How often these rights
were invoked is impossible to establish. Where such property transfers took place in
the manorial leet court, the normal fines raised in relation to the transaction were
commuted into a standard payment –tol – that varied considerably in amount, between
2d and 20d per transaction.415 Judging by later levels of fines levied in manorial
courts these could be quite substantial sums, imposing a significant transaction cost
on property transfers. Nor did all burgesses enjoy a level playing field with regards to
their holdings or personal obligations. In Ireland, Wales and most of England in both
                                                                                       235


royal and seigniorial boroughs the lord’s rent for a burgage normally amounted to one
shilling a year, but randomly scattered across the realm were lords of seigniorial
boroughs who would accept half this amount.416 Others, like Earl Randel Blundeville
in 1209-28 in relation to his manor of Leek, allowed their burgesses an abatement of
rent for a specified period.417 Similarly, whilst obsolete ancient obligations like
scotale (a traditional drinking party to which ‘guests’ were invited and had to give
‘contributions’), childwite (a fee for the unlawful impregnation of a female slave),
brudtol (a fee payable if a bond-woman married a freeman) and heresgift (a New
Year’s present to the king or his official) were abolished, along with compulsory
hospitality, in most of the major royal boroughs, in Bury St Edmunds and perhaps
other seigniorial boroughs, scotale at least remained in the late twelfth century a
valuable living reality which could be commuted rather than abolished-at a
considerable price.418
       The late eleventh and twelfth centuries thus witnessed the Norman kings’
creation of a new legal system embodying a completely new royal conception of the
borough. This conception involved a re-definition of its economic, administrative,
jurisdictional and legal identity. Subsequently under their Angevin successors, the
kings’ clerks, working within this framework, accommodated this general conception
to local differences in ‘urban’ topography and jurisdiction and elaborated on its
component elements. By the end of the twelfth century an efficient standardised
system of law had been created in relation to most royal and seigniorial boroughs
across the realm. This facilitated the operation of their property markets, whether
these had been transformed, during the previous century, by a fundamental process of
topographical change (in regions A1-2, A/B1-2, map 8.3) or not (in regions C1-4,
map 8.3). It also, as will be suggested in the next section, transformed their
economies. Boroughs became the only legal place where retail trade and manufactory
could take place. To this end Norman and Angevin kings endowed them with
monopoly rights with regards to manufactory and trade. In this context it would be
wrong to make a distinction between ‘progressive’ royal boroughs and ‘regressive’
seigniorial ones. As has been shown in a comparison of royal Grimsby and
seigniorial Boston, seigniorial status in no way affected economic performance.419
This in part at least may be because whether law was administered through a
manorial leet or in an independent borough court it tended to conform to that new
royal conception, which involved a re-definition of the borough’s economic,
administrative, jurisdictional and legal identity. This does not mean that there were
not ‘regressive’ lords, like the notorious Abbots of Bury St Edmunds, but they were
the exception rather than the rule. By the end of the twelfth century an efficient
standardised system of law had been created in relation to most royal and seigniorial
boroughs across the realm. This reduced ‘negotiation’ (‘contract specification’) and
‘protection’ transactions costs, and thereby facilitated, as has been shown above, the
operation of borough property markets and, as will be shown below, the activities of
manufacturers and traders

III. MANUFACTORY AND TRADE.       At the core of the new twelfth-century Norman and
Angevin legal conception of the borough was the kings’ desire to establish it as a
centre of retail trade and manufactory within their realms. The transformation of
borough property markets involving, as has been suggested above, the burgesses’
rights to mortgage their lands, utilize their properties as security for loans and to have
actions for debt heard exclusively in the borough court, all had a direct impact on
their activities as traders and manufacturers. Both Norman and Angevin kings,
                                                                                     236


however, went much further than this in their creation of a new legal system
embodying their completely new royal conception of the borough.420 They were
intent on making the borough the exclusive centre of retail trade and manufactory in
their lands. The borough was such a centre because the king said it was. Prior the
reign of Henry I (1100-35) the economic privileges granted were predominantly
mercantile in character- involving general exemptions from toll and passage, lastage
and all other customs levied on trade throughout England, Normandy and such
maritime ‘portus’ as were located within these lands, together with the right to
retaliation if such tolls were levied illegally. 421 The grants were largely confined,
moreover, to centres of a pre-existing commercial network, embracing London and
its hinterland as well as those ‘towns’ subject to the pre-existing custom of the
Cinque Ports- Sandwich, Hythe, Dover, New Romney and Hastings-422 which were
heavily involved in the Yarmouth herring fishery423 and provided shipping for the
defence of the realm. Subsequently, during the first half of the twelfth century during
the reigns of Henry I, Stephen and Matilda, whilst, as has already been suggested
above, the component elements of the new royal conception of the borough coalesced
into a new whole, grants were made to both ‘old’ and ‘new’, royal and seigniorial
boroughs, and these rights were universalised, exempting each of these boroughs
from the payment of tolls424 throughout the realm.425 In the late twelfth century the
process continued as new boroughs were created and transport cost were reduced as
impediments were removed from the major river-ways- Trent, Thames and Severn-
which provided access to some of the major ‘towns.’426
      As the inhabitants of the newly defined boroughs became subject to intense
‘foreign’ competition during the course of the first (c. 1040-1140) and the whole of
the second (c. 1140-1208/14) economic-cycles, however, many of them may have
questioned the value of such a ‘free trade’ policy. Thus, during the first of these
economic-cycles members of this group began to clamour to their lords for protective
measures. The first lords recorded as responding to these demands were Roger
Montgomery for Chichester (d. c. 1094),427 Robert fitz Hamon for Burford, Oxon.
(1087-1107)428 and Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109),429 all seigniorial
lords (in region A2, map 8.3), who in response to their burgesses’ requests created a
completely new organisational form- the Guild Merchant.430 Subsequently, during the
first half of the twelfth century, during the reigns of Henry I, Stephen and Matilda, the
new institution was adopted by successive rulers and was copied by other seigniorial
lords.431 Such guilds continued to be established under the Angevins. 432 Membership
of the Merchant Guild ensured “… that no one who is not of the Guild may trade in
the said ‘town’, except with the consent of the burgesses.”433 Guild members enjoyed
exemption from local tolls imposed on ‘foreigners’, who might only sell wholesale to
members of the Guild. Such ‘foreigners’ were forbidden to keep shops or sell retail or
to keep wine taverns.434 Members of the Guild Merchant thus came to enjoy a
monopoly of the retail trade in their respective boroughs. Merchants visiting these
boroughs could only sell wares wholesale to members of the guild. Those members of
the guild thus controlled the borough markets and, through the borough courts they
also established market regulations, which recognised the importance of transaction
sequence in such markets.435 The twelfth-century guild authorities that created such
regulations reserved the first hour of trading in basic provisions to citizens, so that
they could fill their weekly requirements sheltered from the risk that market supply
might be exhausted by early large sales to outsiders. The greater the number of people
they could ensure would gather together to trade in the market, moreover, the easier it
was for an individual to find buyers for what he had to sell, and sellers of what he
                                                                                     237


intended to purchase. In effect the greater the number of participants in a market, the
faster each one could sell his inventory and the lower would be transaction costs.436
     One exception was made, however, during the first economic-cycle (c. 1040-
1140) at least, whereby ‘foreigners’ were totally prohibited from buying wool, wool-
fells or hides437- the raw materials of the boroughs’ manufactories. In the acquisition
of raw materials (particularly wool and hides or cloth for finishing) craftsmen who
were members of a borough’s Merchant Guild, like the Scottish burgesses,438 enjoyed
pre-emptive rights, which allowed them to reduce raw-material costs and to sell their
goods at prices, which were competitive with those of imported wares. In most
chartered boroughs the craftsmen enjoyed the privilege of monopolising manufactory
within their bounds and securing a monopsonistic position with regards to raw
material suppliers, as members of the Merchant Guild. Where new technologies had
been introduced, as in the case of woollen-cloth production or leather working,
however, the craftsmen, apart from these privileges which they enjoyed as burgesses
or members of the Guild Merchant, were also granted by charter439 a guild with what
might be called anachronistically ‘patent’ rights for the use of the new technology.
Thus were the Gilda Telariorum recorded on the 1130 Pipe Roll and the guild of
Corvessiss de Oxonia (tempore Henry I) created,440 whose products dominated
throughout the twelfth century the English domestic market and only at the beginning
of the thirteenth century experienced difficulties, which led to their demise. If royal
charters granted such practices, which retarded economic growth, however, market
forces would out. Such borough monopolies, as has been suggested above, could not
be enforced, as during the late twelfth century, in the more advanced areas of the
country (regions A1-2 and A/B2, map 8.3), agrarian change by altering the peasants’
intra-annual pattern of work-time on their holdings,441 provided them with new
opportunities to engage in manufactory and when these were realised, through the
application of mercantile capital, a new rural industrial labour force was born,442 that
would break the monopoly power of the borough crafts.
       Because or in spite of the efforts of successive Norman and Angevin kings by
the end of the twelfth century an efficient standardised system of law thus had been
created in relation to most royal and seigniorial boroughs across the realm. This
reduced, transportation, ‘negotiation’ (‘contract specification’) and ‘protection’
transactions costs, and thereby facilitated the operation of borough property markets
and the activities of manufacturers and traders, marking the end of a massive,
twelfth-century phase of English commercial growth.


               Functional Identity: Commercial Growth in the Twelfth
                           Century, a Statistical Overview


During the twelfth century, England’s overseas commodity trades had undergone a
massive expansion.443 All along the eastern coastline of the English realm, as has been
shown, from Newcastle in the north to London and the Kentish ports in the south,
particularly during the years 1145-57, 1176-90, 1196-1204 and 1208-15/25 the
commodity export trades had boomed. A countervailing expansive commodity import
trade in 1125-40, 1160-75, 1190-5, 1204-8 had also run its course.444 By 1203/4,
when John imposed a fifteenth on foreign trade turnover, at the height of the twelfth-
century foreign trade boom, the tax, collected at thirty-five ports, yielded some
£4,958, representing a cargo value of at least £75,000,445 or about two per cent of total
                                                                                                    238


commercial activity within the realm. Judging by isolated series of toll records446 and
the years of peak activity in the foundation of boroughs,447 total commercial activity
within the realm, moved in the twelfth century as later,448 in a counter-cyclical
manner to that of the foreign-trade sector of the economy (figure 8.4).449.

    £
3,500,000
                       Figure 8.4.
                                                                          Commercial Activity
3,000,000                                                                (contemporary prices)
            Commercial Activity in England
                     1100-1300

2,500,000



2,000,000



1,500,000



1,000,000



 500,000
                                                Foreign trade turnover
                                                (contemporary prices)

        0
                1100                 1150    1200                   1250                     1300



The burgeoning volume of English twelfth-century domestic commerce was
characterised by a series of domestic trade cycles- in c.1040-1140, c. 1140-1240 and c.
1240-1340. During the successive peaks of each of these domestic trade cycles- in c.
1080, c. 1180 and c. 1280- successive kings’ ability to create conditions of monetary
sufficiency and price stability- in c. 1135-45, 1160-72, 1188-95, 1208-28, 1233-7 and
1239-46 - encouraged merchants and manufacturers to make new investments and to
expand their businesses. Thereby they created a demand for raw materials and brought
a new prosperity to the inhabitants of the surrounding countryside. When silver supply
systems were disrupted (in c. 1145-57, 1176-90, 1196-1204 1230-4, 1238, 1247-52
and 1259-61), however, the prevailing monetary order for brief periods was
threatened. On these occasions the king was forced to cede the field to those who
would provide the population with the light-weight coins they required, thereby
creating those conditions of uncontrolled money supply which undermined the
exchange and introduced unwelcome bouts of inflation into the economy. In these
circumstances domestic trade was disrupted, merchants were forced to build up stocks
of wares they could not sell to domestic consumers and manufacturers, with surplus
capacity on their hands laid off their work forces. The contemporary collapse of the
foreign exchange, however, caused them to look elsewhere to vend their wares- and
overseas trade boomed. Such periods of monetary disorder were short-lived, however,
in a society where the population’s normative experience, during the years, c. 1125-
1255, was one of monetary sufficiency, price stability and buoyant domestic trade.
                                                                                                       239




NOTES
1
  Endnotes in this chapter are presented in a slightly different form to the other chapters. To save note-
space and avoid repetition in citation, the sources used in the analysis of all boroughs referred to in map
8.3 pages 159-60 and the discussion in the text related thereto, are presented immediately below

                                       Urban Case Studies
                                   (Map 8.3, pages 159-60 above)

                             London (no. 20): The Rise of a Capital City.

(a) General Introductory Studies.

       T. Tatton-Brown, “The Topography of Anglo-Saxon London”, Antiquity, LX (1986)
       Alan G. Vince, Saxon London: an archaeological investigation (London, 1990)
       John Clark, Saxon and Norman London (London: HMSO for Museum of London, 1989)
       Christopher N. L. Brooke assisted by Gillian Keir, London, 800-1216: the shaping of a city
       (Berkeley, 1975)
       M. D. Lobel (ed.), The City of London (Oxford: Historic Towns Trust, 1989)
       Gervase Rosser, Medieval Westminster: 1200-1540 (Oxford, 1989), chapter 1
       K. G. T. McDonnell, Medieval London suburbs (London, 1978)


(b) Social and Political Structure.

       Sir Frank Merry Stenton, Norman London: an essay ( London: Historical Association
       leaflet, no. 93-94, 1934) with a translation of William fitz Stephen’s description by H. E.
       Butler and a map of London by M. B. Honeybourne, revised edition in Social life in early
       England: essays, edited by Geoffrey Barraclough (London, 1960)
       G. A. Williams, Medieval London from Commune to Capital (London, 1963)
       Walter de Gray Birch (ed.), The historical charters and constitutional documents of the
       City of London. With an introduction and notes by an antiquary. (London, 1884).
       M. Bateson, “A London Municipal Collection of the Reign of John”, English Historical
       Review, XVII (1912)

(c) Aspects of Urban Archaeology

       J. Schofield, A. Dyson et aliis (eds.), Archaeology of the City of London. Recent
       Discoveries by the Department of Urban Archaeology, Museum of London (London:
       City of London Archaeological Trust, 1980)
       V. Horsman, C. & G. Milne, Aspects of Saxo-Norman London. I, Building and Street
       Development (London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 11-2, 1989-90)
       Alan G Vince, Aspects of Saxo-Norman London. II, Finds and Environmental Evidence
       (London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, 11-2, 1989-90)
       G. & C. Milne, Medieval Waterfront Development at Trig Lane, London (London:
       London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, Special Paper, no.5. 1983)

(d) “Feeding the City” - Project

       Derek Keene, “A New Study of London Before the Great Fire”, Urban History Year
       Book, 1984 and “Medieval London and its Region”, The London Journal, XIV (1989);
       James G. Galloway & Margaret Murphy, “Feeding the City: London and its Agrarian
       Hinterland”, The London Journal, XVI (1991); Bruce M. S. Campbell, James G.
       Galloway & Margaret Murphy, “Rural Land-Use in the Metropolitan Hinterland, 1270-
       1339: The Evidence of the Inquisitions Post Mortem “, Agricultural History Review, XL
                                                                                                  240



      (1992); Bruce M. S. Campbell, James. A.Galloway, Derek Keene and Margaret Murphy,
      A Medieval Capital and its Grain Supply Agrarian Production and Distribution in the
      London Region c 1300 (London: Historical Geography Research Series, no 30. 1993)

                                The East Anglian Regional Network
                                 (Phase 1: Region A1, c 1040-1140)

Prior to the draining of the Fens during the century c. 1140-1240 - a subject thoroughly dealt with by
Herbert Enoch Hallam, Settlement and society: a study of the early agrarian history of south
Lincolnshire (Cambridge, 1965) - the emergence of new ‘urban’ institutions was largely restricted to
the triangular area bounded by Stamford, Peterborough and Northampton PETERBOROUGH (No. 1)
is the subject of two studies :

        E. King, “The Town of Peterborough in the Early Middle Ages”,
        Northamptonshire Past and Present, VI (1980/1)
        C. Hart, “The Peterborough Region in the Tenth Century: A Topographical
        Survey”, Northamptonshire Past and Present, VII (1981/2)

On STAMFORD (No.2) unfortunately the evidence, both documentary and archaeological, is thinner
but see:

        David Roffe and Christine Mahany, “Stamford and the Norman Conquest”,
        Lincolnshire History and Archaeology, XXI (1986) and the same authors’ “Stamford:
        the development of an Anglo-Scandinavian borough” in R. A. Brown, Anglo-Norman
        Studies, V, Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1982 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1983)
        Alan Rogers, “Medieval Stamford” in The Making of Stamford edited by Alan Rogers
        (Leicester, 1965)

In the case of NORTHAMPTON (No.3) the literature is much more extensive:

      John H. Williams, “From ‘Palace’ to ‘Town’: Northampton and Urban Origins”, Anglo-
      Saxon England, XIII (1984); “The Early Development of the Town of Northampton” in
      C. Dornier (ed.), Mercian Studies (Leicester, 1977) and Saxon and medieval Northampton
      (Northampton: Publicity and Information Section of Northampton Development
      Corporation, c. 1982.)

      The Records of the Borough of Northampton Vol. 1 Edited by Christopher A. Markham
      and Vol. 2 edited by J. Charles Cox. (Northampton: Corporation of the County Borough
      of Northampton, in two volumes, 1898)

      John H. Williams, Michael Shaw and Varien Denham, Middle Saxon Palaces at
      Northampton (Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation, Archaeological
      Monograph, no 4. 1985); John H. Williams, St Peter’s Street, Northampton: excavations,
      1973-1976 (Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation, Archaeological
      Monograph, no 2. 1979); “Northampton”, Current Archaeology, LXXIX (1981); “Four
      Small Excavations on Northampton’s Medieval Defences and Elsewhere”,
      Northamptonshire Archaeology, XVII (1982), “Northampton’s Medieval Parishes”,
      ibiden, XVII (1982); “A Saxon-Norman kiln group from Northampton”, Ibiden, IX
      (1974), “Excavations at Greyfriars, Northampton, 1972”, ibid., XIII (1978). John H.
      Williams and Michael Shaw, “Excavations in Chalk Lane, Northampton, 1975-1978,”
      ibiden, XVI (1981). John H. Williams and C. Farwell, “Excavations on the Riding,
      Northampton”, ibid., XIX (1984) and “Excavations on a Saxon site in St James Square,
      Northampton, 1981,” ibid., XVIII (1983)

      F. Williams, “Excavations at Marefair, Northampton”, ibiden, XIV (1979)


                               The East Anglian Regional Network
                              (Phase 2: Region AB1, c. 1140-1208/14)
                                                                                                 241




Subsequently, as new grazing was created out of the old wetlands with the corresponding
transformation of the adjacent agricultural regimes, however, a new ‘urban’ order was born. Overseas
trading activity was displaced down-river to the east as new centers were created at Boston and
KING’S LYNN (no.6).

      Publications of the King’s Lynn Archaeological Survey: vol. 1 Vanessa Parker, The
      Making of King’s Lynn (Chichester, 1971); vol. 2 Helen Clarke and Alan Carter,
      Excavations at King’s Lynn, 1963-1970 (London: Society of Medieval Archaeology,
      Monograph Series, no.7. 1977); vol. 3, Dorothy Mary Owen, The Making of King’s
      Lynn: a documentary survey (Oxford: Records of social and economic history. No. 9.
      1984). The progress of the excavations can be followed in the reports in Medieval
      Archaeology, VIII (1964), p.266; IX (1965), p.196; X (1966), p.199; XI (1967), p.294;
      XII (1968), p.184; XIII (1969), p.266 and XIV (1970), p.183.

      E. M. Carus-Wilson, “The Medieval Trade of the Ports of the Wash”, Medieval
      Archaeology, VI-VII (1962-3) and W. A. Pantin, “The Merchants’ Houses and
      Warehouses of King’s Lynn”, ibid.


Old established centers at Lincoln and Norwich were transformed. On NORWICH (No 5) see the
results of recent excavations reported in:

      Alan Carter (ed.), Excavations in Norwich 1971-1978 Pt.1. (Norwich: Centre of East
      Anglian Studies: Norwich Survey, East Anglian archaeology report no. 15. c. 1982)
      Malcolm Atkin (ed.), Excavations in Norwich 1971 - 1978: part II. (Norwich: Centre of
      East Anglian Studies: Norwich Survey, East Anglian archaeology report no. 26. 1985);
      Malcolm Atkin and D.H. Evans with major contributions by Susanne Atkin ...
      Excavations in Norwich 1971-1978 part III (Norwich: Centre of East Anglian Studies:
      Norwich Survey, East Anglian archaeology report no.100. 2002)
      Brian S.Ayers, Excavations at Fishergate, Norwich 1985 (Norwich: Norfolk Museums
      Service, Field Archaeology Division, East Anglian Archaeology report, no 68, 1994)
      “Excavations in Norwich 1971-8”, East Anglian Archaeology, XV (1982)
      “A Waterfront Excavation at White Friars Street Carpark”, East Anglian Archaeology,
      XVII (1983)
      “Excavations at St Martin-at-Palace Plain, Norwich 1981” by B. Ayres, East Anglian
      Archaeology, XXVII (1988)
      “Eighteen Centuries of Pottery in Norwich”, East Anglian Archaeology, XIII (1981).

Similar materials also exist in relation to LINCOLN (No. 8) where a major series of excavations were
undertaken in 1972-7 which added new dimensions to Hill’s classic study based on documentary
sources:

      James William Francis Hill, Medieval Lincoln (Cambridge, 1948)

      C. Colyer, “Excavations at Lincoln: First Interim Report. The Western Defenses of the
      Lower Town, 1970-2”, Antiquaries Journal, LV (1975)
      M. J. Jones & C. Colyer, “Excavations at Lincoln: Second Interim. Excavations in the
      Lower Town, 1972-8”, Antiquaries Journal, LIX (1979)
      M. J. Jones, “ Excavations at Lincoln: Third Interim Report. Sites Outside of the Walled
      City, 1972-1977”, Antiquaries Journal, LXI (1981)
      D. Pering, “Early Medieval Occupation at Flaxengate” and R. H. Jones, “Medieval Stone
      Houses at Flaxengate” in The Archaeology of Lincoln, IX/1 (1981)

                      Canterbury (No.4) and the Kentish Regional Network
                              (Phase 1: Region A2, c. 1040-1140)

      William Urry, Canterbury under the Angevin kings (London: University of London
      historical studies, 19, 1967)
                                                                                                   242




       T. Tatton-Brown, “Canterbury’s urban topography: some recent work” in The medieval
       town in Britain: papers from the first Gregynog Seminar in Local History, edited by
       Philip Riden (Cardiff: Cardiff papers in local history, no. 1, 1980)
       S. S. Frere, S. Stow & P. Bennett, Excavations of the Roman and Medieval Defences of
       Canterbury (Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust: The Archaeology of
       Canterbury, vol.2. 1983)
       S. S. Frere & S. Stow, Excavations in the St George Street and Burgate Street Area
       (Canterbury: Canterbury Archaeological Trust: The Archaeology of Canterbury, vol.7.
       1983)

                     The Midlands and the North-Eastern Regional Networks
                              (Phase 2: Region B2, c. 1140-1208/14)

There is a singular lack of archaeological evidence concerning the evolution in the period c. 1140-1240
of the new ‘urban’ centers in the East Midlands and Yorkshire (Region B2) though representative of
changes here is RIPON (No.13):

       W. MacKay, “The Development of Medieval Ripon”, Yorkshire Archaeological
       Journal, LIV (1982)

This study may be supplemented by reference to studies of YORK (No. 12) though these are mainly
concerned with the Anglo-Scandinavian ‘burh’, the excavations of medieval York, though progressing,
as yet not providing a sufficient overview of topographical change.

       Richard Andrew Hall, The Viking dig : the excavations at York (London, 1984) and by
       the same author Viking Age York and the north (London: Council for British
       Archaeology, research report no. 27, 1978); Alfred P. Smyth, Scandinavian York and
       Dublin : the history and archaeology of two related Viking kingdoms (Dublin, c. 1987)

Much more information is available concerning the developments taking place in the West Midlands
(Region B2, Nos. 9-10):

       R. H. Hilton, “The Small Town and Urbanization: Evesham in the Middle Ages”,
       Midland History, VII (1982).
       E. M. Carus-Wilson, “The First Half-Century of the Borough of Stratford-upon-Avon”,
       Economic History Review, Second Series, XVIII (1965)
       R. Bearman (ed.), The History of an English Borough: Stratford upon Avon 1196–1996 (Stroud,
       1997)
       T. R. Slater and C. Wilson, Archaeology and development in Stratford-upon-Avon
       (Birmingham, 1977)

These may be supplemented by reference to WORCESTER (No.11) where recent excavations have
begun to reveal something of the town’s development at this time.

       N.J. Baker and R. A. Holt, “The city of Worcester in the tenth century” in N. P. Brooks
       and C. Cubitt, (eds.), St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence (Leicester, 1996), pp.
       129-46
       N.J. Baker and R. A. Holt, Urban Growth and the Medieval Church: Gloucester and
       Worcester, (Aldershot, 2004)
       R. A. Holt, “Confusing identities: English towns before 1100”, unpublished paper
       presented at the Eighth Anglo-American Seminar on the Medieval Economy and Society,
       held 9-12 July 2004 at Gregynog, University of Wales. I should like to express my
       profound gratitude to Professor Holt, for allowing me access to the full text of this
       important paper prior to its publication.

       Martin Carver (ed.), Medieval Worcester, an archaeological framework: reports,
       surveys, texts and essays (Worcester: Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological
       Society, third series, VII, 1980)
                                                                                                  243



      Philip Barker, The Origins of Worcester (Worcester: Transactions of the Worcestershire
      Archaeological Society, third series, II, 1968-9)
      Hal Dalwood and Rachel Edwards, Excavations at Deansway, Worcester, 1988-89:
      Romano-British small town to late medieval city (London: Council for British
      Archaeology, Research report no. 139, 2004)
      David John Symons, Aspects of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman mint of Worcester, 975-
      1158 (unpublished Ph. D. thesis University of Birmingham, 2003)

                     Southern, Western (and Welsh) and Northern Networks
                            (Phase 3: Regions C1-4, c. 1225/40-1340)

Finally, after c. 1255 the new forms began to emerge in the southern, western and northern counties, a
considerable body of both archaeological and documentary evidence illustrating the process of change
in the four main regions.

                              The Essex-Suffolk Enclave (Region C1)

Colchester (No.19)

      Richard Hugh Britnell, Growth and decline in Colchester, 1300-1525 (Cambridge 1986),
      chapter 1, pp. 9-12.

      Philip Crummy ; with contributions by Nina Crummy et al., Aspects of Anglo-Saxon and
      Norman Colchester (London: Council for British Archaeology, Colchester archaeological
      report no. 1, 1981)
      Philip Crummy with contributions from Howard Brooks et al., Excavations at Lion Walk,
      Balkerne Lane and Middleborough, Colchester, Essex (Colchester: Colchester
      Archaeological Trust, Colchester archaeological report no 3, 1984)
      Philip Crummy, J. Bayley et al., Excavations at Culver Street, the Gilberd School and
      other sites in Colchester, 1971-85 (Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust,
      Colchester archaeological report no.6, 1992)

                                The Itchin-Avon Basin (Region C2)
Winchester (No.14)

      Barrington Windsor Cunliffe, Winchester excavations, 1949-1960, Vol.1 (Winchester, 1964)
      John Collis with K.J. Barton and others, Winchester excavations, 1949-1960, Vol.2 Excavations
      in the suburbs and the western part of the town (Winchester 1978).

The work of the Winchester Survey, which will ultimately be published in ten volumes, will provide
the most comprehensive study of an English medieval town available. To date only four volumes have
appeared.

      WS1 F. Barlow, M. Biddle et al., Winton Domesday Winchester in the early Middle Ages : an
      edition and discussion of the Winton Domesday (Oxford, 1976)
      WS2/1-2 Derek Keene with a contribution by Alexander R. Rumble, Survey of medieval
      Winchester (Oxford, 2 vols., 1985)
      WS4 Alexander Richard Rumble, Property and piety in early medieval Winchester : documents
      relating to the topography of the Anglo-Saxon and Norman city and its minsters (Oxford :
      2002)
      WS7/1-2 Martin Biddle, Artefacts from medieval Winchester (Oxford, 1990) and Object and
      economy in medieval Winchester by Martin Biddle with contributions by Ian H. Goodall, David
      A. Hinton, and 81 other authors; and by the staff and volunteers of the Winchester Research
      Unit (Oxford -New York, 1990).

The definitive reports on the excavations in the city will have to await the publication of WS5-6/8-10
but in the meantime reference should be made to the interim reports.
                                                                                                     244



         M Biddle, Interim Reports on the Winchester Excavations, 1961-1971 in Arch. Journ and
         Antiquaries Journal as follows:

         I Interim (1961 season), Arch. Journ. 119 (1962).
         II-X Interim (1962 & 3-1971), Ant. Journ., 45-50, 52, 55 (1964-70, 1972, 1975)

To set these studies in historical perspective reference should also be made to,

       M. Biddle, “The development of the Anglo-Saxon town” in Topografia urbana e vita
       cittadina nell' Alto Medioevo in Occidente (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto
       medioevo. Settimana di studio, 21, 1973); “Winchester: the development of an early
       capital” in Vor- und Frühformen der europäischen Stadt im Mittelalter: Bericht über ein
       Symposium in Reinhausen bei Göttingen in der Zeit vom 18. bis 24. April 1972,
       herausgegeben von Herbert Jankuhn, Walter Schlesinger, Heiko Steuer (Göttingen:
       Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische
       Klasse: Folge 3 Bd. 83-4 , two volumes, 1975)
       J. Z. Titow, “The decline of the fair of St. Giles, Winchester, in the thirteenth and
       fourteenth centuries” Nottingham Medieval Studies, XXXI (1987)

Southampton (No.15)

       C. Platt, Medieval Southampton: The Port and Trading Community, AD. 1000-1600
       (London, 1973)
       P. V. Addyman & D. H. Hill, “Saxon Southampton: A Review of the Evidence”,
       Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club, XXV-XXVI (1968-9)
       P. Holdsworth, Excavations at Melbourne Street, Southampton 1971-6 (London:
       Council of British Archaeology, Research Report No.33. 1981)
       C. Platt & R. Coleman-Smith, Excavations in Medieval Southampton (Leicester, 2 vols.,
       1975)
       J. Walker, “Excavations in Medieval Tenements on the Quilter’s Vault Site in
       Southampton”, Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club, XXXV (1979)
       J. Bourdillion, “Town Life and Animal Husbandry in the Southampton Area”,
       Proceedings of the Hampshire Field Club, XXXVI (1980)

Salisbury (No. 16)

       Alison Borthwick and John Chandler, Our chequered past : the archaeology of Salisbury
       (Trowbridge: Wiltshire Library and Museum Service, 1984)
       D. Stroud, “The site of the borough at Old Sarum 1066-1226: an examination of some
       documentary evidence”, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine,
       LXXX (1986)
       Medieval Archaeology, III (1959), p. 314; VI (1962), pp. 138f; VII (1963), p.330

                                The Severn-Avon Basin and the Welsh
                                        Marches (Region C3)
Gloucester (No.17)

       N.J. Baker and R. A. Holt, Urban Growth and the Medieval Church: Gloucester and
       Worcester, (Aldershot, 2004)

       H.R. Hurst with the research assistance of L.F. Pitts; contributions by H.E.M. Cool et al.,
       Gloucester: the Roman and later defenses, excavations on the E. Defenses and a
       reassessment of the defensive sequence (Gloucester: Gloucester Archaeological,
       Gloucester archaeological reports ,vol. 2, c. 1986)

Hereford (no.18)

       R. Shoesmith. Excavations at Castle Green (London: Council for British Archaeology,
       research report no. 36; Hereford City excavations vol.1. 1980) Excavations on and close
                                                                                                      245



       to the defenses (London: Council for British Archaeology, Research Reports no. 46 -
       Hereford City Excavations vol. 2. 1984) and The Finds (London: Council for British
       Archaeology, Research Reports no. 56 - Hereford City Excavations vol. 2. 1985)

Welsh Marches

       Ian Soulsby, The towns of medieval Wales: a study of their history, archaeology and early
       topography (Chichester, 1983)
2
  See chapters 6 and 7 above.
3
  For an excellent survey of the administration of the fifteenth see T. H. Lloyd, The English Wool Trade
in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 9-13. This may be valuably supplemented by reference to
the study of John Langdon and James Paul Masschaele, “Commercial Opportunity and Population in
Medieval England,” Past and Present, no 190 (2006) upon which the following account of the tax is
based. I should like to express my profound gratitude to the latter authors for allowing me access to this
article prior to its publication.
4
   E. Miller and J. Hatcher, Medieval England: Towns, Commerce and Crafts, 1086-1348 (London,
1995), p. 196
5
  See chapter 5
6
  See pages 197-9
7
  See chapter 5
8
  Langdon & Masschaele, Commercial Opportunity and Population, p.47
9
  Pipe Roll 6 Richard I, Pipe Roll Society (henceforth PRS) XLIII, new series V (London, 1928), p. 64;
PRS. LVI, new series XVIII (1940), p. xliv; British Borough Charters 1216-1307, edited by Adolphus
Ballard and James Tait (Cambridge, 1923), p. xcvii.
10
   See chapter 6
11
   Ian Blanchard, Mining, Metallurgy and Minting in the Middle Ages (Stuttgart, three volumes, 2001-),
II, chapter 2, pages 582-666 and chapter 9, pages 868-76 where the reader will find a much fuller
description of the distribution system and can set the fundamental changes of 1171/2-85/6 in context.
12
   See chapter 7, figure 7-1, page 149 for the generality of this building boom.
13
    PRS., XVI (1893) - XXXVI (1914), H. M. Colvin, R. Allen Brown, A. J. Taylor, J. Summerson
(eds.) The History of the King’s Works (London, six volumes, 1963-82)
14
   PRS., XVIII (1894), p. 67 and PRS., XIX (1895), p. 111.
15
   PRS., XXV (1904), p.137; PRS., XXVIII (1907), p.28.
16
   PRS., XXV (1904), pp. 137, 141; PRS., XXVIII (1907), pp. 27, 29; PRS., XXX (1909), pp. 64-5.
17
   PRS., XXXI (1910), pp. 47; PRS., XXXII (1911), p.57:cost of freight 1s. 2d per ‘cartload’ of 2100
lbs.
18
   PRS., XVIII (1894), pp. 7-8
19
   PRS., XXXVIII (1928), p. 199. Freight per carreta of 2100 lbs. Peak- Humber 1s 11¼d Humber-
Rotterdam 1s. 4d
20
    The Fossdyke was reopened in 1121 and seems to have remained in use during the twelfth and
thirteenth century. From the end of the thirteenth century, however, it seems to have silted up and in
spite of clearance work it was thereafter only intermittently open for traffic. J. W. F. Hill, Medieval
Lincoln (Cambridge, 1948), pp. 308-13
21
   PRS., XXXVIII (1928), p. 199.
22
   PRS., XIX (1895), p. 188; PRS., XXV (1904), p.135; PRS., PRS., XXVI (1905), p. 127.
23
    Boston: PRS., XIX (1895), p. 117; Lynn: PRS., XXXIII (1912), p. 2; Colchester: PRS., XXXI
(1910), p.102; London: PRS., XXV (1904), pp 13-4; Henley-on-Thames: PRS., XXV, p. 135;
Southampton, PRS., XVIII (1894), p. 7 and PRS., XXXVI (1914), p. 179
24
   PRS., XXII (1897), p. 175
25
    PRS., XXIX (1908), p. 75; PRS., XXX (1908), pp. 46-7; PRS XXXII (1911), p.57; PRS., XXXIII
(1912), p. 29.
26
   PRS., XXXVII (1915), p.83.
27
   PRS., XXXVII (1915), p.119 and PRS., XXXVIII (1925), p.199.
28
    PRS., XXX (1909), p. 46-7. Freight per carreta of 2,100 lbs Boroughbridge-York 9d York-
Rotterdam 1s. 1d.
29
    PRS., XXIX (1908), p. 75 and PRS., XXX (1909), pp. 46-7; PRS XXXIII (1912), p. 29. Freight per
carreta of 2,100 lbs Boroughbridge-Selby-Waltham: 1s 2d-1s. 4½d
                                                                                                    246



30
    Trade from these markets along the east/south coastal trade route south of the Humber was also
characterised by low freights: Lynne-Dover per caret of 2,100lbs 9d
31
   PRS. XXXII (1911), p. 1 and PRS., XXXIII (1912), pp. 59, 90. Freights 1182/3-1183/4 per carreta
of 2,100 lbs. Shrewsbury-Gloucester 7½d Gloucester-Bristol 5d PRS., XXXIV (1913), p. 127 Freights
1184/5 per carreta of 2,100 lbs Llanymenych mine-Gloucester 1s 6½d Shrewsbury-Gloucester 7½d
32
   See chapter 5
33
   See chapter 5
34
   Discussed in the paper Ian Blanchard, “Was there really a nation-wide Malthusian crisis in late
thirteenth and early fourteenth century England? ” presented at the Economic History Society
Conference held at Exeter, March/April 1989.
35
   Ian Blanchard, “Introduction” in Ian Blanchard (ed.), Labour and Leisure in Historical Perspective:
Thirteenth to Twentieth Century (Stuttgart: Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,
Beihefte 116. 1994), pp. 12-8.
36
   See chapters 6 and 10
37
   Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England and Wales to 1516 Introduction, table 1
http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html.
38
    The following figures are derived from Langdon & Masschaele, Commercial Opportunity and
Population, pp. 43-4
39
   PRS., XXXIV (1913), p. 125.
40
   PRS., XI (1889), p. 76.
41
   The figure for 1181-82 is from PRS., XXXI (1910), p. 47.
42
   E. W. Moore, The Fairs of Medieval England: An Introductory Study (Toronto: PIMS Studies and
Texts, no. 72, 1985), p. 18.
43
   H. C. Darby, Domesday England (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 369-70
44
   James Paul Masschaele, “The Multiplicity of Medieval Markets Reconsidered”, Journal of Historical
Geography, XX (1994), pp. 255-71.
45
   See note 37 above
46
   PRS, VIII (1887), p.87
47
   PRS., IX (1888), p.52; XI (1889), p. 136; XII (1890), p.95.
48
   PRS. , XIII-XXXVIII (1890-1926)
49
   The figure for 1173-74 is in PRS XXI (1896), p. 57. This and the following examples are derived
from Langdon & Masschaele, Commercial Opportunity and Population, pp. 44-5
50
   See note 1 above. Where in the text reference is made to the sources contained therein an indication
will be given of the appropriate descriptor number.
51
   On this form of estate organisation, G. R. J. Jones, “Multiple estates and early settlement” in P. H.
Sawyer (ed.), English Medieval Settlement (London, 1979), pp. 9-34 and on its continuing existence in
Northern England C. D. Morris, “Aspects of Scandinavian Settlement in Northern England: A
Review,” Northern History, XX (1984), pp. 1-21
52
    J. Campbell, “Bede’s words for places” in P. H. Sawyer (ed.), Names, Words and Graves: Early
Medieval Settlement (Leeds, 1973), pp. 44-51
53
    John Blair, “Minster Churches in the Landscape” in Della Hooke (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Settlements
(Oxford, 1988)
54
   B. K. Roberts, “Man and Land in Upper Teesdale” in Arthur Roy Clapham (ed.), Upper Teesdale:
the area and its natural history (London, 1978), p. 146
55
   M. Aston, Interpreting the Landscape: Landscape, Archaeology and Local History (London, 1985),
p.35 summarised in Richard Britnell, Britain and Ireland, 1050-1530 (Oxford, 2004), pp. 58-63
56
   See e.g. David Postles, “Customary Carrying Services”, Journal of Transport History, V, 2 (1985)
57
   R. H. Britnell, “English Markets and Royal Administration before 1200”, Economic History Review,
Second Series, XXXI, 2 (1978), pp. 190-1.
58
   The stories of such ‘merchants’ are revealed in a number of saints’ hagiographies, e g. Libellus de
Vita et Miraculis S. Godrici, Heremitae de Finchale Auctore Reginaldo Monacho Dunelmensi.
Adjicitur Appendix Miraculorum, edited by Joseph Stevenson (London: Surtees Society, XX, 1847),
pp. 28-30
59
   Britnell, English Markets and Royal Administration, §1-2, pp. 183-9
60
   See chapter 5
61
   English historical documents, edited by Dorothy Whitelock (London, 1955), Vol.1, c. 500-1042, pp.
366-7, 378
62
   Britnell, English Markets and Royal Administration, pp. 194-6
63
   M. Biddle and D. Hill, “Late Saxon Planned Towns”, Antiquaries Journal, LI (1971), pp. 70-85
                                                                                                 247



64
   M. Biddle, “Towns” in D. M. Wilson (ed.), The Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England (London,
1976), pp. 120ff.
65
   Britnell, English Markets and Royal Administration, p. 187
66
    On grants of borough land to such thegns in, for instance, Winchester, Oxford, Warwick and
Chichester see P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, (London:
Royal Historical Society, 1968), nos.                    874, 488, 689, 964, 1388, 872.
http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/charthome.html
67
    On the generality of this phenomenon see Adolphus Ballard, The Domesday Boroughs (Oxford,
1904)
68
   A subject thoroughly dealt with by Herbert Enoch Hallam, Settlement and society: a study of the
early agrarian history of south Lincolnshire (Cambridge, 1965)
69
   On the estates of Peterborough Abbey: Edmund King, Peterborough Abbey, 1086-1310: a study in
the land market (Cambridge, 1973)
70
   The Nene, which entered the Wash at Wisbeach, was the main riverine artery through the Fens until
the mid-thirteenth century, see page 109 above, when the river at Wisbeach and the outlet at Yaxley
silted up.
71
   On the five Danish ‘burh’ liberated from subjugation to the Norsemen of York by Edmund in 942: R.
A. Hall, “ The Five Boroughs of Danelaw: A Review of Present Knowledge”, Anglo-Saxon England,
XVIII (1989); Alaric Trousdale, “Reassessing the ‘Redemption’ of the Five Boroughs in 942: the
Charter Evidence,” unpublished paper presented to the Denys Hay Seminar, The University of
Edinburgh, on 30 January 2007
72
   A construction date for this hall of c. 750, given in John H. Williams, Michael Shaw and Varien
Denham, Middle Saxon Palaces at Northampton (Northampton: Northampton Development
Corporation, Archaeological Monograph, no 4, 1985), pp. 26, 39 and 64 has been adopted here rather
than those given in John H. Williams, “From ‘Palace’ to ‘Town’: Northampton and Urban Origins”,
Anglo-Saxon England, XIII (1984), pp. 120-1, 135, postscript note 84
73
   The somewhat agnostic general approach to dating adopted in John H. Williams, St Peter’s Street,
Northampton: excavations, 1973-1976 (Northampton: Northampton Development Corporation,
Archaeological Monograph, no 2, 1979) is abandoned on page 141 of that work when a firm tenth-
century date is assigned to this phase.
74
   See chapter 5
75
   Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs: http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html.
76
   The study of Stephen H. Rigby, Boston and Grimsby in the Middle Ages (University of London,
Ph.D. thesis, 1983), which sadly remains unpublished, is still the most important work on this
important borough.
77
   Stephen H. Rigby, “Boston and Grimsby in the Middle Ages: an administrative contrast”, Journal of
Medieval History, X (1984), pp. 51-66
78
   Chapter 5
79
   The dating provided in Maurice Beresford, New Towns of the Middle Ages (London, 1967), pp. 467-
8 has been adopted here rather than that of D. M. Owen, The Making of King’s Lynn, (London: British
Academy, Records of Social and Economic History, New series, IX, 1984), p. 11
80
   Chapter 6
81
    The Registrum Antiquissimum of the cathedral church of Lincoln, edited by C.W. Foster and
Kathleen Major (Hereford: Lincoln Record Society, 27-9, 32, 34, 41-2, 46, 51, 62, 67-8, twelve
volumes, 1931-1973), VIII, pp. 75-82
82
   Chapter 5
83
    Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs: http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html. M=Market,
F=Fair. Scotter, Gainsborough, Knaith and Marton (whence the bishop of Lincoln’s Stow fairs were
transferred in 1234)
84
   Ibiden Brant Broughton, Naveby, Nocton, Bardney and Wragby
85
   Ibiden Tattershall, Wrangle, Kirton and Fleet/Gedney
86
   Ibiden Partney and Wainfleet (1202 & 1208), Saleby (1222), Burwell and Horncastle (1231)
87
   Ibidem Sleaford, through Swineshead (1227) and Bicker (1202) to Spalding and Crowland (1257) en
route to Peterbourgh and to the west from Sleaford via Threekingham/Stow Green, Folkingham (1239),
Edenham (1202) and Market Deeping (1220) before arriving at Peterborough
88
   Ibiden Norwich: Horning (MF 1245/6), Buckenham (MF 1245), Langley (MF 1200), Cantley (MF
1235), Hempnall (M 1225), Harleston (F 1228), Wymundham (F 1135-54 confirmation of charter of
Henry I, M 1204), Attleborough (MF 1226) and Kenninghall (F 1226). Lynn: In 1129 Henry I granted
a fair at Downham to Rainald Abbot of Ramsey. To secure their title of a market, which they also held
                                                                                                     248



there, the scriptorum of the Abbey forged a charter allegedly of Edward the Confessor and one of
Henry I, dated 1109x11 or 1115x23, which confirmed to St Benedict of Ramsey and Abbot Aldwin
their liberties in the market of Downham. On 26 April 1139, Pope Innocent II confirmed the market to
Abbot Guaterus of the monastery of St Benedict. He issued another confirmation on 27 January 1140.
The intense efforts of the monks to secure their interests here and Wormgay is perhaps indicative of the
importance they attached to these markets which evolved during Lynn’s initial stage of development.
This early market network was expanded during the years, c.1140-1208/14 and 1225-1240, by the
creation in 1244 of additional fairs at Blackborough and Stow Bardolf.
89
    Ibiden: Hunstanton (M 1225), Thornham (MF 1245), Burnham (F 1223) Wells-next-to-the-Sea (M
1202), Wighton ( M 1201), Blakeney (MF 1223), Sheringham (MF 1239) and Gimmingham (M
1241/2)
90
   Ibiden: Upwell (M 1202), Downham (see note 88), Oxborough (MF 1249) Stoke Ferry (MF 1248)
and Thetford (MF 1139x45, the fair was temporally extended in 1232)
91
    Ibiden. The market systems seem to have been centred on Swaffenham and West Dereham. The
former network embraced Great Dunham, East Rudham (F 1227) and Fakenham (F1200/1, 1244). The
latter denser network encompassed Gressenfield (MF 1229), Shipden (MF 1245) Watton (M 1205)
Saham Toney (M 1205) and Merton (M 1226)
92
    T. R. Slater, “Medieval New Town and Port: A Plan-Analysis of Hedon, East Yorkshire”, The
Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, LVII (1985), pp. 23-41
93
    William MacKay, “The Development of Medieval Ripon”, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, LIV
(1982), p.75, ignoring the half-yearly nature of the payment ibiden, p.75 n. and PRS XXXVIII (1928),
p.164, mistakenly treats the payment as the full farm. This as elsewhere, however, marked a high point
of commercial activity in the borough and even in the next year, 1195, the farm was slightly lower-
£62. 8s
94
    In the 1169 Auxilium, which was levied on tenants of royal demesne, the burgesses of Derby paid
£20 whilst the homines of Chesterfield paid £5. PRS, VIII, (1887), p. 87.
95
    R. R. Darlington (ed.), The Cartulary of Darley Abbey (Kendal: Derbyshire Archæological and
Natural History Society, two volumes, 1945), I, p. xlviii
96
    Domesday Book of Derbyshire ... Extended Latin text; and literal translation. Edited, with notes,
glossary, indices ... by L. Jewitt. (London, 1871), pp. 2-3
97
   PRS NS IX (1932), p. 119
98
    The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln ... Edited by C. W. Foster and
Kathleen Major (Hereford, 1931- ), I, no.185, p.115
99
   See notes 113-7, 119 below
100
     Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinensi asservati… ab anno MCXCIX ad annum MCCXVI, edited
Thomas Duffus Hardy (London: Record Commission, 1837), I/1, p. 139; J. P. Yeatman, Records of the
borough of Chesterfield: being a series of extracts from the archives of the corporation of Chesterfield,
and of other repositories; collected by Pym Yeatman ... Published under the authority of Mr. Alderman
Gee, mayor of Chesterfield (Chesterfield & Sheffield, 1884), p.1
101
     J. P. Yeatman, Records, p.24
102
     Ibiden, p.28. Henry III’s conformation is on p. 31 of the same
103
     The Registrum Antiquissimum of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln ... I, no.14, p.17
104
     Ibiden, I, no.251, p.199
105
     Ibiden, I, no.255, p.206
106
     Ibiden, I, no.185, p.115
107
     Ibiden, I, no.186, p.116
108
     Ibiden, II, no.317, p.7
109
     S. P. H. Statham, “The Brailsfords,” Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, LIX (1938), pp. 66-80
110
     For the growth of the Dean’s property rights see C. W. Foster (ed.) The Registrum Antiquissimum of
the Cathedral Church of Lincoln: Carte Decani, (Hereford: Lincoln Record Society, XXIX, 1935);
Lincoln C. R. O. D&C, Dij. 68 3, 60a-69 and 88/3/14-7 and account of 1329 of properties of Dean and
Chapter transcribed in College of Arms, Pegge Mss., series 1, vol. 2, fo.263 as well as copies of deeds
re church in cartulary of Dean and Chapter of Lincoln ibidem, fos. 584-5.
111
     Records of the Templars in England in the Twelfth century. The Inquest of 1185 with illustrative
charters and documents, edited by Beatrice A. Lees (London, 1935), pp. ccxvii, 98.
112
     David C. Douglas and G.W. Greenaway (eds.), English Historical Documents. Vol.2, 1042-1189
(London -New York, 2nd ed. 1981), no.299, p. 972; W. H. Stevenson (ed.), Records of the Borough of
Nottingham, being a series of extracts from the Archives of the Corporation of Nottingham (London-
Nottingham, seven volumes, 1882-), I, pp.2-4.
                                                                                                     249



113
    PRS, VIII (1887), p.87
114
    PRS VIII-XXXVIII (1887-1926); PRS NS IX-X, (1932-3); Osberton Hall, Foljeambe Mss. 11-12;
National Achive, Kew (henceforth T.N.A) C135/118 (18), 48 (19), 155 (17); C139/109 (36);
SC6/1089/4-5; DL3/4, DL5/2 fos. 11, 32, 42v, 643 Calendar of Inquisitions Misc. 1399-1422, p.15
115
    PRS, IX (1888), p.52; XI (1889), p. 136; XII (1890), p.95
116
    PRS , XIII-XXXVIII (1890-1926)
117
    PRS NS. IX (1932), p. 144; X (1933), pp.199-200
118
    Ian Blanchard, Mining, Metallurgy and Minting in the Middle Ages (Stuttgart, three vols., 2001-), II,
pp. 756-61
119
     Ian Blanchard, “The Aristocracy and Urban Property Markets: The Case of Chesterfield, 1200-
1500” unpublished paper presented at Session: Medieval Economic History II: In Memory of Sylvia
Thrupp of the Forty-First International Congress on Medieval Studies to be held at Kalamazoo, May 4-
7, 2006
120
    R. H. Hilton, “The Small Town and Urbanization: Evesham in the Middle Ages”, Midland History,
VII (1982), p.1
121
    R. H. Hilton, The English Peasantry in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1975), pp. 77-84. These
statements were based, at that time on Maurice Beresford’s, New Towns of the Middle Ages (London,
1967), but, as will be shown below (chapter 10) boroughs established after 1208/14, other than those
established in regions in regions C1-4, were often insubstantial and of but little significance.
122
    D. Hill, “Late Saxon Bedford,” Bedfordshire Archaeology, V (1970); Jeremy Haslam, “The Origins
and Plan of Bedford,” Bedfordshire Archaeology, XVI (1984), pp.29-36; D. B. Baker,
“Excavations…in Mill Street, Bedford, 1971”, Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal, VIII (1974), pp.
99-128; D. B. Baker, E. Baker, J. Hassall and A. Simco, “Excavations in Bedford, 1967-1977”,
Bedfordshire Archaeological Journal, XIII (1979) including J. M. Hassall, “20-24 St John Street”,
ibiden, pp. 115-26, and by the same author “Midland Road”, ibidem, pp. 79-95 and “17-19 St Mary’s
Street,” ibid., pp. 137-43; Jane Hassall, “Excavations in Bedford, 1977 and 1978” Bedfordshire
Archaeology, XVI (1984), pp. 37-63
123
    T. R. Slater, “The Origins of Warwick,” Midland History, VIII (1983), pp.1-13
124
    Hal Dalwood and Rachel Edwards, Excavations at Deansway, Worcester, 1988-89. Romano-British
Small Town to Late Medieval City (York: Council of British Archaeology, Report no. 139, 2004), pp.
61-8.
125
     Martin Carver, “The excavation of three medieval craftsmen’s tenements in Sidbury, 1976” in
Medieval Worcester,” pp. 155-83
126
    Julian Bennett, “Excavation and Survey on the Medieval City Wall” in Medieval Worcester, pp.65-
85
127
    “The Broad Street Site,” The Origins of Worcester, pp 63-83
128
    Susan Hirst, “Excavations behind the City Wall at Talbot Street, 1975” in Medieval Worcester (pp
87-106)
129
    “Excavations on the Lich Street Development site 1965-6” The Origins of Worcester, pp. 44-62
130
      Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs: http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html. Introduction,
table 1, temporally adjusted from county data relating to twelfth-century markets: Westmoreland,
Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Oxfordshire
and Bedfordshire.
131
    Ibiden, places: Westminster. (The grant of 2 July 1245 declared it should be held on the vigil of the
feast of the Translation of Edward the Confessor (13 Oct) for two more days. A mandate was sent to
the sheriffs of Oxfordshire, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, Essex and Hertfordshire, London, Middlesex and
Northamptonshire to proclaim the fair and cause it to be held. In 1248, the fair was extended to a
fortnight. All other fairs held throughout England during this period were to be suspended and all the
London shops were closed. On 15 October 1248 it was declared that all merchants coming to the fair of
Westminster should be quit of the king’s prises. Winchester (original grant made in 1096, by William
II for a fair to be held at the church of Giles on the eastern hill of Winchester, with all the customs
which the king would have if the fair were his own. In 1110 Henry I extended the length of St Giles’
fair by five days, giving an eight day fair. In 1114 Henry I reiterated this grant and in 1136, Stephen
extended the fair from 8 days to 14 days. In March 1155, Henry II, ignoring Stephen’s grant, doubled
the number of days from 8 to 16, in a grant confirmed by Richard I on 8 September 1198. On 26
December 1199, John confirmed the extension of the fair from 8 days to 16 days and on 6 Sept 1212,
John extended the fair by a further 8 days to 24). Both of these boroughs were influenced more by the
location of the capital city than by local circumstances. Hereford (Original grant in 1121 by Henry I to
be held on Ethelbert the Martyr i.e. 20 May). In 1150x54, Roger, earl of Hereford, granted the
                                                                                                    250



cathedral church of Hereford that the fair of four days, which the bishop held would be extended by a
further four days. A further grant was made on 3 August 1226, by Henry III to the men of Hereford for
a fair to be held on the vigil of the feast of St Denys (9 Oct). On 23 March 1227, Henry III granted the
citizens of Hereford a fair on the feast of St Denys and for two days thereafter.
132
    Ibiden, places
133
    See Chapter 5
134
    Ian Blanchard, Mining, Metallurgy and Minting in the Middle Ages (Stuttgart, three volumes, 2001),
II, pp. 756-61
135
    See Chapter 10
136
    See Chapter 3
137
    See Chapters 4-5
138
     Ian Soulsby, The towns of medieval Wales: a study of their history, archaeology and early
topography (Chichester, 1983)
139
     Brian Graham, “The evolution of urbanization in medieval Ireland”, Journal of Historical
Geography, V, 2 (1979), pp. 111-25
140
    Howard B. Clarke, “The Topographical Development of Early Medieval Dublin”, Journal of the
Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, CVII (1977), pp. 29-47. B. O’Riordain, “The High Street
Excavations” in Bo Almquist and David Green (eds.), Proceedings of the seventh Viking Congress:
Dublin, 15-21 August 1973 (Dublin, 1976), pp.135-40 and by the same author “Excavations at High
Street and Winetavern Street, Dublin”, Medieval Archaeology, XV (1971), pp.73-86. Patrick F.
Wallace, The Viking age buildings of Dublin (Dublin, two volume in three parts, 1992). A. P Smyth,
Scandinavian York and Dublin (New York and Dublin, two volumes, 1975-9), II, pp.201-9
141
    Henry A. Jeffries, “The History and Topography of Viking Cork”, Journal of the Cork Historical
and Archaeological Society, XC (1985), pp.14-25; A. F. O’Brien, “The Development of the Privileges,
Liberties and Immunities of Medieval Cork and the Growth of Urban Autonomy, c. 1189 to 1500,”
Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, LXXXIX (1984), pp. 46-63
142
    M. Magnusson and H. Pálsson, Laxdaela Saga (Harmondsworth, 1969), pp. 90-1
143
    Fergus Kelly, A Guide to Early Irish Law, (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, vol. 3,
1988), p 108; Corpus iuris hibernici: ad fidem codicum manuscriptorum, recognovit D.A. Binchy.
(Baile tha Cliath [Dublin]: Institi id Ard-L inn Bhaile tha Cliath, six volumes, 1978), pp. 315.4;
314.17
144
    Kelly, Early Irish Laws, pp.62-3
145
    R. A. Butlin, “Urban and proto-urban settlements in pre-Norman Ireland” in R. A Butlin (ed.), The
Development of the Irish Town (London, 1977), pp. 11-27.
146
    R. E. Glasscock, “Moated sites and deserted boroughs and villages: two neglected aspects of Anglo-
Norman settlement in Ireland”, in N. Stephens and R. E. Glasscock (eds.), Irish Geographical Studies
(Belfast, 1970), p.171
147
     Goddard Henry Orpen, Ireland under the Normans 1169-1216 (Oxford, four volumes 1911-20),
which is the principal source concerning the process of sub-infeudation.
148
    Ibiden, II, pp. 75-90
149
    A. J. Otway-Ruthven, “Parochial development in the rural deanery of Skreen,” Journal of the Royal
Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, XCIV (1964), pp. 111-22
150
    Brian Graham, The evolution of urbanization, pp. 122-4, the relevant charters on twelfth- and early
thirteenth century borough foundation are cited below
151
     Chartae, privilegia et immunitates, being transcripts of charters and privileges to cities, towns,
abbeys and other bodies corporated, 18 Henry II to 18 Richard II., 1171 to 1395 (Dublin: Irish Record
Commission, 1889), p. 9
152
    le Gearóid MacNiocaill, Na Buirgéisí XII-XV aois (Dublin, two volumes, 1964), I, p.172
153
     Calendar of documents, relating to Ireland, preserved in Her Majesty’s Public Record Office,
London edited by H. S. Sweetman [vol. 1-4] and Gustavus Frederick Handcock [vol. 5]. (London, five
volumes, 1875-1886), I, nos. 1544, 1389, 757
154
     Sir John Thomas Gilbert (ed.) Register of the Abbey of St. Thomas, Dublin (London: Rerum
Britannicorum medii aevi scriptores, two volumes, 1889) I, p.59
155
    Statutes and ordinances, and acts of the Parliament of Ireland edited Henry F. Berry, vols. 1-3;
James F. Morrissey, vol. 4 (Dublin: H.M.S.O, four volumes, 1907), I, pp. 363-5.
156
    Calendar of documents, relating to Ireland, I, no. 39
157
    MacNiocaill, Na Buirgéisí, I, p.135
158
    Calendar of documents, relating to Ireland ,I, nos. 16-7
159
    MacNiocaill, Na Buirgéisí, I, pp. 109, 246, 130, 229
                                                                                                   251



160
    Calendar of documents, relating to Ireland ,I, no. 2780
161
    MacNiocaill, Na Buirgéisí, I, p. 236
162
    Calendar of documents, relating to Ireland ,I, nos. 587, 1221, 1262, 1310, 1414, 1633, 1639
163
    MacNiocaill, Na Buirgéisí, I, p. 107
164
    C. Hurst, “Excavations at Gloucester, 1968-1971. Third Interim Report. Kingholm 1966-1975”,
Antiquaries Journal, LV (1975), pp. 264-94 and the same author’s “Kingholm, excavation at Kingholm
Close and other sites,” Gloucester archaeological reports, no. 1 (Cambridge, 1985)
165
    Reports: No. 1 M. D. Cra’ster, “St Michael’s, Gloucester, 1956”, Transactions of the Bristol and
Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, LXXX (1961), pp. 59-74. No. 2 B. Bryant, “Excavations at St
Mary de Lode, Gloucester, 1978-1979”, Glevensis, XIV (1980), pp. 4-12. No.3 Carolyn M. Heighway
with contributions by D. Bailey, The East and North gates of Gloucester and associated sites:
excavations 1974-1981 (Western Archaeological Trust, 1983). Nos. 4-5, 8, 10-1, 13, 18, 21-2: Anthony
Patrick Garrod and C.M. Heighway with contributions by T. Darvill et al., Garrod’s Gloucester
archaeological observations 1974-81 (Gloucester: Western Archaeological Trust, Excavation
monograph 6, c 1984). Carolyn M. Heighway and Anthony Patrick Garrod, “Excavations at Nos. 1 and
30 Westgate Street, Gloucester: the Roman levels”, Britannia, XI (1980), pp. 73-97 Nos. 6, 8, 10-1, 15-
6. 21: C. Hurst, “Excavations at Gloucester, 1968-1971. First Interim Report”, Antiquaries Journal, LII
(1972), pp.24-69 and “Excavations at Gloucester, 1971-1974. Second Interim Report” ibid., LIV
(1974), pp.8-52. Nos. 7, 12 M. Atkin, “ Excavations in Gloucester 1990, site 8/89: Upper Quay
Street/Westgate Street”, Glevensis, XXV (1991), pp. 16-18. No. 14 Carolyn M. Heighway and B.
Bryant, The Golden Minster. The Anglo-Saxon Minster and Late Medieval Priory of St Oswald at
Gloucester (York: Council for British Archaeology, Research Report 117, 1999). No 16 C. Hurst,
“Gloucester: The Roman and Later Defences” Gloucester archaeological reports, no. 2 (Cambridge,
1986). No. 17 Anthony Patrick Garrod, “St Catharine Street, Hare Lane (site 5/89)” and “Inner Relief
Road (Gouda Way), site 10/89” in Annual Review of Minor Development Sites in Gloucester,
Glevensis, XXIV (1990), pp. 14-6 and 17-9. No.19 Anthony Patrick Garrod, “Dean’s Walk Inn (site
21/85” in Annual Review of Minor Development Sites in Gloucester, Glevensis, XXI (1987), p. 18.
No. 20 “ 25-25A London Road. Site 37/88”, ” in Annual Review of Minor Development Sites in
Gloucester, Glevensis, XXIII (1989). No.23 M. Walters & M. Atkin, “Site 27/90: St Margaret’s
Chapel, London Road,” Glevensis, XXV (1991), pp. 11-3. No.24 M. Atkin, “Southgate Gallery,
Southgate Street site 3/89” in Excavations in Gloucester 1989-an Interim Report, Glevensis, XXIV
(1990), pp. 3-7
166
    C. Hurst, Excavations at Gloucester, 1971-1974, p.28; Anthony Patrick Garrod, “47 Southgate
Street (site 10/1991)” in Archaeological Fieldwork in Gloucester 1991, Glevensis, XXVI (1992), p.50
167
    C. Hurst, “The archaeology of Gloucester castle: an introduction”, Transactions of the Bristol and
Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, CII (1984), pp. 73-128; T. Darvill, “Excavations on the site of
the early Norman castle at Gloucester”, Medieval Archaeology, XXXII (1988), pp. 1-49; M. Atkin,
“Excavations at Gloucester 1990, site 20/90, MEB Works, Barbican Road,” Glevensis, XXV (1991),
pp. 6-10
168
    Darvill, Excavations, pp. 45-6
169
     Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs: http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html. Places:
Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall.
170
    Daphne Stroud, “The site of the borough at Old Sarum 1066-1226: an examination of some
documentary evidence”, Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, LXXX (1986), map,
p.122.
171
    Regesta Regum Anglo- Normannorum, vol. 2, ed. C. Johnson and H.A. Cronne (Oxford, 1956), no
1199.
172
    Magnum Rotulum Scaccarii vel Rotulum Pipae de Anno Tricesimo-Primo Regni Henrici Primi,
edited J. Hunter (London: Record Commissioners, 1833),p.13
173
    PRS, LXVIII, n. s. 30 (1954), p. 41.
174
    Vetus registrum Sarisberiense, alias dictum Registrum S. Osmundi episcopi, The register of S.
Osmund, edited W. H. Rich Jones (London: Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, no. 78, two
volumes, 1883-4), I, p.198
175
    E. W. Moore, The Fairs of Medieval England: An Introductory Study (Toronto: PIMS Studies and
Texts, no. 72, 1985), p. 18.
176
    Martin Biddle, “Felix urbs Winthonia: Winchester in the age of monastic reform” in D. Parsons
(ed.), Tenth-century Studies (London, 1975), pp. 123-40
177
    Magnum Rotulum Scaccarii vel Rotulum Pipae de Anno Primo Regni Ricardi Primi, edited J.
Hunter (London: Record Commissioners, 1834) p. 5; Moore, The Fairs of Medieval England, p. 18.
                                                                                                  252



178
    TNA, Kew, E372/85 m.3r; 87 m.3d; 95 m.6r J. Z. Titow, “The decline of the fair of St. Giles,
Winchester, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries” Nottingham Medieval Studies, XXXI (1987)
179
    See chapter 5 above and page 211 below
180
     See chapter 5. Hilary Jenkinson, “William Cade, a financier of the twelfth century”, English
Historical Review, XXVIII (1913), pp. 209-17 and C. H. Haskins, “William Cade” ibiden, pp. 730-1
181
    Arthur Worthington Goodman, The Manor of Goodbegot in the City of Winchester (Winchester,
1923)
182
    Interim Report-3, pp. 248-9: Houses VI, VII, IV/VIII and XII.
183
    Interim Reports-2, pp. 197-201: Houses I-II
184
    Winchester 1949-60, I, pp. 166-70
185
     Such references to properties in this paragraph are numbered as in M. Biddle et al., Winton
Domesday Winchester in the early Middle Ages: an edition and discussion of the Winton Domesday
(Oxford, 1976), pp. 69-142
186
    Probably produced in neighbouring Wilton, Anne F. Sutton, The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods
and People, 1130-1578 (Aldershot-Burlington, 2005), pp.4-5
187
    See chapter 6 , table 6.1
188
    PRS IX (1887-8), p.105
189
    See chapters 6 above and 10 below
190
    See chapter 5
191
    Colin Platt, Medieval Southampton: the port and trading community, A. D. 1000-1600 (London,
1973)
192
    PRS XIX (1895), p. 53
193
    PRS, XXXIX n.s. I (1925), pp. 131-2
194
    PRS XLIV, n.s. VI, (1931) p. 226
195
    PRS, LIII, n.s. XV (1937) p. 78
196
    PRS LXVI, n.s. XXVIII (1941), p. 187; LXXIII, n.s. XXXV (1948), p. 287
197
    PRS XII (1890), p.190; XIII (1890), p.158; XVI (1893), pp.42-3; XXII (1897), p.16; XXXIX, n.s. I
(1925), p. 6
198
    PRS, VI (1886), p. 56; XLVI, n.s. VIII (1887), p. 17
199
    PRS, VI (1886) p. 56; IX (1887-8),p.109; XXV (1903-4), p.188
200
    TNA, Kew, E372/69, 70 and 74
201
     C. Platt & R. Coleman-Smith, Excavations in Medieval Southampton (Leicester, two volumes,
1975), II, pp. 123-8 and Martin Biddle, Artefacts from medieval Winchester (Oxford, 1990)
202
    Chapter 5
203
    H. M. Colvin (ed.), The history of the King’s works (London, six volumes, 1963-82), II, pp. 840-4
204
    Chapter 8, pp 155-7
205
    Elspeth Veale, The English Fur Trade in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1966), pp. 39, 43.
206
    Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs: http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html. Places: Wiltshire,
Hampshire and Buckinghamshire
207
    TNA, Kew, E372/85 m.3r; 87 m.3d; 95 m.6r J. Z. Titow, “The decline of the fair of St. Giles,
Winchester, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries” Nottingham Medieval Studies, XXXI (1987)
208
    M. Biddle, “London on the Strand”, Popular Archaeology, VI, 1 (1984), pp. 23-7; A. Vince, “The
Aldwych: mid-Saxon London discovered?”, Current Archaeology, no. 93 (1984), pp. 310-3 and the
same author’s “New light on Saxon pottery from the London area”, The London Archaeologist, IV, 16
(1984), pp. 413-9
209
    Bede, A History of the English Church and People, translated and with an introduction by Leo
Sherley-Rice, revised by R. E. Latham (Harmondsworth, 1968), Bk. 2, ch.3, p. 104
210
    Chapter 5
211
    J. Caley and B. Bandinel (eds.), Monasticon Anglicanum edited by Sir William Dugdale (London,
six volumes in eight, 1849), I, p. 607
212
    S. Kelly, “Trading Privileges from eighth-century England”, Early Medieval Europe, I (1992), pp.3-
28
213
     P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, (London: Royal
Historical Society, 1968), no. 208 http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/charthome.html; English
historical documents, edited by Dorothy Whitelock (London, 1955), Vol.1, c.500-1042, p. 529
214
    M. Biddle and D. Hill, “Late Saxon Planned Towns”, Antiquaries Journal, LI (1971), p. 83
215
    Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 346
216
    Ibiden, nos. 1096, 1103, 1142, 1488-9, 1497
                                                                                                         253



217
    K. Steedman, T. Dyson, and J. Schofield, Aspects of Saxo-Norman London III the Bridge Head and
Billingsgate to 1200, (London Middlesex Archaeological Society, Special Paper 14, 1992), p. 536.
218
    Brian Hobley and John Schofield, “Excavations in the City of London. First Interim Report, 1974-
1975”, The Antiquaries Journal, LVII, 1 (1977), pp. 33-44 and G & C Milne, Medieval Waterfront
Development at Trig Lane, London (London and Middlesex Archaeological Society, Special Paper,
No.5.1983).
219
    Aelfric’s Colloquy, edited by G. N. Garmonsway (London, second edition, 1947), pp. 33-4
220
    H. Loyn, Anglo Saxon England and the Norman Conquest (London, 1962), pp. 93-4
221
    See pages 159-60 above.
222
    William fitz Stephen, “A Description of London”, translated by H. E. Butler in Sir Frank Merry
Stenton, Norman London. An Essay (London: Historical Association Leaflets, nos. 93-4, 1934), p. 27
223
    Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon, edited by Joseph Stevenson (London: Rerum Britannicarum
medii aevi scriptores, no. 2, two volumes, 1858) II, pp. 15-6
224
    D. J. Johnson, Southwark and the City (London, 1969), p.25
225
    Ibiden, p. 14
226
    Felix Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. Herausgegeben im Auftrage der Savigny-Stiftung
von F. Liebermann (Halle a. S., 3 Bde., 1898-1916), I, p.173
227
    William Stubbs, Select Charters and other illustrations of English Constitutional History Ninth
edition, revised throughout by H. W. C. Davis (Oxford, 1913), p. 97
228
    William of Poitier, Gesta Guillelmi Ducis Normannorum, et Regis Anglorum, edited by J. A. Giles
(London: Caxton Society. Scriptores rerum gestarum Willelmi Conquestoris, 1844), p. 147
229
    Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 129-30; C. N. L. Brooke, G. Kier and S. Reynolds, “Henry I’s charter
for the city of London”, Journal of the Society of Archivists, IV (1986), pp.559-78; C. Warren
Hollister, “London’s first charter of liberties: is it genuine?”, Journal of Medieval History, VI (1986),
pp. 289-305 and J. A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 68-9,
106
230
    PRS, XLIII, n.s. 5 (1928), p. 6 and PRS, XLVI, n.s. 8 (1931), pp. 165-6
231
    For such a process in a later phase of rapid economic growth see Ian Blanchard “La loi minière
anglaise 1150-1850. Une étude de la loi et de son impact sur le developpement conomique.” 2.
Mythe, 1550-1850 unpublished paper presented at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales,
Paris, 1985.
232
     Placita de quo warranto, temporibus Edw. I., II., & III., in Curia Receptæ Scaccarii Westm.
Asservata, edited by W. Illingworth. (London: Record Commission, 1818), p. 472
233
    M. Bateson, “A London Municipal Collection of the Reign of John”, English Historical Review,
XVII (1912), pp. 483-4
234
    According to the early survey of St Paul’s properties made in c. 1127 a separate piece of property
possessed on average 9-12 metres of street frontage, though the division of these properties had already
begun and may have gone far at that time. Sir Frank Merry Stenton, Norman London: an essay (
London: Historical Association leaflet, no. 93-94, 1934), p. 24
235
    John Clark, Saxon and Norman London (London: HMSO for Museum of London, 1989), pp. 36-7
236
    Gottfried von Strassburg, Tristan, translated entire for the first time, with the surviving fragments of
the Tristran of Thomas of Britain, newly translated with an introduction by A.T. Hatto
(Harmondsworth: Penguin classics L98,1960), pp. 345-6
237
    Chapter 5
238
    Ideally situated to tap that trade in specie along the great British ‘silver road’ (see map 5.1, page 93)
in its location in Sopers Lane on the corner of Watling Street, between Cheapside and Dowgate.
239
    See chapter 5 and chapter 6
240
    With a silver to gold exchange of 6:1 in Spain and 10:1 in England, profits of up to 60 per cent
could be made on specie transfers, thereby making the margins obtainable on only the most luxurious
of wares a viable alternative.
241
    R. C. Stacy, “Jewish Lending and the Medieval English Economy” in Richard H. Britnell and Bruce
M. S. Campbell (eds.), A Commercialising Economy: England, 1086- c. 1300 (Manchester, 1995). I
should like to thank Professor Stacy for providing me with a pre-publication typescript of his
fascinating paper.
242
    Compare the analysis of Jewish settlement in Stacy, Jewish Lending with that of P. Nightingale
concerning mint organisation in “Some London Moneyers and Reflections on the Organisation of
English Mints in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries”, Numismatic Chronicle, CXLII (1982), pp. 41-5.
243
     When in England the use at the Exchequer of the bi-metallic accounting system of gold and silver
marks was abandoned and the gold mark dropped out of use as a unit of account P. Nightingale, “The
                                                                                                  254



Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus: Weight-Standards and the Coinage in Eleventh Century England. Part
1”, Numismatic Chronicle, CXLIII (1983), p.251, and in Spain the inflow of silver altered the
prevailing bi-metallic ratio.
244
    Pamela Nightingale, “The London Pepperers’ Guild and Some Twelfth-Century Trading Links with
Spain,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LVIII, 138 (1985), p.125
245
     The silver trade of the Franks and Flemings with the Scottish and English lands during the 1130s
and 1140s had a parallel at this time in the commerce of Lotharingian merchants with Spain. In 1130
the historian of Compostella relates these Northerners with their English counterparts traded at the
shrine. L. Garcia de Valdeavellano y Arcimis, Sobre los burgos y los burgueses de la Espana medieval
(Madrid, 1960), p.66. Unlike the English who brought silver, however, the Lotharingians traded to
Spain in Flemish cloth. C. Verlinden, “Contribution a l’histoire de l’expansion commerciale de la
draperie flamande”, Revue de Nord, XXII (1936), pp. 9-16.
246
     Mittelrheinische Urkundenbuch, I, No. 409; H. Reincke, “Die Deutschlandfahrt der Flandrer
während der hansische Frühzeit”, Hansische Geschichtsblätter, LXVII-LXVIII (1943), pp. 55-83 and
W. Stein, Handels- und Verkehrsgeschichte der deutsche Kaiserzeit (Berlin: Abhandlungen zur
Verkehrs- und Seegeschichte, Bd. 10, 1922).
247
    Eleanora M. Carus-Wilson, “La guède française en Angleterre: un grand commerce du moyen âge”,
Revue du Nord, XXXV (1953), pp. 89-105; Munimenta Gildhalæ Londoniensis; Liber Albus; Liber
Custumarum, et Liber Horn, edited by Henry Thomas Riley (London: Rerum Britannicarum Medii
Ævi Scriptores, three volumes, 1859-62), II, pp. xlii, 68
248
    Regesta Rerum Anglo-Normannorum, vol. 3, edited H. A. Cronne and R. H C. Davis (Oxford, 1968-
9), no. 729.
249
    John Horace Round, Calendar of Documents preserved in France illustrative of the History of Great
Britain and Ireland (London, 1899), I, no. 109
250
    Roger Dion, Histoire de la vigne et du vin en rance des origines au XIXe si cle (Paris, 1959), pp.
337ff, 357ff.
251
    William, of Malmesbury, De gestis pontificum anglorum: libri quinque, edited from the autograph
manuscript by Nicholas Esterhazy Stephen Armytage Hamilton. (London: Rerum Britannicarum medii
aevi scriptores, no. 52, 1870), p.140
252
     G. G. Dept, “Les marchands flamands et le roi d’Angleterre (1154-1216), Revue du Nord, XII
(1926), p. 303.
253
    Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1022. A mid-twelfth century forgery
254
    Round, Calendar of Documents preserved in France, I, nos. 1375, 1352
255
     M. Bateson, “A London Municipal Collection of the Reign of John”, English Historical Review,
XVII (1912), pp. 498 said to be usually dated to c. 1130 in Sutton, The Mercery of London, p.3
256
     M. Weinbaum, “Stahlhof und Deutsche Guildhall zu London”, Hansischer Geschichtsblätter,
XXXIII (1928), pp.45-65.
257
    Theophilus, Presbyter, Diversarum artium schedula. The various arts (London, 1961), bk. III.
258
     Agnes Geijer, A history of textile art (London -Totowa, N.J. 1979), p.59; King, “Unrecognised
Venetian woven fabrics”, Victoria and Albert Museum Year Book, 1967, pp. 53-63
259
     Walbrun, translated by Bateson and Holbaum as ‘coats of mail’ has been identified as ‘foreign
brown [linen]’, Derek Keene, “Metalworking in medieval London: an historical survey”, The Journal
of the Historical Metallurgy Society, XXX (1996), p. 100
260
    Bateson, A London Municipal Collection, pp.495-9
261
     Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia: et opuscula duo de vita Sancti Anselmi et quibusdam
miraculis ejus (London: Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, no. 81, 1884), pp. 99-101
262
    Henry Gerald Richardson, The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London, 1960), chapter 1, pp.
1ff.
263
    Helena M. Chew and Martin Weinbaum (eds.), The London Eyre of 1244 (London: London Record
Series, VI, 1970)
264
    See chapter 5
265
    Chapters 5 - 6
266
    Richardson, The English Jewry, pp. 239-40
267
    Ibidem, pp. 8, 47, 61-2, 68-70, 74-6 and chapter 5 as well as James William Francis Hill, Medieval
Lincoln (Cambridge, 1948), pp. 220-2.
268
    Richardson, The English Jewry, pp. 60, 62ff.
269
    Chapter 5 above and page 195 of this chapter
270
     Chapter 5 ; H. Jenkinson, “William Cade, a financier of the Twelfth Century”, English Historical
Review, XXVIII (1913), pp. 209-27, 731-2 and the same author’s “A money-lender’s bonds of the
                                                                                                  255



Twelfth Century” in Essays in History, presented to R. L. Poole, edited by H. W. C. Davis (Oxford,
1927), pp. 190-210
271
     Chapter 6
272
     J. H. Round, “The debtors of William Cade,” English Historical Review, XXVIII (1913)
273
     On his relations with Louth Park Abbey for instance see Jenkinson, William Cade, p. 221
274
     Richardson, The English Jewry, pp. 50ff
275
     Stenton, Norman London, pp. 21-2 and note
276
     D. F. Allan, A Catalogue of the English Coins in the British Museum: The Cross-and Crosslets
(‘Tealby’) Type of Henry II (London, 1951), pp. cxiii-cxiv for Otto (fl. 1066-87), his son William and
William’s son Otto. Regesta Rerum Anglo-Normannorum, vol. 2, edited by C. Johnson and H.A.
Cronne (Oxford, 1956), nos. 760, 1524; Magnum Rotulum Scaccarii vel Rotulum Pipae de Anno
Tricesimo-Primo Regni Henrici Primi, edited J. Hunter (London: Record Commissioners, 1833),
p.145; PRS, XV (1892), p. 16. Historia aecclesiastica. The ecclesiastical history of Orderic Vitalis,
edited and translated by Marjorie Chibnall (Oxford: Oxford medieval texts, 1972), pp.110-1 and note;
Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St Pauls, London, edited M. Gibbs (London: Camden
Society, Third Series, LVIII, 1939), no.177 and note
277
     PRS, XXIX (1908), pp. 153-4
278
     Blanchard, Mining, Metallurgy and Minting, II, pp. 738-40
279
     R. L. Reynolds, “Some English Settlers in Genoa in the Late Twelfth Century”, Economic History
Review, IV (1932-4), pp. 317-323; Ren e Doehaerd, Les relations commerciales entre G nes, la
  elgique et l’outremont d’apr s les archives notariales g nois es aux XIII et XIV si cles (Bruxelles-
Rome, three volumes, 1941),I, pp. 162, 176-8
280
     Pamela Nightingale, Mercantile Community: The Grocers’ Company & the Politics & Trade of
London 1000-1485 (New Haven-London, 1995), pp. 25-34
281
     Chapters 5 - 6
282
     Chapter 5 above and pages 210-1 of this chapter
283
     Bateson, A London Municipal Collection, p. 495
284
     PRS, XXIX (1908), pp. 153-4
285
     Nightingale, Mercantile Community, p. 53
286
     Chapter 5
287
     Nightingale, Mercantile Community, pp. 56-8
288
     Ibiden, pp. 58-9
289
     Ibiden, p. 57
290
     Ibiden, pp. 64-7
291
      Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae: a Synodo Verolamiensi A.D. CCCC XLVI ad
Londinensem A.D. M DCCXVII; accedunt constitutiones et alia ad historiam Ecclesiae Anglicanae
spectantia a Davide Wilkins (London, four volumes, 1737), I, pp. 410-11, 413-16
292
     Veale, The English Fur Trade, p.17
293
     Ibiden
294
     A twill-silk probably from Spain: Sutton, The Mercery of London, p.4
295
     Veale, The English Fur Trade, pp. 40-1
296
     See chapter 6 and pages 196-7 above
297
     G. A. Williams, Medieval London from Commune to Capital (London, 1963), pp. 159-61
298
     Veale, The English Fur Trade, pp. 38-9
299
     This discussion of the trade in mercery, unless otherwise indicated, is based on the outstanding
study of Sutton, The Mercery of London, chapter 1 § 1-4, pages 1-21.
300
     Nightingale, Mercantile Community, p. 31
301
    John Dummelow, The wax chandlers of London: a short history of the Worshipful Company of Wax
Chandlers (London-Chichester, 1973)
302
      Burel was a cheap woollen cloth, often purchased by the king for almsgiving or for servants’
clothing. See E. M. Carus-Wilson, “The English Cloth Industry in the Late Twelfth and Early
Thirteenth Centuries,” Economic History Review, XIV (1944), pp. 33-4 reprinted in Eleanora M.
Carus-Wilson, Medieval Merchant Venturers: Collected Studies (London, 1954). Kay Staniland,
“Clothing Provision and the Great Wardrobe in the Mid-Thirteenth Century,” Textile History, XXII
(1991), p. 243. Andrew Woodger, “The Eclipse of the Burel Weaver: Some Technological
Developments in the Thirteenth Century,” Textile History, XII (1981) pp. 59-76 identified burel as a
broadcloth woven on a warp-weighted loom.
303
     Chapter 6
                                                                                                       256



304
     G. Egan and F. Pritchard, Dress Accessories c1150-c1450 (London: Medieval Finds from
Excavations in London, 3, 1991), pp. 1, 3, 9, 14 - 15; Martin Biddle, Object and Economy in Medieval
Winchester (Oxford: Winchester Studies 7/ii. Artefacts from Medieval Winchester, two volumes,
1990), II, pp. 1151-74; Patrick Ottaway and Nicola Rogers, Craft, industry and everyday life: finds
from medieval York (York: York Archaeological Trust, The Archaeology of York, vol. XVII, fasc. 15,
The Small Finds, 2002), pp 2674-95, 2975-97. I should like to express my profound thanks to Derek
Keene for bringing these references to my attention. The London evidence is drawn from dockers’
housing intermingled with the warehouses on the waterfront. The Winchester evidence is from sites
within industrial districts. The York evidence is the most difficult to assess. Two of the excavated sites-
Bedern and Foundry- though showing slight signs of occupation in the late eleventh- and twelfth
centuries were only developed in the thirteenth- and fourteenth centuries. The remaining two sites - 16-
22 Coppergate and 46-54 Fishergate - provide evidence of a process of de-industrialisation in the
twelfth century, which continued into the thirteenth. The low level of material finds recovered may thus
relate to the members of an impoverished work force caught up in the last thows of manufactory here.
305
    The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes of the Time of King Richard the First: Cronicon Richardi
Divisiensis de tempore Regis Richardi Primi, edited by John T. Appleby. (London: Nelson Mediaeval
Texts, 1963), pp. 64-7
306
    Frances Consett, The London Weavers’ Company (Oxford, 1933), frontispiece and pages 180-1
307
    Chapters 6 and 10
308
    Calendar of Letter-Books preserved amongst the Archives of the Corporation of London… Letter
Book C, F, G, edited R. R. Sharpe (London, three volumes, 1901-5), I, p.55
309
    Munimenta Guildhallæ Londoniensis: Liber albus, Liber custumarum, et Liber Horn, edited H. T.
Riley (London, three volumes in four, 1859-62), I, p. 130
310
    It is a brief, untitled, and anonymous dictaminal treatise (a treatise on the art of writing letters)
(British Library, Additional MS 8167, fols. 88-90). The entire volume was written in the first half of
the thirteenth century, and was acquired by Westminster Abbey around 1250. The treatise forms part of
a section of this volume (Article 5, fols. 88-133) and is discussed fully in Martha Carlin, “Shops and
Shopping in the Thirteenth Century: Three Texts” in Lawrin Armstrong, Ivana Elbl, and Martin M.
Elbl (eds.), Money, Markets and Trade in Late Medieval Europe: Essays in Honour of John H. A.
Munro (Leiden & Boston, 2007), pp. 431-72 and H. G. Richardson, “An Oxford Teacher of the
Fifteenth Century,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XXIII, 2 (1939), pp. 3-24. Professor Carlin’s
synopsis and transcription of this anonymous dictaminal treatise of c. 1220 provides, unless otherwise
indicated, the basic source for this section.
311
    A mid thirteenth-century list in Anglo-Norman of more than a hundred English towns and their
attributes, printed by C. Bonnier in “List of English Towns in the Fourteenth Century,” English
Historical Review, XVI (1901), pp. 501-3, identifies Lincoln with scarlet, Stamford with haberget,
Beverley with burnet, and Colchester with russet, London with burel, Warwick and Bridport with
cordium and cordicium
312
    pages 204-7 above
313
    Felix Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. Herausgegeben im Auftrage der Savigny-Stiftung
von F. Liebermann (Halle a. S., 3 Bde., 1898-1916), I, p.173
314
    Bateson, A London Municipal Collection, pp. 487, 492-3
315
    Ibiden, pp. 487, 490-3
316
    Ibiden, pp. 502-5, 708
317
    John Edward Price, A descriptive account of the Guildhall of the City of London: its history and
associations (London, 1886), facsimile.
318
    Batten, A London Municipal Collection, pp. 489, 499
319
    John Horace Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville: A Study of the Anarchy (London, 1892), pp. 37-8, 439
320
    Regesta, vol. 3, nos. 274-6
321
    Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 129-30; C. N. L. Brooke, G. Kier and S. Reynolds, “Henry I’s charter
for the city of London”, Journal of the Society of Archivists, IV (1986), pp.559-78; C. Warren
Hollister, “London’s first charter of liberties: is it genuine?”, Journal of Medieval History, VI (1986),
pp. 289-305 and J. A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 68-9,
106
322
    Brooke, Kier and Reynolds, Henry I’s charter, p. 575
323
    William of Malmesbury, De gestis regum Anglorum libri quinque: Historiae novellae libri tres
(London: Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, no. 90, two volumes, 1887-9), II, p. 576
324
    Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, p.116
325
    Regesta, vol. 3, nos. 275-6
                                                                                                       257



326
    C. Warren Hollister, “The misfortunes of the Mandevilles”, History, LVIII (1973), pp. 19ff.
327
    John Horace Round with a prefatory letter by Sir Walter Besant, The commune of London : and
other studies (Westminster, 1899), pp. 235-6
328
    Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, edited William Stubbs (London: Rerum britannicarum medii ævi
scriptores, no. 51, four volumes, 1868-71), III, p. 212
329
    Mathew Paris, Historia Anglorum, sive, ut vulgo dicitur, Historia minor. Item, ejusdem Abbreviatio
chronicorum Angliæ (London, 1866-9), p. 232
330
    Pages 216-7 above and chapter 10 below
331
    Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, IV, pages 5-6; Chronicles of the reigns of Stephen, Henry II., and
Richard I, edited R Howlett (London: Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, no. 82, four
volumes, 1884-9), II, pp. 466-7
332
    W. Page, London, its Origins and Early Development (London, 1923), pp. 282-3
333
    J. C. Holt, Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 135-6 and Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 311-2.
334
    Rogeri de Wendover liber qui dicitur Flores Historiarum ab anno Domini MCLIV, edited by H. G.
Hewlett (London: Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, no. 84, three volumes, 1886-9), II, pp.
116-7
335
    M. W. Beresford and H. P. R. Finberg, English medieval boroughs: A hand-list (Newton Abbot,
1973)
336
    R. H. Britnell, “King John’s early grants of markets and fairs”, English Historical Review, XCIV,
370 (1979), pp. 90-6
337
    The term villa in this sense continued to be used in the twelfth- and even thirteenth centuries. It has,
however, often in relation to that period been mis-translated as ‘town’ rather than its true meaning as
the caput of a (normally hundredal) estate, which might have within its bounds tenancies in ‘burghal’-
tenure.
338
    Britnell, English Markets and Royal Administration, §1-2, pp. 183-9
339
    English historical documents, edited by Dorothy Whitelock (London, 1955), Vol.1, c.500-1042, pp.
366-7, 378
340
    See page 204 above
341
    At Bedford for instance the charters of William I, William II, and Henry I were said to be burnt in
the siege of 1153 and confirmed in 1166 by Henry II on being proved in the County Court of
Bedfordshire. Cyril Thomas Flower (ed.), Curia regis rolls of the reign of Henry III (London,
twenty-two volumes, 1922-2002), XII, section 13
342
      Adolphus Ballard (ed.), British Borough Charters 1042-1216 (Cambridge, 1913), pp.12, 23.
Subsequent references to borough charters in this sub-section are from this work, unless otherwise
indicated.
343
    See pages 221-2 above
344
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, §I, 4, page 7; §I, 5, page 13; Calendar of Charter Rolls (1226-
1516, henceforth C. Ch. R) (London, six volumes, 1903-27), II, p. 68
345
    D. Hill and A. R. Rumble (eds.), The Defence of Wessex: the Burghal Hidage and Anglo-Saxon
Fortifications (Manchester, 1996), pp.219-20
346
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § IIB16, page 94
347
    Ibiden, § IIA2, page 46
348
    Ibiden, § IVA6, page 123
349
    Ibiden, § IVA4, page 117
350
    Ibiden, § IIB6, page 85; VII,11, page 248
351
    Ibiden, § IVA4,page 117
352
    TNA, Kew, C47 34/1/15
353
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § VA1,page 168; VB4,page 211; VB7,pages 217-8
354
    Ibiden, § IVA4, page 115; IVB1, page 133; IVC2, page 143; IVC6-page 147;
355
    It is worthy of note that in the later Percy Chartulary- M. T. Martin (ed.), The Percy Chartulary.
(Durham: Surtees Society, CXVII, 1909) - this is glossed as villain (villanus).
356
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § III2,page 10; III4,page 103;
357
    Ibiden, § IIB16-7, page 95-6
358
    Ibiden, § IIA14, page 71,
359
    Ibiden, § IIA9, page 64
360
    Ibiden, § IVD3, page 153
361
     T. D. Hardy (ed.), Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinensi asservati, vol 1, pars 1 1199-1216
[henceforth Rot. Chart.] (London, 1837), p.86
                                                                                                258



362
    George Tate, The history of the borough, castle, and barony of Alnwick (Alnwick, two volumes,
1866-[9]), I, p. 481
363
    James Raine, The history and antiquities of North Durham (London & Durham, 1852), p.257;
William Greenwell (ed.), Boldon Buke, a survey of the possessions of the See of Durham made by
order of Bishop Hugh Pudsey. With a translation, an appendix of original documents, and a glossary
(Durham: Surtees Society, XXV, 1852), App xl
364
    Greenwell (ed.), Boldon Buke, App xl
365
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § I/11, page 25
366
    TNA, Kew, C47 34/1/15 and Rot Chart, 86
367
    Arthur Francis Leach (ed.), Beverley Town Documents (London: Selden Society, XIV, 1900), p.
132
368
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § I/8, page 27
369
    C. Ch. R., I, 417
370
    John Roberts Boyle, The Early History of the Town and Port of Hedon, in the East Riding of the
County of York (Hull & York, 1895), App iii
371
    C. Ch. R., III, 212
372
    The Records of the City of Norwich, compiled and edited by William Hudson (vol. 1) and J. C.
Tingey (vol. 2) ( Norwich & London, two volumes, 1906-10), I, p. 11
373
    Rot Chart, 91
374
    Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report VIII, p. 269
375
    Thomas Dunham Whitaker, Loidis and elmete (Leeds,1816), p.7
376
    W. H. Stevenson (ed.), Records of the Borough of Nottingham, being a series of extracts from the
Archives of the Corporation of Nottingham (London-Nottingham, seven volumes, 1882-1947), I, p.2
377
    Rot. Chart. p.138
378
    Rot. Chart. p.139
379
    Octavius Ogle (ed.), Royal Letters addressed to Oxford, and now existing in the City Archives
(Oxford, 1892), p. 4
380
    Charles Gross, The Gild Merchant (Oxford, two volumes, 1890),I, p. 31 and II, pp. 28-9
381
    Patent Roll, 2 Henry 1V, pt. 2, m.21
382
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § IIA1, pp.39-42
383
    Ibiden, § IIA12, pp.69-70; IIA15-6, pp 73-6; IIA19, pp.78-9
384
    Ibiden, § IIA9-11, pp. 64-70; IIA14, pp. 71-3.
385
    Francis B. Bickley, The Little Red Book of Bristol (Bristol, 1900)
386
    Domesday Book, I, 163b
387
    R.B. Patterson (ed.), Earldom of Gloucester Charters (Oxford, 1973), no. 151
388
    Ibiden, no. 283
389
    Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs: http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html. Places: Bristol
390
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § I4, page 10
391
    Ibiden, § IIA1, pages 40-1
392
    Ibiden, § IVB2, page 135
393
    Ibiden, § IVC2, page 144; IVB2, page 135
394
    Ibiden, § IVA4, page 118
395
    Ibiden, § IVB1, page 133; IVB4, page 139; IVB6, page 141; IVC6, page 147; IVD2, page 150;
IVD2, page 152; IVE2-page 165.
396
    Ibiden, § IIA18, page 77; IIA19, page 78
397
    Ibiden, § IIA5, page 50; VI9-page 237
398
    Charter 1154/8 Henry II (Rot. Ch. 53); Charter 1189 Richard I (HMC Report 13, part 4, p. 284);
Charter 1215 John (Rot Ch. 213)
399
    Charter 1154/89 Henry II (C. Ch. R., I, p. 46); 1189 Richard I (Hugh Owen & John Brickdale
Blakeway, A History of Shrewsbury [London, two volumes, 1825], I, p. 82); 1200 John (Rot Chart,
p. 46) 1205 John (ibiden, p.142)
400
    Charter 1155-8 Henry II (HMC, Report 12, App 9, p. 400); 1163-74 Henry II (C. Ch. R., III, p.
200); 1194 Richard I (HMC, Report 12, App 9, p. 400) , 1200 John (Rot Ch, p. 56)
401
    For recital of license to create a borough see Ballard, British Borough Charters: Burton on
Trent § I I 1, p. 42; Beverley § I 8, p, 23; Morpeth § I 8, p. 21
402
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § IIA1, p. 38
403
    Ibiden, § IIA2, p.47
404
    Ibiden, § IIA4, p.51; § IIA5, p.51n
405
    Ibiden, § IIA1, pp.38-49, § IIA5, pp.51-2
                                                                                                      259



406
    Ibiden, § IIA6, pp. 52-57; § IIB5, pp.81-84
407
    Ibiden, § IIA7, pp.58-63
408
    Ibiden
409
    Ibiden, § IIA8, p. 63
410
    Ibiden, § IIA1, p.39
411
    Ibiden, § IIA9, p.67
412
    Pages 175-178 above
413
    Ibiden § IIA17, p. 76; § IIA18, pp.77-8; § IIA 19, p.78
414
    Ibiden, § IIA11, p.68
415
    Ibiden, § IIA9, pp. 65-67; IIA13, p.70
416
    Ibiden, § IIA2, p. 47-48
417
    British Library, Ms. Harl 1985, fo 189b
418
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § IIB6, pp.85-86
419
    Stephen H. Rigby, “Boston and Grimsby in the Middle Ages: an administrative contrast”, Journal of
Medieval History, X (1984)
420
    See pages 232-3
421
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § VA7, pp. 180-190; VA10, pp.195-6
422
    Ibiden, § VA7, pp. 182-4
423
     Men from the Cinque Ports were active at Yarmouth before 1100 and established rights of
jurisdiction over the herring fair. The men of Hastings had rights and property at Yarmouth by 1158
and a court there by 1215. A. Saul, Great Yarmouth in the Fourteenth Century: a study in trade,
politics and society (Oxford DPhil thesis, 1975), pp. 146–50, 331–2; K.M.E. Murray, The
Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports (Manchester, 1935), pp. 18–9
424
    On twelfth-century tolls see James Masschaele, “Toll and Trade in Medieval England”, in Lawrin
Armstrong, Ivana Elbl, and Martin M. Elbl, (eds.) Money, Markets and Trade in Late Medieval
Europe: Essays in Honour of John H. A. Munro (Leiden & Boston, 2007), pp. 102-4; Ballard, British
Borough Charters, § VA5, pp 177-8
425
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § VA7, pp. 182-4; VA8, p. 191
426
    Ibiden, § VA13, pp.199-201
427
    Ibiden, § I, 4, p. 4
428
     Charles Gross, The Gild Merchant: A Contribution to British Municipal History (Oxford, two
volumes, 1890), II, pp. 28-9
429
    Ibiden II, p.37
430
    Ibiden, I, p.5
431
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § I4, pp. 4, 6, 8; I5, p. 12; I6, p.17; I8, p.23; VA7, p.185; VB1,
pp.202-4
432
    Ibiden, § I5, p.14; I8, p. 28; VA7, pp.181, 185; VA10, p.196; VB1, pp. 204-7
433
    Gross, The Gild Merchant, I, pp. 36-52
434
    Ibiden, I, p. 45
435
    Richard Britnell,, “Forstall, Forstalling and the Statute of Forestalling,” English Historical Review,
CII (1987) and the same author’s “Advantagium Mercatoris: A Custom in Medieval English Trade,”
Nottingham Medieval Studies, XXIV (1980); S. N. Mastoris, “ Regulating the Nottingham markets:
new evidence from a mid-thirteenth-century manuscript,” Transactions of the Thoronton Society, XC
(1987)
436
    G. Grantham, “Time’s arrow and time’s cycle in the medieval economy: the significance of recent
developments in economic theory for the history of medieval economic growth”, unpublished paper
presented at the Fifth Anglo-American Seminar on the Medieval Economy and Society held at Cardiff
14-17 July 1995, p.12.
437
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, §VA8, p.182, VA12, p.197
438
    Chapter 2
439
    Ballard, British Borough Charters, § VB2, pp. 207-9
440
    Chapter 6 and Ballard, British Borough Charters, § VB2, p. 208
441
    Ian Blanchard, “Introduction” in Ian Blanchard (ed.), Labour and Leisure in Historical Perspective:
Thirteenth to Twentieth Century (Stuttgart: Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,
Beihefte 116. 1994), pp. 12-8.
442
    See chapters 6 and 10
443
    See chapters 6 and 7.
444
    See chapter 8
                                                                                                     260



445
    For an excellent survey of the administration of the fifteenth see T. H. Lloyd, The English Wool
Trade in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 9-13. This may be valuably supplemented by
reference to the study of John Langdon and James Paul Masschaele, “Commercial Opportunity and
Population in Medieval England,” Past and Present, no 190 (2006) upon which the following account
of the tax is based. I should like to express my profound gratitude to the authors for allowing me access
to this article prior to its publication.
446
    See figure 8.1, page 177 above
447
    See figure 8.3, page 224 above
448
     Ian Blanchard, The Duchy of Lancaster’s Estates in Derbyshire, 1485-1540. Derbyshire
Archaeological Society, Record Series, III (1971), p.16
449
    On the total value of England’s overseas trade in 1203/4 see sources in note 445 above. A
calculation of the total value of England’s overseas trade in c. 1290 is more difficult to make and in
spite of taking maximum volumes of exports –wool, hides, tin and lead - and imports- wine and
woollen cloth- at contemporary prices, the figure, derived from A. R. Bridbury, Medieval English
Clothmaking: An Economic Survey (London, 1982), p.116; Bruce M. S. Campbell, “Benchmarking
medieval economic development: England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, circa 1290” paper presented
at Session 122: “Progress, stasis, and crisis: demographic and economic developments in England and
beyond AD c. 1000-c. 1800: Part I: Demographic and economic developments in England c.1000-
c.1800” at XIV International Economic History Congress Helsinki, Finland, 21 to 25 August 2006,
http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers3/Campbell122.pdf, table 10, page 64. I should like to express
my profound appreciation to Professor Campbell for granting me permission to quote from this
unpublished paper prior to its publication. Blanchard, Mining, Metallurgy and Minting, III, pp. 1424-
33; John Hatcher, English Tin Production and Trade before 1550 (Oxford, 1973), p. 90, T. H. Lloyd,
Alien Merchants in England in the High Middle Ages (Brighton, 1982), pp 211-26, M. K. James,
Studies in the Medieval Wine Trade, edited E. M. Veal (Oxford, 1971), p. 96, the resultant figure at
about ten per cent of total trade activity should be should be treated with the greatest caution. On the
total value of goods, passing through the nation’s ‘urban’ and rural markets and fairs, see on the
numbers of such markets and fairs Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs: Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs:
http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/gaz/gazweb2.html. Full introduction table 1. On the average value of
tolls collected at markets and fairs in 1086-1149 H. C. Darby, Domesday England (Cambridge, 1977),
appendix 17, pp 369-71; in c. 1180-1249 John Langdon and James Paul Masschaele, “Commercial
Opportunity and Population in Medieval England,” Past and Present, no 190 (2006) and in c. 1280-
1349 Bruce M. S. Campbell and Ken Bartley, England on the eve of the Black Death: an atlas of lay
lordship, land and wealth 1300-1348 (Manchester, 2006), p. 301. On the incidence of these tolls see,
James Masschaele, “Toll and Trade in Medieval England”, in Lawrin Armstrong, Ivana Elbl, and
Martin M. Elbl, (eds.) Money, Markets and Trade in Late Medieval Europe: Essays in Honour of John
H. A. Munro (Leiden & Boston, 2007), pp. 115-7

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:2/14/2012
language:
pages:110
wangping12 wangping12 http://
About