capable of being authenticated at the date of the record, if not of facts obtained from historical data— we find that William of Malmesbury uses important terms. He describes "Londoners alone protecting their lawful sovereign within their walls," in the unsuccessful attack of Sweyn against Ethelred in 1013. He attributes Edmund's election as due to "the citizens immediately," upon the death of Ethelred in 1016, having "proclaimed Edmund king." He describes Harold's succession to Canute in 1036 in still more remarkable terms: "He was elected by the Danes and the citizens of London, who from long intercourse with these barbarians had almost entirely adopted their customs." Florence of Worcester and Roger of Hoveden first describe the election of Canute in 1016 by the witan, and then, as against this act, go on to say that "the citizens of London, and a part of the nobles who were at that time staying there, with unanimous consent elected the Clito Edmund king." Matthew of Westminster repeats Florence's account of Edmund's election, but gives another account of Harold's election. Leofric and all the Danish nobles in London elected Harold." Henry of Huntingdon describes the election of Harold "at a great council held at Oxford, where Earl Leofric and all the thanes north of the Thames, with the Londoners, chose Harold." Ingulph, for what he is worth, says Edmund succeeded to the throne ". 'upon the election of the Londoners and West Saxons"; and

66

that "the Danes and Londoners made choice of Harold" in 1036. The terms used in describing these transactions are practically the same in all these authorities. There is nothing to be gained by attempting to discriminate between the language of Florence compared with that of William of Malmesbury or Roger of Hoveden. "Conclamant," elegerunt" have a perfectly definite meaning, and when their nominatives are the citizens of London, "oppidani," "cives," and so on, the position of London in Anglo-Saxon times with regard to the English sovereignty is placed beyond question.

66

There is clearly much of significance in these records. They relate wholly to the Danish period, but not wholly to the Danish kings, for they begin with one great English king-Edmund Ironsideand the attitude of London towards Edmund was definitely and emphatically that of a city carrying out in a peculiarly strong way a traditional right. Moreover, the Danes cannot themselves have introduced a city ceremonial in connection with the sovereignty, for it was contrary to all their traditions and their practices. The alternative is that they used the London position to serve their own purposes, and the fact that the saga of these events, The Heimskringla, contains reference to the traditional formula, "London's king," in connection with a skald rhyme on King Canute,' is confirmation of this conclusion. It is the same formula as that which

1 The Heimskringla, trans. Morris, cap, exciv.

occurs in the Welsh laws, and it must refer back to the same conditions. We arrive then at this, that London had a special and definite relationship to the national or state sovereignty, that it was part of the city institutions, and that, broken as the record is, it goes back to the city institution of Roman Londinium.

There is one word by way of summary to add here. At the root of all these phases of London constitutional life during the Anglo-Saxon period lies the cardinal fact of continuity. Anglo-Saxon London was Roman London in all essentials, English London in nothing but sub-essentials-in its endeavours and not in its successes. The fact of continuity lands us at the end of the Anglo-Saxon period with a city fundamentally Roman in constitution, in relationship to the state, Englished perhaps at the fringes, Englished in its outlook, particularly Englished in its growing attitude of loyalty to the English state—in all else Roman.

CHAPTER VI

THE INSTITUTION OF THE CITY

THE Norman brought English London into the English state-made it one of the great institutions of the English state. But not even the Norman kings, with their great genius for government and greater ambition, determined what precisely its position was to be. That was the work of London itself. It struggled to its new position. In the records of the city one feels the movement of the struggle-the writhing powerful body beneath the hand of inexorable sovereignty. But the fact of struggle, the fact that we have a struggling London in place of a free and contented London, is the measure of the city's adherence to its old life and methods. If it did not win all along the line, it at least determined that it was to be unlike anything else in a political state of the western world, that it was to be a new departure among political institutions, an experiment which, under the genius of a governing people, was to work through to a successful issue. The continuity of history and development did not cease. It was not even interrupted. The fresh stimulus and the new direction were switched on to the old driving power,

and London began its final stage of city existence, never again to be a neglected city, never to be a conquered city, never, except in modern days, to be unconsidered in its greatness.

The work of the Norman was begun by charter

grants.

London in the thirteenth century. Royal MSS. 14, c. 7.

William the Conqueror began, and his successors continued, the practice of granting the city powers by charter. But a study of the powers in the charter clauses shows that the grants were in the great majority of cases not new to the citizens, not asked for by the citizens, not even required by the citizens. They were already existing powers charterised, if it is admissible to use such a word, by the