THE EVOLUTION OF LONDON.*
MR. G °Imes work on London is in many respects of a highly controversial character, and his conclusions, indeed even his evidence, are likely to be challenged in many vital particulars as time passes and the scientific study of London as an institution is pursued and extended. For our own part, we should be the last to complain of this fact. Mr. Gomme has made the subject one that can now be discussed from a scientific point of view. He has collected a mass of scattered material, and, bringing to bear on that material a singularly acute mind, presents us with a definite theory of the evolution of London. It may be that he is only a pioneer, that his • The Governance of London : Studios on the Place Occupied by London in English Institutions. By George Laurence Gomme. With Maps. London: T. Fisher Hawk:. [15s. neL J
theory will break down even in important particulars. But the study of London as a fact in the history of institutions is now assured, and for such a result no gratitude could be too lively.
To " the man in the street," and, unhappily, to most anti- quarians, the mystery of London has not appealed. Even men of high distinction have been quite unconscious of the fact that any mystery surrounds its institution; have been content to regard it as a normal centre of population practically founded by the Romans and occupied, for purposes of trade, ever since. They have never even inquired how it came about that London, the greatest city in the Empire, has never been, and is not now, the seat of government. Yet it has not been lack of antiquarian work that has caused this curious ignorance. Few places have been so raked by antiquarians or so much written about. The disjected material for a history of London groans from many a stout shelf, and histories of varying merit abound :—
" No one seems to have thought it worth while to turn from the archaeological remains to the interpretation of their meaning and significance, and no one has considered it of any importance to endeavour to get at the truth of things by approaching them from antecedent conditions, instead of from the views and ideas of later, if not of modern, times. There has been in fact no con- sistent and scientific attempt to trace out the English institution which is contained within the shell of London city, and English history, as well as the history of institutions in the western
world, are the poorer from this neglect of a great subject It is not too much to say that the study of English local institu- tions can only be properly understood by first understanding the position of London. It is my purpose to make this attempt."
Mr. Gomme takes the gathered debris of London history, and from it reconstructs the principles that lay behind the develop- ment of this great city. But " a somewhat extensive pre- liminary survey of the relation of the primitive politics of the tribal Britons to the State politics of the Roman government of Britain" is essential, since we might expect that the contact of politics in such different stages of development would pro- duce certain remarkable results, whether in Russia to-day or in Britain eighteen hundred years ago. Mr. Gomme comes tc three interesting conclusions as to the condition of Britain when the final separation from Rome came : a number of Roman cities, not a British State, was the political bequest of the Empire to the island ; the British chiefs still remained loyal to their primeval tribal organisation; "the British Church approached the nearest to the modern idea of state govern- ment." These three institutions of city, tribe, and Church were independent, through ready to interact. The true history of London is the development of a Roman city now inde- pendent of, and now interacting with, the tribes or nation and the Church. An instance of such interaction is put forward in the very beginning of things. Various Roman usurpers claimed Imperial authority in Britain before the withdrawal of the legions, and their line was beyond doubt carried on after that withdrawal by Ambrosias Aurelianus, and most probably by Arthur. Now Mr. Gomme asserts that these usurpers or heirs of the Roman rule based their power upon Celtic as well as upon Roman institutions. There is some weakness in this position, for it is chiefly founded upon the case of King Arthur. The present writer believes that Arthur was a Roman, but the evidence is by no means conclusive, and the tradition that Arthur was crowned in London, even if true, can be explained on other grounds than the Roman origin of Arthur. A Briton may have deemed it wise to bow to the customs of the great Roman cities of the island. But the fact, if it is a fact, is additional evidence that London claimed and exercised independent power, and in that inde- pendent power we do see side by side the persistence of Roman and British influence. Mr. Gomme considers that the Saxon Bretwaldas carried on the Roman tradition, and exercised not only jurisdiction over the Saxon conquerors, but over the conquered Britons. The matter is very doubtful, and is not fully established here. However, the theory that the welding of Britain into a State was due to " the direct inspiration of Roman ceremonies and dignities" emanating from the Roman cities of Britain is very fascinating, and offers a comparatively
simple solution of a difficult problem. That London main- tained its Roman exclusiveness there can be no doubt. As late as 604 A.D. there was a King of London, and London was
the only territorial bishopric of Saxon times.
Such a theory of a city in an unformed state acting as a
formative agent necessitates an examination of London as a
Roman city. Mr. Gomme has done this with an insight and a patience worthy of all praise. He reconstructs for us the earlier and the later• Roman London, and separates the two
with notable clearness. His remarkable knowledge of Roman Britain is perhaps best shown by his most competent com-
parison of London with the other Roman cities in Britain.
He clinches the theory that London Stone stood, not in the centre of Roman London, but on the western boundary of the first Roman London. Its undoubtedly sacred character• " represents the sentiment of Roman Londoners for the early city and camp which was enclosed in Lundinium." But the fact that it stood in what became the parish of St. Martin Pomroy appears to conclude the matter. Pomroy, as was suggested by Mr. Alfred White, seems obviously to refer to the Roman Pomoer•iuur, the sacred space outside the city. Mr. Gomme by his allusion to "The Pummery" of Dorchester makes this suggestion a certainty. The complete tracing out of the London destroyed by Boadicea is now only a matter of time and research. Will not other place-names be of assistance ? Have Miles Lane, Arthur Street, Cloak Lane, no Roman origin ? The latter is usually r•eferr•ed to St. Martin's cloak, but might it not more truly be referred to the cloaca of the city ?
Mr. Gomme's reconstruction of Lundinium Augusta is exhaustive and of great value. His identification of the Bear Garden in Southwark with the London Amphitheatre is a brilliant conjecture, while his description of the territor•ium of London is of real constitutional value. It would be interesting to know Mr. Gomme's view as to the place of Greenwich in that territorium. That it was a Roman settlement of importance seems beyond doubt. Blackheath and Greenwich Park teem with traces of Roman works, while the temple or• villa discovered in 1903, with a treasure-hoard of three hundred coins, points to a lengthy occupation lasting as late as 418 A.D., when Bede tells us that all these hoards were deposited. Mr. Gomme might have told us that the Romans undoubtedly embanked the Thames at least as far east as Southwark (Sir William Dugdale makes this clear in his history of Imbanking and Draining), and probably beyond Greenwich. The problem of the Thames in Roman times is, however, left quite un- developed in this book. Sir• Edward Coke's famous opinion is quoted, but mach other• extensive material remains uncollated. We know that London port•dues existed as early as 734 A.D., and that at that date the King of the Mercians exercised control over• a London,—a fact missed by Mr. Gomme. It is noteworthy that the Danes in 1013 used Greenwich as the base for the famous attack by river on London when London Bridge was passed by means of a canal on the south side. • It is difficult in the course of a brief review to deal adequately with a work of this type. It has only been possible to refer to some of the ideas thrown out in the earlier chapters. On these chapters it would be possible to write at almost any length. One may protest against the plural form Londoniae being called a " Normano-Latin name." It occurs very early, supports the doctrine of the twofold town, and survives to this day in Londres. Mr•. Gomme in his fascinating later chapters does not always exhaust, or indeed use, his best material. No doubt it is a very special subject, but the early and mediaeval London customs should have been discussed with a direct eye to the Roman law prevailing during the Roman occupation. Had this been fully done, Mr. Gomme would have seen that some of the curious mediaeval building by-laws are traceable to that occupation, and cannot (as some might think) be accounted for by a knowledge of the Roman law used by the canonist in the time, say, of Richard I. These, however•, are small points, and are only noticed for the purpose of indicating lines of possible research. Mr. Gomme fully realises the importance of the line of research that will trace some customary laws back to their Roman origin. But in the case of Fitzalwyn's building by-laws he has failed to grasp the connexion. The right of prospect and the provisions as to dripping eaves are purely Roman. So one might go on suggesting ideas, theories, corrections, and small criticisms. The book invites such things, and its author may be proud of the fact. We dare not stray into the difficult problems of London government in the Saxon and Middle Ages. Here they may be read at large, and con- scientious antiquaries may well spend the winter evenings conning them over. The more they disagree with the solutions offered, the better pleased Mr. Gomme should be, for it will prove that his subject is alive and his problems are ripening for solution.
Previous page
