between urban and rural units was as yet material, not legal.
There was nothing paradoxical in the description of Canterbury
as “ regalis villa Dorovernie civitatis.” ¹ Nothing in the
organization of the urban vill distinguished it from the villa
regalis which still remained purely rural. Each was governed
by a royal reeve (gerefa), though the wic-gerefa of London or
the port-gerefa of other considerable places was doubtless a
more important personage than the tun-gerefa of the ordinary
royal vill. He may have found it necessary from time to
time to consult with the more important burgware on questions
of markets and tolls, if not of administration, and in these
consultations we may, if we like, see faint foreshadowings of
still far distant municipal self-government. A regular as-
sembly with a share in the town government only became
possible when urban courts were created, and for these the time
had not yet arrived. It may be taken as certain, indeed,
that a court of justice met in these urban centres, but it was
not purely urban. There is strong reason to believe that the
country in this period was divided for judicial purposes into
districts each of which had a villa regalis as its centre ² and
if this was so, the court meeting in London or Canterbury
would not have differed essentially from that of any other
such district. The name Borowara Lathe ³ suggests that this
was the district judicially dependent on Canterbury and the
London folkmote of the twelfth century was perhaps a relic
of a court which had once exercised jurisdiction over Middlesex
at least.

The practical differences between the urban and the rural
villa regalis, especially the intensive trade of the former,
would doubtless of themselves in the long run have compelled
division of the urban centre from its district as a distinct
judicial area, but the process was much hastened by the
Danish invasions and settlement which gave an urgent im-
portance to fortified centres and played no small part in
bringing about a readjustment of the areas for local justice
and administration.⁴

^] C.S. 852 (416 B), ɪɪ. app. xv, a charter of Egbert of Wessex,
dated 836.

² See below, p. 36.

³ The BorWart Lest of Domesday. Cf. E.H.R. xliv (1929), 613

¹ See below, pp. 28-9.

3. The New Burhs Fortified in the Danish Wars

In the foregoing pages the first period in the urban life of
England has been taken to extend roughly to the accession of
Alfred. The Danish raids, it is true, had been in progress for
three-quarters of a century, the “ heathen ” were now firmly
established in the North and Midlands and the fate of WesSex
hung in the balance. Until Alfred’s reign, however, there is
no sign of any general scheme of defensive fortifications or
of reorganization. The value of existing fortified centres
was indeed recognized. As early as 804 the abbess and
convent of Lyminge received a grant of land in Canterbury
“ ad necessitatis refugium.” ¹ In several charters the military
services of the old “ trinoda nécessitas ” are noted to be
directed “ in paganos,” and in one of these the duty of
destroying their fortifications is added to that of building
defensive burhs.² Yet even Roman walls did not always
give a secure refuge in this necessity. Canterbury and,
according to the oldest MS. of the Chronicle, London were
stormed in 851.³ The defences of the lesser υillae regales
would in most cases oppose a much weaker resistance to the
fierce assaults of the Danes. It is at first sight surprising to
find Alfred’s contemporary biographer merely referring to these
as buildings of stone which he sometimes removed to positions
more becoming the royal power ⁴ and distinguishing them from
the cities and burhs Icivitates et urbes^) which he has previously
mentioned as repaired by him or constructed in places where
there had been none before. But Asser is reviewing the work
of Alfred’s reign, and a leading feature of the period which
opens with it was an increasing restriction of the term burh
to the more strongly fortified centres.

It is unlucky that the bishop did not think it necessary to
specify more than one of Alfred’s fortifications, the two arces
which protected the bridge into Athelney,⁵ for had he done so,
there might have been no dispute as to the date of the difficult
but very important document, which in the absence of any
heading is now known as The Burghal Hidage.^β Maitland

¹ C.S, 317, i. 444.

^{1 lbtd}∙ 332, i. 4O2 (a. 8n); 335, i. 467 (a. 8ιι) ; 370, i. 509 (a. 822).

-1 he last has “ arcιs munιtione vel destructione in eodem gente.”

²AS C., ed. Plummer, s.a.

⁴ Λsser, ed. W. H. Stevenson, c. 91, p. 77.

⁵ Asser, c. 92, p. 80. However, he mentions casually the east gate of
Shaftcsbury (ibid. c. 98, p. 85).

^β Maitland, D.B. and B., pp. 502 ff.

<<   <   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   >   >>