Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 4.djvu/300

278 the reign of Edward the First there were upwards of twenty of these sokes in existence, and their number was not less than thirty in the early part of the time of Henry the Third. Several of the wards of modern London, more particularly Aldgate, Farringdon, Castle-Baynard, and Cornhill, are nearly identical in extent with the ancient sokes from which they derive their names. It must not, however, be supposed that these sokes were identical with the wards into which the city was divided for municipal purposes. Mr. Norton adopted this erroneous conclusion in his ingenious work; but, so far from there being any foundation for it, we find the juries of the wards of London, in the third year of Edward the First, expressly presenting the sokes as liberties enjoyed by private persons, or ecclesiastical corporations, to the detriment of the Crown. One such exempt district, that of Portsoken, was undoubtedly a civic ward, for the same jurors complained that the prior held wardmotes in the priory, within the walls, whereas they should, of right, be holden without Aldgate. Here it should be observed, that notwithstanding the Hundred Rolls enumerate twenty-six wards as existing at the accession of Edward the First, we are not in a position to identify the majority of them, as they were then simply called after the presiding aldermen; the wards of Bassishaw, Cheap, Coleman-street, Dowgate, Langbourne, Portsoken, and Walbrook, however, are specially named in the list.

Regarding the sokes as distinct from the wards of London, which they undoubtedly were, and bearing in mind their independent character, it is obvious that the occasions on which the rights exercised by their respective lords would trench upon the franchise collectively enjoyed by the citizens must have been both many and frequent. The owner of a soke could protect fugitive malefactors, harbour foreign traders, who were always viewed with great jealousy by the civic merchants; and the criminal jurisdiction belonging to him, involving the forfeitures of felons, a most important consideration in the days to which we are now referring, was directly opposed to similar functions which had been conceded to the body corporate by the charter of Henry the First. Superadded to this antagonism of individual and municipal rights was another remarkable and anomalous feature: as no other qualification than residence as a householder seems to have been required, in the thirteenth century, to confer a right to the civic franchise, no qualification whatever being mentioned in the early charters, it followed that the lords and tenants of these sokes within the walls and liberties were nevertheless free citizens, having individually a voice in