A HISTORY OF MIDDLESEX 



of Hampstead and Highgate, saved it for a time from the incursions of 

 the East Saxons, and the wide channel of the Thames and the fortifi- 

 cations of London, from the settlers in Kent and Sussex.' It was only 

 after South Britain had been conquered, and the advance of the East 

 Saxons up the Essex river valleys had led to the fall of Verulamium, that 

 the tide of invasion trickled into Middlesex from the north-west, down 

 the great Roman road, Watling Street. London fell before 552, and 

 whether inhabited or not during the next fifty years, 6 it is certain that it 

 was in the hands of the East Saxons in 6o4, 7 so that the colonization of 

 Middlesex must have taken place during the latter half of the sixth 

 century. The settlers in the district west of London are known after- 

 wards as the Middle Saxons, but it is clear that they were only an offshoot 

 of the East Saxons from the fact that, with London, they always belonged 

 to the kingdom of Essex, and that Middlesex formed part of the East 

 Saxon bishopric of London. 8 Thus Middlesex was never a separate 

 kingdom. The first contemporary mention shows it to be already under 

 double subjection, for in 704 the king of the East Saxons, himself a 

 tributary of Mercia, granted a piece of land in Twickenham, ' in provincia 

 quae nuncapatur Middelseaxon.' ' It was indeed but sparsely inhabited, 

 the settlers dwelling far apart along the banks of the Thames, and still 

 farther apart in the valleys of the Brent and the Colne, and the tributaries 

 of the Lea. 



Middlesex suffered terribly and consecutively from the Danish inva- 

 sions, chiefly because the Thames offered so excellent a winter harbour 

 for the invaders, and London was the goal of many an expedition. 



In 879 a body of Vikings, coming from Chippenham and Ciren- 

 cester where the main army was assembled, ' sat down at Fulham on the 

 Thames.' n These were there joined by another army which had been 

 driven out of Flanders by Charles II, and after both forces had spent the 

 winter at Fulham, they departed in the spring to make a renewed attack 

 on Ghent." According to the Treaty of Wedmore in 879, the boundary 

 between Danes and English was fixed at the River Lea, 18 but the district 

 between the Lea and the Brent seems to have remained in Danish hands 

 until 886, u when Alfred gained possession of London (and therefore of 

 Middlesex), and was in a position to restore or ' re-settle it.' " 



In 1009, after harassing the south-eastern counties, the Danes took 

 up their winter quarters on the Thames. 1 * After mid-winter they went 

 through the Chilterns to plunder the country round Oxford. As they 



6 Green, Making of Engl. i, 124-5, 155 ; Robinson, Hist. Hackney. 



* Guest, Origiaes Ctlticae, ii, 31 1. ' Bede, Hist. Eccl. (ed. Plummer), i, 85. 



' Freeman, 'Norman Conq. i, 23-7 ; Green, Making of Engl. i, 227. 



9 Kemble, Codex Dipt, i, 59. 



11 4ngl.-Sax. Chron. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 65 ; Hen. of Hunt. Hist. Angl. (Rolls Ser.), 147-8. 



" Angl.-Sax. Chron. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 65 ; Hen. of Hunt. Hut. Angl. (Rolls Ser.), 147-8. 



" Stubbs, Select Charters, 63. ' Concerning our land boundaries ; up on the Thames, and then up 

 on the Lea, and along the Lea unto the source. . . .' 



14 Freeman, Norman Coaj. i, 56. 



" Hen. of Hunt. Hist. Angl. (Rolls Ser.), 148 ; Angl.-Sax. Chron. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 67 ; Flor. Wore. 

 Cbron. (Engl. Hist. Soc.), i, 101. 



" Hen. of Hunt. Hist. Angl. (Rolls Ser.), 179. 



16 



