Nevertheless the privileges which the City had obtained by the Charter of Henry I were great, and on his death we find them The reigns of even claiming the special right of electing the new King. At Stephen and a later date in Stephen's reign, according to some authorities, they even arrogated to themselves the corporate unity of a French

Henry II.

Grant of the Commune by John, 1191.

commune'.

But the fortunes of the day were against them. Their nominee Stephen was but the shuttlecock of rival factions; Geoffrey de Mandeville, who was Constable of the Tower and had been created Earl of Essex by Stephen, proved faithless, and only returned to his allegiance when bribed by being appointed to the offices of Sheriff and Justiciar of London and of Middlesex, the 'ferm' of which was also granted to him. Though de Mandeville died in 1143, Henry II did not restore the right of election to the citizens, but nominated the Sheriff himself. Such exceptional powers as had been granted by Henry I were distasteful to the first Angevin King, and the same policy was at first continued by Richard I.

2

When, however, that knight-errant King had gone on his

both. Mr. Round also maintains that the Sheriff represents the Portreeve, a title which henceforth disappears. The number of the Sheriffs varied from time to time, until finally in the reign of Richard I two became the regular number. Though the Charter of Henry I allowed them to be elected by the citizens, they were nominated by the King during the reigns of Henry II and Richard I. John in 1199 restored the right of election to the citizens. By that date, however, London had its Mayor and the Sheriffs had become subordinate officers. The grant of the Justiciar, whether new or not, may be compared to the policy adopted by Norman kings of sometimes allowing the Sheriff to be justice in his own county. 'It represents', says Mr. Round, the transitional stage between the localization of justice under the sheriff and the centralization under the future justices of the central Court.' During the reign of Stephen the office was granted to Geoffrey de Mandeville. But with the more centralizing policy of Henry II, who forbad Sheriffs to be justices in their own county, the London Justiciar disappears. It may be, as is stated by the Liber Albus (p. 12), that the future Mayor represents the Justiciar, as well as the Portreeve, and that it was in virtue of this and not by royal commission that he was one of the Justices for gaol delivery in London.

1 Gesta Stephani, Rolls Series, iii. 5–6.

2 Most writers say that Henry II confirmed the Charter of Henry I. But Mr. Round has shown that the clause with regard to the Sheriff finds no place in Henry II's Charter. Round, Mandeville, p. 368.

Crusade, and William Longchamp Bishop of Ely, and the King's brother John, were rivals for the control of the Government, the Londoners once more had their opportunity. John, having succeeded in driving the Bishop from power, and being anxious to obtain the support of the Londoners, granted them, with the consent of the other Bishops, Earls, and Barons, their "Communa❞ and swore to preserve it and all other dignities of the City as long as it should please the King; the citizens on their part declaring their willingness to recognize John as King should his brother die childless'. The exact meaning of the word 'Communa' has indeed been disputed. But the best authorities agree that, whether the grant was a new one, or the confirmation of an old claim, made as early as the reign of Stephen, or whether again the idea was borrowed from Rouen or some other foreign town,3 it at least gave to London a communal unity', 'a corporate unity of the municipality', which took the place of the previous shire organization. Further, there is every probability that the concession was accompanied by the establishment of the Mayoralty, while Mr. Round 1 Benedictus Abbas, ii. 213.

2 As mentioned above. In 1141 the Londoners, when demanding the release of Stephen, then in the hands of the Empress Matilda, declared that they were sent 'a communione quam vocant Londoniarium' (Malmesbury, Hist. Nov., iii. s. 46). This, according to some, shows that they had then formed a 'communa', and even the cautious Bishop Stubbs allows that, if the municipal organization represented by the French 'Commune' did not yet exist in London, the 'communal idea' seems to have been there. Constit. Hist., i. 407; Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, i. 49.

3 Round, Commune of London, pp. 225 ff., argues that the idea of the commune was borrowed directly from Rouen and other French towns. This is, however, disputed by Miss Bateson, and is very questionable. Cf. Adams, London and the Commune, Eng. Hist. Review, xix. 702; Bateson, Eng. Hist. Review, xvi. (1902), 480, 707; Petit Dutaillis, Studies Supplementary to Stubbs, p. 98.

* It should, however, be understood that this grant of a commune did not go so far as to recognize the City as a legal persona'. This only came with Edward IV's Charter.

5 The Liber de Antiquis Legibus says that Fitzaylwin was the first Mayor of London in 1189. In the Chronicles of London, 1205 is given as the date of the first Mayor. It seems, however, more probable that the office originated with the grant of the Communa. A Mayor is first mentioned in an official document in 1194, when he was treasurer for Richard I's ransom. Cf. Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, i. 66; Archaeol. Journal, i. 259.

The Commune dis

appears, but Londoners allowed to elect their Mayors.

quotes a document to show that the Mayor was assisted by échevins' who were probably Aldermen.'

The establishment of the Communa must not, however, be looked upon as a move in the direction of democracy. The government was evidently in the hands of the powerful and the rich. The majority of the Aldermen of the Wards were still in all probability men of old descent, who held their Wards as private franchises.2 That the lower classes were not benefited by this concession of autonomous rule is indicated by the rebellion of William Fitzosbert five years subsequently; a rebellion caused by the heavy and unequal taxation imposed upon the citizens by those in authority, taxation necessary to raise the ransom for King Richard.3

Nevertheless, London had in 1191 made a very distinct advance in the direction of self-government, and it seemed as if she was going to rival some of the great towns of Germany or of Flanders in establishing a very large measure of municipal independence. This, however, was prevented by the might of the English Crown, and by the strong centralization which had already been established by earlier Kings, notably by Henry I and Henry II.

The ministerial opinion as to the danger of this communal organization is well expressed by the royalist chronicler who declares that a commune puffs up the people, threatens the kingdom, and enervates the priesthood', and that neither Richard I nor his father Henry II would ever have conceded it, even for a million marks of silver'."

John had made the concession to win support, but after the return of Richard we hear no more of the Communa, although apparently Henry Fitzaylwin remained Mayor for the rest of

1 Round, Commune, p. 235, contrary to the general opinion, would have us believe that the Skivini were borrowed from the 'échevins' of Rouen. Cf. Petit Dutaillis, p. 99.

2 The first mention of Aldermen being elected is in 1293, Letter Book C, PP. 11, 12.

6

3 Ímponebantur eis auxilia non modica, et divites, propriis parcentes marsupiis, volebant ut pauperes solverent universa.' Hoveden, iv. 5. Cf. Stubbs, Charters, ed. Davis, 1913, p. 247.

Ric. Divis., p. 53. Cf. Stubbs, Charters, p. 252.

his life. John, however, after his brother's death, restored to the citizens the 'ferm' of Middlesex and London and the right of electing their Sheriff at the price of 3,000 marks,' and finally in 1215 the King, in his vain endeavours to win their support against his rebellious Barons, granted them the right of annually electing their Mayor.

Meanwhile, shortly after the accession of King John we hear of two bodies, one of twenty-five (1200-1) and another of twentyfour (1205-6), which have been by some considered to be the origin of the Court of Aldermen and of the Common Council."

I

English Hist. Review, July 1902, p. 508.

2 The Liber de Antiquis Legibus mentions a body of twenty-five elected in 1200-1 'de discretioribus civitatis', and sworn to take counsel on behalf of the City with the Mayor. In the Additional MS. British Museum, 14252, fo. 110, we find under date 1205-6 an oath taken by a body of twenty-four that they will exercise justice impartially and honestly. Mr. Sharpe (London and the Kingdom, i. 72), neglecting the second body of twenty-four, holds that the twenty-five are the origin of the Court of Aldermen. Mr. Round (Commune of London, p. 239), apparently neglecting the twenty-five, holds that the body of twenty-four are the origin of the Court of Common Council. He shows that at Rouen there was a similar body of twenty-four who acted as the Mayor's Council, and points out that 'the powers possessed by the Mayor and his Council' over the whole town 'were quite distinct from the local power of each Alderman in his district or ward'.

The difficulty of coming to a decision on the matter is considerable.

1. The body of twenty-five can scarcely be the Court of the Aldermen of
Wards, since there were at that time certainly not twenty-five Wards.
2. The actual writ ordering the election of the twenty-four is to be found
in the Close Rolls, Feb. 4, 1205-6, p. 64. They are to be elected to
amend the evils caused by the misgovernment of those in power
whereby the City has suffered damage and the King has lost his proper
tallages and forfeitures. The passage, which has been pointed out to me
by Mr. Unwin, seems to dispose of Mr. Round's suggestion that they
were borrowed from Rouen in 1191, when the Commune was started.
Moreover, the twenty-four evidently have to exercise judicial functions
which were enjoyed by the future Court of Aldermen, not by the Common
Council.

A possible explanation might be found in considering the elected twenty-five with their deliberative functions as the origin of the Common Council, and the twenty-four with their judicial functions as being a recognition of the Court of Aldermen, since we know that it was somewhere about this date that the number of Wards was twenty-four. Cf. on the whole question Round, Commune of London, p. 239; Sharpe, London and the Kingdom, i. 72; Bateson, Hist. Review, 1902, p. 507; Baddeley, Aldermen of Cripplegate, p. 137; Beaven,

London supports the Barons

These concessions of John did not pacify the Londoners. They still supported the Barons. Fitzwalter, the owner' of Baynard's Castle and its soke or Ward, was one of the most prominent against King leaders of the rebellious Barons, and the importance of London is conclusively proved by the fact that the Mayor (Serlo le Mercer) stands on the list of the twenty-five Guardians of the Great Charter.

John, 1215.

London and

the Barons' War, 1258.

So violent, indeed, was the hostility of the City to the King that, when supported by the Pope he annulled the Great Charter, they joined the extremists in calling in the French Prince Louis, and only tardily came to terms with the young King Henry on condition that their liberties should be acknowledged, and that citizens captured in the late hostilities should be set at liberty.2

Henry III, however, did not keep his promises. He interfered with their right to elect their Sheriffs; he extorted money from them; he bid for the support of the lower classes against the City magnates, depriving the Aldermen of their Wards, though offering to restore some of them if they were elected by the Common Council, and on more than one occasion took the City into his own hands '3

It is not, therefore, surprising that, when the quarrel finally broke out between Henry and Simon de Montfort, the Londoners were found on the side of the Barons. At first, however, as in the reign of Richard I, the City was not of one mind. All were indeed united in resisting the exactions of the King, but in many ways the interests of the ruling aldermanic class were not those of the lower." The King had attempted to take advantage

Aldermen, ii, p. xi; Petit Dutaillis, Studies, 99. Cf. also the Curia Scawageriorum of Edward I's reign, the meaning of which is disputed. Letter Book C, pp. 151, 196; English Hist. Review, 1902, p. 511.

2

1 On Fitzwalter cf. Sharpe, London, i. 74, and authorities quoted there.
Treaty of Lambeth.

3 The authority for part of the reign of John and for the struggle under Henry III is Fitz Thedmar, an Alderman, author of the Chronicles of Mayors and Sheriffs of London. He himself had suffered from the royal tyranny in 1258, but nevertheless became a violent royalist partisan. Much is to be learnt from his account, but it is unfortunate that the popular party has no chronicler. Cf. Beaven, Aldermen, p. 368.

4

An attempt has been made to trace the conflict between the two parties in