2б4
ORIGIN OF TOWN COUNCILS
sheriff behind him) and gild aiderman. Nor was the borough
community always со-extensive with that of the gild. The
ultimate solution, reached at the end of the twelfth century,
was attained partly by chartered concession, partly by formal
or tacit recognition of communal self-assertion in the boroughs :1
(l) borough communities were enfeoffed by charter with the
permanent management of the royal farm of the town, the
royal reeves, who were still primarily responsible for it,
becoming their elected officers and taking the place of the
sheriff as their accountant at the exchequer ; (2) at London
with some show of authorization and elsewhere usually, it
would seem, without even this, the boroughs with grants of
fee farm celebrated the end of revocable autonomy and dual
control by re-organization and the introduction of official and
communal oaths. The essential corporateness of the new
regime was marked not only by the oath to maintain the new
privileges and ancient liberties against all save the king, but
by the first appearance of borough seals and, in the more ad-
vanced towns, of a new single head of the community, the
mayor. To assist the mayor in the name of the community
there were sooner or later set up small councils of prud-
hommes, generally twelve or twenty-four in number, sworn
to do the duties assigned to them faithfully, to uphold the
liberties and customs of the town, and to ordain and do every-
thing that needed to be done for its status and honour.
As councils of jurati, as well as mayors, were already
familiar features of the continental communes, well known
to the Anglo-French on this side the Channel, it seems not
unreasonable to assume that in the one case as in the other
the influence of the foreign commune may be discerned.
Bishop Stubbs long ago suggested2 this as one of the con-
current sources of town councils, the others being the gild
organization, the decadence of the old judiciary and the jury .
system. His suggestion, however, left the time and corre-
lation of these forces too vague to be very helpful. A simpler
explanation was propounded by Maitland who expressed
his opinion that the borough council was a natural develop-
ment from the borough court and ignored foreign influence.8
That seems also to have been the view of Miss Bateson 4
’Above, ρ. 234. 2 Constitutional History, 2nd ed. iiɪ. 584 (§ 488).
3 E.H.R. xi. (1896), 19.
i Ibid, xvii. (1902), 481 : “ nowhere must town jurisdiction be neglected
as the source of town constitutions.”
EARLY COUNCILS: LONDON
265
and of Charles Gross,1 and obtained wide acceptance. At
the other extreme, Round, without formulating any general
theory, was evidently inclined to see the origin not only of
the first city council of London, but of many others in southern
England in close imitation of the institutions of foreign com-
munes.2 The assertion of such detailed copying of continental
models did not stand the test of criticism and even their
general influence has been denied, since my article first
appeared in print, by Professor Stephenson who reverts to
Maitland’s theory of a purely native development, but with
a different emphasis. The prototype of the council is not the
doomsmen in the borough court, qua doomsmen, but the
“ caucus ” of merchants in the Gild Hall or (where there was
no gild) in the court.3
I
Although, or indeed perhaps because, some of these dif-
ferences of opinion and uncertainties have been removed
by the disclosure of new evidence, it will be well to begin our
investigation by bringing together, as briefly as may be, the
earliest records before 1300 4 that we now have which describe
the setting up of borough councils or contain an early mention
of such a council with an indication of its functions. There
are not many of these, about a dozen in all, and, with one very
doubtful exception, none of them is earlier than the last year
of the twelfth century. The dubious case in question is the
supposed mention of a municipal council in London more than
a century before that date, which could not be excluded,
because Liebermann and Miss Bateson are responsible for the
suggestion. Apart from this, however, London must be given
priority in our list of first mentions of a council.
I. London, (à) In his defence against charges of dis-
loyalty at the accession of William Rufus, William de St.
Calais, bishop of Durham, claimed to have damped down
revolt in London, particularly by bringing “ (the ?) twelve
better citizens of the said city ” to speech with the king.6
ɪ Gild Merchant, i. 90.
2 Commune of London, pp. 219 fi. ; Feudal England, pp. 552 fi.
3 Borough and Town, pp. 172 fl.
* The strong English influence at Dublin and Berwick will excuse their
inclusion.
6 “ Meliores etiaɪn xii eiusdem urbis cives ad eum mecum duxi ut per
illos melius ceteros animaret ” (Simeon of Durham, Opera (Rolls Series),
i. 189 ; E.H.R. xvii. 730).