268
ORIGIN OF TOWN COUNCILS
(d) On 3rd February, 1206, John wrote to the barons of
London, that he understood his city of London was much
deteriorated by the faults of those who had hitherto been in
power (“ qui fuerunt suρeriores ”) in administering justice
in the city (“ iure civitatis tractando ”), in assessing and raising
the king’s tallages, a large sum collected from the common
people not having been yet paid over, and in concealing pur-
prestures. Wishing to safeguard his rights and honour and
also the utility of the city lest . . . there grew up any dissen-
sion among them1 he ordered them to have elected by their
common counsel, in the presence of the archdeacon of Taunton
and Reginald de Cornhill,2 twenty-four of the more lawful,
wise, and discreet of their fellow citizens, “ who best know
how and are willing to consult your (? our) rights and honour
and the amendment of your city in administering its laws,”
etc.3
There can be no doubt that this body is the twenty-four
whose oath “ made in the seventh year of King John ” was
printed by Round from a totally different source before atten-
tion had been drawn to the writ of 3rd February in that year.
The oath bound them briefly to enforce the king’s rights
according to the city custom (“ ad Consulendum, secundum
suam Consuetudinem, iuri domini régis ”),4 and much more
fully, with special reference to possible evasions, not to accept
gifts or promises of gifts in their administration of justice,
on pain of disfranchisement of any offender and exclusion
from the company Isocietas) of the twenty-four.5
As only the oath, and not the writ for election, was known
when the interpretation of the communal oath of 1193 was
discussed, Round found in it confirmation of his identification
of the “ scabini et alii probi homines ” of that document with
the twenty-four jurés of Rouen, while Miss Bateson regarded
the twenty-four of 1206 as simply the aidermen. The writ
does not seem to support either inference from the oath.
Round was clearly wrong in assuming the existence of an
elected council of twenty-four throughout the period H93-
1 Disturbances arising out of the assessment and collection of a tallage
came before an eyre at the Tower in this year (Page, London, p. 120).
2 The justices who held the eyre mentioned in the previous note.
3 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, i. 64Я.
4 Mr. Page translates : , ' administration of the law of the king according
to the custom of London.” But this is inadmissible, if only that there was
no such thing as lex régis.
5 Round, Commune of London, p. 237.
LONDON
2Ô9
I2θ6, and the number of the body specially elected in the latter
year cannot fairly be used to fill up the vaguer description
of the former. There is no hint in 1206 of that distinction
between scabini and consulterez on which the affiliation to
Rouen rests nor indeed of any distinction at all. On the other
hand, the writ seems fatal to Miss Bateson’s view. It is not
certain that the aidermen in general were elected at this date—
one of them, the aiderman of Portsoken, assuredly was not—
and if they were, it would not be “by the common counsel
of the city." Indeed, Miss Bateson virtually admitted that
evidence of election of the twenty-four would rebut her con-
tention. Moreover, it was apparently the misgovernment of
the aidermen which led to the appointment of this body.1
It has, in fact, been suggested that it was not a council at
all, but merely a commission of inquiry and reform, purely
temporary and ad hoc, and for such an interpretation of the
writ and oath something may be said. Of inquiry we hear
nothing, but much of reform. It was not a consultative
council to act with the mayor like the twenty-five of 1200-0i.
The mayor is never mentioned and Round and Miss Bateson
were mistaken in reading “ counsel ” 2 into the phrase “ con-
sulere iuri domini régis ” of the oath, which must be inter-
preted in the light of the “ iuri et honori nostro 3 providere ’’
of the writ. Still the texts leave a distinct impression that
the SUperiores were superseded in favour of the twenty-four,
whose oath shows them sitting in judgement, not merely
correcting unjust decisions. They were, we may believe,
entrusted with the government of the city for the time being.
They certainly were not permanent ; so that it is almost
needless to point out that the method of their election would
in any case have discountenanced Round’s suggestion 4 that
in them we have the germ of the later common council ; which,
originating in selection by the mayor, was elected by wards.
ɪ Of this Miss Bateson was of course unaware, but with this further
information Mr. Page still adheres to her view. He assumes that aidermen
(including deputies of the prior of Holy Trinity for Portsoken ward) were
elected at this date and regards the writ of 3 February, 1206, as an order
for the election of a new set of these officers, the wardmotes (by which the
aidermen were afterwards elected) being perhaps called before the two jus-
tices or representatives of the justices meeting the wardmotes (London,
pp. 227-8). This is very strained and does not explain why old-established
officers should be described as the twenty-four.
t “ Twenty-four councillors ” (Commune of London, p. 238) ; " twenty-
four councillors in judgement ” (E.H.R. xvii. 508).
3 Assuming this obvious emendation of the MS. vestro.
4 Commune of London, p. 241.
T