296
ORIGIN OF TOWN COUNCILS
Winchester about 1275 the community still shared the choice
with the council.1 In England, too, the king merely reserved
a veto on a single name, while in his foreign dominions he
insisted on nominating from a list of three.2
In England the towns were indebted to the communal
movement abroad for the mayoralty and in a more general
way for their municipal councils, but both these institutions
were developed by them from the outset on native lines con-
sistent with their close dependence upon the Crown or, in the
case of mesne towns, in imitation of the royal boroughs.
APPENDIX
Dr. Stephenson on the Origin of Town Councils
Limited as is the influence upon municipal developments
in England attributed to the foreign commune in the fore-
going article, it does not commend itself to Dr. Stephenson.
He goes even further than Maitland in assuming a native
evolution, though correcting his post-dating of the emer-
gence of elected councils and finding their nucleus not in the
borough judiciary, but in mercantile associations. The abor-
tive communes at Gloucester and York need not, he suggests,
have had any municipal significance nor can he see in the
granting of the commune to London in 1191 and its sequel
any trace of French influence beyond that which had naturally
been in force since the Norman Conquest. The only change
in the civic constitution as settled by Henry I and now
revived was the institution of a mayor, and this officer was
no more an essential feature of the foreign commune than
he was of the boroughs which received self-government from
Richard and John. “ Henceforth the head of the admin-
istration (of London) bore the prouder title of mayor, but
that was the extent of foreign borrowing.” The mercantile
aristocracies in the boroughs obtained a closer organization
and wider powers, but there is no need to call in continental
influence to explain what was a natural development.3
Such a view takes no account of the traces of that in-
fluence not merely in the title of the new officer, but in the
1 Furley, Ancient Usages of Winchester, p. 27.
2 But the Rouen type of commune was of course an imperfect one.
3 Borough and Town, pp. 183-5.
DR. STEPHENSON'S THEORY
297
clear implications of Richard of Devizes’ denunciation of the
“ Conjuratio ” ɪ and in a significant word in the Londoners’
oath of loyalty in 1193 to Richard and to their commune and
its officers.2 Even if the skiυini (scabini) of the oath were
only the aidermen, as Miss Bateson thought, the use of a
title so generally applied to civic councils abroad,3 but in
England confined to a few officials of the merchant gild,
shows to what quarter the eyes of the Londoners were then
turned. In swearing to hold to the commune {tenere c.)
too, they were using a phrase found in French documents.4
Without tracing so much to imitation of Rouen as Round
did, would it be very rash to suggest that the “ major com-
mune Rothomagi ” s may well have been in their minds in
instituting the office of mayor ?
If in financial and judicial autonomy the city won no more
than Henry I had given, it breathed in a new spirit, adopted
a new bond of union in the civic oath and found a spokesman.
Such a revolutionary cry as Robert Brand’s “ come what
may, the Londoners shall have no king but their mayor ” 6
became possible. Yet Professor Stephenson says that “ neither
function nor origin distinguished mayors from magistrates
with other names. . . . They were no less Seignorial or
royal than other magistrates.” 7 What do we find in the
evidence ? The ancient reeves, now usually renamed bailiffs,
are first of all and above all financial officers. When the
licences for their election mention any function it is that of
accounting to the king for the revenue of the borough.8
The mayor of London in John’s licence for his annual elec-
tion (1215) is assigned no such specific function. He is to
be “ idoneus ad regimen civitatis.”8 He will be drawn
into financial as into all other kinds of business, but at the
outset he is essentially the head of the community, without
special charge. It is true that when London’s example is
copied, a senior bailiff will occasionally double the parts,10
l Stubbs, Select Charters, ed. Davis, p. 245. 2 Above, p. 266.
3 With the " quod sequentur et tenebunt Considerationem (decision)
maiorɪs, et Skivinorum, ” etc., of the oath, c/. the passages quoted by Ducange
(Gloss. Latinitatis, s.v. considerare) which refer to “ Consideratio maioris ”
and " Consideratio Scabinorum.” For an oath of the burgesses of a French
commune to their juratι, see Giry, Établ. de Rouen, ii. ιoι.
4 E.g., Giry, op. cit. ii. 74.
5 Round, Cal. of Docs, in France, p. 7 (ιx 70-75) et alibi. The Londoners
must have been perfectly familiar with the civic institutions of Rouen.
“Palgrave, Rotuli Curi<ε Regis, i. 69, (a. n94).
’ Op. cit., p. 173. ’ B.B.C. i. 245.
3 Ibid., p. 247. 10 See above, p. 291, n. 4.