1б2
FIRMA BURGI AND COMMUNE
4. Revocable Grants of Firma Burgi ; Attempted
Communes ii 54-91
From the very beginning of his reign, Henry II repressed
the more ambitious aspirations of the burgess class in the
English towns. He might grant or confirm “ communes ” in
his domains in France where the movement had been brought
under control by politic lords and their concessions did not
go much beyond what the English borough enjoyed by custom
or charter, but in England the name was still the war-cry
of extremists and we may see a substantial truth in Richard
of Devizes’ often-quoted remark on John’s commune of
London that his fathet would not have permitted it for a
thousand thousands of silver marks. Henry, indeed, showed
himself less liberal than his grandfather. While continuing
and cautiously extending the elder Henry’s policy of leasing
the firma burgi to the burgesses, he never made or confirmed
such a grant in fee, reserving in every case the power of re-
voking it at will. In most cases, too, these concessions were
obviously prompted by the initial fines and the additions
to the farms which were obtained from the burgesses as the
price of the privilege.1
Both aspects of his policy are perhaps illustrated by his
treatment of Lincoln. If Henry Γs grant to its citizens had
been in fee farm, it was superseded by a charter, which must
belong to the early days of his grandson’s reign, simply de-
livering the city to them at the farm it had paid in the time
of the first Henry.2 Accordingly at Michaelmas 1155 their
reeve accounted at the exchequer for £140 (blanch) de firma,
the exact amount for which the sheriff of Lincolnshire received
allowance in his account.3 But by the next account the amount
of their farm had been raised to £180 by tale (£171 blanch)
at which it remained.4 Their uncertain tenure of it was em-
phasized when two years later it was transferred to the (new)
sheriff, for no apparent reason, as it was not in arrears.5
The new arrangement was perhaps not regarded as more
than temporary, for although the £180 was lumped with the
farm of the county, it is shown to have been looked upon as
ɪ Henry usually avoided mediatizing boroughs, as that meant loss of
revenue, but he granted Stamford to Richard de Humez, his constable
for Normandy. P.R. 2 Hen. II, p. 24.
2 Ballard, British Borough Charters, i. 221.
3 Red Book of Exchequer, ii. 656-7.
4 P.R. 2 Hen. II, p. 28. δ Ibid. 4 Hen. II, p. 136.
REVOCABLE GRANTS OF FIRMA BURGI 163
really separate (though in the same hands) by the heading
de nova firme Comitatus et de firme Civitatis Lincol' and by
the retention of the sheriff’s old allowance of £140. This was
an awkward bit of book-keeping, and in 1162 his account for
the city was rendered separately.1 Next year the farm was
restored to the citizens, fot William de Paris and Ailwin Net,
who accounted at Michaelmas 1164,2 were the reeves of the
city and not in this case likely to be farming it on their own
account. The reeves continue to account to the end of the
reign, and their representative position is sufficiently proved
by the appearance of the citizens in their own name as accoun-
tants or rather as defaulters in 2 Richard I.s The sheriff
took the farm into his own hands until the citizens received
a fee farm by charter in 1194.
London could not expect from Henry even the modest
degree of favour that fell to Lincoln, for while that city had
never come into personal conflict with his mother, London
had ignominiously expelled her and ruined her cause. Henry’s
charter confirming that of his grandfather, granted apparently
in 1155, omitted its most prized concessions, the fee farm and
its low figure of £300 as well as the election of sheriff and
justices.4 But as even Stephen, in part of his reign at any
rate, had ignored these concessions, their omission was not so
marked a rebuff as it would otherwise have been. If election
of sheriffs had been resumed in Stephen’s later years, it now
certainly ceased and throughout the reign of his successor
London had less control over its financial officers than
Shrewsbury or Bridgenorth.
This grievance would have been less galling, had it not been
accompanied by a return to the heavy farm in force before the
charter of Henry I. Owing to the unfortunate loss of the
Pipe Roll for the first year of Henry II, we cannot be sure
that Stephen was not responsible, in whole or part, for this
reversion, after the death of Geoffrey de Mandeville. His
indebtedness to the Londoners may seem to render this un-
likely, but on the other hand the full farm of his successor’s
reιg∏, which was already exacted in his second year, was a
composite figure, due apparently to a slight raising of a rounder
figure at some earlier date.
From Christmas 1155, the London accounts for the reign
arc complete, except for the fifth year. By disclosing the
ɪP.R. 8 Hen. II, p. 20. 2 Ibid, ɪo Hen II, p. 23.
Ibid. 2 Ric. ɪ, 76. 1 Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 368.