588 Constitutional History. [chap.
Common
councillors.
wards the aidermen were assisted by a small number of elected
councillors who are said to make their appearance first in
1285’.
Stiuggles
¾ith the
crown.
Struggles
between the
magnates
and the
commons.
Thomas
Fitz-
Thomas.
The supremacy of the governing body was constantly en-
dangered from two sides. On the one hand, the kings, especially
Henry III and Edward I, frequently suspended the city con-
stitution for some offence or on some pretext by which money
might be exacted2 ; acustos was then substituted for the mayor,
and the whole independence of the municipality remained for
the time in abeyance. On the other side the body of the
citizens, or a large portion of the less wealthy and more
excitable ζ commons,’ begrudged the authority exercised by the
mayor and aidermen, demanded a share in the election of
officers, and something more than the right to hear and con-
sent to the proceedings of their rulers in the Guildhall. In
1249, when the mayor and aidermen met the judges at the
Temple for a conference on rights claimed by the abbot of
AVestminster, the populace interfered, declaring that they would
not permit them to treat without the participation of the whole
'Communas.' In 1257 the king attempted to form a party
among the commons by charging the mayor and aidermen with
unfair assessment of tallage4. In 1262 Thomas Fitz-Thomas
the mayor encouraged the populace to claim the title of ‘ Com-
muna civitatis’ and to deprive the aidermen and magnates of
their rightful influence ; by these means he obtained a re-
election by the popular vote in 1263, the voices of the aidermen
being excluded : in 1264-5 hθ obtained a reappointment. But
his power came to an end after the battle of Evesham ; he was
imprisoned at Windsor and the citizens paid a fine of .£20,000
to regain the royal favour which they had lost by their conduct
in the barons’ war5. Although at this price they recovered the
right of electing a sheriff, the city still remained under him as
1 Norton, Coinineiitaries on London, p. 87 ; quoting Liber Albiis, fo.
τι6.
2 In 1239 the king attempted to appoint a sheriff ; Lib. de Antt. Legg,
p. 8 : in 1240 he refused to accept the mayor elect ; ibid.: in 1244 he took
the city into his own hands, and exacted Liooo before he gave it up ; see
also the years 1249, 1254, 1255 ; ibid. pp. 9, 21, 23 sq.
s Lib. de Antt. Legg. p. 17. 4 Ibid. p. 32. s Ibid. pp. 29-86.
XXI.]
History of London.
custos and the mayoralty remained in abeyance. The commons
at the election of the new sheriff declared that they would have
no mayor hut Thomas Fitz-Thomas, and the king had to put
down a riot. Another change was made the next year ; the Disputes
σ *^ ’ after the
citizens were allowed to elect two bailiffs instead of a custos : barons’ war.
the election was dispatched in the guildhall before all the
people1. When the earl of Gloucester seized the city in 1267
the dominant party was again humbled ; when he submitted,
they recovered their power 2. But the king did not trust the
Londoners again ; and, although they were allowed to elect
bailiffs, there was no mayor until 1270, when, at the inter-
cession of Edward, and on condition of an increase in the ferm,
Henry was induced to restore the recognised constitution of
the city 3. The communal or popular faction was not however Contests for
crushed. On the feast of S. Simon and S. Jude in 1272 there mayor of
was a contested election to the mayoralty. The aidermen and
more ‘ discreet ’ citizens chose Philip Ie Taylur, the populace,
‘ vulgus,’ chose the outgoing mayor, Walter Hervey. The
aidermen betook themselves to the king, and explained to him
that the election of mayor and sheriffs rightly belonged to
them ; the mob declared that they were the Communa of the
city and that the election was theirs by right. The arguments
of the aidermen are important as showing that their opponents
were not an organised body of freemen, but simply the aggre-
gate of the populace. They urged that the election of the
mayor belonged to them; the commons were the members,
they were the heads; they also exercised all jurisdiction in
lawsuits set on foot within the city; the populace contained
many who were not owners of lands, rents or houses in the city,
who were ‘ the sons of diverse mothers,’ and many of them of
servile origin, who had little or no interest in the welfare of
the city. As the king was on his deathbed his court en-
deavoured to mediate ; it was proposed that both candidates
should be withdrawn and a custos appointed until a unanimous
choice could be made ; five persons were to be elected by each
party, and they were to choose a mayor, Before the election
ɪ Lib. de Anti. Legg. p. 88. 2 Ibid. pp. 90 93. 3 Ibid. p. 124,