This is the first public recognition of the citizens of London as a body corporate; but so far from granting to them something new, the very words _their_ commune (_communam suam_) imply a commune of which they were _de facto_, if not _de jure_ already in enjoyment. How long the commune may have been in existence, unauthorised by the crown, cannot be determined; but that the term _communio_ in connection with the city’s organization was known half a century before, we have already seen;(152) and, according to the opinion of Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no valid distinction between the words _communio_, _communa_ and _communia_.(153) Bishop Stubbs, however, hesitates to translate _communio_ as "commune," the latter being essentially a French term for a particular form of municipal government. He prefers to render it "commonalty," "fraternity," or "franchise," although he goes so far as to allow that the term "suggests that the communal idea was already in existence as a basis of civic organization" in Stephen’s reign, an idea which became fully developed in the succeeding reign.(154) He is also in favour of dating the foundation of the _communa_ in London from this grant by John and the barons,(155) and in this view he is supported by Richard of Devizes, who distinctly states that the _communia_ of London was instituted on that occasion, and that it was of such a character that neither King Richard nor Henry his father would have conceded it for a million marks of silver, and that a _communia_ was in fact everything that was bad. It puffed up the people, it threatened the kingdom, and it emasculated the priesthood.(156) (M108) With the change from a shire organization to that of a French _commune_, whenever that happened to take place, there took place also a change in the chief governor of the city. The head of the city was no longer a Saxon "port-reeve" but a French "mayor," the former officer continuing in all probability to perform the duties of a port-reeve or sheriff of a town in a modified form. From the time when this "civic revolution"(157) occurred, down to the present day, the sheriff’s position has always been one of secondary importance, being himself subordinate to the mayor. (M109) The earliest mention of a mayor of London in a formal document is said to occur in a writ of the reign of Henry II.(158) The popular opinion, however, is that a change in the name of the chief magistrate of the City of London took place at the accession of Richard I. What gave rise to this belief is hard to say, but it is not improbable that it arose from a statement to be found in an early manuscript record still preserved among the archives of the Corporation, and known as the _Liber de Antiquis Legibus_.(159) The original portion of this manuscript purports to be a chronicle of mayors and sheriffs from 1188 down to 1273, noticing briefly the chief events in each year, and referring to a few particulars relative to the year 1274.