Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical IntroductionMcKechnie, William Sharp
History
Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical Introduction
McKechnie, William Sharp
Constitutional history -- England -- Sources; Law -- England -- History; Law -- England -- Sources; Magna Carta
Mr. Round, in a notable passage, describes the scene. "When, in the
crisis of October, 1191, the administration found itself paralysed by
the conflict between John, as the king’s brother, and Longchamp, as the
king’s representative, London, finding that she held the scales,
promptly named the 'Commune’ as the price of her support. The chronicles
of the day enable us to picture to ourselves the scene, as the excited
citizens, who had poured forth overnight, with lanterns and torches to
welcome John to the capital, streamed together on the morning of the
eventful 8th October at the well-known sound of the great bell, swinging
out from its campanile in St. Paul’s Churchyard. There they heard John
take the oath to the ‘Commune,’ like a French king or lord; and then
London, for the first time, had a municipality of her own."[485]
-----
Footnote 485:
_Commune of London_, 224.
-----
For any accurate definition of a commune we look in vain to contemporary
writers, who are usually carried away by their political bias. Richard
of Devizes[486] quotes with approval, “_Communia est tumor plebis, timor
regni, tepor sacerdotii_.” Some insight has been gained in recent years,
however, into its exact nature. A Commune was a town which had obtained
recognition as a corporate entity, as a link in the feudal chain,
becoming the free vassal of the king or other lord, and itself capable
of having sub-vassals of its own.[487] Its chief institutions were a
mayor and an elective council, generally composed of twenty-four
members, some or all of whom were known as _échevins_ or _skivini_, a
word which in its modern form of “scavengers” has fallen on evil days,
no longer denoting the city fathers, but men who perform civic duties of
a useful but less dignified nature. Perhaps the chief peculiarity of the
commune was the method of its formation, namely, by popular association
or conspiracy, involving the taking of an oath of a more or less
revolutionary nature by the citizens and its subsequent ratification by
those in authority. It is generally admitted that these communes, though
revolutionary in their origin, were not necessarily democratic in their
sympathies. Under the new constitution of London, the grievous taxation
of Richard’s reign was made to fall more heavily on the poor of London
than on any other class. The commune thus set up in 1191, tolerated at
first rather than encouraged by the Crown, formed thenceforth the
municipal government of the capital; the citizens chose not only their
own sheriffs, but also their own mayor, although the latter, when once
appointed, held office for life.
-----
Footnote 486:
_Select Charters_, p. 252.
Footnote 487:
M. Luchaire, _Communes Françaises_, p. 97, defines it as “_seigneurie
collective populaire_.”
-----
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account