One very curious mistake was discovered by Round in the first. In clause 9 the word _wardemotum_ is used. This, by comparison with the corresponding clause in the second Henry’s Charter, should be _vadimonia_: in other words, both Charters confirmed to the citizens “the property mortgaged to them and the debts due to them.” To consider the differences:— (1) No citizens are to plead without the walls. The second Charter adds “except in pleas for exterior tenures, my moneyers and servants excepted.” By the second clause the citizens are freed from Scot and Lot and Danegeld and Murder. Henry the Second substitutes acquittance of murder within the City and Portsoken. (6) Clause 6 is omitted in the second Charter. (9) Clause 9. I have already shown the error discovered by Round in the word _wardemotum_. (10) Here is a limitation, “quæ infra urbem sunt,” which are within the City. (11) The clause concerning debtors omitted in the second Charter. (12) About taking toll or any other custom from the citizens: for the “citizens” is substituted the Sheriff. (13) Observe that Henry the Second does not speak of the Sheriff of London, but of _my_ Sheriff. The most important omission, however, in the second Charter is that which gives the citizens the right to hold Middlesex on the _firma_ of £300 a year, and the right to elect their own Justiciar and Sheriff. CHAPTER III THE COMMUNE We are now in a position to proceed to the establishment of the Commune. The stages of any important reform are, first, the right understanding of the facts; then a tentative discussion of the facts; then an animated discussion of the facts; next, an angry denial of the facts; then a refusal to consider the question of reform at all; finally, the unwilling acceptance of reform with gloomy prophecies of disaster and ruin. One knows nothing about these preliminary stages as regards the great Civic Revolution of 1191. But I am quite sure that, just as it was with the Reform Bill of 1832, so it was with the creation of a Mayor in 1191. There were no newspapers, no pamphlets, and no means of united action except the Folk Mote at Paul’s Cross—which would clearly be of no use on such a point—and the casual meeting day by day of the merchants by the riverside. There was no Royal Exchange; there were no Companies’ Halls for them to meet in; we have no record of any meeting; but we may be sure that the inconvenience of the situation was discussed whenever two or three were gathered together. We may be equally sure that there were Conservatives, those who loved the old days, and dreaded the power of a central authority. Opinion as regards reform has always been divided, and always will be divided; there are always those who would rather endure the ills that exist than meet unknown ills which may be brought upon them by change. I do not know how long the discussions continued and the discontent was endured. On this subject history is dumb. One or