The year is Mich. 1200–Mich. 1201; but the authority is not first-rate. Standing alone as it does, the passage has been much discussed. The latest exposition is that of Dr. Sharpe, Records Clerk to the City Corporation: Soon after John’s accession we find what appears to be the first mention of a court of aldermen as a deliberative body. In the year 1200, writes Thedmar (himself an alderman), “were chosen five and twenty of the more discreet men of the city and sworn to take counsel on behalf of the city, together with the mayor.” Just as, in the constitution of the realm, the House of Lords can claim a greater antiquity than the House of Commons, so in the City--described by Lord Coke as _epitome totius regni_--the establishment of a court of aldermen preceded that of a common council.[496] Mr. Loftie, however, had pointed out several years before that this view was erroneous: It has sometimes been assumed that this was the beginning of the court of aldermen. As we have seen, however, the aldermen were in existence long before, and the question is how far they were, under ordinary circumstances, the councillors and assistants of the mayor.[497] To any one, indeed, who realizes what the Aldermen were it should be obvious that the passage in question could not possibly apply to them. In his larger work, Mr. Loftie held that these councillors eventually became “identified with the aldermen,” but he brought out the very important point that their number could not be that of the wards. The twenty-five councillors who advised the Mayor in the reign of King John had gradually become identified with the aldermen; and this title, which at first was applied to the heads of trade guilds and other functionaries, was henceforth confined to the rulers of the wards. [NOTE]. It has been suggested that the twenty-five councillors came from the twenty-five wards, but a chronological arrangement of the facts disposes of this idea. There were not twenty-five wards then in existence--moreover, it would be necessary to account for twenty-six, if the mayor is reckoned.[498] As, then, they were not representatives of the wards their character is left obscure. But when we turn to the foreign evidence, the nature of the twenty-four becomes manifest at once; and we find in it conclusive proof that the Commune of London derived its origin from that of Rouen. M. Giry’s able treatise on the “Établissements de Rouen” shows us the “Vingt Quatre” forming the administrative body, annually elected, which acted as the Mayor’s Council. And the oath they had to take on their election, as described in the ‘Établissements,’ bears, it will be seen, a marked resemblance to that of the “xxiiij^{or}” in London.