C’est du reste à la fin du règne de Henri II. que nous voyons pour la première fois la ville de Rouen décorée du titre de Commune (_communia_) dans un grand nombre de chartes dont les listes de témoins circonscrivent la date entre 1173 et 1189. Dans ces chartes les mentions d’un maire, de pairs, d’un bailli, nous font voir qu’alors déjà la ville jouissait de l’organisation municipale que les Établissements exposent avec plus de détails; elles nous permettent de croire que cette constitution, à peu près telle qu’elle nous est parvenue y était alors en vigueur (p. 28). A footnote is appended, giving “l’indication de quelques-unes des chartes, malheureusement sans dates, sur lesquelles s’appuie cette démonstration”: [1] “Radulphus Henrici regis cancellarius (1173–1181) ... Bartholomeus, major communie Rothomagensis” ... [2] “in presentia Bartholomei Fergant qui tunc erat major communie Rothomagensis (1177–1189) et parium ipsius civitatis,” etc. The expert will perceive that these two charters “demonstrate,” not a date “entre 1173 et 1189,” but between 1177 and 1181. For if Bartholomew’s rule as mayor began in 1177, the first cannot be of earlier date; and if Ralf ceased to be chancellor in 1181,[513] its mention of a “commune” cannot be of later date than that year. As a matter of fact, my own study of the Rouen cathedral charters (from which this evidence is taken) has convinced me that Bartholomew was mayor earlier than 1177; but I am, for the moment, only concerned with M. Giry’s dates. Returning to the point later on, when discussing the claim of priority for La Rochelle, he writes: Les documents que nous avons pu interroger ne sauraient décider même la question d’antériorité, puisqu’ils ne donnent que des époques approximatives et circonscrivent la date, pour Rouen entre 1177 et 1183, et pour la Rochelle entre 1169 et 1199 (pp. 67–8.) No reference is given for the date “1183,” but it must be derived from the “demonstration” on p. 29 (footnote), where a charter is mentioned which speaks of the “Communio Rothomagi” in the time of archbishop Hugh, “1129–1183.” But now comes the startling fact. It was not Hugh who died in 1183, but his successor, Rotrou! Hugh himself had died so early as 1164. Therefore, if this charter can be trusted, it proves that the “communio” was in existence, and (as M. Giry holds), the “Établissements” with it, at least as early as 1164. But the fact is that, as M. Giry had himself observed, when speaking, just before, of duke Henry’s charter, “la _communio Rothomagi_ (art. 7) ne désigne que la communauté des citoyens” (p. 26); it does not prove the existence of a _commune_, and, of course, still less of the “Établissements.”