London Stone. 



granted to its citizens. After the city had been ruled by the Britons," 

 Romans and Saxons it fell into the hands of the Danes, who devastated 

 it. Alfred, king of the "West Saxons, brought the whole realm into 

 one monarchy, and committed the care of the city to his son-in-law, 

 Adhered, Earl of Mercia ; and after the death of Adhered the custody 

 of the city returned to King Edward, the last king before the conquest. 

 The city was then in the king's hands and was governed under him by 

 portgraves or portreeves — this word is composed of two Saxon words 

 — porte, meaning town, and gerefa, signifying a ruler or keeper; so 

 that the chief magistrate of the city, so far as regards his appointment 

 to office, was a nominee of the crown, holding the place in the king's 

 name. When the city of London was surrendered to William the 

 Conqueror, he confirmed, by a charter which is still extant, all the 

 municipal rights which the citizens then enjoyed, in the following 

 words: " William, king, greets William, bishop (that is the bishop of 

 London who was the Xorman chaplain to Edward the Confessor), and 

 Godfrey, portgrave, and all the burgesses within London, French and 

 English. And I grant that they be all their law worth that they were 

 in Edward's days, the king (that is, that you retain all the laws you 

 were possessed of in the time of King Edward "). 



This charter did not grant any new privileges, it only confirmed the 

 ones previously granted. These privileges were no doubt great, but 

 the right of the citizens to elect their own chief officer or mayor was 

 still denied, and that was needed to make their civic rights complete. 

 And the kings who followed the Conqueror fully understood how much 

 power they held over the pockets and persons of the Londoners and 

 would not willingly relinquish it. The subject was mooted in the 

 reign of Henry II, but from what we know of his exactions from the 

 Londoners, but little favor would be granted to any such proposition; 

 in fact he both feared and hated them so heartily that he would do 

 nothing to strengthen them against the crown. They had espoused 

 the cause of his predecessor Stephen against the better title of Matilda 

 and her son, doubtless hoping that the usurper would yield to the 

 wishes of his friends; but in this they were disappointed. When Henry 

 II died, his son Richard not only succeeded to his throne, but also 

 succeeded to his hatred of the Londoners ; and the aversion of these 

 two kings to the granting self-government to London is gauged by a 

 contemporary in an observation for which he must have had authority, 

 " that neither would have granted the mayoralty to the citizens for 

 even a million marks of silver." 



When Richard ascended the throne his thoughts were not given to 

 his duties as king, but rather how he could raise money to go to Pal- 



