The explanation of the use of the word "commune" I will give in 

 Mr. Coote's own words. He says : " The historians quoted concur in 

 using the continental word "commune" to express what the citizens 

 of London desiderated and obtained. In the case of London, which 

 had acquired all other things, this word expressed for its citizens the 

 mayoralty only. Nothing else was asked or desired by them, for it 

 was the sole privilege which was wanting to their burghal independ- 

 ence. Tbey were fortunate enough as an old borough to possess all 

 other necessary rights. The proceedings on the part of the city to 

 ask under the name of commune for a desideratum only — not for all 

 that was comprehended in this extensive term — was agreeable to the 

 practice on the continent. Whether the king gave altogether for the 

 first time all municipal rights to a new town or borough, or supple- 

 mented in an old city that which was wanting only in the way of self 

 government, the royal charter was in either case called indiscrimi- 

 nately a grant of commune. It has been considered that the grant 

 and institution of the commune meant only a confirmation of the 

 existing constitution of the city, but this view falls very far short of 

 the reality. The charter of October 8, 1191, rightly understood was 

 what contemporary account without a dissentient voice describes it. 

 The citizens needed no such prop to their municipal edifice as is here 

 suggested ; they had long since obtained that at the hands of the great 

 conqueror, and his charter is still extant and was known to all." 



The charter then granted by John was never revoked by Richard on 

 his return from the holy land. Perhaps he was actuated by his great 

 love lor his unworthy brother ; or more likely the war in which he en- 

 gaged immediately upon his return, occupied his thoughts to the en- 

 tire exclusion of other matters, and his death following his return so 

 soon, all reason for repealing the charter was removed. 



AVe do not know much about Fitz-Aylwin who was so signally 

 honored by his fellow-citizens, by being placed for twenty-four years 

 at the head of the city government. Presumably, he was a man of 

 wealth, a man of ability, a man of great personal popularity. He must 

 have been of the great burghers whom Fitzstephen, in Henry IPs time, 

 sc proudly commemorates, a gentleman of landed estate, living upon 

 his rents, and who, while he had his house in the country, lived for 

 the most time in a stately house in London. At the time of his elec- 

 tion and through his life he resided in a stone built capital house, sit- 

 uated in the city and called London Stone. Indeed, Riley in his an- 

 cient laws, thus describes him: "In the same year (i*. e., the first regnal 

 yeai of Richard), Henry, the son of Aylwin of London Stone, was 

 made mayor of London." These words can only be understood as de- 



