COMMUNICATIONS I . TIic Commune of London. As the point is of real historical importance, I desire to correct Dr. Gross's statement on page 744 of Volume V., and to explain how the case stands with regard to the " skevins " of London. The communal oath which I discovered bound those who took it to be obedient ' ' maiori civitatis Lond[onie] et skivin[is] ejusdem commune." On this I ob- served that " For the first time we learn that the government of the city was then in the hands of a Mayor and cchevins {skiz'ini). Of these latter officers no one, hitherto, had even suspected the existence. Dr. Gross, indeed, the chief specialist on English municipal institutions, appears to consider these officers a purely continental institution " (p. 237). And I cited his footnotes on "their administrative and judicial func- tions in continental towns." It is an essential point in my case that the London "skevins" (previously unheard of) were "skevins" of the Continental type, forming part of the governing body of the Commune, and were not mere gild-officers, such as were the only " skevins " known to Dr. Gross in England. The index to his book (II. 443) distinguishes clearly between the two types. Consequently, when he charges me with error on the ground that his book " calls particular attention to the existence of echevins in the gilds of many English boroughs," he shows that he has failed to grasp ray point that the London "skevins" were not gild-officers at all, and that their Continental character strongly favors my theory of the foreign origin of this Commune, I am also charged by him with error in stating that the possession of a port at Dowgate (London) by the citizens of Rouen, even under Ed- ward the Confessor, was "a fact unknown to English historians," on the ground that "a book published by the Clarendon Press several years ago" sets it forth. But Dr. Gross's book (for it is his) does not men- tion Dowgate; he copied from Cheruel the erroneous reading "Dune- ^^'^"(^•^92). J. H. Round. 2. Letters to Washington. With reference to Mr. Ford's statement (V. 767) that Mr. S. M. Hamilton, in his Letters to Washington, Vol. II., " prints no less than five letters from Bosomworth as coming from Botomworth," the latter has sent to the managing editor tracings which show the captain's autograph and Washington's indorsement. The former might be read in either way; the latter is unmistakably " Capt° Botomworth." Another tracing shows clearly that the "impossible spelling" Conogockuk is that of the original manuscript. (181)
