held by three distinct over-lords. In course
of time, the whole of the shares fell into the hands of Count Robert of
Meulan, who left the town in demesne to the Earls of Leicester and his
descendants; and to this day the borough bears on its shield the arms of
the Bellomonts.(4) The town of Birmingham is said, in like manner, to bear
the arms of the barons of that name; the town of Cardiff, those of the De
Clares; and Manchester, those of the Byrons. Instances might be
multiplied. But the arms of the City of London and of free boroughs, like
Winchester, Oxford, and Exeter, are referable to no over-lord, although
the borough of Southwark still bears traces in its heraldic shield of its
former ecclesiastical connection.

(M3)

The influence of an over-lord for good or evil, over those subject to his
authority, was immense. Take for instance, Sheffield, which was subject,
in the reign of Elizabeth, to the Earl of Shrewsbury. The cutlery trade,
even in those days, was the main-stay of the town, and yet the earl could
make and unmake the rules and ordinances which governed the Cutlers'
Company, and could claim one half of the fines imposed on its members.(5)

When, during the reign of Charles II, nearly every municipal borough in
the kingdom was forced to surrender its charter to the king, the citizens
of Durham surrendered theirs to the Bishop, who, to the intense horror of
a contemporary writer, reserved to himself and his successors in the See
the power of approving and confirming the mayor, aldermen, recorder, and
common council of that city.(6)

(M4)

The commercial greatness of London can be traced back to the time of the
Roman occupation of Britain. From being little more than a stockaded fort,
situate at a point on the river's bank which admitted of an easy passage
by ferry across to Southwark, London prospered under the protection
afforded to its traders by the presence of the Roman legions, but it never
in those days became the capital of the province. Although a flourishing
centre of commerce in the middle of the first century of the Christian
era, it was not deemed of sufficient importance by Suetonius, the Roman
general, to run the risk of defending against Boadicea,(7) and although
thought worthy of the title of Augusta--a name bestowed only on towns of
exceptional standing--the Romans did not hesitate to leave both town and
province to their fate as soon as danger threatened them nearer home.

(M5)

Fo