[1024] See p. 37, ante, and Norm. Conq., iii. (1869) 424, 544, 729.
[1025] I would suggest that, as in the case of Ulf, the Reeve of "London and Middlesex" might be addressed as portreeve in writs affecting the City and as shire-reeve in those more particularly affecting the rest of Middlesex.
[1026] Dr. Stubbs, in a footnote, hazards "the conjecture" that "the disappearance of the portreeve" may be connected with "a civic revolution, the history of which is now lost, but which might account for the earnest support given by the citizens to Stephen," etc. In another place (Select Charters, p. 300) he writes: "How long the Portreeve of London continued to exist is not known; perhaps until he was merged in the mayor." I have already dealt with Mr. Loftie's explanation of "the omission of any reference to the portreeve" in the charter.
[1027] See p. 37, ante, and Addenda.
[1028] See Athenæum, February 5, 1887, p. 191; also my papers on "The First Mayor of London" in Academy, November 12, 1887, and Antiquary, March, 1887.
[1029] Const. Hist., i. 404.
[1030] "The ... shire organization which seems to have displaced early in the century" [i.e. by Henry's charter] "the complicated system of guild and franchise" (ibid., i. 630).
[1031] Ibid., i. 405.
[1032] This was written before the days of the London County Council.
[1033] Ibid., i. 630.