ng's sergeant-pleader, because
the sheriffs had not attended so promptly as they should have done. The
excuse that they had only acted according to custom in waiting for the
grant of a safe conduct was held unsatisfactory, and nothing would please
him but that the city should be at once taken into the king's hand.(377)

(M228)

Again, when the citizens claimed to record their liberties and customs by
word of mouth without being compelled to reduce them into writing, as the
justices had ordered, the only reply they got was that they did so at
their own peril.(378) Three days were consumed in preliminary discussion
of points of etiquette and questions of minor importance.

(M229)

On the fourth day the mayor and citizens put in their claim of liberties,
which they supported by various charters.(379) The justiciars desired
answers on three points, which were duly made,(380) and matters seemed to
be getting forward when there arrived orders from the king that the
justiciars should enquire as to the ancient right of the aldermen to
record their liberties orally in the king's courts. Having heard what the
citizens had to say on this point, the justiciars were instructed to
withhold their judgment; and this and other questions touching the
liberties of the city were to be postponed for future determination.(381)

(M230)

On the ninth day of the Iter, a long schedule, containing over 100
articles upon which the Crown desired information, was delivered to each
ward of the city.(382) Days and weeks were consumed in considering various
presentments, besides private suits and pleas of the Crown. Suits were
determined in the Great Hall of the Tower facing the Thames, whilst pleas
of the Crown were heard in the Lesser Hall, beneath the eastern tower. The
justiciars occasionally protracted their sittings till dusk, much to the
disgust of the citizens, whose business was necessarily at a stand-still,
and as yet no indictments had been made.(383) These were to come.

(M231)

On the thirty-fourth day of the Iter, John de Gisors was indicted for
having during his mayoralty (1311-1313), admitted a felon to the freedom
of the city, and fraudulently altered the date of his admission. The
question of criminality turned upon this date. Had the felony been
committed before or after admission? The accused declared in his defence
that admission to the freedom had taken place before the felony; a jury,
however, came to the opposite conclu