{
    "system": "GoGuides Verified Text",
    "api_version": "verified-text-v1",
    "status": "ok",
    "response_type": "verified_text_record",
    "source_key": "britannica_1911",
    "source_title": "Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911)",
    "license_code": "public_domain",
    "attribution": null,
    "license_url": null,
    "chunk_id": "1911:government:6bbeade9b52a",
    "title": "GOVERNMENT",
    "section": null,
    "hash_alg": "sha256",
    "hash_sha256": "07863ebad4d0bcb50f61418db72d14aef25ffe2fe0cf005e081a6f65a2c6ccc3",
    "normalizer": {
        "name": "ggnorm",
        "version": "1.0"
    },
    "verified_text": "saxon period. we know little of the government of london during the saxon period, and it is only incidentally that we learn how the londoner had become possessed of special privileges which he continued to claim with success through many centuries. one of the chief of these was the claim to a separate voice in the election of the king. the citizens did not dispute the right of election by the kingdom but they held that that election did not necessarily include the choice of london. an instance of this is seen in the election of edmund ironside, although the witan outside london had elected canute. the remarkable instance of this after the conquest was the election of stephen, but william the conqueror did not feel secure until he had the sanction of the londoners to his kingship, and his attitude towards london when he hovered about the neighbourhood of the city for a time shows that he was anxious to obtain this sanction freely rather than by compulsion. his hopes and expectations were fulfilled when the gates of london were opened to receive him, as already related. athelstan's acceptance of the london-made law for the whole kingdom, as pointed out by mr gomme, is another instance of the independence of the londoner. when william the conqueror granted the first charter to london he addressed the bishop and the portreeve--the bishop as the ecclesiastical governor and the portreeve as the representative of the civil power. the word \"port\" in the title \"portreeve\" does not indicate the port of london as might naturally be supposed, for stubbs has pointed out that it is _porta_ not _portus_, and \"although used for the city generally, seems to refer to it specially in its character of a mart or city of merchants.\" the saxon title of reeve was continued during the norman period and the shire-reeve or sheriff has continued to our own time. there were originally several distinct reeves, all apparently officers appointed by the king. some writers have supposed that a succession of portreeves continued in london, but j. h. round holds that this title disappeared after the conqueror's charter. henry i. granted to the city by charter the right of appointing its own sheriffs; this was a great privilege, which, however, was recalled in the reigns of henry ii. and richard i., to be restored by john in 1199. j. h. round holds that the office of justiciar was created by henry i.'s charter, and as he was the chief authority in the city this somewhat takes off from the value of the privilege of appointing sheriffs. in the 12th century there was a great municipal movement over europe. londoners were well informed as to what was going on abroad, and although the rulers were always willing to wait for an opportunity of enlarging their liberties, they remained ready to take advantage of such circumstances as might occur. their great opportunity occurred while richard i. was engaged abroad as a crusader. in 1889 a medal was struck to commemorate the 700th anniversary of the mayoralty which according to popular tradition was founded in 1189. with respect to this tradition round writes (_commune of london_, p. 223): \"the assumption that the mayoralty of london dates from the accession of richard i. is an absolute perversion of history,\" and he adds that \"there is record evidence which completely confirms the remarkable words of richard of devizes, who declares that on no terms whatever would king richard or his father have ever assented to the establishment of the _communa_ in london.\" the commune. in october 1191 the conflict between john the king's brother and longchamp the king's representative became acute. the latter bitterly offended the londoners, who, finding that they could turn the scales to either side, named the commune as the price of their support of john. a small party of the citizens under henry of cornhill remained faithful to the chancellor longchamp, but at a meeting held at st paul's on the 8th of october, the barons welcomed the archbishop of rouen as chief justiciar (he having produced the king's sign manual appointing a new commission), and they saluted john as regent. stubbs, in his introduction to the chronicle of roger de hoveden, writes: \"this done, oaths were largely taken: john, the justiciar and the barons swore to maintain the _communa_ of london; the oath of fealty to richard was then sworn, john taking it first, then the two archbishops, the bishops, the barons, and last the burghers with the express understanding that should the king die without issue they would receive john as his successor.\" referring to this important event mr round writes: \"the excited citizens, who had poured out overnight, with lanterns and torches, to welcome john to the capital, streamed together on the morning of the eventful 8th of october at the well-known sound of the great bell swinging out from its campanile in st paul's churchyard. there they heard john take the oath to the 'commune' like a french king or lord; and then london for the first time had a municipality of her own.\" the mayor and echevins. little is known as to what the commune then established really was. round's remarkable discovery among the manuscripts of the british museum of the oath of the commune proves for the first time that london in 1193 possessed a fully developed \"commune\" of the continental pattern. a striking point in this municipal revolution is that the new privileges extended to the city of london were entirely copied from those of continental cities, and mr round shows that there is conclusive proof of the assertion that the commune of london derived its origin from that of rouen. this ms. gives us information which was unknown before, but upsets the received opinions as to the early governing position of the aldermen. from this we learn that the government of the city was in the hands of a mayor and twelve echevins (_skivini_); both these names being french, seem for a time to have excluded the saxon aldermen. twelve years later (1205-1206) we learn from another document, preserved in the same volume as the oath, that _alii probi homines_ were associated with the mayor and echevins to form a body of twenty-four (that is, twelve _skivini_ and an equal number of councillors). round holds that the court of skivini and _alii probi homines_, of which at present we know nothing further than what is contained in the terms of the oaths, was the germ of the common council. we must not suppose that when the city of london obtained the privilege of appointing a mayor, and a citizen could boast in 1194 that \"come what may the londoners shall have no king but their mayor,\" that the king did not occasionally exert his power in suspending the liberties of the city. there were really constant disagreements, and sometimes the king degraded the mayor and appointed a custos or warden in his place. several instances of this are recorded in the 13th and 14th centuries. it is very important to bear in mind that the mayors of london besides holding a very onerous position were mostly men of great distinction. they often held rank outside the city, and naturally took their place among the rulers of the country. they were mostly representatives of the landed interests as well as merchant princes. there is no definite information as to when the mayor first received the title of lord. a claim has been set up for thomas legge, mayor for the second time in 1354, that he was the first lord mayor, but there is positively no authority whatever for this claim, although it is boldly stated that he was created lord mayor by edward iii. in this year. apparently the title was occasionally used, and the use gradually grew into a prescriptive right. there is no evidence of any grant, but after 1540 the title had become general. aldermen. no record has been found of the date when the aldermen became the official advisers of the mayor. the various wards were each presided over by an alderman from an early period, but we cannot fix the time when they were united as a court of aldermen. stubbs writes: \"the governing body of london in the 13th century was composed of the mayor, twenty-five aldermen of the wards and two sheriffs.\" as we do not find any further evidence than the oath of the commune alluded to of the existence of \"echevins\" in london, it is possible that aldermen were elected on the mayor's council under this title. this, however, is not the opinion of mr round, who, as before stated, is inclined to believe that the body of echevins became in course of time the court of common council. the aldermen are not mentioned as the colleagues of the mayor until the very end of the 13th century, except in the case of fitz-ailwin's assize of 1189, and this, of course, related specially to the duties of aldermen as heads of the wards of the city. in march 1298-1299 letters were sent from \"the mayor and commune of the city of london\" to the municipalities of bruges, caen and cambray. although the official form of \"the mayor and commune\" was continued until the end of the 13th century, and it was not until early in the 14th century that the form \"mayor, aldermen and common council\" came into existence, there is sufficient evidence to show that the aldermen and common council before that time were acting with the mayor as governors of the city. in 1377 it was ordered that aldermen could be elected annually, but in 1384 the rule was modified so as to allow an alderman to be re-elected for his ward at the expiration of his year of office without any interval. in 1394 the ordinance respecting annual elections was repealed by the king (richard ii.). distinct rank was accorded to aldermen, and in the _liber albus_ we are told that \"it is a matter of experience that ever since the year of our lord 1350, at the sepulture of aldermen, the ancient custom of interment with baronial honours was observed.\" when the poll-tax of 1379 was imposed the mayor was assessed as an earl and the aldermen as barons. sheriffs. the government of the city by reeves dates back to a very early period, and these reeves were appointed by the king. the prefix of the various kinds of reeves made but little difference in the duties of the office, although the area of these duties might be different. there was slight difference between the office of sheriff and that of portreeve, which latter does not appear to have survived the conquest. after the establishment of the commune and the appointment of a mayor the sheriffs naturally lost much of their importance, and they became what they are styled in _liber albus_ \"the eyes of the mayor.\" when middlesex was in farm to london the two sheriffs were equally sheriffs of london and middlesex. there is only one instance in the city records of a sheriff of middlesex being mentioned as distinct from the sheriffs, and this was in 1283 when anketin de betteville and walter le blond are described as sheriffs of london, and gerin as sheriff of middlesex. by the local government act of 1888 the citizens of london were deprived of all right of jurisdiction over the county of middlesex, which had been expressly granted by various charters. in 1383 it was ordained and agreed \"that no person shall from henceforth be mayor in the said city if he have not first been sheriff of the said city, to the end that he may be tried in governance and bounty before he attains such estate of the mayoralty.\" common council. the two courts--that of aldermen and that of the common council--were probably formed about the same time, but it is remarkable that we have no definite information on the subject. the number of members of the common council varied greatly at different times, but the right to determine the number was indirectly granted by the charter of edward iii. (1341) which enables the city to amend customs and usages which have become hard. there have also been many changes in the mode of election. the common council were chosen by the wards until 1351, when the appointments were made by certain companies. in 1376 an ordinance was made by the mayor and aldermen, with the assent of the whole commons, to the effect that the companies should select men with whom they were content, and none other should come to the elections of mayors and sheriffs; that the greater companies should not elect more than six, the lesser four and the least two. forty-seven companies nominated 156 members. in 1383 the right of election reverted to the wards, but was obtained again by the livery companies in 1467. common hall. the common hall was the successor of the folkmote, the meetings of which were originally held in the open air at the east end of st paul's and afterwards in the guildhall. these general assemblies of the citizens are described in the old city records as _immensa communitas_ or _immensa multitudo_ civium. the elections in common hall were by the whole body of citizens until edward i.'s reign, citizens were then specially summoned to common hall by the mayor. in edward iv.'s reign the elections of mayor, sheriffs and other officers and members of parliament were transferred to liverymen. various alterations were subsequently made and now the qualification of electors at the election of the corporate offices of lord mayor, sheriffs, chamberlain and minor offices in common hall is that of being a liveryman of a livery company and an enrolled freeman of london. the election of aldermen and common councilmen takes place in the wardmotes. officials of the city. the recorder, the chief official, is appointed for life. he was formerly appointed by the city, but since the local government act of 1888 he is nominated by the city and approved by the lord chancellor. the common sergeant was formerly appointed by the city, but since 1888 by the lord chancellor. the town clerk is appointed by the city and re-elected annually. the chamberlain or comptroller of the king's chamber is appointed by the livery. he was originally a king's officer and the office was probably instituted soon after the conquest. the remembrancer is appointed by the common council. the common hunt, an office abolished in 1807, was filled by john courtenay in 1417. the sword-bearer is noticed in the _liber albus_ (1419) and the first record of an appointment is dated 1426. later history of the corporation. few fundamental alterations have been made in the constitution of the city, but in the reign of charles ii. the most arbitrary proceedings were taken against its liberties. the king and his brother had long entertained designs against the city, and for the purpose of crushing them two pretexts were set up--(1) that a new rate of market tolls had been levied by virtue of an act of common council, and (2) that a petition to the king, in which it was alleged that by the prorogation of parliament public justice had been interrupted, had been printed by order of the court of common council. charles directed a writ _quo warranto_ against the corporation of london in 1683, and the court of king's bench declared its charter forfeited. soon afterwards all the obnoxious aldermen were displaced and others appointed in their room by royal commission. when james ii. found himself in danger from the landing of the prince of orange he sent for the lord mayor and aldermen and informed them of his determination to restore the city charter and privileges, but he had no time to do anything before his flight. the convention which was summoned to meet on the 22nd of january 1689 was converted by a formal act into a true parliament (february 23). one of the first motions put to the house was that a special committee should be appointed to consider the violations of the liberties and franchises of all the corporations of the kingdom \"and particularly of the city of london.\" the motion was lost but the house resolved to bring in a bill for repealing the corporation act, and ten years later (march 5) the grand committee of grievances reported to the house its opinion (1) that the rights of the city of london in the election of sheriffs in the year 1682 were invaded and that such invasion was illegal and a grievance, and (2) that the judgment given upon the _quo warranto_ against the city was illegal and a grievance. the committee's opinion on these two points (among others) was endorsed by the house and on the 16th of march it ordered a bill to be brought in to restore all corporations to the state and condition they were in on the 29th of may 1660, and to confirm the liberties and franchises which at that time they respectively held and enjoyed.[15] when the act for the reform of municipal corporations was passed in 1835 london was specially excepted from its provisions. when the metropolitan board of works was formed by the metropolis management act of 1855 the city was affected to a certain extent, but by the local government act of 1888 which founded the london county council the right of appointing a sheriff for middlesex was taken away from the city of london. when the county of middlesex was dissociated from the city of london one portion was joined to the administrative county of london, and the other to the county of middlesex. privileges of the lord mayor. the lord mayor of london has certain very remarkable privileges which have been religiously guarded and must be of great antiquity. it is only necessary to mention these here, but each of the privileges requires an exhaustive examination as to its origin. they all prove the remarkable position of old london, and mark it off from all other cities of modern europe. shortly stated the privileges are four: 1. the closing of temple bar to the sovereign. 2. the mayor's position in the city, where he is second only to the king. 3. his summons to the privy council on the accession of a new sovereign. 4. his position of butler at the coronation banquets. the last may be considered in abeyance as there has not been any coronation banquet since that of george iv. in the case of the coronation of king edward vii. the claim was excluded from the consideration of the court of claims under the royal proclamation. the terms of the judgment on a further claim are as follows: \"the court considers and adjudges that the lord mayor has by usage a right, subject to his majesty's pleasure, to attend the abbey during the coronation and bear the crystal mace.\" bibliography.--the earliest description of london is that written by the monk fitzstephen in 1174 as an introduction to his life of archbishop thomas a becket. this was first printed by stow in his survey. it was reprinted by strype in his editions of stow; by hearne in his edition of leland's _itinerary_ (vol. 8), by samuel pegge in 1772, and elsewhere. the first history is contained in _a survey of london_ by john stow (1598, 1603). the author died in 1605, and his work was continued by anthony munday and others (1618, 1633) and in the next century by john strype (1720, 1754-1755). stow's original work was reprinted by w. j. thoms in 1842 and a monumental edition has been published by c. l. kingsford (oxford, 1908). the following are the most important of subsequent histories arranged in order of publication; james howell, _londinopolis_ (1657); w. stow, _remarks on london and westminster_ (1722); robert seymour (john mottley), _survey of the cities of london and westminster_ (1734, another edition 1753); william maitland, _history of london_ (1739, other editions 1756, 1760, 1769, continued by john entick 1775); john entick, _a new and accurate history of london, westminster, southwark_ (1766); the city remembrancer, _narratives of the plague 1665, fire 1666 and great storm 1703_ (1769); _a new and compleat history and survey_, by a society of gentlemen (1770, revised by h. chamberlain, folio revised by w. thornton 1784); j. noorthouck, _a new history_ (1773); walter harrison, _a new and universal history_ (1775); j. p. malcolm, _londinium redivivum or an ancient history and modern description of london_ (1803); david hughson (e. pugh), _london_ (1805-1809); b. lambert, _history and survey of london_ (1806); henry hunter, _history of london_ (1811); j. w. abbott, _history of london_ (1821); thomas allen, _history and antiquities of london_ (1827-1829, continued by thomas wright 1839); william smith, _a new history of london_ (1833); charles mackay, _a history of london_ (1838); _the history of london_, illustrated by w. g. fearnside (1838); george grant, _a comprehensive history of london_ (dublin, 1849); john timbs, _curiosities of london_ (1855, later editions 1855, 1868, 1875, 1876); _old london papers, archaeological institute_ (1867); w. j. loftie, _a history of london_ (1883); w. j. loftie, _historic towns_ (london, 1887); claude de la roche francis, _london, historic and social_ (philadelphia, 1902); sir walter besant, _the survey of london_ (1902-1908)--_early london, prehistoric, roman, saxon and norman_ (1908); _medieval london_, vol. 1, _historical and social_ (1906), vol. 2, _ecclesiastical_ (1906); _london in the time of the tudors_ (1904); _london in the time of the stuarts_ (1903); _london in the eighteenth century_ (1902); h. b. wheatley, _the story of london_ [medieval towns] (london, 1904). the following are some of the chronicles of london which have been printed, arranged in order of publication: r. grafton, _chronicle 1189-1558_ (1809); r. arnold, _london chronicle_ (1811); _a chronicle of london from 1089 to 1483 written in the fifteenth century_ (1827); _william gregory's chronicle of london, 1189-1469_ (1876); _historical collections of a citizen of london_, edited by james gairdner (camden society, 1876); _chronicles of london [1200-1516]_, edited by c. l. kingsford (oxford, 1905). many books have been published on the government of london, of which the following is a selection: _city law_ (1647, 1658); _lex londinensis or the city law_ (1680); w. bohun, _privilegia londini_ (1723); giles jacob, _city liberties_ (1733); _laws and customs, rights, liberties and privileges of the city of london_ (1765); david hughson, _epitome of the privileges of london_ (1816); george norton, _commentaries on the history, constitution and chartered franchises of the city of london_ (1829, 3rd ed. 1869); _munimenta gildhallae londoniensis_, edited by h. t. riley--vol. 1, _liber albus_ (1419), vol. 2, _liber custumarum_ (1859); _liber albus: the white book of the city of london_, translated by h. t. riley (1861); h. t. riley, _memorials of london and london life in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries_ (1868); _de antiquis legibus liber. curante thoma stapleton_ (camden society, 1846); _chronicles of the mayors and sheriffs of london 1188-1274_, translated from the _liber de antiquis legibus_ by h. t. riley. _french chronicle of london_ 1259-1343 (1863); _analytical index to the series of records known as the remembrancia 1579-1664_ (1888); _calendar of letter-books_ [_circa 1275-1399_] preserved among the archives of the corporation of london at the guildhall, edited by reginald r. sharpe, d.c.l. (1899-1907); w. and r. woodcock, _lives of lord mayors_ (1846); j. f. b. firth, _municipal london_ (1876); walter delgray birch, _historical charters and_ _constitutional documents of the city of london_ (1884, 1887); j. h. round, _the commune of london and other studies_ (1899); reginald r. sharpe, _london and the kingdom; a history derived mainly from the archives at guildhall_ (1894); g. l. gomme, _the governance of london. studies on the place occupied by london in english institutions_ (1907); alfred b. beaven, _the aldermen of the city of london temp. henry iii._ (1908). in connexion with the government of london may be noted works on the following: inns of court. william herbert, _antiquities of the inns of court and chancery_ (1804); robert p. pearce, _history_ (1848). artillery company, anthony highmore, _history of the hon. artillery co. of london to 1802_ (1804); g. a. raikes, _history of the hon. artillery co._ (1878). william herbert published in 1837 _history of the twelve great livery companies of london_, and in 1869 thomas arundell published _historical reminiscences of the city and its livery companies_. since then have appeared _the livery companies of the city of london_, by w. carew hazlitt (1892); _the city companies of london_, by p. h. ditchfield (1904); _the gilds and companies of london_, by george unwin (1908). separate histories have been published of the chief london companies. the following are some of the chief works connected with the topography of london: thomas pennant, _of london_ (1790, 1793, 1805, 1813, translated into german 1791); john t. smith, _antient topography of london_ (1815); david hughson [e. pugh], _walks through london_ (1817); _london_ (edited by charles knight 1841-1844, reprinted 1851, revised by e. walford 1875-1877); j. h. jesse, _literary and historical memorials of london_ (1847); leigh hunt, _the town, its memorable character and events_ (1848, new ed. 1859); peter cunningham, _a handbook of london past and present_ (1849, 2nd ed. 1850, enlarged into a new work in 1891); henry b. wheatley, _london past and present; vestiges of old london, etchings_ by j. w. archer (1851); _a new survey of london_ (1853); g. w. thornbury, _haunted london_ (1865, new ed. by e. walford 1880); _old and new london_, vols. i.-ii. by g. w. thornbury, vols. iii.-vi. by edward walford (1873-1878); walter besant, _london, westminster, south london, east london_ (1891-1902); _east london antiquities_, edited by walter a. locks (_east london advertiser_, 1902); philip norman, _london vanished and vanishing_ (1905); _records of the london topographical society; monographs of the committee for the survey of the memorials of greater london._ the following books on the population of london have been published: john graunt, _natural and political observations on the bills of mortality_ (1661, other editions 1662, 1665, 1676); _essay in political arithmetick_ (1683); _five essays on political arithmetick_ (1687); _several essays in political arithmetick_ (1699, 1711, 1751, 1755); _essay concerning the multiplication of mankind_ (1682, 1683, 1686), all by sir william petty; corbyn morris, _observations on the past growth and present state of the city of london_ (1751); _collection of the yearly bills of mortality from 1657 to 1758_ (ed. by t. birch, d.d. 1759); graunt's _observations_, petty's _another essay_ and c. morris's _observations_ are reprinted in this collection. graunt and petty's _essays_ are reprinted in _economic writings_ of sir w. petty (1899). (h. b. w.*) footnotes: [1] see map in _london statistics_ (vol. xix., 1909), an annual publication of the london county council, which besides these divisions shows \"water london,\" the london main drainage area, and the central criminal court district. [2] charing cross station was the scene of a remarkable catastrophe on the 5th of december 1905, when a large part of the roof collapsed, and the falling debris did very serious damage to the avenue theatre, which stands close to the station at a lower level. [3] the report appeared in eight volumes, the first of which, containing the general conclusions to which allusion is here made, bore the number, as a blue-book. cd. 2597. [4] over 200 local acts were repealed by schemes made under the act of 1899. [5] a valuable article on \"the conqueror's footprints in domesday\" was published in the _english historical review_ in 1898 (vol. xiii. p. 17). this article contains an account of duke william's movements after the battle of senlac between enfield, edmonton, tottenham and berkhampstead. [6] \"a map of london engraved on copper-plate, dated 1497,\" which was bought by ferdinand columbus during his travels in europe about 1518-1525, is entered in the catalogue of ferdinand's books, maps, &c., made by himself and preserved in the cathedral library at seville, but there is no clue to its existence. [7] one is in the guildhall library, and the other among the pepysian maps in magdalene college, cambridge. [8] this map of london by norden is dated 1593, as stated above. the same topographer published in his _middlesex_ a map of westminster as well as this one of the city of london. [9] various changes in the names of the taverns are made in the folio edition of this play (1616) from the quarto (1601); thus the mermaid of the quarto becomes the windmill in the folio, and the mitre of the quarto is the star of the folio. [10] _the great revolt of 1381_ (oxford, 1906), p. 27. [11] in a valuable paper on \"the population of old london\" in _blackwood's magazine_ for april 1891. [12] the old bills of mortality, although of value from being the only authority on the subject, were never complete owing to various causes: one being that large numbers of roman catholics and dissenters were not registered in the returns of the parish clerk who was a church officer. the bills were killed by the action of the registration act for england and wales, which came into operation july 1, 1837. the weekly returns of the registrar-general began in 1840. [13] \"the invention of 'bills of mortality' is not so modern as has been generally supposed, for their proper designation may be found in the language of ancient rome. libitina was the goddess of funerals; her officers were the libitinarii _our_ undertakers; her temple in which all business connected with the last rites was transacted, in which the account of deaths--_ratio libitinae_--was kept, served the purpose of a register office.\"--_journal statistical society_, xvii. 117 (1854). [14] the return was made \"by special command from the right honourable the lords of his majesty's privy council.\" the privy council were at this time apprehensive of an approaching scarcity of food. the numbers (130,268) were made up as follows: london within the walls 71,029, london without the walls 40,579, old borough of southwark (bridge without) 18,660. [15] r. r. sharpe, _london and the kingdom_ (1894), i. 541.",
    "source_url": "https://archive.org/details/EB1911WMF",
    "observed_at": "2026-02-08 18:43:21",
    "integrity": {
        "hash_check": "match",
        "hash_scope": "full_normalized_text",
        "computed_sha256": "07863ebad4d0bcb50f61418db72d14aef25ffe2fe0cf005e081a6f65a2c6ccc3"
    },
    "machine_use": {
        "read": true,
        "cite": true,
        "decision": "verified_public_domain_text"
    },
    "goguides_data_license": "https://www.goguides.com/data-license",
    "goguides_data_license_version": "2.0",
    "documentation": {
        "white_paper_url": "https://www.goguides.com/white-paper.php",
        "pdf_url": "https://www.goguides.com/whitepapers/goguides-ai-source-clearance-white-paper.pdf"
    }
}