242 THE BOROUGH COMMUNITY
the House of Commons in the exercise of its right of deciding
upon election petitions, besides occasionally restoring the
parliamentary franchise to the freemen at large,1 sometimes
gave the vote to all inhabitants.2
The existence of a wider town community than that which
formed the borough assembly, even at its fullest, need not force
us to accept the theory of the late Mrs. J. R. Green that it is
the community of the style “ maior, burgenses, et communi-
tas ” which occurs from an early date in charters and
other documents. Mrs. Green contended that the corporate
body (burgenses) is here distinguished from the immemorial
vill community which underlay it.3 The theory, however,
crumbles as soon as it is confronted with the facts. As early
as the middle of the thirteenth century the grant of a house
to the “ mayor, burgesses, and commune ” of Leicester ends
with a statement that the “ mayor and burgesses ” have
given the grantor 6⅜ marks, and in another deed his sister-in-
law releases her rights in the messuage, to the same, without
mention of the community.4 It is clear that the style is only
a variant of Comniunitas burgensium. Maitland correctly
divined its meaning : “it aims at showing that the mayor
and burgesses are not to be taken ut singuli, but are, as we
should say “acting in their corporate capacity’.”6 The
wording is awkward, but if it is remembered that “ burgesses ”
(or “ citizens ”) simply was the style consecrated by usage,
it will not seem surprising that the need was often felt of
expressing the new communal aspect of the burgess body
by some such addition. When the burgesses of Bridgwater
formed themselves into a gild merchant under Henry III and
began to use a communal seal, they described themselves
as “ universi burgenses et Communitas burgi de Brugewater." β
There is no real ambiguity here, but, generally speaking, it
must be confessed that “ maior et burgenses de communi-
1 Hisl MSS Comm , Rept. XI1 App III, 150-2 (Lynn Regis)
a For examples, see Clemesha, History of Preston in Amounderness
(1912), pp. 169, 2oi-8, and Markham and Cox, Records of Northampton
(1898), ɪɪ 498 ff Ci EHR xlv 244 f
3 Town Life in the Fifteenth Century (1894), iɪ 230-5, 334-6.
4 Bateson, op eιt.ι 51-3
s History of English Law (1898), ɪ 678 n
β T. B. Dilks in Proc Somerset Archcsol Soc Ixni (1917), 55. The
document is there dated early in the reign of Edward I, but Mr Dilks
now sees reason to believe that it is somewhat older (Bridgwater Borough
Archives, z200-1377 (Somerset Rec Soc, vol. 48, 1933), no. 10 and
Introd., ρ. xιv.
Burgenses and Communitas 243
tate,” of which I have only noted a single occurrence,1 would
have met the case better.
A totally different interpretation of the somewhat ambigu-
ous formula in question sees in it a distinction between the
ruling class (maiores burgenses, potentiores} or its organ, the
council of twelve or twenty-four, and the mass of the bur-
gesses {minores burgenses, minor communa).2 This is far more
plausible than Mrs. Green’s view, because sooner or later
burgenses and Communitas undoubtedly took on the secondary
and narrowed meaning which is suggested, but the distinction
between the greater and lesser burgesses could hardly have
been expressed in these terms before the end of the fourteenth
century. Even then the contrast is not so acute as it seems,
for burgenses in this sense was in some cases, perhaps in all,
merely an abbreviation of Comburgenses as applied to the
mayor’s council, a term which did not exclude the existence
of other burgesses.3 The narrower sense of Communitas,
“ commonalty,” arose earlier and more naturally. In the
long run, it almost emptied “ commonalty ” of its compre-
hensive significance, but in origin it was harmless enough,
merely distinguishing the unofficial many from the official
few. There could, for instance, have been no suggestion of
contempt or of essentially inferior status in the first applica-
tion of the terms “ commonalty ” and “ commoners ” (com-
munarii) i to all London citizens who were not aidermen, for
the rich families from whom the aidermen were taken were
equally commoners with the poorest citizens. It was the
aggressiveness of the lower orders among the commoners from
1 Bateson, op. cιt ɪ. 57
2 W Hudson, Records of Norwich, I, xxxvι-xxxvιιι, Ixvi-Ixvn Mr
Hudson thinks that in the fifteenth century cιυes in the formula often meant
the aidermen only (ibid p lxxιι). For maiores and minores burgenses,
see Round, Commune of London, pp 252-3 , for minor communa, Cal.
Inq Misc (P R O ), 1 no 238 M Petιt-Dutaιlhs,s recently expressed
view that communιtas in urban charters " often seems to mean the
ancient free urban community prior to the oligarchical municipal
government ” (Studies Supplementary to Stubbs’ Const Hist 111. 448 n ) is
not altogether clear Hc appears, however, to take cιves (burgenses) in
Mr Hudson’s sense and communιtas in Maitland's If so, he overlooks the
strong evidence that the two terms in the charter formula covered the same
body, but expressed different aspects of it.
3Mr V H Galbraith has called my attention to an inquest of 1413
in which the burgesses of Nottingham are defined as those who had filled
the office of mayor or bailiff They were then at least forty-nine in number
and claimed to have always elected the major and bailiffs (PRO. Inq.
Misc Chanc. C 145/292/25)
4 Munιm. Gildh London, 1. (L1be1 Albus), 20, 143, no. 162.