3θ6 THE COMMON COUNCIL
told whether this approval was given by the folkmoot or by
an enlarged meeting of the Guildhall assembly.1 At the end
of the century, it is the latter through whom the opinion of
the community is taken. But even in the next century it is
their assent merely that is asked for in elections.2
Owing to the imperfection of the early records of the
city, nothing is known before about 1285 of the method
adopted in the selection of those who were summoned to the
assembly. It is not clear whether there was a standing list
of those liable to such summons or whether the mayor or
sheriffs summoned them (through the bailiffs or serjeants)
ad hoc for each occasion, as was apparently the custom later
for special financial duties or similar functions. There is
a strong probability in either case that they were already
chosen from the wards and in proportion to their size. No
innovation was needed, for in the twelfth century the city
watch was selected on this basis, and it is significant that
the proportionate numbers for which the wards were liable
in the watch reappear as the ward quotas for the common
assembly as arranged in 1346.3 The same method was used
for the collection of tallage in 1227,4 and thirty years later
in the trial of a mayor for oppression of the people.® More
direct evidence comes from Norwich, to which Richard I
had granted the customs of London. In the thirteenth
century, we learn from its custumal, it had a common
assembly {communis convocacio) for the transaction of the
city’s business, to which were summoned twelve, ten, or
eight from each of its four Ieets.6 Now these were the (old)
1 Perhaps universi cives was only a high sounding name for the ordinary
assembly. See below (p. 307) for the narrow use of tola Communitas.
2The record of the election of mayor in October, 1328, is enlightening
as to the actual share of the commoners in the choice. The mayor and
aidermen retired to the chamber and “ made the election for themselves
and the commonalty according to custom.” But when they descended
to the hall and announced their election of Chigwell, there were somes cries
for Fulsham, and the assembly broke up in confusion. Both candidates
were persuaded to withdraw and John de Grantham was elected (Cal. of
Plea and Mem. Rolls, 1323-64, ed. Thomas, p. 72). Cf. statements that
the mayor and aidermen have elected sheriffs in the presence of men of
each ward summoned to receive (ad recipiendum) their sheriffs (Cal. of Letter
Rook C, pp. ɪoɪ, 114, 173, ann. 1301-03).
s Round, Commune of London, p. 255, and below, p. 308.
4 Pat. Rolls, 1225-32, 132.
s Liber de Antiquis Legibus, p. 32.
6W. Hudson, Records of Norwich (1906), i. 191. For the date of the
custumal, see the editor's introduction, p. xxxix. As in London, difficulty
was found in securing the attendance of those summoned, and a penalty of
2s. was already inflicted on absentees, though London managed to avoid
one until 1346.
LONDON
307
•watch quotas of the London wards and their quotas for
election meetings of the common assembly in the fourteenth
century. As in London, where in 1293 the tota Communitas
was defined as “ for each ward the wealthier and wiser men,” 1
so at Norwich the meliores and discreciores eiusdem ciυitatis
alone were summoned. The mention of the serjeant of the
leet’s “ panel ” suggests a fuller list from which those
“ somoniti ad dictum diem ” were taken.
There is no record of an actual selection of ward repre-
sentatives for deliberative purposes in London until about
1285, when the well-known list of thirty-nine probi homines,
one to four from each ward according to size, sworn to con-
sult with the aidermen on the common affairs of the city,
appears in the first of its letter books.2 As the city had re-
cently been taken into the king’s hands and the mayor re-
placed by a warden, this body may have been an exceptional
one in some respects. There does not, for instance, seem
to be any other trace of an oath administered to members
of the common assembly until it was radically reorganized
ɪn 1376-
Until the middle of the fourteenth century, there was no
permanently fixed number for those summoned to deliberative
assemblies ; one to four from each ward seem to have been
the normal numbers, twelve from each could be called a
“very great” assembly,3 and the meeting on 30th August,
1340, to which no less than 528 representatives, six to
twenty-eight from each ward, were summoned, was entirely
exceptional. It was called to confirm the death sentence
on two rioters under special powers exercised by the city
in the absence of the king abroad.4 If two entries in the
city letter-book towards the end of Edward IFs reign are to
be taken at their face value, the attendance of those who
were summoned to regular meetings of the administrative
assembly was not more satisfactory than it had been a hundred
years before. In October, 1321, the commoners disclaimed
any desire to punish absentees,5 and a year later they agreed
to a restriction of the representatives of the commonalty to
two from each ward, with full powers on its behalf, “ in
1 Cal. of Letter Booh C, p. ιι. 2 Ibid. A, p. 209.
3 “ Maxima Communitas ” (ibid. E, pp. x69, 174).
4 Cal. of Plea and Mem. Rolls, 1323-64, ed. Thomas, pp. 128-9. If
the old Guildhall (Stow, Survey of London, ed. Kingsford, i. 271, 292 ;
ɪɪ. 337) could accommodate so large an assembly, it must have been
capacious. 5 Cal. of Letter Book E, p. 147.