3θ8
THE COMMON COUNCIL
order to save the commonalty trouble.” 1 Their attitude
may seem surprising in view of the fact that in 1319, despite
the resistance of the mayor (and doubtless of the aidermen),
they had won from the king letters patent which imposed
serious restrictions on the ruling body and gave the com-
moners a share with the aidermen in the custody of the
common seal.2 It has to be remembered, however, that
Edward was then under baronial control, from which at the
later date he had got free. But, though the commoners
were probably overawed, regular attendance in quiet times
was never much to their taste. Perhaps, too, they were
reconciled to the limitation of the number of their repre-
sentatives by the permission, now apparently first given, to
elect them themselves.3 The ordinary place of meeting was
the outer chamber of the Guildhall ; it was only when there
was an immensa or maxima Congregatio that they met in the
great hall itself.
While the numbers fixed in 1322 for administrative as-
semblies were soon altered, the ward quotas for the larger
election meetings, held in the hall, had now settled down to
a maximum of twelve and a minimum of eight or six.4 The
irruption of unsummoned commoners, which drew down a
royal writ of prohibition on 4th July, 1315, would naturally
provoke insistence on a definitely fixed number. The annual
assemblies for elections were thus distinguished from the
more frequent ordinary assemblies in numbers, in normal
meeting-place, and in the interest taken in them by the
citizens. A further and very important difference first appears
in 1322 when, as we have seen, the representatives of the
commonalty in ordinary assemblies were allowed to be
elected by the men of the wards, for those at election meetings
were merely summoned by the mayor or sheriff as before.
This difference was still preserved when in 1346 an “ immense ”
commonalty, which filled the hall, ordained a nearer ap-
proximation in numbers, fixing ward quotas of twelve, eight,
or six for elections, and of eight, six, or four “ to treat of
arduous affairs affecting the community of the city.” s In
the latter case, however, two from each ward, and even one,
ɪ Cal. of Letter Book E, p. 174.
2 Munim. Gildhall. London, ii. (Liber Custumarum), pp. 267-73; ɪ-
(LiberAlbus), pp. 141-4. Mayors and aidermen were to serve for only one
year at a time. 3 Cal. of Letter Book E, p. 174.
4 Ibid. D, pp. 26-7. 3 Ibid. F, p. 305.
LONDON
3°9
if the other wards had a corresponding excess, were to form
a quorum, and only such absentees were to be amerced in
25., the first mention of a penalty for non-attendance. A
list of those chosen for their wards on 14th February, 1347,
to come to the Guildhall when warned, on matters affecting
the city, contains 133 names.1
A final organization of the assembly was so far from being
reached in 1346 that even the unit of representation was still
in dispute and remained so for nearly forty years longer.
The political importance of the trade misteries or gilds in
London opened with their utilization in the stormy times
of Henry III by two mayors, Thomas fitz Thomas and Walter
Hervey, in the struggle of the commoners against the muni-
cipal monopoly of power of the aidermen and their policy of
free trade.2 It was not, however, until the civic contests of
Edward IΓs reign that this new form of social organization
began to affect the constitution of the city. In 1312 the
assembly seems for a moment to have been reorganized
on gild lines,3 and in October, 1326, there is mention of a
proposed meeting of the mayor and aidermen with repre-
sentatives of the misteries to treat and ordain of the needs
of the city,4 though this was apparently an ad hoc body
since its decisions were to be confirmed by the community.
Midway between these experiments the commoners by the
letters patent of 1319 had secured royal approval of a rule
which made the mistery the only avenue to the freedom
for most applicants.5
Just a quarter of a century after the latest of these dates,
assemblies representative of misteries were tried for a year
or two from November, 1351 .β As in the first place only forty-
two representatives from thirteen misteries were elected
and these were the chief gilds, in which the aidermen, no
longer the general traders of a century earlier, had a pre-
dominant influence, this particular experiment looks more
like the work of the ruling oligarchy than of dissatisfied
commoners. It is perhaps significant that from 1352, save
1 Riley, Memorials of London (1868), pp. liii-ɪv. They are said to have
been chosen (" in their wards ”) at an assembly, so that the election was
not, apparently, always done locally in the wards.
2 G. Unwin, The Gilds and Companies of London (r908), pp. 64 ff.
3 Cal. of Letter Book D, p. 276 ; cf. 283 and ibid. E, p. 12.
4 Cal. of Plea and Memoranda Rolls, 1323-64, ed. Thomas, p. 15.
5 Munim. Gildhall. Lond. i. (Liber Albus), 142.
β Cal. of Letter Book F, p. 237 ; ibid. G, pp. 3, 23.