312
THE COMMON COUNCIL
lapse of a year.1 Theworkof the reformers of 1376 was not,
however, destined to be wholly successful.
The name common council has indeed been supposed by
some writers to have been applied to the assembly as early as
the beginning of the fourteenth century,2 and the ordinance
of October, 1346, has been regarded as instituting that council
in its later sense.3 But the supposed antiquity of the name
rests mainly on a misinterpretation of the phrase per commune
consilium,4 used with the meaning “ by the common counsel ”
(of the citizens), and though the arrangement of 1346 antici-
pated the fixed panel for administrative sessions, it required
neither regular meetings nor an oath, and it is doubtful
whether it remained long in force. Nor was it called a council.
At most, it must be reckoned, with the introduction of election
of representatives in 1322,5 as one of the changes which paved
the way for the legislation of 1376.
At the meetings of the new common council the commoners
voted by groups, not as individuals.® The aidermen also
had votes,7 and the term common council sometimes includes
them,8 though it is more often applied to the representatives
of the misteries,8 who at other times are still distinguished from
the aidermen as the commonalty or commoners.10
The most “ democratic ” feature of the new council, its
representation of the gilds or misteries, was not destined to
last long. With the decline of the influence of John of
1 Munim. Gildhall. Lond. ii. (Liber Custumarum), p. 269.
2G. Norton, Commentaries on the Constitution, etc., of London (1869),
pp. 62, 85, 87 ; R. Sharpe, Cal. of Letter Book C, p. 4. Norton is very
confused on this subject. He speaks of " the mayor’s common council ”
under Edward I and Edward ∏, a careless inference from " per commune
consilium maioris, aɪdermannorum,” etc. (op. cit., p. 102), and distinguishes
the body of c. 1285 as mere assistants of the aidermen in their wards. He
also regards the '' immensa Communitas ” of this period as a folkmoot
(ibid., p. 74).
’ Riley, Memorials, pp. Iiii-Iv ; Sharpe, Cal. of Letter Book F, p. 162 ;
Kingsford ap. Stow, Survey of London, ii. 279 ; Thomas, Cal. of Plea and
Mem. Rolls, 1323-64, p. 15 n.
4 It is possible that “ commune consilium ” was occasionally used
concretely, but “ Congregatio ” or “ Communitas " was the regular term
in the city records. So, too, at Norwich which followed London practice
(below, p. 317) it was always “ common assembly," until early in the
fifteenth century a " common council," modelled upon the London council
of 1376 as modified in 1384, was adopted (W. Hudson, Records of Norwich,
i. 98-101, 263 ff.). 6 Above, p. 308.
β Cal. of Letter Book H, p. no. On this occasion (1378) thirty-one
misteries voted one way and ten the other.
7 Ibid. Cf. Munim. Gildhall. London, i. (Liber Albus), p. 451.
8 Cal. of Letter Book H, pp. 122, 162.
9 Ibid., pp. 54, 175. 1» Ibid., pp. 54, 122.
LONDON
3i3
Northampton, the leader of the reforming party, who had been
one of the sheriffs in 1376, reaction set in. From 1379 a
practice grew up of afforcing the common council with “ other
the most sufficient men of the city ” or “ the more powerful
and discreet citizens,” who were, sometimes at least, chosen
by the wards.1 In November, 1380, a royal writ ordered the
aidermen to take the opinion of the inhabitants of the wards
as to whether it was best for the common council to be elected
from the misteries, as before, or from the best men of the
wards, or partly from each, and, if they approved the second
alternative, to act upon it at once.2 Apparently this was the
result, and although Northampton’s two years mayoralty
(1381—83) stemmed reaction for a time, his rival and successor
Brembre, with the support of the king, reversed much of the
work of 1376. In January, 1384, “ an immense commonalty
of honest and discreet men ” approved of an experimental
return to election by wards. They were to send six, four, or
two to the common council, according to their size, with an
average of four or ninety-six in all. The mayor was to see
that they did not include more than eight of any mistery.
The restriction on the re-election of aidermen was removed.3
A few months later, the minimum number of council meetings
was reduced to one each quarter, and the old distinction
between administrative and election meetings was partially
restored by a provision that for the election of the mayor
and the commoner sheriff 4 the council should be reinforced
by others of the more efficient men of the city, so many and
such as seemed to them necessary, with the advice and assent
of sixteen aidermen at the least.6 In October, 1385, the change
from misteries to wards was approved for ever.®
The controlling influence of the aidermen was thus restored
and actually increased by the power virtually given to them
(with the mayor) to pack the election meetings of the council.
Ten years later they were made irremovable, except for
reasonable cause.7 There was saved, however, from the
wreck of the work of 1376 a permanent common council,
1 Cal. of Letter Book H, pp. 137, 155 ; cf. 121.
2 Ibid., pp. 156, 164. s Ibid., pp. 227-8.
4 Since 1340, at least, one sheriff was chosen by the mayor, who had
nominated him for election as early as 1328 (Cal. of Plea and Mem. Rolls,
1323-64, ed. Thomas, p. 129 ; cf. p. 69).
6 Cal. of Letter Book H, pp. 237 ff. A proclamation of 12th October
shows that the " sufficient men ” were to be summoned from the wards
(ibid., p. 251).
β Ibid., p. 277. ’ Ibid., p. 409.