314
THE COMMON COUNCIL
not too large and not too small, which was elected by the
citizens in their wards, and which the mayor and aidermen
were bound to consult at least four times a year.1 The
downfall and execution of Brembre caused no counter-
revolution.2 More fortunate than most English towns,
London not only secured but retained a representative council
chosen by the citizens at large.
The control of the composition of the election meetings
by the mayor and aidermen widened the distinction between
the comparatively small common council and this fuller
representation of the freemen, and confirmed the position
of the former as a council rather than an assembly. Even
in the period 1376-84, though the council was supposed to
serve both purposes, it was always described as a Congregalio
when it met for elections and was then doubtless increased
in numbers, which the many misteries made easy. On
sufficient occasion, even after 1384, the common council
itself could be specially enlarged, as it was for the con-
demnation of the book called Jubile in 1387, when the more
reputable and substantial men of the wards were summoned
in such numbers that the council had to remove from the
upper chamber to the hall below.3 A special meeting for
the election of representatives in Parliament in 1388 could
be loosely described in the margin of the letter book as a
common council.4
It has been asserted that though election by wards for
the common council was restored in 1384, no change was
made in the machinery for the election of the mayor and
sheriffs which, therefore, continued to be made by the council
and an unfixed number of commoners summoned from those
nominated by the misteries, down to the reign of Edward IV.5
This view is in plain contradiction with the ordinance and
l Its meeting-place was now called " the chamber of the common
council,” Cal. of Letter Book H, pp 279, 290)
2Election by wards was again called in question in 1389, but it was
reaffirmed (ιbιd., p 347). For these elections, see ibid I, pp 71, 89, 98,
and cf ibid H, p 347, and Lib Albus, pp 40-2 By 1419 the numbers
were sixteen, twelve, eight, or four from the wards, according to their size
(ibid ).
3 Ibid , p. 303.
t Ibid , p 332 The commons numbered about 210, from three to
nineteen being summoned from twenty-four wards It was the custom
for the mayor and aidermen to elect two of the four representatives and
the commons the other two.
5Norton, Commentaries, pp. 126-7. He was followed by Gross (Gild
Merchant, 1. 112).
LONDON
315
proclamation on the subject quoted above,1 and though the
record of election meetings usually mentions only “ an
immense commonalty ” or “ very many commoners,” there
is occasionally a definite statement that these were drawn
from the wards.2 When, therefore, the common council
ordained in 1467 that thenceforth the election of mayors
and sheriffs should be made only by the council, the masters
and wardens of each mistery of the city, coming in their
livery, and by other good men specially summoned for the pur-
pose,3 there is no reason to suspect any other change than
insistence that the heads of the city companies should
always be summoned along with those called from the wards.
By carelessly overlooking the words I have italicized, Norton
thought that the electing body was so narrowed that further
legislation became necessary, and accordingly, he says, in
1475 there were added to the common council and the
wardens and masters of the misteries, as electors to the
corporate offices and to parliament, the liverymen of the
misteries, i.e. those freemen of the misteries (being freemen
of the city) to whom a particular distinctive clothing was
assigned by them, none others being allowed to be present.4
What actually seems to have happened in that year was that
for an ill-defined body of commoners summoned from the
wards by the mayor and aidermen to election meetings there
was substituted a definite class of recognized standing, the
liverymen of the city misteries or, as they were called later,
companies. Their liveries would have the further advantage
of calling attention to any intruders at electoral meetings.
This may look like a reversion to the ideas of 1376, but in
the course of a century much had changed. There is no
trace of any conflict on this occasion or of any proposal to
alter the ward organization of the common council. So
far from being democratic even in the limited sense of 1376,
the change must doubtless be connected with the oligarchic
tendency which was then becoming more and more intense
in the English boroughs. After four centuries and a half
the ordinance of 1475 is still in force for the election of the
officers of the city corporation,5 but the Municipal Corporation
1Pp 313-14 2Cal of Letter Book H, pp 251 n , 320.
3 Ibid L, p. 73 ’Norton, Commentaries, pp. 126-7.
5 It was generally affirmed by statute ɪn 1725 (ɪɪ Geo I. c. 18), which
provided a legislative decision on some disputed points (ibid, p. 242).
', It was assumed that only liverymen of a year’s standing were qualified
to vote in the assembly now known as the Liverymen in Common Hall
assembled ” (Cal. of Plea and Mem. Rolls, 1364-81, ed. Thomas, p lιx).