42o Conditutimial Hidory. [chap,
friends, or he might cite no one at all, and so transact the
election in the presence of the casual suitors as to deprive the
Thepiaius county of its right for the time. But that the county court,
comιtatus. e> . √
however composed, was the ‘plenus comιtatus/ and that all
persons present had the right of joining in the proceedings,
seems certain from the wording of the statute, and the statute
does not appear in these points to have made any change in law
DisoTdersof or usage. The petition of 1376, asking that the representatives
court?™ty might be chosen from among the better people of the shire,
implies that the election was often carried through in their
absence1; the act of 1430 declares that it was often dispatched
by the rabble2; the variations of the writs show that the
persons whose influence was most dreaded were lawyers and
Influenceof promoters of litigation. The petition of 1376 again shows that
Înniïnî the sheriffs exercised an influence which threw the electoral
the returns, θp f]le guitors jnt0 ⅛e shades; the act of 1382, which
forbids the sheriff to omit the regular cities or boroughs from
his returns4, proves that his influence was used even to ex-
tinguish the right of certain boroughs to return representa-
tives ; a petition of Rutland in 1406 shows that he was able
county, as distinguished from the sheriff’s tourn which was to be attended
by all residents. The three weeks or six weeks or monthly court is
certainly the one meant by the next county court ; but it could hardly be
regarded as a full county court if it contained only the persons legally liable
to attendance, who were allowed moreover under the statute of Merton to
appear by their attorneys. The reasons for holding that originally the
fullest assembly of the shire was intended are given above, vol. ii. pp. 238
sq. If the theory of the Lords’ Report went no further, it might be
accepted as stating one at least of the intelligible ways in which the
franchise was lodged in the hands of the freeholders; but the report
inclines to the belief that the freeholders electing were freeholders holding
directly under the king (p. τ51∖ and that accordingly the article of Magna
Carta ordering the general summons of the minor tenants was carried into
effect. It is evident however that the elections were attended by many
who were not freeholders, or even proper suitors. The subject is obscure,
and the customs were probably various. On the theory maintained in
vol. ii, the Oiiginal electors under Edward I were the persons legally
constituting the county court, all landowners and fιom every township the
reeve and four men; before the close of the reign of Edwaid III the
whole body of persons assembled made the election whether they were
legal suitors or not; the act of 1406 does not ventuιe to alter this, but
that of 1430 reestablishes the right of the freeholders, although only in
the persons of the 40s freeholders.
l Rot. Parl. ii. 355 ; above, vol. ii. ρ. 453. 2 Above, p. 265
3 Above, vol. iι. ρ. 453. 4 St. 5 Rich. II, Stat. 2. c 4.
XX.]
County Elections.
42i
occasionally to return members who had not been duly elected1.
On any theory the conclusion is inevitable that the right ofτiιe r™-
electing was not duly valued, that the duty of representation pɪuæntatɪon
. 1. . . 1 1 1 not SUffici-
was in ordinary times viewed as a burden and not as a entiy valued
privilege ; that there was much difficulty in finding duly
qualified members, and that the only people who coveted the
office were the lawyers who saw the advantage of combining
the transaction of their clients’ business in London with the
right of receiving wages as knights of the shire at the same
time. Thus, whilst in theory the right of election was so
free that every peɪson who attended the county court might
vote, in practice the privilege was not valued, the power of
the sheriff, and of the crown exercised through lιim, was almost
uncontrolled in peaceful times, and in disturbed times the
whole proceeding was at the mercy of faction2. Tliis is of
course a view of the worst phase of the business : no doubt in
many cases the sheriffs were honest and faithful men, and the
elections were duly held, but custom and not law prescribed
the process, and until the act of 1406 neither law nor custom
remedied the abuse.
421. This consideration enables us to see the importance of Change
the one change introduced by the act of Henry IV. It directs Henry ɪv.
that after the election the names of the persons chcseιι ‘ shall be 1⅛TΛ0I,⅛a,.
written in an indenture under the seals of them that did choose
them;’ this indenture is to be tacked to the writ and is to be between the
Iiolden as the sheriff’s return. By this rule the arbitrary power tho elcct,jκ∙
of the sheriff is directly abolished ; the return is made essen-
tially by the voters, and the crown is enabled by examining the
indenture to see at once the character of the persons who have
taken part in the election. The indenture itself was not new ;
under that name or under the name of ‘pannel’ the sheriff’s
return had from the first been endorsed on or sewed to the
writ ; the novelty was in the security which the form of the
indenture gave to the authenticity of the return.
A great number of these indentures aɪe preserved ɜ, and from Impoitance
o of tho inden∙
tures.
1 See below, p 436 * Seo below, p. 429.
3 See Prynne, Keg 11. 128-132; iiɪ. 173-177, 252-312.