428               Constitutional History.             [chap.

perfunctory way ; and that the sheriff omitted towns that lie
wished to favour and exercised that irresponsible authority
which the statute of 1382 was intended to abolish¹. But as
a rule it is more probable that a delegation of burghers from
each town attended the county court or the sheriff himself, and
either announced to the sheriff their own choice made on the spot,
or declared the names of those whom their townsmen had chosen
in their own town-meeting. From the returns of tl∣e reign of
Edward II it is clear that the sheriff communicated the royal
writ to the towns of his county and awaited their answer, before
recording the names of their members; if they neglected to
answer he noted the fact on the writ². And this may be re-
garded as the legal method of proceeding ; the town authorities
received notice to prepare for the formal election at the time
when they were cited to the county court. This notice or
mandate of the sheriff to the towns was known as the sheriff’s
precept, and we learn from the act of 1445 that although at that
date many of the sheriffs neglected to send the precept to their
boroughs, the rule that it should be done was held binding, and
by that act it was enforced³. However negligently or per-
functorily then the sheriff might conduct the business, the legal
plan varied little ; it was his duty to transmit a copy of the writ
with his precept to the town magistrates ; they superintended
the real election ; and by their messengers or deputies the
returns, are in Parl. Writs, i. 67 ; and others made by the sheriff where
no such intermediate transaction took place, ib. i. 70, 75. Instances in
which the return for the boroughs was made not only in the county court
but by the sealers of the indenture of the knights are given by Prynne,
Reg. iii. pp. 175 sq. Possibly these were the sole electors and the boroughs
had neglected their duty, but far more probably the return is to be regarded
as a mere certificate of election.

^l See above, vol. ii. p. 648.

² A verygood instance of this practice occurs in 1322; the sheriff of
Suffolk gives on a schedule annexed to the writ not only the names of
the elected members and their manucaptors, but the names of the bailiffs
of the boroughs who sent in the returns. Tlie next year the same plan is
adopted, and, one of the elected knights not having a manucaptor, the
sheriff issued a ⁱ precept ’ to the steward of the liberty of S. Edmund’s, who
replied that the knight in question was away on duty in the north ; Prynne,
Reg. iii. 181-184. ɪɪ¹⁰ ‘precept’ ɪs the document by which the sheriff
directs the execution of the writ. The common return by the sheriffs
ⁱBallivi nullum mihi dederunt resρonsum ’ proves that this was the rule.

³ See above, p. 426.

xx.]                 Borough Bledionst.                 429

formal announcement, or declaration of return, was made to the Instahw of
sheriff or in the county court ; and the same messengers or elections °
deputies, after the act of 1406, were parties to the indenture of on the in-
return. Of the part of the work done in the county court the ^denturβ,
indenture for Dorsetshire in 1414 may be taken as an illustra-
tion ; in that year in the shire moot the members for Dorchester
were elected by the assent of the whole community of the borough
of Dorchester by bιirghers of the town ; those for Bridport by
four burghers of Bridport ; and those of the rest of the towns
in exactly the same way ; all are returned on one indenture,
but the process takes place in each case uniformly¹; four re-
presentative burghers attend, like the four men and the reeve
in the ancient folk moots, and on behalf of their neighbours
transact the business of the day. That business may have been
the primary election ; but in many cases and perhaps in all it
was only the report of the election made at home. It is
probable that in the larger and better organised towns this
formality was always observed, whilst in those which had no
chartered government the sheriff would be left to manage the
election as he pleased. It certainly appears from a petition
presented in 1436, that the interference of the sheriffs in the
town elections was both arbitrary and vexatious ; they returned
members who had not been duly elected ; the commons prayed
that they might be compelled to do right, or be fined ².

When the time comes for the ancient towns of England Uncertainty
to reveal the treasures of their municipal records, much light customs <>f
must be thrown upon the election proceedings of the middle thematter"
ages. At present what little is known of them is to be^{of elβctaons}∙
gathered from a few scattered sources ; but it would appear
certain that the whole order of proceeding rested upon local
usage and might be altered by local authority, and that the
rule adopted in the municipal elections of the particular town
was generally followed. The custom of London in the reign London
of Edward I, described in a former chapter, was that the ^electlons∙
election should be made by the mayor, the aidermen and four

¹ Prynne, Reg. iii. ρ. 255.

<<   <   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   >   >>