Constitutional History.
43°
London
elections.
Custom at
Bristol,
Elections
at Yoik.
Double
process of
election at
York.
[chap.
or six good men of each ward 1 ; a method likewise adopted for
the election of the mayor himself. In 1346 an ordinance was
passed in the city directing that twelve, eight, or six persons
from each ward should come to the assemblies for electing
the mayor, sheriffs, and members of parliament. In 1375
another change took place ; the elections were to be made
by the common councilmen, and the common councilmen were
to be nominated by the trading companies. Notwithstanding
an alteration made in the appointment of common councilmen,
the elections were transacted, from this date to the fifteenth
year of Edward IV, by a body summoned by the lord mayor
from a number of persons nominated for the purpose by the
companies; and in the latter year the franchise was formally
transferred to the liverymen of the companies 2.
It can hardly be supposed that the smaller chartered cities
whose privileges were modelled on those of London would
follow these changes, but the earlier custom might very well
be followed in places like Oxford. At Bristol, after the town
was made a county by Edward III, the election seems to have
followed the custom of the county elections ; accordingly, when
the forty shillings suffrage was established the members were
returned by the forty shillings freeholders only3 ; of these from
twenty to thirty seal the indentures ; it may be inferred that
the proceeding was direct and went through only one stage.
At York, which was likewise a county, a somewhat similar
practice appears as soon as there is any direct evidence, in
the reign of Elizabeth. On October 28, 1584, thirty-six
freeholders and commoners appeared and heard the writ in
the council chamber ; they then went into the exchequer court
and voted privately ; four names, the result of this conclave,
1 See above, vol. ii. p. 244. The London election of 1296 is described
in Parl. Writs, i. 49; that of 1300, ib. p. 85. In 1314, the mayor,
aidermen, and probi homines of each ward chose three citizens, out of
whom the mayor and aidermen chose two ; and the commons three, of
whom again they chose two ; these four or two of them had full powers
given them ; ib. II. i. 129 ; yet only two were summoned in the writ.
2 See below, chap, xxi; Norton, Commentaries on London, pp. 114, 115,
126.
3 Prynne, Register, iii. pp. 360, 368.
XX.] Local Variations. 431
were laid before the assembled freeholders, who chose two by
a majority of votes; on the 9th of November the names were
submitted to and approved by the county court of the city 1.
Traces of the same form may be found in the earlier Ymk
records, although in 1484 the proceedings seem to have occu-
pied but one sitting of the council2, and there is no notice
of any approbation of the county court; earlier still, in 1414,
the indenture shows that the lord mayor and thirteen ‘ co-
citizens,’ having full power from the whole community, chose
two citizens3. Unfortunately the ambiguity of the word ‘ com-
munity ’ deprives this and many other similar instances of any
great significance. Other instances seem to suggest that the
favourite way of making the election was a double one ; a small
committee or jury of electors was chosen, or otherwise nomi-
nated, or a pretaxation was made by the ruling officers of the
community. At Leicester, from the time of Edward IV to the Elections at
*y Leicester,
Restoration, the mayor and twenty-four chose one member, the Norwich,
commons the other4. At Norwich in 1414 agreement was
made that the election should be made by the common assembly
and reported in the county courts. At Shrewsbury in 1433 it Shrewsbury,
was agreed that the burgesses should be chosen in the same Worcester,
way as the auditors ; that is, after three peals of the common
bell, by the assembled commons, and not by a bill ‘ afore
contrived in disceit of the said commons 6.' At Worcester in
1466 the rule was that the members should be chosen openly in
the Guildhall by the inhabitants of the franchise, ‘ by the most
voice, according to the law and to the statutes in such case
ordained, and not privily 7∙,
In towns of simple constitution the election may have been
transacted by the older machinery of the Ieet ; and the Ieet
jury would elect the members. In others it was very complex.
1 Drake, Eboracum, pp. 358, 359.
2 Davies, York Records, pp. 138, 144, 181, 184. In 1482 the entry is,
< Dec. 13, &c. At thys day be the advise of the holl counsell my lord the
ɪnaɪr, Richard York, and John Tong war chosyn citizins and knights
of the parlement for this honorabill cite and the shir of the same ; ’ p. 138.
3 Prynne, Reg. iii. 268. 1 Nichols’ Leicestershire, i. 432.
5 Blomfield’s Norfolk, iɪ. 95. . 6 Rot. Parl. iv. 478 ; v. 175.
, Smith’s Gilds, p. 393.