London and the Kingdom - Volume 3 / A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London.

by Reginald R. Sharpe

Knights and Burgesses of the City of London.

The list of members representing the City of London in Parliament from 1284 down to the present day, here given, has been compiled mainly from the Blue Books of Parliamentary returns (printed in 1878 and 1879), but with large additions gathered from the City's own Records. It may fairly claim to be a more perfect list of City members than has hitherto been published.

The number of representatives of the City in Parliament has varied from time to time. In a treatise known as Modus tenendi Parliamentum, ascribed to the early part of the xiv^th century, the number of members for London, York and other Cities is given as two, the same as the number of Barons of the Cinq Ports and knights of shires.[854] The more usual number as gathered from the City's Archives was either two or four, although there have been occasions (as in the Parliament of 1284 and more especially during the Commonwealth) when it amounted to six and (as in Barebone's Parliament) even to seven. Frequently it happened that when the writ prescribed the election of two members, four or more were elected, although not more than two or, perhaps, three, were to attend.[855] It is in 1346 that we meet for the first time with a writ commanding the election of four members. In the following year a writ was issued for the election of the old number (two), but this was apparently a mistake, for another writ was soon afterwards issued stating that the number should be four. The City, however, displayed great apathy in the matter—the attendance in Parliament interfered no doubt with the commercial pursuits of the members—and, although four were elected, it was distinctly provided that any three or even two might attend.[856] On the other hand, when the City was called upon to elect two members for the Parliament of 1348, it returned four.[857] From 1351 to 1354 the writs prescribed only two members, and the City returned only two, but from 1355 down to the passing of the Redistribution of Seats Act in 1885[858]—that is to say, for a period of more than 500 years—the City of London has, if we except the Parliament of 1371, never been represented in the council of the nation by less than four members.

So long as the City was represented by two members, both were usually aldermen.[859] When four were returned, two were, as a rule, aldermen, and two commoners. The Recorder, who in earliest times was also an alderman of the City, was frequently returned with another alderman, and continued to be so returned long after he had ceased to be elected from the body of aldermen. Indeed, for two centuries—viz., from 1454 to 1654—the Recorder for the time being seldom failed to be elected one of the City's members; but from the time of the Restoration no Recorder has sat for the City, nor has the ancient custom of the City to be represented by an equal number of aldermen and commoners been followed. Prior to the Restoration the custom was so strictly observed that when a member who was a commoner happened to be elected alderman, he resigned his seat in Parliament in order that another commoner might be elected.[860]

The parliamentary elections were originally carried out by the mayor and aldermen and a deputation specially summoned from each ward, but the choice of members practically lay with the mayor and aldermen. In course of time the commoners came to be elected by the Common Council, but the aldermen still kept a hold on the elections by nominating certain individuals of whom the citizens were to make their choice.[861]

In 1523 we find an election taking place at the [court of] Husting[862] in the Great Hall. One alderman and the Recorder were nominated by the Court of Aldermen and their nomination was subsequently confirmed by the Common Council in the Guildhall; whilst two commoners were nominated by the commonalty attending at the Husting. But even the latter nominations appear to have been in this instance confirmed by the Common Council.[863] Six years later (viz., in 1529) the election proceedings are recorded somewhat differently. The election took place as before at the [court of] Husting in the Great Hall, the aldermen were nominated by the mayor and aldermen in the Inner Chamber of the Guildhall [i.e., in the Court of Aldermen] and were afterwards ratified and confirmed by a large gathering of the commonalty (immensa communitas) in the Great Hall, but the commoners were elected by the commonalty without any subsequent ratification by the Common Council.[864]

At what date the Livery—as distinct from the citizens at large—began to usurp the functions of the commonalty and claim the exclusive right of electing City members, is not clear; but that they did so monopolise the Parliamentary franchise long before it was restricted to them by the Election Act of 1725, there is ample evidence,[865] and they continued to enjoy this monopoly until the passing of the Reform Act of 1832.

The City members enjoyed, as we have seen,[866] certain allowances by way of "duties," "fees" or "wages," for their attendance in Parliament, besides gowns, robes or liveries for themselves and their servants, and a reasonable sum of money for expenses. According to Coke (4 Inst., p. 46) the fee or wage paid "time out of mind" to a knight of the shire was four shillings a day, whilst that to a citizen or burgess was half that sum;[867] and these same fees the City Chamberlain paid in 1584 to the alderman and the Recorder representing the City in Parliament, presumably, in their capacity as knights of the shire (the City of London itself constituting a county), and to the two commoners, sitting as burgesses, respectively.[868] In 1628 a question was raised in the House as to whether the aldermen representing the City in Parliment ranked as knights, but no decision appears to have been arrived at.[869]

When the City members attended Parliament, they went as befitted the representatives of the capital of the kingdom. Alderman and commoner alike wore scarlet gowns richly trimmed with fur, for which they received allowances, according to their dignity, of cloth and money. An alderman was allowed ten yards of cloth for his gown, a commoner five. Again, an alderman who had served as mayor received an allowance of 100 shillings for fur; an alderman who had not passed the chair was entitled to no more than 5 marks, whilst commoners received only half that sum.

One "livery" a session was the usual allowance, provided that there was not more than one session within the year; but when, as in 1532, Parliament continued to sit for a number of years, an allowance in cash was made to the members in lieu of another livery for themselves and their servants. This cash payment amounted to £6 13s. 4d.[870]

In addition to wages and allowances already mentioned, the City members were allowed a certain amount of travelling (and other) expenses. From the ancient treatise already referred to we gather that in this respect (if in no other) they were customarily placed on an equality with the knights of shires.[871] When Parliament sat at Westminster, these travelling expenses amounted to little more than a shilling a day—the sum allowed them for boat-hire;[872] when, on the other hand, Parliament sat in some remote town, as it frequently did, they were greater. Thus in 1296, when Parliament was to meet at Bury St. Edmunds, the citizens voted their representatives 20 shillings a day for travelling expenses.[873] The two aldermen who represented the City in the Parliament held at York in 1298 were each allowed 100 shillings and no more.[874] On the other hand when nearly a century later (1388), Parliament sat at Cambridge, the City members were not only allowed their travelling expenses, but the cost of their board and lodging, and even their washing bills were discharged by the Corporation, the whole amounting to upwards of £100, a large sum in those days.[875]

In the middle of the 15th century, viz., in Thomas Chalton's mayoralty (1449-1450), the Common Council resolved that thenceforth the allowance for expenses should not exceed 40 shillings a day, but ten years later, when Parliament was to meet at Coventry, it showed a more liberal spirit and undertook to repay any further disbursements that the members might make for the honour and benefit of the City.[876] It did the same in 1464, when Parliament was to have sat at York.[877]

How long the City continued to make payments and allowances to its members is not clear. No doubt, as wealth increased and a seat in the House was looked upon less as a burden, men were found ready to undertake the duties on their own responsibility and without any extraneous assistance, and the custom of payment of members by the City became gradually obsolete. Take, for instance, the case of two of the City's representatives in the Parliament of 1661. Whilst, on the one hand, we find the Court of Aldermen authorising the Chamberlain to pay to John Jones, a burgess, a daily allowance of four shillings—a sum usually allowed knights of the shire—and this amount is recorded in the City's Chamber Accounts as having been duly paid;[878] on the other hand, we find alderman Sir John Frederick (elected member for the City loco alderman Fowke deceased) returning the fees and allowances paid to him by the Chamberlain "for his full allowance for diett and boate hire ... and for his Robes alsoe."[879]

Lastly, it is to be noted that on the occasion of the opening of a new Parliament, the members for the City claim, and generally exercise, the privilege of sitting on the Treasury or Privy Councillor's bench; but on what grounds such privilege is claimed and allowed is not clear.[880]