London and the Kingdom - Volume 2 / A History Derived Mainly from the Archives at Guildhall in the Custody of the Corporation of the City of London.

by Reginald R. Sharpe

Attempt to restrict the number of electors in the 14th century.

From the earliest times of which we have any city record until the commencement of the 14th century it had been the custom for the sheriffs of London and Middlesex to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and "the good men of the city" or "commonalty." But a custom sprang up in 1301 of summoning twelve men only from each ward to take part with the mayor and aldermen in such elections,[1457] a custom which found little favour with the bulk of the inhabitants of the city, who insisted upon being present and taking part in the proceedings. An attempt was made by the civic authorities in 1313 to put a stop to the noise and confusion resulting from the presence of such vast numbers at the Guildhall by an order providing that thenceforth only the best men from each ward should be summoned to take part in the elections, and two years later (4 July, 1315) this order was enforced by royal proclamation.[1458] Nevertheless the practice of summoning representatives from the wards was soon dropt, and for more than thirty years the sheriffs continued to be elected by the mayor, aldermen and the "whole commonalty." Another attempt (made under Brembre in 1384) to restrict the number of the commonalty to "so many and such of them as should seem needful for the time" (tantz et tieux come lour semble busoignable pur le temps)[1459] was not more successful.

The mayor's claim to elect one of the sheriffs.

In 1347 we meet for the first time with a new method of procedure. In that year one of the sheriffs was elected by the mayor and the other by the commonalty;[1460] and this prerogative of the mayor for the time being to elect one of the sheriffs continued to be exercised with few (if any) exceptions down to 1638. Neither in 1639 nor in the following year was the prerogative exercised. In 1641 the mayor attempted to exercise it, but through some negligence on his part was declared by the House of Commons to have forfeited his right, and the election of both sheriffs devolved, pro hac vice, upon the commonalty.[1461]

The mayor's prerogative, 1642-1662.

From 1642 to 1651 the mayor for the time being exercised his prerogative in electing as well as nominating one of the sheriffs, but the commonalty always challenged his right to elect, although they paid the mayor the compliment of electing his nominee to serve with the sheriff of their own choice. From 1652 to 1660 (or 1661[1462]?) the mayor did not attempt to exercise a right either of electing or nominating one of the sheriffs, but in 1662, when the mayor would have elected as well as nominated Thomas Bludworth as sheriff, the commonalty claimed their rights. Bludworth was eventually returned together with Sir William Turner.[1463]

Appointment of committee of enquiry, 1674.

In the following year (1663) the prerogative exercised by the mayor passed unchallenged, and so[pg 471] continued until 1674, when, objection being raised,[1464] the Common Council appointed a committee "to consider of the matters in difference and now long debated in this court between ye right honorable ye lord maior and commons of this citty concerneing the eleccon of one of ye sheriffes and to finde out some expedient for ye reconciling ye same."[1465]

Custom of the mayor drinking to a future sheriff, 1674.

We now read for the first time in the City's Records of a custom in connection with the election of sheriffs (although that custom is said to have arisen in the reign of Elizabeth),[1466] namely, the nomination or election of a sheriff by the mayor drinking to an individual at a public banquet. It appears that the lord mayor had recently drunk to William Roberts, citizen and vintner, thereby intimating that it was his lordship's wish that Roberts should be one of the sheriffs for the year ensuing. The commons objected to the mayor thus exercising his prerogative, whilst the aldermen were no less determined to support him.[1467] The committee to whom the matter was referred suggested a compromise, namely, that Roberts should be bound over to take upon himself the office if within the next two or three years he should be either drunk to by the mayor or elected by the commons to be sheriff; and that, further, an Act of Common Council should be forthwith made for settling the shrievalty and all matters connected with it.[1468]