165

CHAPTER IX.

THE BOROUGH ELECTORS.

Scot and Lot, 165.—The Antiquity and Etymology of Scot and Lot, 166.-How assessed, 167.-All Householders of Boroughs reckoned as Burgesses in Domesday,

169; and in Antient Charters, 173.-Burgesses and no others in Towns liable to Scot and Lot, 177.-Lodgers not entitled to Burgess-ship, 178.—The Burgesses were the Parliamentary Electors, 179.—Earliest Municipal Corporations, 185.-Select or Self-elected Corporations, 188.—Abuses of Municipal Government, 188.-Partial restitution of Municipal Rights in the Reign of James I., 189-Potwallers, 190.-Municipal Reform in 1832, 192.

THE Concluding subject of our inquiry—the antient qualification of electors in boroughs-is comparatively easy. Materials

for determining this question are much more readily accessible than those which relate to the suffrage in counties; for the antient records are more copious and explicit respecting the electoral rights of burgesses than with reference to the corresponding rights of voters in shires.

There is indisputable evidence that in the reign of Edward I., when parliamentary institutions became regularly established, and long afterwards, the electors in boroughs were the resident householders liable to pay scot and lot. Before examining the evidence on which this conclusion is founded, it will be desirable to explain the nature of the custom of paying scot and lot.

6

It was a very antient custom. It was part of the common law of England in the time of Edward the Confessor, and was expressly recognised in the laws of William I. One of them provides (iii. 4), that every man French-born,† who in the time of Edward our kinsman was in England, a partaker of the English customs which they call hlote and scote, shall pay according to the law of the English.' Scot means a common fund arising from the contributions of many. Spelman derives the word from the Saxon sceote, to throw, because the scot was the collection of what was cast in by several. The word sceote seems to be the root of the English verb 'to shoot.' Matthew of

* The words liable to pay' are used advisedly. There is no warrant for supposing that a man was ever disfranchised for nonpayment of these charges. Arrears were recoverable, like other debts, by ordinary legal process; but it does not appear that the law in antient times superadded loss of municipal privileges as a penalty for default of payment.

† Francigena, i.e. of Norman origin. Kelham says (p. 216) that this was a general name for all persons who could not prove themselves to be English. Antient Laws and Institutions of England,' p. 211.

Westminster, in a sentence quoted by Spelman, says: That is called scot which is collected of several things into one heap.'

Lot is defined by Spelman to be the part of a tribute or payment which each of several persons is bound to pay. It seems to be used to designate any component part or item, which is the sense in which auctioneers now use the word. Thus, in a presentment of a jury of the High Peak in Derbyshire-cited by Spelman-it is said that the king's lot of lead, taken in the royal mines there, was every thirteenth pot of metal-(Rex solebat percipere le lot mineris, id est tertium decimum vas). Another use of the word lot occurs in 'burgelote' (otherwise 'burgbote'), the lot or contribution toward repairing the walls of a borough.*

The word scot was not confined to the revenue of boroughs. Hundredeschot, or Hundredeshot, or Hundred scot, is frequently mentioned in the Hundred Rolls' of Edward I. Thus at Tavernham, in Norfolk, three persons are returned as withholding twelve pence of hundredeschot, and two pence from the sheriff's turn.† Again, the Abbot de Becco Herleuin had withdrawn, and appropriated to his own use two shillings of hundredeschot. In the return for Strepham, in Norfolk, it is said that the tenants of the church of Seynges were wont to pay scot (goddare et scottare) with the villans of the same vill to all charges.§

Another use of'scot' as an affix occurs in the word 'Chirchescot' (of which Chyrchset' and 'Circset' are modifications. This was a payment to the Church of firstfruits of harvest, and was enjoined by the laws of Ina and the laws of Cnut. ||

Romescot, or Romepenny (in Saxon romgescot or romsceat), was another species of ecclesiastical scot. It was a penny for every hearth, payable to Rome on the Feast of S. Peter. It is enjoined by the laws of Ina and later Saxon kings, and was prohibited in England (39 Edward III.) A.D. 1365. ¶

Another kind of scot mentioned in the Hundred Rolls' is the shireveschot, or sheriff's scot-apparently the same tax as that called the auxilium vicecomitis, or sheriff's aid. Another scot mentioned in the same record is 'wodewelschot.' Thus, in the return for Northgrenehow, in Norfolk, Warin de Monte Caniso is said to withhold four shillings and tenpence halfpenny of a certain annual render called wodewelschot' (quodam

annuo redditu qui vocatur wodewelschot), from which expression it may be conjectured that this change was peculiar to particular localities. In the same returns shireveschot is twice mentioned.*

Scot is frequently mentioned in Domesday. For example, in an entry respecting Ipswich, mention is made of 328 houses which, in the time of the Confessor, paid scot (scottabant) to the gelt of the king. Again: "In Colchester the bishop has fourteen houses and four acres not rendering custom except scot' -(non reddentes consuetudinem præter scotum)---(Essex, fol. 14); and the burgesses of Colchester are elsewhere (fol. 104) said to have claimed five hides in Luxenhen to the custom and scot of the city.

'Let us enquire,' says Madox, with reference to the lot and scot in boroughs, 'who they were that were liable to bear the common burdens of the community, and in what manner the same were to be raised. The Kings of England having in several ages granted divers liberties to their towns, it became in some cases doubtful what persons were entitled to those liberties. For men that live in a town were not all of a sort. There were townsmen and suburbians, townsmen and co-inbabitants: in fine, some that were of the gild or gilds of that town, and some that were not. Many were willing to have the benefit of the common liberties, but were unwilling to have a share in the common burdens or payments. . . . The communia onera, or common burdens, were those things which were chargeable on the community, to be borne and defrayed by common contribution: for instance, the yearly ferme of the town, aids or tallages assessed in communi, common fines, common amerciaments, and suchlike. Every person willing to enjoy the franchise of the town was to contribute, according to his ability, to these public burdens or charges incident to the community. Indeed, the ferme of a town generally arose out of certain demised premises yielding profit, as I have shown above. But other communia onera were borne in communi, and were usually raised by apportionment amongst the townsmen, according to each man's ability or substance.' +

From the records of antient suits in the Court of Exchequer respecting the taxation of towns, we get much information upon this subject. this subject. The contribution of each man was reckoned according to the value of the goods and

chattels which he had in the town. Thus, in an action in 28 Edward III., against the collectors of a fifteenth granted to the crown in the county of Northampton, there is a complaint that the lower division of the town of Heyford was assessed at a higher rate than the upper division; and it is said, that 'every man there ought to be taxed and assessed to the said sum, according to the quantity of his goods and chattels, in the same place, without favour shown to any one in that behalf.' Similarly, in a plea before the Barons of the Exchequer in the same year, with reference to the collection in Guildford of a fifteenth, and a tenth granted to the crown in Surrey, it is said that the sum due from the town ought to have been assessed among the men of the same town proportionately, according to the quantity of their goods, without favour to any one;' and the subcollectors are charged with assessing the plaintiff above the proper rate.*

6

Any favour or exemption of townsmen in assessing the common burdens of a town seems to have been regarded with great jealousy. Thus, in the 'Hundred Rolls' (temp. Edward I.) in the returns for the city of London, there is a presentment to the following effect: Whereas the liberty of the city of London is one and common to all, and ought to be and is enjoyed in common-certain men of that city, enjoying that liberty, going against their own own oath, namely, Thomas, son of Ade de Basinges and others whose names are not known, have charters from our lord King Henry, that they shall not be taxed with their fellow-citizens, which is against the common justice of the city, whence the whole burden of the taxation, when it occurs (which is frequently), falls upon the poor and middle classes, and is to the destruction of the said city.' †

The governing officers of towns had power, by virtue of their office, to compel the burgesses to pay the taxes or quotas assessed upon them. If the mayor or ruling officers of a town could not compel any refractory persons to discharge these obligations, they might have aid from the king's officers. If the citizens and burgesses could not agree among themselves in assessing and raising the money, the sheriff of the county, by order from the Court of Chancery or the Exchequer, might apportion it among them.‡

It will be convenient to examine the qualification of burgesses chronologically-first, as it is described in Domesday; secondly, as it is defined in later documents. The language of Domesday Madox, 'Firma Burgi,' p. 281 in notis. " Hundred Rolls,' vol. i. p. 408. Madox, 'Firma Burgi,' chap. xi.

is concise, and a difficulty is often occasioned by its silence respecting circumstances which were assumed to be notorious. The Survey does, however, show satisfactorily that, at the time of the Conquest, and previously, the burgesses were the inhabitant-householders of boroughs. This point is established in a very curious manner. In several boroughs there is an enumeration of the number of burgesses in the time of the Confessor, the number of houses which have since become uninhabited, and the number of burgesses at the time of the Survey. The latter number is in these cases the difference of the two former; and, consequently, the irresistible inference arises, that the number of burgesses was reckoned by the number of inhabited houses. Thus, in the account of Derby in Domesday (fol. 280), it is said that there were in that place, in the time of Edward the Confessor, 243 burgesses. At the time of the Survey there were 100 burgesses and 40 lesser burgesses, and 103 houses uninhabited (mansiones waste). The sum of the numbers 100+ 40+103=243, the previous number of burgesses; and this computation shows very clearly that, at both periods, every inhabitant-householder was a burgess. So in Ipswich (fol. 289 b), it is recorded that, in King Edward's time, there were 538 burgesses who paid customary rent to the king. At the Survey there were 110 who paid the rent, and 100 poor burgesses who paid a penny a head, and 328 mansiones which had paid geld were wasted. Here 110 + 100 + 328=538. That is to say, the total number of burgesses of the former period is reckoned by adding the numbers of burgesses and of uninhabited houses at the later period. Of Thetford it is stated that, ' In the borough there were 943 burgesses in the time of King Edward; of them the king has all custom. Of these men, 36 so belonged to the demesne of King Edward, that they could not be the men of anyone else without license of the king: all others could be men of anyone; but always, nevertheless, the king's custom remained, except heriot. Now, there are 720 burgesses and 224 vacant houses.'

* In burgo autem erant DCCCCXLIII. burgenses tempore Regis Edwardi. De his habet Rex omnem consuetudinem. De istis hominibus erant XXXVI ita dominice Regis Edwardi ut non possent esse homines cujuslibet sine licentia Kegis. Alii omnes poterant esse homines cujuslibet ; sed semper tamen consuetudo Regis remanebat præter herigete. Modo sunt DCCXX burgenses et CCXXIIII mansuræ vacuæ.- -Domesday, vol. ii. fol. 118 b.

The numerals are here given as they appear in the printed edition of Domesday; but the conjectural emendation suggested above has been confirmed by an examination of the original document in the Record Office. I am informed that a fourth I after the one which now terminates the DCCCCXLIII has been rubbed nearly out, apparently by accident: also a third c in the numeral DCCXX has been erased, apparently on purpose.