We know who represented Lincolnshire in no more than 26 of the 32 Parliaments summoned between 1386 and 1421, the other returns having been lost. At least 22 men were elected during this period, and although lack of evidence makes it impossible for us to be absolutely certain about the relative experience of those who sat after 1407, a striking element of continuity seems to have been maintained throughout.
Leicester, positioned near the centre of the kingdom, and on a number of good trade routes both by water and by road, had reached a peak of prosperity in the 13th century: in the tax assessment of 1269 it was rated the eighth richest borough in England. By the end of Edward III’s reign, however, a decline had set in, no doubt partially due to the deaths of a large number of townspeople in the great pestilences of 1349 and 1361, but also attributable to a diminution in trade.
Returns for Leicestershire have survived for 27 of the 32 Parliaments of the period; gaps remain for that of 1413 (Feb.) and for the four consecutive assemblies summoned between 1415 and 1417. No fewer than 31 men were returned by the county, 12 of them apparently on only one occasion.
Returns for Lancashire have survived for all but five of the Parliaments which met between 1386 and 1421, giving us the names of 30 shire knights. We do not know who represented the county in 1410, 1413 (Feb.), 1415, 1416 (Oct.) or 1417, so it is difficult to speak with any degree of certainty about the relative experience of the Members elected towards the close of our period.
By the late 14th century Rochester’s population was less than a quarter the size of Canterbury’s, being estimated at 855 on the basis of the poll tax returns of 1377. Yet the city rivalled Canterbury in antiquity, having been developed in Roman times as a station at the point where Watling Street crossed the Medway. Within a very few years of his conversion to Christianity at the close of the sixth century, King Ethelbert of Kent built a church in Rochester, which soon shared with London the distinction of being the earliest bishop’s see, as created by Augustine in 604.
By this stage in its already long history, Canterbury had grown into a sizeable city containing 12 parishes and an estimated population of nearly 4,000. The Roman settlement had been adapted in Anglo-Saxon times to serve as capital of the kingdom of Kent, and the grant made to Augustine by King Ethelbert of his palace there at the end of the sixth century ensured the city’s place as the first and long unrivalled centre of Christianity in England.
Returns for Kent are extant for 27 of the 32 Parliaments of the period, those for 1410, 1413 (Feb.), 1415, 1416 (Oct.) and 1421 (May) now being lost. Fifteen of the 32 knights of the shire there recorded apparently represented this constituency just once. However, the more extensive parliamentary service of the remainder somewhat redressed the balance, so that the average number of times each shire knight was elected by Kent came to two.
Situated at the crossing point of the river Ouse and the main route between London and the north-east, Huntingdon was an obvious site for early settlement, and by the tenth century it had become a market town of sufficient standing to have its own mint. Although at first development was checked by Danish raiding parties, the royal borough of Huntingdon enjoyed a more settled period of expansion after the Conquest, when, according to the Domesday survey, it housed some 256 burgesses.
Electoral returns for Huntingdonshire have survived for all but three of the Parliaments which met between 1386 and 1421, those for 1410, 1413 (Feb.) and 1416 (Oct.) now being lost. Exchequer records can, fortunately, be used to fill the last of these gaps, so we know the names of 24 of the men who represented the county during this period; and although it is still impossible to speak with complete certainty about the relative parliamentary experience of some individuals, certain facts can be deduced from an analysis of the evidence.
Returns for Hertfordshire are available for 28 of the 32 Parliaments which met during the period under review. No information appears to have survived about the elections of 1410, 1413 (Feb.), 1415 and 1416 (Oct.), so consequently some doubt must remain as to the relative parliamentary experience of at least half of the 25 men who are known to have sat for the county between 1386 and 1421. An analysis of the existing returns reveals a strong preference on the part of the electors, particularly during the 14th century, for a degree of representative continuity.
