County

Returns for the county of Northumberland survive for 27 of the 32 Parliaments which met between 1386 and 1421, those for the other five having been lost. We know the names of 21 of the shire knights elected during this period; and although the gaps in the evidence now make it impossible to assess the relative experience of them all, we can be reasonably sure about the general pattern of representation. On the whole, the local electors showed a distinct preference for men who had already sat in the House of Commons.

The parliamentary representation of Northamptonshire during our period is comparatively well documented, since only three of the returns made by the electors have been lost. We are thus able to tell who sat in 29 of the 32 Parliaments here under review, during which time a minimum of 28 different individuals were chosen to serve as shire knights.

Returns have survived for 29 of the 32 Parliaments of the period under review, and the names of 23 knights of the shire are known. Six of them (about a quarter) were elected for Norfolk to no more than one Parliament, but ten sat three or more times, and a few represented the county quite frequently. Sir Robert Berney and Edmund Wynter did so on six occasions, Sir John White and John Wynter on seven, and Sir Stephen Hales on nine.

Returns for the county of Middlesex to the Parliaments of 1410, 1413 (Feb.) and 1416 (both Mar. and Oct.) have been lost, leaving us with the names of Members in 28 of the 32 Parliaments considered here. Nor can we discover the name of the man elected to replace Sir John Wroth, who fell ill almost immediately after being returned in 1406 and was excused from his duties as a shire knight. On the evidence now available, 31 men are known to have sat for Middlesex over the period 1386 to 1421, of whom 23 had no previous parliamentary experience.

Although the population of London numbered at least 40,000 during the late 14th century, only the freemen, a far smaller group comprising about one quarter of the adult male residents, played any part in civic affairs. They alone were enfranchised, having undertaken in return to pay taxes and bear whatever corporate responsibilities fell upon them as citizens. In our period freedom came most usually through patrimony or apprenticeship, but it could also be bought and, in certain cases, was a perquisite of office.

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.

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.

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.

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.