3 all decrees relating to t he common council were declared void,

c) Dover

The internal government of Dover during the sixteenth century was particularly unstable and the history of the town during the

period was punctuated by frequent electoral disputes. Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature^of the town records for some of the more

significant periods throughout the century makes it difficult to determine the precise course of events. A general picture of the changes introduced to the structure of government may, however, be built up.

The history of the common council is especially confused. It appears to have pre-dated the electoral reforms Introduced by

the Brodhull since a common assembly of 1522-3 was held before

lo E.S.R.O., Rye MS. 1/4, f . 321. 2. Rye MS. 47/24,

158

the mayor, jurats and the 36 of the common council.^ This is the first occasion on which a common council is mentioned in the

records of the town and it is not possible to determine the precise date at which the body was first established. The town records also fail to provide any information about the general reform of electoral customs promulgated by the Brodhull. By these

regulations the mayor was to be chosen from among the jurats by

2

a body of 37. An insertion in a court book of a later period may indicate that these regulations were enforced within the town since it records a meeting of the mayor, jurats and certain of the

3

37. The date of this meeting makes this suggestion doubtful, however, for it is said to have taken place on 16 August 1526.

Although the date of the Brodhull which issued the general electoral regulations is uncertain it seems probable that it was held at a later date than this meeting at Dover.^ The 37 mentioned in the town records may therefore be the same body as existed in 1522-3 since the number of members of the common council of Dover tended to fluctuate.

From this point references to the common council are infrequent.

1. B.L., Egerton MS. 2,093, f.44. 2. White & Black Books, 201-2. 3. B.L.,Egerton MS. 2,094, f.l37. 4. See above p. 14-9» n.2.

At a common assembly of 28 January 1528/9 before the mayor and jurats, and with the assent of the 36 of the common council, it was decreed that no man might revile the mayor and jurats under

X

penalty of 10^. The manner in which the common council gave assent to the decision of the mayor and jurats, rather than the decision being taken by the mayor, jurats and common council, may be an indication that the powers of the common council were

extremely limited. Some support for this view may be found in the fact that on the next two occasions on which the common council

2

is mentioned, in 1537 and 1538, it is described as a convocation. It has been suggested that this body was only convened for special purposes and that its'-duty was to give a verdict on specific

3

matters laid before it, in the same manner as a jury. If this interpretation is accepted, it appears that the common council of this period was a body with very limited duties and powers.

To further complicate matters, there were two distinct types of meeting to conduct town affairs. The more important decisions were taken by the common assembly, which at this period consisted

of the mayor, jurats and the 36 or 37 of the common council,^ Town

1. B.L.,Egerton MS. 2,093, f.81. 2. Ibid., ff.l54, 158.

3. J.B. Jones, The Records of Dover, 181-2. 4. B.L., Egerton MS. 2,094, ff.28v, 34, 52,

160

business was also conducted at meetings known as hornblowings at which the mayor, jurats and all of the commons attended.^ Even this distinction does not remain clear. During the reign of Edward VI several common assemblies were described as

consisting of the mayor, jurats and commonalty, the number of

2

freemen and commoners varying between 26 and 59, while others 3 consisted of the mayor, jurats and the 36 of the common council.

It seems probable that these inconsistencies are Indications of the unsettled state of affairs in the town since the structure of government continued to fluctuate during the next few years. The common council of 36 is mentioned on 21 January 1554/5 but there is no mention of the body in the following year's records.^ By August 1556, it seems that the common assembly of the town was open to all the commonalty; at two meetings during that month the assembly consisted of the mayor, six jurats and 27 commoners,^ and the mayor, nine jurats and 45 commoners.^ There was a

complete turnabout in the following month. On 27 September, the common council of 37 was formally re-established and the original

regulations issued by the Brodhull were reiterated in justification ...J"

1. B.L., Egerton MS. 2,093, 2. B.L. , Egerton MS. 2,094, 3. Ibid., ff.28v, 52

.

of this action.^ There is no further mention of this body until

2

1560. On 26 September, the common council of 37 was once more formally established, possible indicating that the decree of 1556 had lapsed. This council was to meet every fortnight and acts passed by the mayor, jurats and common council were to have full

3