The New Murrey and Blue blog

In principle, each shire was supposed to elect two knights to represent it in Parliament – hence the expression ‘Knights of the shire.’ The leading men of the county (excluding magnates) would meet at the quarter-sessions or county court and choose suitable candidates, who would then be nominated by the Sheriff, whose job it was to return the electoral writ.

However, it appears that sheriffs sometimes did not bother with the formal process but simply returned two men they thought ‘suitable’. They may, of course, have taken informal soundings first. County communities were quite small and it would not be that difficult to carry out a consultation.

Magnates, in theory, had no say in the matter. In practice,of course, their influence was always important and could be decisive. They quite likely had various members of a county society in their pockets by way of granting retaining fees or offices of profit. They might also simply be too powerful for their preferences to be ignored by wise men, especially if the magnate in question had major influence at court.

The elected members were not always – by any means – knights. In practice any man of standing who was not a peer could be chosen. There was a feeling that an MP should hold land in the county – preferably in his own right rather than, for example, in right of his wife’s dower. However, these niceties were occasionally evaded, and someone elected who did not have a foot of land in the county.

In the 1397 Parliament, for example, Gloucestershire returned two members who just happened to be Despenser retainers. One of these men had no land at all in the shire. The Sheriff just happened to be another Despenser retainer. Of course, Thomas, Lord Despenser (soon to be Earl of Gloucester) was King Richard II‘s ‘agent’ in the county, so none of this was accidental. It was an exercise in royal power. However, what the elements in Gloucestershire who were not affiliated to the Despensers thought about it we can easily guess!

One advantage of being an MP was that a man might be ‘spotted’ as a talent by the Chancellor and his department. This might well lead to subsequent appointment as sheriff. The Chancellor and his clerks usually chose the county sheriffs (there were a few exceptions like Worcestershire where the office was hereditary.) Of course, if the King sent a letter saying ‘I want Sir John Soap to be Sheriff of Barsetshire this year’ then there had to be a pretty compelling reason for the Chancellor to deny the ‘request’. Royal interventions of this kind might be an exercise of pure patronage, or it might be a way of attempting to control elections to the Commons. As explained above, the Sheriff was in a position to ‘steer’ elections, and kings were not always above interfering in the process.