the ministerial candidate. The
electors were not to be soothed by soft words, and that Government
candidate had to find another seat.[712] In the boroughs there was
every variety of franchise. In some it was almost democratic; in
others elections were in the hands of one or two voters. In the city
of London the election for the Parliament of 1529 was held on (p. 253)
5th October, _immensa communitate tunc presente_, in the Guildhall;
there is no hint of royal interference, the election being conducted
in the customary way, namely, two candidates were nominated by the
mayor and aldermen, and two by the citizens.[713] The general tendency
had for more than a century, however, been towards close corporations
in whose hands the parliamentary franchise was generally vested, and
consequently towards restricting the basis of popular representation.
The narrower that basis became, the greater the facilities it afforded
for external influence. In many boroughs elections were largely
determined by recommendations from neighbouring magnates, territorial
or official.[714] At Gatton the lords of the manor nominated the
members for Parliament, and the formal election was merely a matter of
drawing up an indenture between Sir Roger Copley and the sheriff,[715]
and the Bishop of Winchester was wont to select representatives for
more than one borough within the bounds of his diocese.[716] The Duke
of Norfolk claimed to be able to return ten members in Sussex and
Surrey alone.[717]

[Footnote 710: "The choice of the electors," says
Brewer (_L. and P._, iv., Introd., p. dcxlv.), "was
still determined by the King or his powerful
ministers with as much certainty and assurance as
that of the sheriffs."]

[Footnote 711: _L. and P._, i., 792, vii., 1178,
where mention is made of "secret labour" among the
freeholders of Warwickshire for the bye-election on
Sir E. Ferrers' death in 1534; and x., 1063, where
there is described a hotly contested election
between the candidate of the gentry of Shropshire
and the candidate of the townsfolk of Shrewsbury.]

[Footnote 712: _Acts of the Privy Council_,
1547-50, pp. 516, 518, 519; _England under
Protector Somerset_,