Available from Boydell and Brewer
|20 Jan. 1559||JOHN ESTON|
|17 Apr. 1572||OLIFFE BURR|
|2 Oct. 1584||THOMAS WAY|
|23 Sept. 1597||EDMUND BOWYER|
|12 Oct. 1601||MATHEW DALE|
Southwark, noted in this period for its playhouses and brothels, had a special relationship with the city of London, which appointed its steward and bailiff. In 1571 the instructions to hold the election were sent to Southwark by the common council of the city, and in 1584 the London recorder was present at the election. The right to vote at Southwark was vested in the inhabitants, 20 of whom signed the 1559 return, and 22 that of 1584. In 1593 the Southwark election was disputed in the House of Commons, George More suggesting (26 Feb.) that the return of Richard Hutton had been ‘indirectly made’. Three days later, the committee of privileges reported that Hutton, as bailiff, had returned himself. The Speaker was instructed by the House to request the lord keeper to send a new writ, but on 8 Mar. he reported that the lord keeper had decided that the return for Southwark should stand and accordingly Hutton was sworn in the following day, on a motion of the recorder of London. It was alleged during the debate that Charles Howard I, Lord Howard of Effingham, the lord admiral, ‘had written for the place and they denied him’.
All the identified MPs returned for Southwark from 1559 to 1593 were inhabitants of the borough. Most of them were local tradesmen. William Pratt (1589) has not been identified. In the last two Parliaments of the reign, however, two outsiders were returned, both of whom had connexions with the 1st Baron Hunsdon. One was Edmund Bowyer (1597), a neighbouring Camberwell j.p.; the other was Zachariah Lok (1601) of London, who had formerly been Hunsdon’s servant.
VCH Surr. iv. 137-41; City of London, rep. roll; C219/26, 29; D’Ewes, 471, 479, 489, 494-5, 496; Cott. Titus F. ii. anon. jnl. f. 55.