when royal demesnes were intended to be charged, they were expressly mentioned. The lands of antient demesne were, as we have already explained, ascertainable by 'Domesday' and other antient records. The first complaint of the commons is, that lands acquired by the crown at a later period (probably by escheat, among other causes) claimed the like privilege with antient demesnes. The second complaint obviously assumes that freeholders and free copyholders of lords of parliament ought to contribute to the knights' wages. But the commons do not extend their claim to persons who were not personally free. We have thus a clear exposition of the doctrine that knights of the shire represented free men, whether their tenure were freehold or copyhold.* At length, in 1388, a compromise was effected with respect to the exemptions of which the commons complain in the foregoing petition, and several others. By a statute (12 Rich. II., c. 12) it was provided that the expenses of knights coming to parliament for the commons of counties should be levied as it hath been used before this time; joining to the same, that if any lord, or any other man, spiritual or temporal, hath purchased any lands or tenements, or other possessions, that were wont to be contributory to such expenses before the time of such purchase, the said lands, tenements, and possessions, and the tenants of the same, shall be contributory to the said expenses, as the said lands, tenements, and possessions were wont to do before the time of the same purchase.' It is observable that nothing is said here about freeholders. The contributories are to be the tenants generally of the lands which were formerly chargeable with knights' wages. The only other transaction of this reign which is very material to the present inquiry is the statute (5 Rich. II., * The 'Report on the Dignity of a Peer' (vol. i. p. 336) makes great difficulties about this petition. The writers of the report have a preconceived theory that the representation of boroughs was originally confined to those which were of antient demesne, and that copyholders were not represented by knights of the shire. Accordingly, the writers are much perplexed by the language of the petition. In the passage referring to copyholders, the qualification 'who are free of body' (frank du corps) is a key to the meaning of the petition; but this expression is entirely omitted in the translation by the writers of the report. They get over their difficulty by suggesting that the commons had no clear conception of any principles on which representation was first instituted, in whom the right of electing representatives was vested, or who ought to be charged with the wages, and on what ground.' The commons in the reign of Richard II. had a direct personal interest in the matters discussed in their petition. Possibly, they were as well informed on the subject as their commentators after a lapse of four centuries and a half. stat. 2, c. 4), which provides that lords, knights, citizens, burgesses, and others duly summoned to parliament shall attend on pain of amercement for their default. The latter part of the statute enacts that, 'If any sheriff of the realm be from henceforth negligent in making his returns of writs of the parliament, or that he leave out of the returns any cities or boroughs which be bound and of old time were wont to come to parliament, he shall be punished in the manner as was accustomed to be done in the said case in times past.' This enactment tended to render permanent the constitution of the House of Commons. The sheriffs were prohibited from arbitrarily omitting from their returns cities and boroughs which had been theretofore bound to send representatives, and the distribution of the parliamentary franchise was fixed in the form determined by long established custom. Thus, by the end of the fourteenth century, the constitution of parliament had become definitively settled in all essential particulars. All the antient parliamentary boroughs were to send representatives. Every county was to elect knights of the shire, chosen in open county court by all the free inhabitants who were liable to taxation. The House of Commons had secured an absolute independence in making its grants to the crown. And lastly, it had become a fundamental law that the statutes of the realm were to be enacted by the king, with the assent of the prelates, earls, barons, and commons in parliament assembled. CHAPTER VI. THE COUNTY SUFFRAGE AFTER THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY. Growth of the power of the Commons in the reign of Henry IV., 97.—Grants settled by Conference between the two Houses, 99.—Statute against 'Lollerie,' 101. -First Statute regulating County Elections, 103.-All the inhabitants of Counties entitled to vote for Knights, 103.-Statute of Henry V., requiring Citizens and Burgesses to be residents, 109.—Imbecility of Henry VI., and anarchy in his reign, 110.-The Act giving the suffrage to forty-shilling Freeholders, 113.-The motives for which this Statute was made, and its effects, 115. AFTER the fourteenth century great changes took place in the county suffrage. The period of the three Lancastrian kings, Henry IV. Henry V. and Henry VI. (a.d. 1399–1460) constitutes a distinct epoch in the history of parliament. In that period the right of voting for knights of the shire attained both its maximum and minimum limits. During the reign of Henry IV. the county suffrage was more extensive and general than it has ever since been. Shortly after the accession of Henry VI. the constituencies were suddenly and materially diminished by a law which remained undisturbed until the Reform of 1832. * In Under the government of Henry IV. the power of the commons was progressively developed. In the first year of that reign they petition the crown to the effect that no judge in concurring in any unjust measure should be excused by pleading the orders of the king, or even the dangers of his own life. the second year they obtained the assent of the crown to an important modification of the method of drawing up statutes. Previously, the practice had been to have them compiled by the judges after the dissolution of parliament, from the petitions and answers in that assembly. This practice presented an opportunity of falsifying the intentions of the legislature ;† and in * The petition was 'that the lords spiritual and temporal and the judges do not from henceforth plead in excuse that they durst not for fear of death to speak the truth.' Answer-'The king reputeth them all to be just, and that they will not give him counsel to the contrary; but if they do, let complaint be made.'-1'Parliamentary History,' 281. † A very gross case of this kind occurred in the preceding reign. A statute was passed in 5 Richard II. (stat. ii. c. 5, 'Authentic Edition of Statutes,' vol. ii. p. 25) authorising the imprisonment of preachers of heresies 'in strong prison till they will justify themselves according to the law and reason of the Church.' In H order to obviate that danger the commons petitioned, and the king assented, that all matters transacted in parliament should be engrossed before the departure of the justices.* In 8 Henry IV. at the petition of the commons, certain lords, prelates, and commons were appointed to be present at the enactment and engrossment of the rolls of parliament.' It was not, however, until the reign of Henry VI. that the practice of enacting laws in the exact language in which they passed the two houses was completely established. The principal constitutional struggles in which the commons were engaged in the time of Henry IV. were these three-first, to assert their own independence in making grants of public money; secondly, to secure the political responsibility of the king's advisers; thirdly, to render the enormous property of the Church contributory to the expenses of the State. The mode of making parliamentary grants in the fourteenth century differed utterly from that which is now observed. The antient practice in this respect has a high constitutional interest, but seems to have been but little noticed by modern writers. The lords, as we have seen, claimed for themselves and their dependent tenants exemption from the charge of knights' wages, on the principle that the upper house represented a distinct portion of the community. In accordance with the same principle that assembly made its own separate grants to the crown. But it was obviously necessary that the two houses should be in accord as to the amount of these grants, for neither would choose to be subject to a higher rate than the other. It was also deemed to be of great importance that the two parties should come to an agreement before their proposals were disclosed to the crown; and also the commons from an early period exhibited an anxiety that in the negotiations between the two houses the first offer should be made by the lords, and not by themselves. Each estate considered it a practical advantage to obtain a knowledge of the dispositions of the other before disclosing its own. These observations will serve to explain and connect the following brief notes of some negotiations between the two houses the next year ('Rot. Parl.' 6 Richard II. vol. iii. p. 141) the Commons complain in Parliament that this statute was made without their assent and demand its repeal; to which the king assented. Coke says (Fourth Institute, p. 51) that when this pretended act was passed Robert Braibrooke, Bishop of London, was Lord Chancellor: apparently the enactment was procured by his influence. Coke cites other instances of statutes passed in an unconstitutional manner. ‡ 3' Parl. Rolls,' 7 & 8 Пen. IV. p. 585. in the fourteenth century. As far as I am aware, the history of the contest has not been narrated by writers upon constitutional and parliamentary law. In 25 Edward III. A.D. 1352, the king proposes that the commons shall elect twenty-four or thirty of their body to confer with certain lords, whom he will send to them, respecting the grant to be made; and that the rest shall assemble in the Chapter House of Westminster, and receive the report of the conference. The commons, however, will not assent to this, but the whole body comes before the prince and lords on a subsequent day, and after long deliberation, and an adjournment, present a roll containing the aid they had agreed to grant.* In 47 Edward III. certain bishops and lords are appointed to treat with the commons in the Chamberlain's Chamber respecting the grant. After a consultation continued two days, the king, lords, and commons reassemble, and the latter deliver a grant in a schedule written and indented without seal.' + In 50 Edward III. 51 Edward III. and again in 1 Richard (I) the method was adopted of appointing a committee of lords to confer with the commons respecting the grant. But in the next year the lords object to this course, as an unjust innovation which placed them at a disadvantage. To the request that five or six prelates and lords may come to the commons to treat with them about the charge,' the lords answer that they neither ought to, nor will do it; for that the practice and manner had never been but in the last three parliaments. But they say and avow that it had been the custom for the lords to choose of themselves a small number of six or ten, and the commons as many of themselves, to treat together in secret, and then report what they had done to their companions; and according to this method the lords will act, and not otherwise.'§ The commons assented at that time, that only a small number of lords and commons shall be selected. Shortly afterwards (5 Richard II. A.D. 1381) a committee of certain lords named by the commons is sent, at their request, to confer with them. After some conference they pray that the prelates by themselves, the lords temporal by themselves, the knights by themselves, the justices by themselves, and the other estates singly may be ordered to treat about the charge, and that their advice may be reported to the commons.' The king, however, refuses to accede to this arrangement. "The antient custom and form 6 Rot. Parl.' vol. ii. *Rotuli Parl.' vol. ii. p. 237. § Rot. Parl.' vol. iii. p. 36. |