Committee, p. 191. The enactment by the king and council founded on the consent of the estates was at Acton Burnell. And the Statute of Merchants, 13 Edw. I., refers to that of the 11th, as made by the king, a son parlement que il tint a Acton Burnell, and again mentions l"avant dit statut fait a Acton Burnell. This seems to afford a voucher for what is said in my text, which has been controverted by a learned antiquary.[*] It is certain that the lords were at Shrewsbury in their judicial character condemning Llewellin; but whether they proceeded afterwards to Acton Burnell, and joined in the statute, is not quite so clear.
* Archaeological Journal, vol. ii. p. 337, by the Rev. W. Hartshorne.
[72] [Note VI.]
[73] Willis, Not.i.tia Parliamentaria, vol. ii. p. 312; Lyttelton"s Hist.
of Hen. II. vol. iv. p. 89.
[74] 6 Ric. II. stat. 2, c. iv.
[75] Rot. Parl. vol. iv. p. 22.
[76] Though such an argument would not be conclusive, it might afford some ground for hesitation, if the royal burghs of Scotland were actually represented in their parliament more than half a century before the date a.s.signed to the first representation of English towns. Lord Hailes concludes from a pa.s.sage in Fordun "that as early as 1211 burgesses gave suit and presence in the great council of the king"s va.s.sals; though the contrary has been a.s.serted with much confidence by various authors." Annals of Scotland, vol. i. p. 139. Fordun"s words, however, so far from importing that they formed a member of the legislature, which perhaps Lord Hailes did not mean by the quaint expression "gave suit and presence," do not appear to me conclusive to prove that they were actually present. Hoc anno Rex Scotiae Willelmus magnum tenuit consilium. Ubi, pet.i.to ab optimatibus auxilio, promiserunt se daturos decem mille marcas: praeter burgenses regni, qui s.e.x millia promiserunt. Those who know the brief and incorrect style of chronicles will not think it unlikely that the offer of 6000 marks by the burgesses was not made in parliament, but in consequence of separate requisitions from the crown. Pinkerton is of opinion that the magistrates of royal burghs might upon this, and perhaps other occasions, have attended at the bar of parliament with their offers of money. But the deputies of towns do not appear as a part of parliament till 1326. Hist. of Scotland, vol. i. p. 352, 371.
[77] [Note VII.]
[78] These expressions cannot appear too strong. But it is very remarkable that to the parliament of 18 Edward III. the writs appear to have summoned none of the towns, but only the counties. Willis, Not.i.t.
Parliament. vol. i. Preface, p. 13. Prynne"s Register, 3rd part, p. 144.
Yet the citizens and burgesses are once, but only once, named as present in the parliamentary roll; and there is, in general, a chasm in place of their names, where the different ranks present are enumerated. Rot.
Parl. vol. ii. p. 146. A subsidy was granted at this parliament; so that, if the citizens and burgesses were really not summoned, it is by far the most violent stretch of power during the reign of Edward III.
But I know of no collateral evidence to ill.u.s.trate or disprove it.
[79] Tallages were imposed without consent of parliament in 17 E. I.
Wykes, p. 117; and in 32 E. I. Brady"s Hist. of Eng. vol. ii. In the latter instance the king also gave leave to the lay and spiritual n.o.bility to set a tallage on their own tenants. This was subsequent to the Confirmatio Chartarum, and unquestionably illegal.
[80] Prynne"s 2nd Register. It may be remarked that writs of summons to great councils never ran ad faciendum, but ad tractandum, consulendum et consentiendum; from which some would infer that faciendum had the sense of enacting; since statutes could not be pa.s.sed in such a.s.semblies. Id.
p. 92.
[81] 28 E. I., in Prynne"s 4th Register, p. 12; 9 E. II. (a great council), p. 48.
[82] Brady"s Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 40; Parliamentary History, vol. i. p. 206; Rot. Parl. t. ii. p. 66.
[83] Carte, vol. ii. p. 451; Parliamentary History, vol. i. p. 234.
[84] Rot. Parl. vol. i. p. 289.
[85] Id. p. 430.
[86] Id. vol. ii. p. 7.
[87] Id. p. 289, 351, 430.
[88] Id. p. 5.
[89] Id. p. 86.
[90] Rot. Parl. vol. i. p. 285.
[91] 4 E. III. c. 14. Annual sessions of parliament seem fully to satisfy the words, and still more the spirit, of this act, and of 36 E.
III. c. 10; which however are repealed by implication from the provisions of 6 Will. III. c. 2. But it was very rare under the Plantagenet dynasty for a parliament to continue more than a year.
It has been observed that this provision "had probably in view the administration of justice by the king"s court in parliament." Report of L. C. p. 301. And in another place:--"It is clear that the word parliament in the reign of Edward I. was not used only to describe a legislative a.s.sembly, but was the common appellation of the ordinary a.s.sembly of the king"s great court or council; and that the legislative a.s.sembly of the realm, composed generally, in and after the 23rd of Edward I., of lords spiritual and temporal, and representatives of the commons, was usually convened to meet the king"s council in one of these parliaments." p. 171.
Certainly the commons could not desire to have an annual parliament in order to make new statutes, much less to grant subsidies. It was, however, important to present their pet.i.tions, and to set forth their grievances to this high court. We may easily reconcile the anxiety so often expressed by the commons to have frequent sessions of parliament, with the individual reluctance of members to attend. A few active men procured these pet.i.tions, which the majority could not with decency oppose, since the public benefit was generally admitted. But when the writs came down, every pretext was commonly made use of to avoid a troublesome and ill-remunerated journey to Westminster. For the subject of annual parliaments see a valuable article by Allen in the 28th volume of the Edinburgh Review.
[92] This article is so expressed as to make it appear that the grievance was the high price of commodities. But as this was the natural effect of a degraded currency, and the whole tenor of these articles relates to abuses of government, I think it must have meant what I have said in the text.
[93] Prynne"s 2nd Register, p. 68.
[94] Id. p. 75.
[95] Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 6; Rot. Parl. vol. i. p. 449.
[96] Rot. Parl. vol. i. p. 430.
[97] It is however distinctly specified in stat. 7 Edw. II. and in 12 Edw. II., and equivalent words are found in other statutes. Though often wanting, the testimony to the const.i.tution of parliament is sufficient and conclusive.
[98] Rot. Parl. vol. i. p. 281.
[99] Walsingham, p. 97. The Lords" committee "have found no evidence of any writ issued for election of knights, citizens, and burgesses to attend the same meetings; from the subsequent doc.u.ments it seems probable that none were issued, and that the parliament which a.s.sembled at Westminster consisted only of prelates, earls, and barons." p. 259.
We have no record of this parliament; but in that of 5 Edw. II. it is recited--Come le seizieme jour de Marz l"an de notre regne tierce, a l"honeur de Dieu et pour le bien de nous et de nostre roiaume, eussions grante de notre franche volonte, par nos lettres ouvertes aux prelatz, countes, et barons, _et communes de dit roiaume_, qu"ils puissent eslire certain persones des prelatz, comtes, et barons, &c. Rot. Parl. i. 281.
The inference therefore of the committee seems erroneous. [Note VIII.]
[100] "La commonaltee" seems in this place to mean the tenants of land, or commons of the counties, in contradistinction to citizens and burgesses.
[101] Rot. Parl. vol. ii. p. 66. The Lords" committee observe on this pa.s.sage in the roll of parliament, that "the king"s right to tallage his cities, boroughs, and demesnes seems not to have been questioned by the parliament, though the commissions for setting the tallage were objected to." p. 305. But how can we believe that after the representatives of these cities and boroughs had sat, at least at times, for two reigns, and after the explicit renunciation of all right of tallage by Edward I.
(for it was never pretended that the king could lay a tallage on any towns which did not hold of himself), there could have been a parliament which "did not question" the legality of a tallage set without their consent? The silence of the rolls of parliament would furnish but a poor argument. But in fact their language is expressive enough. The several ranks of lords and commons grant the fifteenth penny from the commonalty, and the tenth from the cities, boroughs, and demesnes of the king, "that our lord the king may live of his own, and pay for his expenses, and not aggrieve his people by excessive (outraiouses) prises, or otherwise." And upon this the king revokes the commission in the words of the text. Can anything be clearer than that the parliament, though in a much gentler tone than they came afterwards to a.s.sume, intimate the illegality of the late tallage? As to any other objection to the commissions, which the committee suppose to have been taken, nothing appears on the roll.
[102] Rot. Parl. vol. ii. p. 104.
[103] Id.
[104] Rot. Parl. vol. ii. p. 161.
[105] Case of impositions in Howell"s State Trials, vol. ii. p. 371-519; particularly the argument of Mr. Hakewill. Hale"s Treatise on the Customs, in Hargrave"s Tracts, vol. i.
Edward III. imposed another duty on cloth exported, on the pretence that, as the wool must have paid a tax, he had a right to place the wrought and unwrought article on an equality. The commons remonstrated against this; but it was not repealed. This took place about 22 E. III.
Hale"s Treatise, p. 175.
[106] Rot. Parl. p. 160.
[107] p. 161, 166, 201.
[108] 25 E. III. stat. v. c. 8.
[109] Rot. Parl. vol. ii. p. 366.
[110] Prynne"s 4th Register, p. 289.