A. R. 25. The Mayor and Two Bailiffs, of common assent, elected two Members for Northampton. Two Coroners, the Custos, and twenty-four Citizens, for Norwich. Thirty-five "Probes Hommes" for Newcastle-uponTyne. The Mayor, two others, and the whole Community for Oxford. Four Electors for Wycombe. The Mayor and Community of Burgesses, for New Windsor. A. R. 27. Twenty-nine Electors, elected Knights for the County of Devon, and the same individuals, at the same time, chose the Members for Seven Cities and Boroughs. A similar practice obtained in the years, 28, 29, 33. Two Members are returned as elected for Grimsby (Lincolnshire) by two Bailiffs. A. R. 28. Twenty-three persons, present at the Proclamation by the Sheriff in the County Court of Northumberland, elected Two Knights, who themselves voted for their own Elections Two Bailiffs, in the presence of Seven Burgesses, elected the Members for Dunwich; and Two Bailiffs deliver to the Sheriff of Gloucester the names of two Burgesses, elected by Twelve other Burgesses. Two Bailiffs cause to be elected, in the presence of Fourteen Electors and other Resident Burgesses, two Burgesses for Ipswich. A. R. 29. The Mayor and Bailiffs, with the assent of the whole community, elected the Members for Portsmouth; and Fourteen Electors, those for Worcester. One Knight, two Esquires and two others, "et alii notabiles armigeri, generosi et homines libere tenentes qui expendere possunt 40 solidos per ann., &c., prout patet in quadam certificatione," elected two "notabiles Armigeros infra Comitatum commorantes et residentes," for Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. The Indenture was signed by the Sheriff and Four other persons. A Declaration, signed by 124 Freeholders, complaining of a false return by the Sheriff of Huntingdonshire was also sent to the King. A. R. 33. Six Burgesses are the Electors for Colchester. Four Burgesses, by assent of the rest, elected the Burgesses of every Borough in Dorsetshire, and returned them by a joint Indenture. Six Burgesses elected the Members for Maldon. A. R. 38. The Mayor and Bailiffs and Twelve others made the Election for Chichester. Fifteen, for Nottingham. Five, and many others dwelling and residing in the Borough, for Guildford. Twenty-five for Kingston-uponHull. (b) These instances, to which many others may be added, are sufficient to shew the manner and form of Elections even in those periods of our history when the Constitution of the Legislative Assemblies is generally supposed to have been established on a regular and secure basis. The period of the Tudors and Stuarts will not be selected as more perfect examples of constitutional integrity in this respect, though the abuses which sprung up under their government, gave rise to arrangements more legitimate, and less capable of violation. If Representation was only the result of the precept, 49 Henry III., to the Sheriffs, "Quod venire facias duos Milites sing. com., &c.," and after (b) The form of Election for the Borough of Lynn Regis in the years 11 and 15 Hen. VI., is preserved in their Hall Books, which record Portions of the Proceedings of the Corporation of that Borough from the year 1430 to 1731. On June 17, 1433, 11 Henry VI., "The King's Writ was publicly read for electing Members of Parliament: and for electing them, the Mayor called two of the Twenty Four, and two of the Common Council, which Four chose two more of the Twenty Four, and two of the Common Council, and these chose Four others, who all unanimously chose John Waterden and Thomas Spicer to be Burgesses in Parliament." Again, Jan. 7, 1437, 15 Henry VI., Two of the Twenty Four and Two of the Council were called by the Mayor, by the Assent of the whole Congregation, who called two others, who called two more, and these Eight called Two, and these Ten called Two, which Twelve were charged, being sworn according to custom to preserve the liberty of the Town, to choose Two Burgesses for the Borough of Lyn, to go to the Parliament on the 21st day of January next ensuing, to be held at Cambridge or London. See Archæologia, Vol. xxiv, 1832. wards of Edward I., "Quod eligi facias, &c., de dicto Comitatu," it is not surprising that a great variety should obtain in the practice of different Counties, in the selection of Cities and Boroughs, in the manner of Election, or in the Levy of Wages. The difficulty which prevails with regard to the character of the Flectors, exists in no less a degree as to the principle adopted in the selection of such Cities and Boroughs, as were to send Representatives. Those which are named in the Writs of the 49 Henry III., the Cities of York and Lincoln, and the Cinque Ports, held immediately of the King, as did also the places required to send in the 11th Edward I., except Chester, of which the King then held the Earldom in his own hands, and Chester held of the Earl. a Edward seemed, even in his 23d year, to exercise a discretionary power in issuing Writs for Cities and Boroughs. After the Charter granted in his 25th year, the Convention of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses became necessary measure, whenever the Crown required an Aid, but the principles by which the Cities and Boroughs were selected, is involved in great obscurity. According to Prynne, the whole number of Cities, Boroughs and Ports to which Writs were issued under Edward I., II., III., Richard II., Henry IV., V., VI., and Edward IV., was but 170. Some of these made no return, and had no second Writs, thus reducing the number to 161. Many of them returned but once, others only four or five times, others, again, after a long discontinuance. New Boroughs received Writs and returned under Edward II. and III., Henry VI., Edward IV.; and after his time, new Boroughs, though poor and inconsiderable, were set up by later returns, "by the practices of Sheriffs or ambitious gentlemen, not by prescription or Charter." This Author ascribes the origin of Boroughs "not to custom or prescription, nor the Charters of Kings, but to the Sheriff's Precepts directed to such Cities and Boroughs as they thought meet, by the authority granted under the general Clause in the King's Writs of Summons, each Sheriff using an arbitrary power in the execution of the Clause, according to his judgment, or his affections of favour, partiality, malice, or the solicitations of Boroughs or Competitors." Hence it happened that some Sheriffs returned more than their Predecessors, others fewer. Some poor Boroughs refused to make any election by reason of their poverty, inability, or as having no fit persons to elect, or any who would serve. Others constantly sent, except under peculiar circumstances. Others were constrained to send Members against their will, and made complaint to the King, who relieved them of the charge and trouble. Others again were discharged by the Sheriffs, or at their own desire obtained temporary or perpetual exemptions, from the King; and thus lost their privilege. That the Sheriffs, erected, nominated, returned, omitted, discontinued, revived, and re-continued Boroughs, according to their own will and pleasure, seems evident from the returns for Lancaster. Under the Three first Edwards, thirteen Sheriffs returned Members thirteen times for Lancaster, and six times for Preston; and yet, in twenty-six intervening years, other Sheriffs make the return, "Non est aliqua Civis neque Burgus in Balliva mea," or none that could send, "propter paupertatem;" or, again, none, "qui ad aliqua Parliamenta retroactis temporibus venire consueverunt." In 26 Edward I., the Sheriff for Bucks returns, "Nulli sunt Cives, &c.," yet in 28 Edward I., two Burgesses each are returned for Amersham, Wycombe and Wendover. The Sheriffs' frequent Return, "non est alia Civitas vel Burgus in Comitatu," though, in Parliaments immediately following, Returns are made from other Boroughs in the same County, indicates either such exclusive Power on the part of the Sheriff, or that such Cities or Boroughs were, in consequence, perhaps, of such defective Return, created by Special Patents or by direction of the King, near the year of the last Return. That some Cities or Boroughs, which appear in subsequent Returns, were often omitted from the mere carelessness of the Sheriffs, is made evident from the Statutes, 5 Richard II., Parl. 2, c. 2, for punishing Sheriffs who leave out Cities and Boroughs which are bound, and of old times wont, to send Members; and from Statute, 22 Henry VI., c. 15. The same omission occurred from the default of such Cities and Boroughs themselves, in not demanding Warrants, or in not electing and returning Burgesses upon the issue of the Sheriff's Warrants; in consequence of which neglect, the Return was, "Nullum mihi dederunt Responsum." It has been stated that several Boroughs, by direction of the Sheriff, or under other influence, returned Burgesses three or four times, very much against their wills and desires, and never elected or returned any afterwards. Such appears to have been the case in the frequently cited case of the Borough of Chiping Torington, Devon, though their claim of exemption was not as complete as it was then represented by themselves. In 42 Edw. III., they urged by Petition to the King, "That they ought not to be so burdened with sending men, neither did they send any before the 21st of his Reign, when the Sheriff maliciously returned into the Chancery, that the said Town was a Borough, and so, from that year, by Pretext of the said Return, the Town had been many times put to great pains and expenses, to their no small grievance and damage, and manifest impoverishing." Upon this Petition, the King granted them an exemption by Patent. It may, however, be remarked, that whatever might be the Power or Malice of the Sheriff in the year 21, this Borough had, in fact, sent Burgesses to 17 Parliaments before that year, though in the three immediately preceding, 17, 19 and 20 Edward III., the Return had been "Ballivi nullum Responsum dederunt." From 21 to 42 Edward III., they had also sent Burgesses to 11 Parliaments. Notwithstanding these Precedents the Patent of Exemption was granted, and notwithstanding this Patent, they were obliged to send Burgesses, annis 43, and 45 Edward III. After which they never elected or returned any Members. Some ancient Boroughs and Ports, which never sent above once or twice, or very rarely, have, after a discontinuance of one or two hundred years, a term which entirely subverted their claim of Prescription, or "Custom time out of mind," (the supposed Title of most ancient Parliamentary Boroughs sending Members) been revived and erected, either by Special Charters, creating them Boroughs, by the general Clause in the Sheriff's Writ, or, in later times, by the mere Order of the Commons, without the previous or concurrent assent of the King or Lords. The poor and decayed Boroughs, as they are called, of Cornwall, Devon, Wilts, Hants, Sussex, &c., which were so denominated even in the time of the Long Parliament, the Commonwealth, and of Charles II., have been erected at very different periods. The Cornish Boroughs, Launceston, Leskard, Truro, Bodmin, Helston, and Tregony, first returned Members in 23 Edward I.; Lostwithiel, 33 Edward I.; Eastlow and Fowey, 34 Edward I.; Saltash, Camelford, Westlow, Grampound, Bossiney, St. Michael, Newport, 6 Edward VI.; Penryn, 1 Mary; St. Ives, 4 and 5 Philip and Mary; St. German's and St. Mawes, 5 Elizabeth; Kellington, 27 Elizabeth. Of the Cities and Boroughs of Devon, Exeter, Totness, Barnstaple, Plympton, Tavestock, returned Burgesses 23 Edward I.; Plymouth, Ashburton, Dartmouth, 26 Edward I.; Okehampton and Honyton, 28 Edward I.; Beeralston, 27 Elizabeth; Tiverton, 18 Jac. In the County of Wilts, Old Sarum returned Burgesses 23 Edward I., then intermitted till 34 Edward III., since which it has constantly sent. New Sarum has sent ever since 23 Edward I. Wilton continued to send from 23 Edward I. Downton returned Members from 23 Edward I. to 38 Edward III., and except 1 Henry V., ceased till 20 Henry VI. The first Return for Hindon is 27 Henry VI., no answer having been made to a Precept 7 Richard II. Heytesbury and Westbury first made Returns 27 or 28 Henry VI. Calne returned Burgesses under Edward I., but except 1 Edward II., and 34, 36, Edward III., intermitted till 2 Richard II. Devizes sent Members to the Parliaments of Edward I., but made only four Returns, 1, 8, 8, 19 Edward II. till 4 Edward III. Chippenham, after Edward I., sent only to 2 of Edward the Second's Parliaments, and to 4 of Edward III., and then intermitted till Richard II., and again ceased sending 12 Richard II., till 1 Henry VI. Malmsbury sent Members ab origine. Cricklade sent Members to the Parliaments of Edward I., but afterwards only 20 Edward II,. and to eight Parliaments of Edward III., and after Richard II., (except 1 Henry IV., and 1, 2, and 9, of Henry V.) ceased sending till Henry VI. Great Bedwin and Lugershall sent to all Edward the First's Parliaments, to 1 and 8 Edward II., 36, 37, Edward III., and seven Parliaments of Richard II; but after his 10th year intermitted (except 1 Henry IV.) till 9 Henry V. Wotten Bassett first sent 25 Henry VI. Marlborough sent ab origine. No precise account can be given of the causes of these varieties and intermissions. They must be sought in some of the particular accidents which have been already assigned as the sources of the existing constitution of the Legislative Body. The inevitable conclusion, however, which results from this inquiry, is, that the presence of Representatives of the People was in those days considered very immaterial, and that the People themselves used their best exertions to escape from the burden and charges of Representation, while they placed a voluntary confidence in the discretion and judgment of the Sovereign, and his selected or hereditary Counsellors. Since the Statutes 4 Richard II., 1 Henry V., 23 Henry VI., no Sheriffs, by virtue of the King's Writ, can erect, or enable any newly created, or long discontinued Borough to choose and return Burgesses, whatever the they anciently did. The Statutes of 27, 34, 35, Henry VIII., declare, that they can only be created and revived by special Acts of Parliament. “All Boroughs," says Prynne, "which have been erected, or poor ones which have been revived since 23 H Henry VI., by Sheriff's Precepts, mig might justly be suppressed by 'Quo Warranto, and ought to be disabled, as well for their disability, as the manifold gross disorders, corruptions, and abuses, in selling their voices, by tumultuous, surreptitious, and fraudulent Elections, and false and double Returns, which take up more time of the Commons' House, than all public business of highest concernment." One evident cause of the disinclination which prevailed, in the earlier periods of our History, to send Representatives to Parliament, was the necessity of paying the Wages of the Members so returned. Many of the Boroughs being unable or unwilling to defray these Expences, either neglected to answer the Sheriff's Writ, or petitioned to be exempted from an insupportable Charge. The first Writ for levying Wages, "de Expensis," is coeval with the first known attendance of Knights in the Parliament, 49 Henry III. The King's Writ, tested 10 Feb., the last day of this Meeting, directs the Sheriffs to assess, by a Jury of Four lawful Knights, the reasonable expences of the Representative Knights, "veniendo, morando et redeundo," so that the County, "ultra modum non gravetur;" and assigns as the reason why such a Writ was granted, that "iidem Milites moram diuturniorem quam credebant traxerint ibidem, propter quod non modicas fecerint Expensas," which it was fit the Commonalties electing them should defray, and not themselves. Though many of the Writs subsequent to this Period are not now extant, it appears from the Clause "prout alias in casu consimili fieri consuevit," in those of 28, 29 and 33 Edward I., that they continued to be issued at the end of every Parliament. These Writs were at first very general and indefinite, expressing neither the sum to be paid, the names of those who were to receive payment, nor the term of their Services. In the 28 Edward I., the second Writs that occur, the names of the several Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, are sent to the Sheriffs of the respective Counties; and in later Writs, the particular sums are specified, with the number of days for which payment is to be made. In 33 Edward I., by Proclamation of the King, the Commons are ordered to sue forth their own Writs of Expences; a course which was afterwards customary at the end of every Parliament. In 35 Edward I., the Writs for Citizens and Burgesses are addressed to the Mayors, Bailiffs, and other Officers of the respective Cities and Boroughs, and not, as before, to the Sheriffs. In 2 Edward II., the Sheriff is commanded to return the Writ of Expences, with a Certificate of the amount levied for Wages, under his own Seal, and that of two Sworn Knights; and the same order is made to the Mayors and Bailiffs, who are to act with two Sworn Burgesses. The Writs, 16 Edward II., first reduced the wages to a definite amount, namely to 4s. a day for every Knight of the Shire, and 2s. for every Citizen and Burgess, in coming, staying, and returning. The Expences of each Member are ascertained by a sum total, which includes the number of days for which the charge was made, some Members being allowed more days than others, by reason of the remoteness of the different Counties, Cities, or Boroughs, from the Place where the Parliament was held. To those who lived in the immediate neighbourhood, or even in the same County, no extra days are granted, "veniendo, redeundo," and payment is awarded only for those on which they actually sat, when, together with their Expences, terminated also their Privilege of Freedom from Actions and Arrest. (c) The amount of Wages, however, in cheap years, or for other reasons, sometimes varied. Thus, 17 Edward II., the Knights are ordered to receive 3s. 4d. only, and the Citizens and Burgesses 20d.; and 18 Edward II., the former only 2s. 6d., and the latter, probably, 15d. Till 15 Edward III., the Knights, by Order, received a higher sum than those who were not such, in the proportion, generally, of 4s. to 3s., and the King altered these Expences in a proportion answerable to their respective degrees, and not over burdensome to the Community which paid them. (d) As the amount of wages varied according to the distance from which Members were sent, it sometimes happened that the days allowed for the Journey to and fro, exceeded those of the actual Session of the Parliament. Thus, 4 Edward III., the Parliament, at Wynton, sat but eleven days, though the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses of Cumberland, were allowed wages for twenty-seven days, of which sixteen were for the expences of their Journies. The Parliament at York, 9 Edward III., sat but eight days, but the Members froin Cornwall had thirty-two days granted them for Expences. In the 14th Edward III., the Sheriffs are commanded to make a Return into the Exchequer of all Sums, levied, received, and paid as wages. In the 28th Edward III., the Commons petition concerning the Expences of Knights of Shires, on a controverted Question between the Tenants of (c) A single exception occurs 12 Edward 3, when the Parliament sat 11 days, and 12 days are allowed to the Knights for Middlesex, half a day coming, and the same returning. Prynne, iv., 161, by some mistake has 44 days. (d) Knights, by Order, have the addition Chivaler, from which it appears that nearly half or more of those elected were only Esquires or Gentlemen of quality. Prynne, iv., 375. With few exceptions the Wages for Knights continued to be 4s., and for Citizens and Burgesses 2s., for some centuries, even in the reign of Charles 2, not withstanding the immense difference in the value of Money. Prynne is of opinion, that, in his day (1660) Forty Shillings were scarcely equivalent to 4s. when Wages were first determined. f |