16th of February, 1497. In his childhood he made an astonishing
progress in the acquisition of languages. Luther, and his doctrines,
appeared about this time, and Melancthon stood forward as one of their
most strenuous supporters; indeed the Lutheran system was in a great
measure planned by him, and the famous instrument by which it was
publicly declared, called the Confession of Augsburg, was the
production of his pen. Melancthon was the intimate friend of Erasmus,
and Erasmus the patron of Holbein. This connection will account for
his appearance in a Collection of Portraits, drawn by Holbein, of the
principal personages in the Court of Henry the Eighth, though
Melancthon never was in this country. An engraving of him is among the
Holbein Heads, published by Mr. Chamberlaine, and there is a
full-length portrait of this great Reformer, with a fac-simile of his
writing, in his Life, published by the Rev. F. A. Cox, London, 1815,
8vo.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A considerable number of treatises were written in the middle and latter
end of the seventeenth century, and a few in the beginning of the
eighteenth, respecting the period at which the House of Commons asserted
that independence which it is so material to the security and happiness
of the country it should possess, and obtained that share in the
legislature it now enjoys; but the writers on both sides,[35] eager in
the maintenance of the cause they espoused, and taking advantage of the
scanty means the public had of knowing what was contained in the early
Rolls of Parliament[36] and other ancient records, suppressed from
partiality and interested zeal, much of the information themselves
possessed, which rendered of little use to the public an inquiry that
might otherwise have been attended with considerable advantage.
It might be supposed indeed, that when men so remarkable for diligence
and learning, as Prynne and Petyt, (who were both keepers of the records
in the Tower, among which are most of the Rolls of Parliament, and all
the Claus Rolls) took opposite sides of the controversy, about the time
when the Commons first formed a part of the legislature, whatever could
have made for or against either side of the question would have been
produced. And yet with all their opportunities and their eagerness for
research, those who have attentively looked through the Rolls of
Parliament, will find amongst them much matter of importance respecting
the questions those writers discussed at different periods, to which
neither of them referred, either in support of his own, or in
contradiction to his opponent’s argument. Rymer was equally zealous in
supporting the side he took, in the beginning of the last century. Any
thing therefore having been brought to light by the publication of the
Rolls of Parliament, which appears to have escaped the industry and
research of such men, is a strong proof of the utility of printing those
valuable documents.
As early as the 46th of Edward the third, a statute was made, ordaining
that all persons should be entitled to search for, and have
exemplifications of records, as well such as proved contrary to the
interest of the king, as such as were favourable to it.
Great and eminent men, however, not more distinguished by their high
stations, than for their talents and research, stated opinions, some on
points of magnitude, in the pursuit of mere legal investigations,
different from those which are probably entertained by such as have
carefully perused the Parliamentary Records, which were printed during
the reign of his late Majesty.
In corroboration of this assertion, it may be sufficient to mention two
opinions of Lord Coke’s.
The first that the Lords and Commons sat together late in the reign of
king Edward the third[37] and until the Commons had a perpetual Speaker.
The direct contrary of this opinion it is thought is evident from the
Rolls of Parliament. It does not appear from any Records that the two
Houses ever sat for deliberation in the same assembly, from the time the
Commons were regularly summoned in their representative capacity to
Parliament.
On the contrary, so early as the 18th of Edward the first,[38] (Rolls of
Par. vol. 1. p. 25, a. the earliest Roll extant) there is a Grant[39] to
the king for the marriage of his eldest daughter, by several Peers
named, “et cæteri Magnates et Proceres tunc in Parliamento existentes,
pro se et Communitate totius Regni Angliæ quantum in ipsis est;” that
is, “and other Lords and Nobles for themselves and the Community of the
whole kingdom of England, as much as they were able.” In the 19th of
Edward the second (p. 351. a.) there is a grant to the king for carrying
on the war with Scotland, by the Citizens, Burgesses, and Knights for
counties, of a fifteenth of the moveables of the Citizens, Burgesses,
and men of the counties, cities, and towns.
In the 14th of Edward the second (p. 371.) complaint was made by the
Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of felonies for which they besought a
remedy: and the Record concludes “Et Concordatum est per Dominum Regem
de Consilio Prelatorum, Comitum, Baronum, et aliorum Peritorum, in dicto
Parliamento existentium quod,” &c. that is, “and it was agreed between
our Lord the king and the council of Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other
great men in the said Parliament assembled, &c.”
The Entries in the sixth of Edward the third, 1331, (to the Parliament
Rolls of which year Lord Coke particularly refers for proof of the Lords
and Commons then sitting together) which appear to bear on the point in
question, are in vol. ii. p. 66. At the first meeting at Westminster,
the Prelates by themselves, and the Knights for counties by themselves,
deliberated on the business opened to them at the beginning of the
Parliament, and answered by advising the king not to go in person to
Ireland to quell the rebellion there. And in the third meeting in that
year at York, when a statement was made by Geoffrey le Scroop, in the
presence of the king, and “de touz les Grantz en plein Parlement,” of
all the Lords in full Parliament; and afterwards it was agreed by the
king and the whole in full Parliament, that certain Bishops and Peers
named, should meet on the business in discussion by themselves, the
other Prelates, Earls and Barons, and the Proxies by themselves; and the
Knights of the shire and Commons by themselves. The business was
discussed accordingly during some days; after which the Commons had
leave to return to their counties, and the Prelates, Earls, and Barons,
were to remain till the day following.
In the 13th of Edward the third (vol. 2. p. 104.) a grant was made to
the king, “par les Grantz,” of a tenth of the grain of their demesne
lands, and of their fleeces, with certain reservations. The Commons,
however, after representing their having heard the statement of the
king’s necessities, the extent of which they were aware of, and were
willing to relieve as they had always done; said, that as the aid must
be a great one they dared not assent to it without consulting with “les
Communes de leur Pais,” the Commons of their counties. And they desired
another Parliament to be summoned. At which subsequent meeting, in the
same year, (p. 107. b.) the occasion of summoning the Parliament was
explained to the Commons, on which they said they would deliberate. They
afterwards proposed to grant 30,000 sacks of wool on certain conditions,
which if not agreed to by the king, the aid was to be withheld. The
Earls and Barons the same day granted for themselves and the Peers of
the land who held by Barony, the tenth sheaf, the tenth fleece, and the
tenth lamb.
In the 14th of Edward the third, (p. 112, a.) grants were made by the
Prelates, Earls, and Barons, for themselves and all their tenants, and
by the Knights of shires for themselves, and for the commons of the
land, of the ninth sheaf, the ninth fleece, and the ninth lamb; and by
the Citizens and Burgesses of a real ninth of their property; and
merchants not inhabiting cities and towns, and other people who reside
in forests and wastes, and who do not live by their gains or their
flocks, a fifteenth of all their property according to the true value.
In the 15th of Edward the third (p. 127, a.) on occasion of a Grant made
to the king in a former Parliament, to enable him to purchase friends
and allies for the recovery of his rights, having not been as available
as it ought to have been, it was proposed that consideration should be
had, “par touz les Grantz et Communes,” “by all the Lords and Commons,”
how the grant should be made most profitable to the king, and least
burthensome to the people, “les Grantz de par eux, et les Chivalers des
Counteez, Citeyens, et Burgeys de par eux,” that is, “the Lords by
themselves, and the Knights for counties, Citizens and Burgesses by
themselves.”
In the 17th of Edward the third, (p. 136, a.) “les ditz Prelatz et
Grantz assemblez en la Chambre Blanche (the court of requests)
responderent,” &c. (p. 136, 6.) “Et pour vindrent les Chivalers des
Counteez et les Communes et responderent par Monsieur William Trussell
en la dite Chambre Blanche qi’ en Presence de nostre Signeur le Roi et
les ditz Prelates,” &c. that is, “on which day the said Prelates and
Lords assembled in the _Chambre Blanche_, answered,” &c. “And then came
the Knights for counties, and the Commons, and answered by Monsieur
William Trussell in the said _Chambre Blanche_, and in the presence of
our Lord the king, and the said Prelates,” &c.
There can be little doubt but that this William Trussell was Speaker of
the House of Commons. He is styled by Higden, who wrote in the reign of
Edward the third, in his “Polychronicon,” “Procurator of the
Parliament,” when he, in the name of all the men in the land of England,
renounced allegiance to king Edward the second, in the last year of that
king’s reign.
The Speaker of the Commons was indeed styled “Parlour and Procurator,”
so late as the first of Henry the fourth. (Rolls of Parl. vol. 3. p.
424, b.)
In the 18th of Edward the third, when the king was going-to France for
the recovery of his rights, the grants by the Lords and Commons were
quite distinct; the former to accompany him in the war, “les ditz grantz
granterent de passer et lour aventurer ovesque lui;” the Commons
granted, for the same cause, two fifteenths of the commonalty, and two
tenths of the cities and boroughs. (Rolls of Parl. vol. 2. p. 150, b.)
There are other grants in this reign by the Commons; 20th of Edward the
third, (p. 159, b.) and 21st of Edward the third, (p. 166.) In the 22d
of Edward the third, (p. 200.) the Commons grant an aid, after several
days consideration, but under certain conditions. In the 29th of Edward
the third, (p. 265, b.) there is a separate grant by the Commons.
In the 40th of Edward the third, after the occasion of summoning the
Parliament had been explained, the Lords and Commons were directed to
depart, and to meet again on the day following, the Lords “en la Chambre
Blanche,” and the Commons in the painted Chamber. (Vol. 2. p. 289.)
In the 42d of Edward the third (p. 227, a.) a Petition of the Commons,
and the answers thereto, were read in the Court of Requests, in the
presence of the King, Lords, and Commons; and a statement was made to
the king in this Parliament “par les Grantz et Communes,” by the Lords
and Commons, all the former and many of the latter having dined with the
king; after which John de la Lee was put on his defence before them in
the said place.
In the 50th of Edward the third, (p. 283.) the Commons profess the
utmost loyalty and goodwill to the king; but add, that if he had
faithful ministers about him, he must be rich enough to do without
subsidies, especially considering the sums of money brought into the
kingdom by the ransoms of the king of France, the king of Scotland, &c.
They then proceed to the impeachment of a considerable number of
persons.
And in the 51st of Edward the third, (p. 363.) on the opening of the
Parliament, the Commons were directed by the king to retire to their
ancient place of meeting, in the Chapter House of the abbey of
Westminster. To this record Lord Coke himself refers.
It will be seen in the note p. 146, that Sir Thomas Hungerford is
mentioned as Speaker of the House of Commons; and in the first of
Richard the second, that Peter de la Mare was Speaker of the Commons.
The second opinion of Lord Coke’s to which allusion has already been
made, is, that if an act mentions only that the king enacts, and the
Lords assent, without naming the Commons, the omission cannot be
supplied by any intendment. Lord Coke expressly says, if an act be
penned, that “the king with the assent of the Lords,” or “with the
assent of the Commons,” it is no act of Parliament, for three ought to
assent to it, the King, the Lords, and the Commons; or otherwise it is
not an act of Parliament; and by the record of the act it is expressed
which of them gave their assent; and that excludes all other intendments
that any other gave their assent. (Lord Coke, 8th Report, p. 20, b.)
How dangerous it would be to decide on the validity of our statutes, on
such ground, will be seen by a single instance.
The act of the first of Edward the sixth against exporting horses
without a licence, after the recital in the preamble, runs thus; “For
remedy whereof, be it therefore enacted by our sovereign lord the king,
and by the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same,”—the Lords being not once mentioned in the
statute, which is accurately printed from the original act.
Now it appears by the Lords’ Journals, (vol. 1. p. 303, a,) that this
act had not only the assent of the House of Lords, but that it had its
origin in that House, where it passed unanimously, (p. 306, a.) was
returned from the Commons with a proviso, which was agreed to by the
Lords, (p. 312, a.) and is in the Journals among the acts passed that
session. (p. 313, a.)
There has not been found in the Records, the slightest foundation for an
opinion, that there was any election of representatives of the Commons
earlier than the 49th of Henry the third, 1265, except in the entry
respecting the borough of St. Alban’s, so often referred to by different
writers. It is, however, certain that those who held _in capite_ of the
king, were a necessary part of the great council, as early as king
John’s time, when aids and escuage were to be granted to the sovereign.
In the 52d of Henry the third, 1268, a parliament, or more properly a
great council, of Barons only, was held at Marlborough, where the great
charter was confirmed. The members of this parliament or council were
such of the great Barons and Tenants _in capite_, as the king pleased to
summon thereto.
King Edward the first, at Easter, 1276, held a parliament at
Westminster, of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and
_Commons_, wherein many excellent laws were made, called the Statutes of
Westminster the first. It is proper to mention that the _Commons_ here
spoken of, were not Knights of shires, or Burgesses, but the smaller
Tenants who held in chief of the king, or Tenants _in capite_.
It is generally said by our Historians, that the first time that any
Citizens, or Burgesses were summoned to parliament by the king’s
authority, was in the 23d year of king Edward the first, 1294, but the
editors of the Parliamentary History (vol. 1. p. 87,) have shewn that
the same king, in the eleventh year of his reign, 1283, called a
parliament to be holden at Shrewsbury, on occasion of taking prisoner,
David, brother of Llewellyn, prince of Wales, the latter having lately
been killed in battle.
The king in summoning this Parliament was more explicit than he had ever
been before. The writs of summons are still extant. The first is
directed to the Barons to meet the king at Shrewsbury, on the 30th of
September. The second writ is directed to the sheriffs of every county
in England, to cause to be chosen two Knights for the commonalty of the
county, as also a third directed to the several cities and boroughs
mentioned, and a fourth writ to the Judges.
Mr. Tyrrell observes, that “neither Prynne nor Dr. Brady, with all their
diligence, have taken any notice of these writs to summon this
Parliament.
“The writs were directed to all the Earls and Barons by name, to the
number of 110; but the writs to the cities and boroughs are more
remarkable, especially as they are the first upon record, requiring the
attendance of the Knights of the shire, Citizens, and Burgesses, except
those issued in the name of the late king Henry the third.”
The cities and boroughs to which these writs were directed were the
following:—Bristol, Canterbury, Carlisle, Colchester, Chester, Exeter,
Grimsby, Hereford, Lynn, Lincoln, Newcastle (Tyne,) Norwich,
Northampton, Nottingham, Scarborough, Shrewsbury, Winchester, Worcester,
Yarmouth, (Norfolk) and York.
In the 23d of Edward the third, 1294, a Parliament was summoned to meet
at Westminster, and writs were sent to the several sheriffs of England
to cause to be elected two Knights for each county, two Citizens for
each city, and two Burgesses for each borough, to be at the said
Parliament, to consent and agree to such things, as the Earls, Barons,
and Peers of the Realm should ordain; and from this year is to be dated
the first regular general summons of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses to
Parliament. It is proper to observe that in this Parliament, the Earls,
Barons, and Knights of the several counties, sat, treated, and consulted
altogether, and gave the king an eleventh part of all their moveable
goods; the Citizens and Burgesses acted separately, and granted a
seventh part of all their moveables.
In the more early period of the history of the House of Commons, when
the Parliament frequently sat only for a single day, the whole business
being to grant the king a subsidy, it is probable that the Speaker might
with more propriety be called the chairman, for sometimes one of the
members was appointed to the chair, and sometimes another; some
resolutions were ordered to be made by one member, and others to be
reported by another.
In the 19th of Edward the second, 1325, William Trussell was in the
chair, when Hugh Spenser the younger was accused of Treason, in
Parliament.
In the 6th of Edward the First, the Commons made answer to the king by
Sir Geoffrey le Scroop, and it was agreed by the king, and the whole in
full Parliament, that certain Bishops and Peers named, should meet on
the business in discussion by themselves; the other Prelates, Earls, and
Barons, and the Proxies[40] by themselves; and the Knights of the shires
and Commons by themselves. In the fifty first of the same king Sir
Thomas Hungerfore was Speaker of the Commons.
In the first of Richard the Second, 1377, Sir Peter de la Mare, knight
of the shire for the county of Hereford, was Speaker of the Commons, as
he had been in the last Parliament but one of Edward the Third. In the
fifth of the former king, 1382, Sir Richard Waldegrave was chosen by the
Commons to be their Speaker, who made an excuse, and desired to be
discharged. He is the first Speaker that appears upon record to have
made an excuse, but the king commanded him, upon his allegiance, to
accept the office, seeing he had been chosen by the Commons.
In the fifth of Henry the fourth, 1404, Sir Arnold Savage being chosen
Speaker, after making an excuse, requested the king, in the name of the
Commons, that they might freely make complaint of any thing amiss in the
government, and that the king would not by the sinister information of
any person take offence at that of which they should complain, which
petition was granted by the king.
In the seventh year of the same king, 1406, Sir John Tiptoft being
chosen Speaker, made an excuse on account of his youth, which not being
accepted, he requested that if any writing was delivered by the Commons,
and they should desire to have it again, to amend or alter any thing
therein, it might be restored to them, which was granted. Whilst he was
Speaker, he signed and sealed in the name of the Commons the deed which
entailed the crown upon Henry the fourth. This _young_ Speaker is said
to have taken more upon him, and to have spoken more boldly and freely
to the King and the Lords, than any before him, insomuch that his
example being followed, the king gave a check to it, when Thomas
Chaucer, Esq. was chosen Speaker in his room.
In the 20th of Henry the sixth, 1450, the Commons presented Sir John
Popham to the king as their Speaker, who making an excuse, it was
received, and he was discharged, on which the Commons presented William
Tresham, who had twice before been Speaker, who was accepted.
In the 31st of the same king, 1453, Thomas Thorpe, Esq. Speaker of the
House of Commons was arrested in execution at the suit of the Duke of
York during the vacation between two sessions, and the opinion of the
judges being demanded by the Lords, they refused to judge of the
liberties of Parliament as not belonging to their jurisdiction,
whereupon the Lords without their advice adjudged that the Speaker was
not entitled to any privilege, which, on being-signified to the Commons,
and also the king’s pleasure being made known to them that they should
choose another Speaker, they chose Sir Thomas Charleton.
In the 15th of Henry the eighth, 1523, Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster, was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons. He
made the usual protestation for himself, and prayed that if any member
should in debate speak more largely than he ought, that he might be
pardoned by the king, which was granted.
In the first year of queen Elizabeth, 1559, Sir Thomas Gargrave was
chosen Speaker; in his speech to the queen he made four requests, namely
first, free access to her majesty; secondly, for liberty of speech;
thirdly, privilege from arrests; and fourthly, that his mistakes might
not prejudice the house.
In Scotland the system of representation was not adopted till the reign
of James the first, of that kingdom, in 1427. By an act of that year it
was enacted, that “the king with consent of the whole council generally
has statute and ordained that the small Barons and free Tenants need not
to come to Parliaments nor general councils, so that of each sheriffdom
there be sent, chosen at the head court of the sheriffdom, two or more
wise men after the largeness of the sheriffdom, &c.”—Scottish Acts
printed in 1682, p. 30.
In Scotland the Lords and Commons unquestionably sat in the same House
till the Union of the two kingdoms, and the Commissioner who represented
the sovereign, debated with them from the throne, although he had the
power, which he sometimes used, of adjourning the assembly when he
pleased.
Footnote 35:
Several of these were men remarkable for their talents and learning:
among whom were Petyt, Tyrrel, Sir Robert Filmer, Dr. Brady, Prynne,
Rymer, &c. &c.
Petyt and Prynne were keepers of the Records in the Tower; and Rymer,
who was the king’s Historiographer, had a warrant not only to search
the Records in every office in the kingdom, but to make copies of such
as he should select for publication. How diligent he was in using this
authority is evident from the invaluable collection of Records, &c.
published by him, and from a large collection of others in manuscript,
now in the Museum.
Petyt makes a direct charge, and not unfounded, against Prynne, for an
intended omission of a reference to the Rolls of Parliament (2d Hen.
V. p. 2. No. 10.) in the Abridgment of the Rolls made by Sir Robert
Cotton, and printed by Prynne.