pressed him to continue the war, and furnished him with large
subsidies; and all classes of society bestirred themselves to
support the king in a conflict which had become national. In
1343, the Parliament was convoked to examine and advise what had
best be done in the existing state of affairs, especially in
regard to the treaty recently concluded by the king with his
enemy the king of France. Sir Bartholomew Burghersh told the
Parliament that "as the war was begun by the common advice of the
prelates, great men, and commons, the king could not treat of, or
make peace, without the like assent." [Footnote 44]
[Footnote 44: Ibid. p. 106.]
The two houses deliberated separately, and gave their opinion
that the king ought to make peace if he could obtain a truce that
would be honourable and advantageous to himself and his friends;
but if not, the Commons declared that they would aid and maintain
his quarrel with all their power. In 1344, when the truce with
the king of France had been broken off by him, the Parliament, on
being consulted, manifested a desire for peace, but thought it
could only be obtained by carrying on the war with energy, and
voted large subsidies for the purpose. In 1348, the war had
become increasingly burdensome; all the subsidies proved
insufficient; and the king again consulted the Parliament
"concerning the war undertaken with its consent." The Commons,
perceiving that they had gone rather too far in their language,
now showed greater reserve and answered "that they were not able
to advise anything concerning the war, and therefore desired to
be excused as to that point; and that the king will be advised by
his nobles and council, and what shall be by them determined,
they would consent unto, confirm, and establish." [Footnote 45]
[Footnote 45: Parliamentary History, vol. i. p. 115.]
{486}
The French Wars.
In 1354, the Lord Chamberlain, by the king's command, informed
the Parliament: "That there was great hopes of bringing about a
peace between England and France, yet the king would not conclude
anything without the consent of his Lords and Commons. Wherefore
he demanded of them, in the king's name, whether they would
assent and agree to a peace, if it might be had by treaty." To
this the Commons replied at first, "that what should be agreeable
to the king and his council in making of this treaty, would be so
to them;" but on being asked again, "If they consented to a
perpetual peace, if it might be had," they all unanimously cried
out, Yea! Yea! [Footnote 46] Finally, on the 25th of January,
1361, peace having been concluded by the treaty of Bretigny, the
Parliament was convoked, the treaty was submitted to its
inspection and received its approval, and on the 31st a solemn
ceremony took place in the cathedral church at Westminster, when
all the members of Parliament, both Lords and Commons,
individually swore upon the altar to observe the peace.
[Footnote 46: Ibid. p. 122.]
In 1368, the negotiations with Scotland were submitted to the
consideration of the Parliament; the king of Scotland, David
Bruce, offered peace on condition of being relieved from all
homage of his crown to the king of England. The Lords and Commons
replied, "That they could not assent to any such peace, upon any
account, without a disherison of the king, his heirs and crown,
which they themselves were sworn to preserve, and therefore must
advise him not to hearken to any such propositions;" [Footnote
47] and they voted large subsidies to continue the war.
[Footnote 47: Ibid. vol. i. p. 131.]
In 1369, the king consulted the Parliament as to whether he
should recommence the war with France, because the conditions of
the last treaty had not been observed; the Parliament advised him
to do so, and votes subsidies.
These facts prove the most direct and constant intervention of
the Commons in matters of peace and war. Nor did they seek to
elude this responsibility, so long as the war was successful and
national. When the subsidies became excessive, they manifested
greater reserve in giving their opinion beforehand.
{487}
When fortune turned decidedly against Edward III., at the close
of his reign, the Commons, as we shall presently see, took
advantage of the right of intervention which they had acquired,
to possess themselves also of the right of impeaching the
ministers to whom they attributed the misfortunes of the time.
All this follows in the natural course of things, and clearly
demonstrates the continually increasing influence of the Commons
in political matters.
Influence On The Administration.
In regard to the internal administration of the country, their
progress was not less perceptible. Until the reign of Edward III.
all attempts to encroach upon the central government had
originated with the barons; it was the barons who, under Henry
III. and Edward II., had seized upon the right of appointing to
great public offices, and of disposing of the revenues of the
State. In 1342, the Commons ventured a similar endeavour, less
direct and arrogant in its character, but tending towards the
same object by more regular and better chosen means. Profiting by
the necessities of the king, who was then destitute of funds, and
utterly unable to continue the war with France, they presented to
him the two following petitions:
1. "That certain by commission may hear the account of those
who have received wools, moneys, or other aid for the king, and
that the same may be enrolled in the chancery." To this the
king consented, upon condition that the treasurer and lord
chief baron should be members of the commission.
2. "That the chancellor and other officers of state may be
chosen in open Parliament, and at the same time be openly sworn
to observe the laws of the land and Magna Charta." To this also
the king consented, but with these restrictions: "That if any
such office, by the death or other failure of the incumbent,
become void, the choice to remain solely in the king, he taking
therein the assent of his council; but that every such officer
shall be sworn at the next Parliament, according to the
petition; and that every Parliament following the king shall
resume into his hands all such offices, so as the said officers
shall be left liable to answer all objections." [Footnote 48]
[Footnote 48: Parliamentary History, vol. i. p. 104. ]
These decisions were immediately converted into statutes. The
chancellor and treasurer, with the judges and other officers of
the crown, were required to swear to observe them upon the cross
of Canterbury.
{488}
The chancellor, treasurer, and several judges, protested against
this act, as being contrary to their first oath and to the laws
of the realm; their protest was entered upon the rolls of
Parliament, but the statute was nevertheless definitively passed.
The Commons had now obtained the most formal recognition of the
responsibility of ministers to Parliament. The most pressing
necessities alone had extorted consent from the king. Scarcely
had the Parliament dissolved, when the king, by his own authority
only, formally revoked the statute by writs addressed to all the
sheriffs; and it is a most singular circumstance that so illegal
an act excited no remonstrance, and that the statute was revoked
by the Parliament itself in the year following.
Interference With Ministers.
The mere attempt, however, was a great step. It proves that two
fundamental ideas had taken possession of the minds of the
representatives of the Commons; first, that the Parliament ought
to exercise some influence over the choice of the king's
ministers; secondly, that these ministers should be responsible
to Parliament for their conduct. As to the first point, the
Commons of the fourteenth century employed a very bad method of
obtaining it, by claiming that their influence over the choice of
the agents of the supreme power should be direct, and by
interfering directly in the appointment of ministers; they
prodigiously weakened, if they did not utterly destroy,
ministerial responsibility: and the progress of representative
government has proved that indirect influence, exercised in such
matters by a majority of the Parliament, is alone admissible and
efficacious. But it was a great thing for the Commons to have
attained such growth as to dare to entertain such an idea of
their rights. They resumed the exercise of these rights, with
greater success, at the close of this reign. The king was old and
feeble; his arms were everywhere unsuccessful; abuses multiplied
at his court; Edward had fallen beneath the sway of favourites;
one of his sons, the Duke of Lancaster, alone enjoyed his favour,
and abused it; a woman, named Alice Perers or Pierce, possessed a
shameful influence over him, which she employed chiefly in
supporting the interest of her friends, in the courts of justice.
She might often be seen, sitting within the precincts of the
judicial tribunals, intimidating by her presence the judges whom
she had pestered with her solicitations.
{489}
Their Impeachment.
A report was spread at the same time that the Duke of Lancaster
intended to have himself declared heir to the crown, to the
prejudice of the youthful son of the Black Prince, who was then
in a dying state, and who possessed the affection of the whole
nation. A Parliament was convoked in 1376; and a powerful party
in both Houses pronounced against the ministers of the king. In
the Upper House, the Black Prince himself led the attack, and in
the Lower House, the opposition was headed by Peter de la Mare.
The Commons demanded that the king's council should be augmented
by ten or twelve members, prelates, lords, or others; that no
important matter should be decided without the consent of six or
four of them; and finally, that all the officers of the crown
should be sworn to receive no present, emolument, or reward
beyond their legal salaries and expenses. The king consented to
all these demands upon condition that he should himself appoint
the new councillors, and that the chancellor, the treasurer, and
the keeper of the privy seal should be allowed to discharge the
duties of their office without their interference. The Commons
next endeavoured to obtain that the justices of peace in each
county should be appointed by the lords and knights of that
county in Parliament, and should not be removed without their
consent; but the king refused to grant this. The Commons
continued to complain of the king's evil counsellors, attributing
to them the distress into which the king had fallen, the
dilapidation of the subsidies, and so forth. Finally, with a view
to the immediate application of the principles which they
maintained, they formerly impeached the Lords Latimer and Nevil,
who occupied posts in the king's household, and four merchants of
London, named Lyon, Ellis, Peachey, and Bury, who were farmers of
the royal subsidies. This accusation had its effect; the accused
persons were declared incapable of all public employment, and
banished from the court and council, and their property was
confiscated. As for Alice Perers, the Commons attacked her also,
and the king was constrained to issue the following ordinance:
"Whereas complaint has been brought before the king that some
women have pursued causes and actions in the king's court by way
of maintenance, and for hire or reward, which, thing displeases
the king, the king forbids that any woman do it hereafter, and in
particular Alice Perers, under the penalty of forfeiting all that
the said Alice can forfeit, and of being banished out of the
realm." [Footnote 49]
[Footnote 49: Rot. Parl. ii. 329.]
{490}
Nothing of this kind had previously been attempted by the
Commons. This Parliament sat from the end of April to the 6th of
July, 1376, that is, for a longer period than any preceding
Parliament; the number of its petitions to the king was 223, and
all its acts were so popular that it received the name of the
Good Parliament.
Death Of The Black Prince.
But the Commons were not in a position to maintain unassisted so
brilliant a success; their triumph had been due in great measure
to the co-operation of the Black Prince and his party in the
Upper House; and the Black Prince died before the closing of the
Parliament. The king, by settling the crown upon his son Richard,
dissipated many fears. A new Parliament was convoked on the 27th
of January, 1377, and one of his first acts was to solicit the
revocation of the sentence passed in the preceding year against
Lord Latimer and Alice Perers; which request was granted. Six or
seven only of those knights who had been members of the previous
Parliament sat in the new one; and Peter de la Mare was
imprisoned. Nevertheless, the new Parliament maintained the
rights already acquired in several particulars; it insisted upon
the proper appropriation of the subsidies, upon an account being
given of the receipts, and so forth. The death of Edward III.
which occurred on the 21st of June, 1377, put an end to a
struggle which was probably about to arise once more between the
Commons and the advisers of the crown.
In addition to this intervention of the House of Commons in the
general affairs of the State, some particular facts prove the
progress which its influence was making in all respects, and
deserve to be remarked in this point of view.
{491}
Opposition To The Clergy.
I. The Commons began energetically to resist both the power
which the Pope still assumed to exercise in England, and the
internal influence of the English clergy themselves. In 1343,
they protested against the right which the Pope claimed to have
to appoint foreigners to certain vacant ecclesiastical
benefices, and against other abuses of the same kind. They
called upon his majesty and the lords to aid them in expelling
the papal power from the kingdom, and addressed to the Pope
himself a letter full of the most indignant remonstrances.
Previously, the barons alone had actively interfered in affairs
of this kind. In 1366, the king informed the Parliament that
the Pope intended to cite him to Avignon to do homage for his
crown, according to the terms of the treaty concluded with king
John, and also to pay the tribute promised upon that occasion.
The Lords on the one hand, and the Commons on the other,
replied that king John had no right to contract such
engagements without the consent of the Parliament, called upon
the king to refuse to comply with the Pope's citation, and
promised to support him with all their power. In 1371, the
Commons complained that the great offices of the State were
occupied by ecclesiastics, to the great detriment of the king
and the state, and demanded that in future they should be
excluded therefrom, leaving to the king the right of choosing
his officers, provided they were laymen. Finally, in 1377, they
demanded that no ordinance or statute should be enacted upon
petition of the clergy, without the consent of the Commons; and
that the Commons should be bound by none of the constitutions
which the clergy might make for its own advantage and without
their consent, since the clergy would not be bound by the
statutes or ordinances of the king to which they had not
consented. This conflict between the national representatives
and the clergy soon became a permanent habit, which contributed
powerfully, in the sixteenth century, to the introduction of
the Reformation.
II. In 1337, the Parliament turned its attention to the
protection of the national industry. It prohibited the
exportation of English wools, and granted great encouragement
to those foreign clothworkers who should take up their
residence in England. These regulations soon fell into
desuetude in consequence of the wars with France; but they
prove the disposition of the Parliament to give attention to
all matters of public interest.
{492}
Regulation Of Elections.
III. It was also during this reign that, for the first time, we
find the Parliament manifesting anxiety about the abuses which
were committed at elections, and seeking to prevent their
recurrence. In 1372, an ordinance, passed at the suggestion and
by the advice of the Commons, prohibited the election of
sheriffs during the continuance of their functions, and also of
lawyers, because they made use of their authority to procure
their own election, and afterwards cared only for their own
private interests. [Footnote 50]
[Footnote 50: The influence of the king upon elections was
manifested at this period in a direct manner, or nearly so.
Two edicts of Edward III., passed at an interval of more than
forty years, prove this. The first, dated on the 3rd of
November, 1330, concludes thus: "And because that, before
this time, several knights, representatives for counties,
were people of ill designs and maintainers of false quarrels,
and would not suffer that our good subjects should show the
grievances of the common people, nor the matters which ought
to be redressed in Parliament, to the great damage of us and
our subjects;--we, therefore, charge and command that you
cause to be elected, with the common consent of your county,
two, the most proper and most sufficient knights, or sergeants
of the said county, that are the least suspected of
ill designs, or common maintainers of parties, to be of our
said Parliament, according to the form of our writ which you
have with you. And this we expect you shall do, as you will
eschew our anger and indignation." (_Parl. Hist._ vol. i. p.
84.) This writ was issued at the time when the young king had
just delivered himself from the yoke of Mortimer and his
faction. The second writ, dated in 1373, orders the sheriffs
"to cause to be chosen two dubbed knights, or the most
worthy, honest, and discreet esquires of that county, the
most expert in feats of arms, and no others; and of every
city two citizens, of every borough two burgesses, discreet
and sufficient, and such who had the greatest skill in
shipping and merchandizing." _Parl. Hist._ vol. i. p. 137.]
IV. Finally, it is under this reign that we first find
committees of the two Houses uniting to investigate certain
questions in common, and afterwards reporting the result of
their investigations to their respective Houses. It is
remarkable that this usage, so necessary to facilitate the
progress of the representative system and to procure good
deliberations, should have arisen precisely at that period when
the Parliament became divided into two Houses. It was the
natural consequence of their former combination in a single
assembly. There was no regular or invariable plan with regard
to the mode of the formation of these committees. Sometimes the
king himself appointed a certain number of lords, and invited
the Commons to choose a certain number of their own members to
confer with them; sometimes the Commons named the lords with
whom they wished to confer; and sometimes each House appointed
its own committee.
{493}
Confirmations Of The Old Charters.
It is remarkable that most of the parliamentary sessions of this
reign begin with a confirmation of Magna Charta and the Charta de
Foresta, which were always regarded as the foundation of the
public rights and liberties, and also violated with sufficient
frequency to render it necessary incessantly to renew their
concession.
All these facts prove the immense progress made by representative
government in general, and by the House of Commons in particular,
during the course of this reign.
{494}
Lecture XXIV.
State of the Parliament under Richard II.
Struggle between absolute royalty and parliamentary government.
Origin of the Civil List.
Progress of the responsibility of ministers.
Progress of the returns of the employment of the public revenue.
The Commons encroach upon the government.
Reaction against the sway of the Commons.
Violence and fall of Richard II.
Progress of the essential maxims and practices of
representative government.
Parliament Under Richard II.
It is a remarkable fact in the history of England that, during
the interval which elapsed between the years of 1216 and 1399, an
able monarch always succeeded an incapable king, and _vice
versâ_. This circumstance proved very favourable to the
establishment of free institutions, which never had time either
to fall beneath the yoke of an energetic despotism or to dissolve
in anarchy.
The reign of Richard II. does not present, like that of Edward
III., the spectacle of the struggle of the Commons in defending
their rights, and extending them by the very fact that they were
defending them against the royal power, which was incessantly
striving to evade those rights because they checked its
authority, but which was nevertheless sufficiently acute to
perceive that it stood in need of the assistance of the people,
and could not afford to quarrel with their representatives.
During the reign of Richard, the conflict assumes a more general
character; it now involves far more than special or occasional
acts of resistance. The question at issue now is, whether the
king shall govern according to the advice and under the control
of his Parliament, or rule alone and in an almost arbitrary
manner. A positive conflict arose between parliamentary
government and purely royal government; a violent conflict, full
of reciprocal iniquities, but in which the question between
liberty in general and absolute power was laid down more clearly
and completely than it had ever been before.
{495}
Increased Power Of The Commons.
The vicissitudes of this struggle are broadly outlined in facts.
The reign of Richard II. may be divided into two parts. From 1377
to 1389, the government was parliamentary, that is to say, the
Parliament exercised the supreme control and really directed all
public affairs, notwithstanding the attempts at resistance on the
part of the king and his favourites. Prom 1389 to 1399, this
state of things underwent a change, and the king progressively
regained the upper hand. Not that the Parliament abandoned or
lost all its rights; for that of voting the taxes, in particular,
was boldly maintained, and even respected to a certain extent.
But generally speaking, the government was arbitrary, the king
had the sole disposal of it, and the Parliament, which had lost
its preponderating influence, interfered only as an instrument.
This state of things was contrary to the desires and instincts of
the country, and it was terminated by a tragical event. Richard
was deposed by a proscribed exile who landed in England with
sixty men, but found both the Parliament and the entire nation
disposed to support him, or at all events, not to oppose him. The
deposition of Richard and the elevation of the House of Lancaster
were the work of force, but of force supported by that powerful
adhesion which the silence and immobility of the public afford to
enterprises which tend to overthrow an odious or despised
government.
Such was the general aspect of this reign. I shall not linger to
detail its events, but merely select and bring to light those
facts which relate to the condition of the public institutions of
the country, and which prove the truth of that which I have just
affirmed.
As you have already seen, during the last years of the reign of
Edward III., the influence of the Commons in the government had
rapidly augmented; and its further progress was favoured by the
minority of Richard II. Sixty years before, the nonage of the
king would have placed the State under the control of some
faction of barons; but during the latter half of the fourteenth
century, the Commons take the initiative in all things, and
plainly say how they think the government should be administered.
{496}
Important Petitions.
A first Parliament was convoked in the month of September, 1377.
Peter de la Mare, formerly the leader of the opposition, was
liberated from prison, and chosen speaker of the House of
Commons. Three lords selected by the Commons were appointed to
confer with them regarding the public necessities. Three
propositions were submitted by the Commons to the king and lords:
1. the formation of a council of government;
2. the appointment of "men of virtuous and honest conversation"
to guard the person and conduct the education of the king, and
to take care "that the charge of the king's household should be
borne by the revenues of the crown, so that what was granted to
the wars might be expended that way only;"
3. the strict observance of the common law and statutes of the
realm, "that they might not be defeated by the singularity of
any about the king." [Footnote 51]
[Footnote 51: Parliamentary History, vol. i. p. 160. ]
The Lords granted the first proposition, rejected the first part
of the second as too harsh and interfering too much with the
liberty of the royal person, promised to deliberate upon the
second part with the great officers of the king's household, and
gave their unhesitating assent to the third proposition.
The second of these propositions contains the germ of the
distinction between the civil list and taxes voted for the public
expenditure. A subsidy was voted by the Commons, after the
establishment of the administration. It was agreed that moneys
thus raised should be lodged in the keeping of special
treasurers, who should give an account of their receipts and
disbursements, in such manner as the king and council should
order. Two London merchants, William Walworth and John Philpot,
were appointed to this office by the king.
Several other petitions were presented by this Parliament.
1. That the evil councillors of the late king Edward might be
removed from the royal councils;--which was granted.
2. That, during the king's minority, all the ministers and
other great functionaries of State, might be appointed by
Parliament; and that if an office fell vacant, while Parliament
was not sitting, it should be filled up by the king's council,
subject to the approval of the next Parliament;--which was
granted in the case of the greater officers, but refused in
respect to those of less importance.
3. That Parliament should be holden once a year;--in reply to
which it was promised that "the statutes made for that purpose
shall be observed and kept." [Footnote 52]
[Footnote 52: Ibid. vol. i. pp. 161, 162.]
It is clear that, in all these matters, the initiative and
general direction of the government belonged to the Commons.
{497}
Regulation Of Subsidies.
On the 25th of April, 1378, a second Parliament met, and voted a
poll-tax, as the king had involved himself by loans. The
chancellor concluded his speech by saying that, for all past and
probable expenditure, the treasurers were prepared to give
account.
On the 20th of October, 1378, a third Parliament met, and a fresh
subsidy was demanded. The Commons maintained that the king ought
not to be in want of one, and that a promise had been made that
no further imposts should be levied for a long time. The
chancellor, Richard le Scroop, denied that any such promise had
been made; and long and violent debates ensued upon this
question. The Commons demanded that an account should be given
them of the way in which the last subsidy had been spent. The
chancellor asserted that they had no right to require this, but
finally yielded, under protest that it should not be considered a
precedent. The Commons accordingly examined the accounts.
The Commons next requested that five or six lords or prelates
should be deputed to confer with them respecting the public
charges: thus aspiring to make their own body the centre of
deliberation, and affecting to regard the lords only as a part of
the king's council. The lords refused their request, and proposed
that, according to ancient usage, each house should appoint
certain of its members to confer together. This suggestion was
adopted, and a subsidy voted. The Commons further demanded the
appointment of special treasurers to receive and disburse its
proceeds; which was granted.
On the 15th of January, 1380, a fourth Parliament was held, for
the purpose of demanding fresh subsidies, rendered necessary by
the wars with France and Scotland, the revolts in Gascony, and
other causes. The chancellor concluded his speech by saying "that
the lords of the great council were ready to lay before the
Commons the receipts of the last subsidial grants, and the
disbursements of the same."
The Commons demanded:
1. That the counsellors given to the king at his accession,
should be dismissed (probably because they suspected them of
unfaithfulness in the management of the public revenue);
{498}
2. That the five chief officers of State should not be changed
until the next Parliament;
3. That a commission should be formed to survey and examine, in
all his courts and palaces, the state of the king's household,
and the expenses and receipts in all the offices;--which was
granted, and the commission composed of six lords and six
members of the House of Commons;
4. That some of the most discreet barons should be placed about
the king, in order to give wise answers to foreign ministers.
One baron only, the Earl of Warwick, was appointed for this
purpose. A subsidy was then voted.
Disturbed State Of The Country.
In November, 1380, a fifth Parliament met to vote further
subsidies; and a long discussion arose between the Commons and
the Lords regarding the amount. A fixed sum of £16,000 was
required; to meet which the Commons voted a poll-tax of 15 groats
on every individual above 15 years of age, mendicants alone
excepted; and annexed to their vote the condition that the rich
should help the poor to pay the tax. The Commons moreover voted
that "no knight, citizen, or burgess of the present Parliament
should be collector of this money;" apparently in order to avoid
every suspicion of partiality in its assessment. A violent
popular insurrection broke out in consequence of this tax; and in
order to quell it, the king was obliged to make promises of
general enfranchisement.
On the 14th of September, 1382, a sixth Parliament assembled; but
was adjourned on account of a quarrel between the Duke of
Lancaster and the Earl of Northumberland, who had both come
thither in arms, with a numerous retinue. The importance of these
great barons was such that the Parliament could not meet until
the king had succeeded in reconciling them. Great agitation was
felt in this Parliament, as it did not know how to calm the
disturbance in the country. The charter of manumission which had
been extorted from the king was revoked. The Commons accused the
bad government of the king of having caused the insurrection, and
drew a melancholy picture of the deplorable state of the people.
A committee of inquiry was appointed in consequence. The Commons
refused to grant a subsidy, basing their refusal upon the
disposition of the country to revolt. The king declared that he
would not grant his amnesty for all the offences committed during
the late insurrection, unless a subsidy were granted; and under
the influence of this threat, the Commons yielded.
{499}
Conferences With The Lords.
At the opening of this Parliament, the Commons demanded that the
prelates, the lords temporal, the knights, the judges, in a word,
the various estates of the realm, should examine, each for their
own class, the charges which should be brought; and should report
the same to the Commons, who would deliberate upon it. This was
an attempt to make themselves a sovereign and undivided assembly;
but the king maintained the ancient usage, which required that
the Commons should deliberate first of all, and communicate their
propositions to the king and lords.
This Parliament was twice prorogued; from the 15th of December to
the 15th of January, 1383, and again from the latter date to the
7th of May.
Seven sessions of the Parliament were held from the 7th of May
1383, to the 1st of October 1386. The king endeavoured to free
himself from the control of the Parliament. In 1383, he dismissed
a very popular chancellor, Richard le Scroop, because he had
refused to seal some inconsiderate gifts of property which had
become confiscated to the crown. During the same year, the clergy
obtained from the king a violent statute against the Lollards or
disciples of Wickliffe. The Commons complained of this, saying
that the statute was surreptitious; that it had never received
their consent, and that "it was not their meaning to bind
themselves, or their successors, to the prelates, any more than
their ancestors had done before them." They, therefore, demanded
and obtained the revocation of the statute; but after their
departure, the act of revocation was set aside, and the statute
maintained.
In 1383, also, the Commons having demanded to confer with a
committee of lords whom they mentioned by name, the king
consented to their request, but added that it belonged to him
alone to appoint the lords whom he thought fit to send to such
conferences. In the same Parliament the Commons prayed the king
"to place the most discreet and valuable officers about his
person," and to regulate his household in such a way that his
revenues might be well administered, and prove sufficient to meet
his wants.
{500}
Opposition To Parliamentary Rights.
The king answered that he would summon to him the persons who
suited him, and that he would regulate his household by the
advice of his council. In 1386, the Commons petitioned that the
state of the king's household should be examined every year by
the chancellor, the treasurer, and the keeper of the privy seal;
and that they should be authorized to reform its abuses. The king
replied that he would order such an examination when it pleased
him. The Commons next inquired who were the ministers and chief
officers of State whom the king intended to place at the head of
affairs. The king replied that he had officers sufficient at
present, and would change them at his pleasure. All these facts
indicate an effort on the part of the king and his council to
free themselves from the control of Parliament. In proportion as
this desire became apparent, the Commons became, in certain
respects, more timid and reserved. In 1383, the king consulted
them as to whether he should march in person at the head of his
army against France; and they replied that it was not in their
province to decide upon such a question, but that it should be
referred to the council. In 1385, they were consulted on the
question of peace or war with France: and refused to give an
opinion. The king insisted upon having an answer, but all that he
could obtain from them was that "if they were in the king's
place, they would prefer peace." Every circumstance, on both
sides, indicates an imminent separation, or at least a
progressive estrangement. The king was desirous to escape from
the guidance of the Parliament; and the Parliament refused to
share the responsibility of the king's council.
Richard was under the sway of two favourites, Robert de Vere,
Marquis of Dublin, and Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk. Hence
the government was courtly, capricious, destructive, and laid
claim to an insolent and frivolous exercise of arbitrary
authority. The haughty tone of the chancellor Suffolk was
extremely offensive in the speeches with which he opened the
Parliaments of 1384 and 1385. The Commons could endure the
government (though often tyrannical) of a council of barons with
much greater willingness than that of a pack of court favourites.
The great feudal aristocracy were deeply rooted in the
associations of the country; but the arrogance and frivolity of
favourites were unspeakably offensive to the people.
{501}
The King Compelled To Yield.
The storm broke out in the Parliament which met on the 1st of
October, 1386. The Commons, "with one accord," impeached the Earl
of Suffolk. The king withdrew to Eltham. The two Houses sent to
him to demand the dismissal of the lord treasurer and of the
chancellor, relating to whom, they said, they had matters to
treat of which could not be safely done whilst he remained in his
office. The king sent an evasive answer; and the Parliament
declared that it would do nothing so long as the king continued
absent, and the Earl of Suffolk remained minister. The king
proposed that they should depute forty knights of their number to
confer with him. The Parliament refused. After a long and
singular correspondence, the king was constrained to yield and to
choose new ministers.
Doubt has been cast upon several of these facts, and especially
upon the king's correspondence with the Parliament. Knyghton is
the only historian who records it, but there is reason to believe
it authentic. The Earl of Suffolk was impeached and condemned.
The charges brought against him were of little weight as legal
crimes, but of great importance as abuses in the government. A
committee of eleven lords was appointed by Parliament to regulate
all public affairs, and to govern in concert with the king., The
Parliament enacted the penalties of high treason against any
person who should advise the king not to follow the counsels of
this committee, and constrained the king to confirm these
resolutions by letters-patent. The king, on his part, made
protestation in full Parliament, with his own mouth, "that for
any thing which was done in that Parliament he would not any
prejudice should come to him or his crown; but that the
prerogative and liberties of it should be safe and preserved."
In 1387, the king travelled through the west and north of
England; and assembled at Nottingham a council composed of
partisans of his favourites. He inquired of the sheriffs of the
neighbouring counties what forces they could raise for his
assistance, if he should find it necessary to oppose the
committee of eleven lords. The sheriffs replied that the people
were convinced that the lords were friends to the king, and
desired the welfare of the country, and that therefore few
persons would be found willing to take up arms against them.
{502}
The king then commanded the sheriffs to elect to the next
Parliament those persons only whom he should nominate. They
answered that they could not undertake to secure the election of
any persons but those who were to the people's liking. The king
then summoned the judges to Nottingham, and proposed to them
various questions concerning the rights and prerogatives of the
crown. The judges, either intimidated or guided by Sir Robert
Tressillian, gave answers tending to establish the arbitrary
power of the king and to free his government from the control of
the Parliament. This was the evident object of the whole of this
struggle.
The Wonderful Parliament.
Dissension now broke out between the king and the lords. A
Parliament was convoked. The king inserted in his writs an order
to return those persons who were _debatis modernis magis
indifferentes_; but he was soon obliged to erase this clause,
and to declare it illegal in new writs. The Parliament met on the
3rd of February, 1388, and took precautions to ensure that it
should alone decide upon all great public matters, and that it
should not be dissolved after having voted a subsidy. An
accusation was lodged by five lords, called appellants, against
the favourites of the king, and the judges. This accusation
really conceals a great party conflict beneath the forms of
judicial procedure. The Upper House declared that, on such grave
occasions, the Parliament alone could judge, and was bound by
none of the laws which regulate the proceedings of other courts.
Eighteen persons were condemned, most of them to death, and many
by default. The Parliament separated after having sat five
months. It was called the _Wonderful Parliament_, and also
the _Pitiless Parliament_. It had been careful to declare
that the condemnation of the favourite councillors and judges,
did not in any way throw discredit upon the king himself.
{503}
Increase Of The Royal Power.
The authority of the committee of eleven lords over the
government was exercised without opposition for a year. In May,
1389, the king assembled his council, and declared that, being
now of full age, he was capable of governing his inheritance
himself, and that it was not fitting that he should be in a worse
condition than every subject in his dominions who could freely
dispose of his goods. "It is well known," he said, "that for
several years I have lived under your guardianship, and I thank
you for the trouble you have taken on my account; but now that I
have reached my majority, I am determined to remain no longer
under tutelage, but to take in hand the government of my kingdom
and to appoint or revoke my ministers and other officers
according to my pleasure." He changed the chancellor and other
great officers, and dismissed from his council several of the
eleven lords.
Here began the second epoch in this reign--the epoch of reaction
against the Parliament. Great obscurity prevails as to the causes
which placed Richard II. in a position to effect such a
revolution; but he was most probably emboldened to do so by
division in the committee of eleven lords, and by the bad use
which some of them had made of their power. The king and his new
council governed at first with prudence, and manifested great
respect for the Parliament. On the 16th of January, 1390, a
Parliament was convoked. The new ministers resigned their
offices, and submitted their conduct to its scrutiny. The
Parliament declared that it found no cause for complaint, and the
ministers resumed their functions. Seven Parliaments were held
from 1390 to 1397. They became more and more timid and docile,
and the king's authority assumed an increasingly extended and
arbitrary character. These are the principal facts which
characterize this reaction:--
In 1391, the Parliament assured the king that the royalty and
prerogatives of his crown should ever remain intact and
inviolable; that if they had in any way been infringed, it should
be reformed; and that the king should enjoy as large liberty as
any of his predecessors ever did: "which prayer seemed to our
lord the king honest and reasonable," and he consented to it. In
1391 and 1392, the Parliament admitted the king's power to
dispense with the observance of certain statutes in
ecclesiastical matters, on condition that these statutes should
not be held to be thereby revoked. In 1392, the king, being
offended with the city of London, withdrew from it its liberties
and imprisoned its magistrates; but shortly afterwards he
restored its liberties to the city, and imposed on it a fine of
£1000 sterling.
{504}
In 1394, the judges who had been banished to Ireland by the
Parliament of 1388, were recalled. In 1397, a bill was brought
forward in the House of Commons, proposing that all extravagant
expenditure should be avoided in the royal household, and that
those bishops and ladies who had nothing to do at court should
not have permission to reside there. The king was incensed at
this bill before it was presented to him, and said in the Upper
House, "that it was directed against those liberties and
royalties which his progenitors had enjoyed, and which he was
resolved to uphold and maintain." He ordered the Lords to inform
the Commons of his resolution, and directed the Duke of Lancaster
to command Sir John Bussy, the Speaker of the Commons, to inform
him what member had introduced the bill into Parliament. The
Commons became alarmed, and humbly besought the king's pardon. At
a conference, they placed the bill in the king's hands, and
delivered up to him its proposer, Thomas Haxey. The king forgave
them, and the Parliament itself declared Haxey guilty of treason.
The clergy saved his life by claiming him as a clerk--which
proves that at this period ecclesiastics were not excluded from
Parliament.
In September, 1397, Richard II. at length judged himself in a
position to assume the plenitude of his power, to annul all that
had been done in 1388 to limit his authority, and to avenge his
injuries.
A Parliament was convoked. Every precaution had been taken to
ensure its docility. The sheriffs had been changed; and all sorts
of practices had been put in force to influence the elections.
Numerous bodies of troops formed the royal guard. The Parliament
was opened with great solemnity. The chancellor, the Bishop of
Exeter, took as the text of his speech: _Rex unus erit
omnibus._ Subsequent events fully corresponded with these
preliminaries. All the acts of the Parliament of 1388 were
revoked, and their authors accused of treason; five of them were
condemned to death. The principal leader of the opposition, the
Duke of Gloucester, was assassinated in prison at Calais, after
having been constrained to acknowledge his past crimes in a
confession in which he formerly accused himself of having
"restrained the king of his freedom." After these condemnations
the same Parliament held a second session at Shrewsbury, in which
the answers of the judges in 1387 were declared good and
legitimate, and precisely the same measures were taken to render
these new decisions inviolable, which had been employed by the
Parliament of 1388 to ensure the observance of its own
resolutions. These two sessions lasted sixteen days. In less than
two years afterwards, Richard was dethroned.
{505}
Discontent In The Realm.
He thought himself, however, well secured against such a
contingency; for he had taken all sorts of precautions firmly to
establish the power which he had just regained. The Parliament
had granted him, for his lifetime, the duty upon wools and hides,
upon condition only that this concession should not be regarded
as a precedent by the kings his successors. As several of the
petitions and other matters laid before the Parliament during its
last session had not been fully terminated, the Parliament at its
dissolution appointed a permanent committee of twelve lords and
six members of the House of Commons, to whom it transferred its
powers to regulate and decide, in concert with the king, all
affairs of public business. Richard thus remained surrounded by
the men who had just assisted him to regain arbitrary power; and
although the mission of this committee was limited to the
settlement of those affairs only which the Parliament had not had
time to arrange, it did not hesitate to take possession of the
entire government. In concert with the king, it issued
ordinances, and declared the penalties of high treason against
any person who should attempt to resist its authority; and it
imposed on all the lords the obligation, under oath, to respect
and maintain all that it should enact. All the powers of
Parliament were thus usurped by this committee. Private vexations
were added to this general usurpation; in spite of the amnesty
which had been proclaimed, even by the last Parliament, Richard
continued to wreak his vengeance upon the adherents of the
Parliament of 1388. He extorted money from seventeen counties
under the pretence that they had taken part in the rebellion; and
he forced wealthy citizens to sign blank cheques in order to
ransom themselves from prosecutions for treason, which blanks he
filled up at his pleasure.
{506}
Death Of Richard II.
Such acts as these could not fail to produce general hatred and
indignation; and an accidental cause led to their manifestation.
A quarrel existed between the Dukes of Hereford and Norfolk; and
the last Parliament had left the dispute to the decision of the
king and his committee. A single combat between the two dukes was
appointed to take place at Coventry; but the king anticipated the
duel, and banished both the dukes, one for ten years, and the
other for life. By letters patent, he expressedly authorized the
Duke of Hereford to sue, during his banishment, for the livery of
any lands that might be bequeathed to him. In 1399, John of
Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and father of Hereford, died. The king
and his committee annulled the letters-patent, and confiscated
the property of the Duke of Lancaster. Richard then set out for
Ireland. On the 4th of July, 1399, the Duke of Hereford, who had
become Duke of Lancaster by the death of his father, landed in
England. He made rapid progress, and when Richard returned to
England, he soon found himself abandoned and taken prisoner. A
Parliament was convoked in his name on the 30th of September.
Richard abdicated. An accusation in thirty-three articles was
drawn up against him; and his deposition was pronounced by the
Parliament. Henry of Lancaster claimed the crown in virtue of a
pretended right of birth. It was granted to him on the 6th of
August, 1399, and new writs were issued for the convocation of a
Parliament within six days. This was impossible: so the same
Parliament met again, and became the Parliament of Henry IV.
Richard, who had been kept prisoner in Pomfret Castle, was put to
death on the 23rd of October, 1399.
This royal catastrophe was the work of force, just as the
deposition of Edward II. had been; but public opinion and public
passion had a much greater share in it. Efforts were made to
impart even to these acts of violence an appearance of
constitutional regularity, and the progress of parliamentary
government may be discerned even in its tragical excitements.
{507}
The Houses Recover Their Strength.
Such were, in a political point of view, the character and
progress of this reign. A few particular facts are worthy of
notice.
1. The extension of the practice of forced loans. In 1378, a
petition was presented that no man should be constrained to
lend money to the king; and it was granted. Nevertheless, in
1386, a writ addressed to several inhabitants of Boston enjoins
them to make every person possessing property of more than
twenty pounds in value contribute to the loan of £200 which the
town had promised to grant to the king, and which would be
received in deduction from the subsidies of the present
Parliament.
2. The principle of the appropriation of subsidies becomes
increasingly prevalent.
3. The Commons make efforts to ensure that their petitions
should not be altered when passed into statutes. In 1382, they
requested the communication of one of the king's ordinances
before it was registered: and desired that some of their
members should be present during the preparation of the rolls.
The affair of Thomas Haxey gives us reason to believe that the
practice commenced, during this reign, of proceeding in the
form of bills discussed and adopted by both Houses before they
were submitted for the sanction of the king. Nevertheless, in
1382, the House of Commons having requested the opinion of the
House of Lords on a question which then occupied their
attention, the Lords replied that ancient usage required that
the Commons should first communicate their opinion to the king
and assembled lords. This very fact, however, proves that the
present form of initiative was about to introduce itself.
4. In 1384, the town of Shaftesbury addressed a petition to the
king, lords and commons, against the sheriff of Dorsetshire,
who had made a false return of an election, and left out the
name of the person really elected. We are not aware of the
result of this petition, but this is the first instance of the
official intervention of the Commons in the matter of contested
elections. Only three examples of analogous petitions are to be
met with in previous times, viz. under Edward II. in 1319,
under Edward III. in 1363, and under Richard II. in 1384. Until
then, the king alone had examined the petition, and referred
its judgment to the ordinary tribunals.
5. In 1382, a statute ordains, under penalty of fine or other
punishment, that all the lords and deputies of the Commons
shall repair to Parliament when they are summoned; and that all
the sheriffs shall cause all due and accustomed elections to be
made, without omitting any borough or city.
{508}
Progress Of Liberty.
These particular acts, as well as the general course of events,
attest the progress of constitutional maxims and practices.
{509}
Lecture XXV.
Summary of the history of the Parliament from the death of
Richard II. to the accession of the House of Stuart.
Progress of the forms of procedure, and of the privileges of
Parliament.
Liberty of speech in both Houses.
Inviolability of members of Parliament.
Judicial power of the House of Lords.
Decadence of the Parliament during the wars of the Roses, and
under the Tudor dynasty.
Causes of this decadence and of the progress of royal
authority, from Henry VII. to Elizabeth.
Conclusion.
The Tudors And Stuarts.
It is impossible to comprehend the entire scope of the character
and influence of great events. Some occurrences, which procure
order and liberty for the present, prepare the way for tyranny
and confusion in the future; while others, on the contrary,
establish absolute power at first, and subsequently give birth to
full political freedom. We cannot fail to be struck by this
reflection when we consider the prodigious difference which
exists between the immediate results and the remote consequences
of the deposition of Richard II. It delivered England from an
arbitrary, insolent, and disorderly government; but sixty years
afterwards it gave rise to the wars of the Red and White Roses,
and to all those cruel internal distractions which facilitated
the establishment of the Tudor despotism: so that the decay of
English liberties, from 1461 to 1640, had its primary source in
the event which, in 1399, had consummated their triumph.
In considering the general character of the state of the
government from 1399 to 1461, under the first three kings of the
House of Lancaster, Henry IV., Henry V., and Henry VI., we must
admit that this period was remarkable neither for the
unchangeableness nor for the progress of institutions. During
this epoch, the Parliament gained none of those signal victories
which distinguished the reigns of Edward III. and Richard II.; no
really new right, no fundamental and previously unknown
guarantee, were added to those already possessed.
{510}
Improvement Of Parliament.
Neither did arbitrary power again assume the offensive, and
obtain the advantage; and the crown and Parliament engaged in no
serious conflict calculated to compromise the existence of either
party, or notably to change their degree of political importance.
In truth, the work of this period was to regularize the results
of previous struggles. The Parliament exercised, without much
opposition, the right for which it had fought during the
fourteenth century, viz., the voting of taxes, the appropriation
of the subsidies, the investigation of the public accounts,
intervention in the legislature, and the impeachment of the great
officers of the crown. The kings, though frequently seeking to
elude the application of these rights, never ignored them
completely, or braved them openly. The whole of the political
machine remained almost unaltered; but though it underwent no
great revolutions, it received many important developments in its
internal organization. Practical ameliorations were sought after
and attained; further consequences were deduced from established
principles; and this epoch is more remarkable for various
improvements in the springs of parliamentary government, than for
the conquest of great rights, or the formation of fundamental
institutions.
The internal constitution of the Parliament, especially during
the course of this period, made important progress; from this
time we may date, with some degree of accuracy, its principal
forms of procedure and its most essential privileges.
One of the most essential is, certainly, liberty of speech.
During the reign of Henry IV., we find the speaker of the House
of Commons demanding it of the king at the opening of every
session. One of the first acts of the first Parliament held
during this reign, in 1399, was to obtain the revocation of the
sentence passed upon Thomas Haxey, in the reign of Richard II.
Every circumstance proves that, under Henry IV., the Commons used
greater liberty of speech than they had previously enjoyed. It
was, indeed, made a subject of special praise to Sir John
Tibetot, speaker in the Parliament of 1406. The king soon
manifested great distrust of the extension given to this right,
which was probably exercised with all the rudeness which
characterized the manners of that time.
{511}
First Opposition To Liberty Of Speech.
In 1410, he told the Commons that he hoped that they would no
longer use unbecoming language, but act with moderation. In 1411,
the speaker, Sir Thomas Chaucer, having made the usual demand at
the opening of the session, the king replied that he would allow
the Commons to speak as others before had done, but that "he
would have no novelties introduced, and would enjoy his
prerogative." The speaker requested three days to give a written
answer to this observation, and then replied "that he desired no
other protestation than what other speakers had made; and that if
he should speak anything to the king's displeasure, it might be
imputed to his own ignorance only, and not to the body of the
Commons," [Footnote 53] which the king granted.
[Footnote 53: Parliamentary History, vol.i. p. 313.]
We meet with no infringement upon the liberty of speech enjoyed
by the Commons until the Parliament of 1455, at which time a
deputy from Bristol, Thomas Young, complained that he had been
arrested and imprisoned in the Tower, six years before, on
account of a motion which he had brought forward in the House.
The object of this motion had been to declare that, as the king
then had no children, the Duke of York was the legitimate heir to
the throne. The Commons transmitted this petition to the Lords,
and the king commanded his council to do whatever might be judged
fitting on behalf of the petitioner.
In all official transactions with the king and the lords, the
Speaker was the mouthpiece of the House of Commons, and for him
especially liberty of speech was then demanded. He acted in the
name, and on the behalf, of the House, on almost all occasions.
In 1406, we find him giving his consent, in this capacity, to the
act which regulated the succession of the crown.
{512}
Imprisonment Of The Speaker.
The inviolability of the members of Parliament was a right of no
less importance than liberty of speech. The ancient Saxon laws
granted protection and security to the members of the
Wittenagemot, in going and returning from the place of meeting,
provided they were not notorious robbers and brigands. From the
formation of the new Parliament, the same right was claimed by
its members, who, as they came to transact the business of the
king in his national council, were entitled to exemption from
arrest or hindrance. In 1403, Sir Thomas Brooke repaired to
Parliament as a representative of Somersetshire; and one of his
suite, Richard Cheddre, was maltreated and beaten by John Salage.
A statute ordained that Salage should pay double damages to
Cheddre, according to the award of the Court of Queen's Bench;
and "moreover, it is granted by the said Parliament that the same
shall be done in times to come, in similar cases." This
circumstance gave rise to a petition of the Commons, who prayed
that all lords, knights, citizens, and burgesses, coming to
Parliament and residing there, might be, as well as their
followers and domestics, under the special protection and defence
of the king, until their return home; and that they might be
arrested for no debt, contract, or suit, or imprisoned in any
manner during that time, under penalty of a fine to be paid to
the king, and damages to the person injured. The king replied
that provision should be made to this effect. The statute of 1403
was renewed in 1433, during the reign of Henry VI.
In 1430, a complaint was laid before the House of Commons on
account of the imprisonment, for debt, of William Lake, the
servant of William Mildred, one of the members for London. He was
set at liberty by a special act of Parliament.
In 1453, the Commons complained to the king and to the lords of
the imprisonment of Thomas Thorpe, their speaker, who had been
arrested for debt at the suit of the Duke of York. The Lords
referred the matter to the judges, who replied through Sir John
Fortescue: "That it was not their part to judge of the
Parliament's actions, who were judges and makers of the laws
themselves; only they said there were divers _supersedeas_
of privilege of Parliament brought into courts; but a general
_supersedeas_, to suppress all proceedings, there was not.
For, if there should, it would seem as if the High Court of
Parliament, that ministered all justice and equity, should hinder
the process of the common law, and so put the party complainant
without remedy, inasmuch as actions at common law are not
determinable in Parliament; but if any member of Parliament be
arrested for such cases as are not for treason, felony, or surety
of the peace, or for a judgment had before Parliament, it was
usual for such person to be quitted of such arrest, and set at
liberty to attend his service in Parliament." [Footnote 54]
[Footnote 54: Parliamentary or Constitutional History of
England, vol. ii. p. 287.]
{513}
Conflicting Opinions.
Notwithstanding this answer of the judges, the Lords decided that
Thorpe should remain in prison: and ordered the Commons, in the
king's name, to elect another speaker, which they did. But this
was a party quarrel; Thorpe was attached to the House of
Lancaster, and the Duke of York was then in the ascendant. The
privilege then existed, but still in a precarious manner, and a
special act of Parliament was necessary on every occasion to
ensure its being put into practice.
It was also during this period that the right of parliamentary
initiative superseded the right of petition. We have already
noticed the abuses originated by the initiative which the House
of Commons exercised by means of its petitions; and that the
petitions were not always faithfully reproduced in the statutes
which they had suggested. We have also seen what efforts had
already been put forth by the Commons to prevent these
trickeries. In 1414, during the reign of Henry V., they
complained of them in a special petition, to which the king
replied by promising that in future the statutes should
correspond exactly to the petitions granted. But this guarantee
was very insecure, and the Commons had already begun to obtain
more effectual securities by accustoming themselves to draw up in
the form of complete bills, the statutes which they had
previously suggested by petitions; and sending them to the House
of Lords, that they might be discussed and adopted by that House,
before they were presented to the king, who then had nothing more
to do than to give or refuse his sanction. It is impossible to
indicate with precision the period at which this important change
took place; for it was accomplished gradually, and was not
remarked by the historians of the time. The usage of petitions
co-existed for some time with that of bills. The following facts
indicate the progress of the change. Under Richard II., in 1382
(and I have already alluded to this fact), the Commons attempted
to obtain the opinion of the Lords, upon a certain question,
before bringing under the notice of the king.
{514}
Clearer Regulations Of The Parliament..
The attempt was repulsed by the Lords, who staked their honour
upon not separating from the king, and upon receiving
simultaneously and in concert with him, the propositions of the
Commons. The complete initiative of the Houses of Parliament
arose, naturally and necessarily, from the voting of taxes.
Originally, as you have seen, each class of deputies voted alone
those taxes which were destined to weigh especially up on
themselves; and the knights of the shire deliberated and voted
upon this matter with the Lords. When the knights of the shire
had fully combined with the deputies of the boroughs--when the
House of Commons deliberated and voted, in a body, upon the same
taxes--it became necessary that the votes on such matters should
receive the consent of the Lords, who would also have to bear the
consequences. Bills passed in reference to subsidies were
thenceforward discussed and voted by both Houses before they were
laid before the king; and the initiative, in its present form,
was thus fully established in this particular case. In 1407, a
remarkable incident brought this form of proceeding to light,
gave it final sanction, and deduced from it at the same time two
other parliamentary rights of great importance. In consequence of
a debate which arose between the House of Lords and the House of
Commons with regard to the initiative of subsidies, three
principles were recognised, and have since remained firmly
established:
1. Parliamentary initiative in its present form;
2. The exclusive initiative of the Commons in the matter of
subsidies;
3. The right of the Houses, that the king should take no
cognizance of the subject of their deliberations until they had
come to a decision upon it, and were in a position to lay it
before him as the desire of the Lords and Commons in Parliament
assembled.
It was natural that that which was practised with regard to
subsidies should soon extend to all matters; and that the
propositions of Parliament, whatever might be their object,
should reach the king as emanating from both Houses instead of
being merely the petitions of one of them. Mr. Hallam affirms,
without giving any particulars, that this practice became general
during the reign of Henry VI., and from this period he dates the
real division of the legislature into three branches. I am
inclined to think that this practice had commenced at an earlier
date, although it was rarely carried into effect; and it is
certain, from the very constitution of Parliament at this epoch,
that it did not become constant and general until a later period.
{515}
In 1406, I find the Commons demanding, by the mouth of the
speaker, Sir John Tibetot, the right of withdrawing their bills
from the House of Lords, at any stage of the deliberation upon
them, in order to introduce amendments; which was granted. The
Commons were therefore already in the habit of occasionally
drawing up their petitions in the form of bills, and of passing
them through the House of Lords before presenting them to the
king.
At this period, the House of Lords was still regarded as the
great council of the king, and as a sort of intermediary between
the privy council and the entire Parliament; and a number of
propositions on matters of government, and even of legislation,
still emanated from the Commons alone, and were presented, in the
form of petitions, to the king and lords. The practice of
initiative by way of bills adopted by both Houses could not,
therefore, have been general. The periods of the king's minority
or absence tended increasingly to impart the character of a great
council of government to the House of Lords. Accordingly these
epochs, and especially the reign of Henry VI., abound in
propositions or petitions of the Commons to the Lords. It was at
a later period, when the king and his privy council had regained
a more independent power than their predecessors had enjoyed
--that is to say, under the Tudor dynasty--that the Upper House
became entirely disjoined from the government properly so called,
and found itself placed, with respect to the king, in almost the
same position as the House of Commons. Then alone did the
practice of proceeding by bills discussed in both Houses before
they were laid before the king, assume a constant and general
character, that is to say, the parliamentary initiative was
definitively substituted for the ancient right of petition
possessed by each House, and especially by the Commons.
{516}
Votes Of Subsidy.
With regard to the order of the debates in Parliament, it was an
ancient custom that the king should not reply to the petitions of
the Commons until the last day of the session; which rendered it
impossible to make the concession of subsidies dependent upon the
king's answers. They endeavoured to reverse this order, probably
during the reign of Richard II.; for the sixth question which he
proposed to the judges was whether, when the king had called the
attention of Parliament to any subject, the Parliament might
attend to other matters before deciding upon the propositions of
the king. The judges replied that such a proceeding was an act of
treason. The answers of the judges of Richard II. having been
declared illegitimate in the Parliament of 1399, the foregoing
_dictum_ was comprised in the general reprobation.
Accordingly, in 1401, the Commons maintained that it was not
their custom to grant any subsidy until the king had replied to
their petitions, and they demanded that this course should be
pursued. The king said that he would confer on the subject with
the Lords, and on the last day of the session, he replied "that
there was never such use known, but that they should first go
through with all other business before their petitions were
answered; which ordinance the king intended not to alter." We do
not find that the Commons then resisted, or attempted to procure
the recognition, in a general manner, of the principle which they
asserted. But this principle was frequently put into practice in
subsequent Parliaments, and the king was forced not to throw any
hindrance in its way. In 1407, Parliament opened on the 20th of
October. On the 9th and 14th of November, the Commons presented
themselves before the king, explained their numerous grievances,
received his answer, and granted no subsidies until the 2nd of
December following. In 1410, Parliament met on the 27th of
January; and it was not until the 9th of May, after it had
obtained satisfaction on several points, among others on the
dismissal of two members of the privy council, that it granted a
subsidy. This practice became almost constant during the reign of
Henry VI. We find an evident proof of this in the Parliament held
in November 1455. The Commons sent several times to demand of the
Lords the appointment of a Protector for the kingdom, on account
of the imbecility of Henry VI.; and the Archbishop of Canterbury
urged the Lords to give a definitive answer, "for it is well
known that the Commons will not give attention to any affairs of
the Parliament until they have obtained an answer, and
satisfaction of their request."
{517}
Judicial Powers Of The Lords.
The principle had, therefore, become a fact, and was generally
admitted as a fact.
It was also during the course of this period that elections to
Parliament, and the rights of Parliament in the matter of
elections, began to be regulated. I have already observed in
treating of the formation of the Parliament, that the electoral
system had been definitively established by statutes of Henry IV.
in 1405, and of Henry VI. in 1429 and 1432. Many facts prove that
at this date the importance of the House of Commons had become so
great; that the elections were a subject of frequent frauds. A
number of statutes of detail, during the reign of Henry VI., were
passed to prevent such frauds, and to regulate the procedure by
which they should be investigated and punished. Then also, for
the first time, we find conditions imposed on the choice of the
electors. The ancient spirit of electoral institutions required
that the persons elected should be inhabitants of the county or
town which they were chosen to represent. This was converted into
an express law by a statute of Henry V. in 1413, which was
renewed by a statute of Henry VI., in 1444; but the law has
fallen into desuetude by the force of circumstances, without ever
having been formally repealed.
The judgment of elections continued to belong, during this
period, to the lords and the king's council, who were frequently
urged to exercise this prerogative by petitions from the Commons.
It was also at this epoch that the judicial power, which
originally resided in the entire Parliament, was declared to
belong exclusively to the House of Lords. This declaration was
made in 1399, at the suggestion of the Commons themselves, and by
the mouth of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said: "That the
Commons were only petitioners, and that all judgment belonged to
the king and lords; unless it was in statutes, grants of
subsidies, and such like." Since this period the Commons, when
they desired to interfere in judgments otherwise than by
impeachment, were obliged to employ the means of bills of
attainder. They adopted this plan in the case of the Duke of
Suffolk in 1450, and very frequently afterwards.
{518}
Resistance To The Commons.
These are the most notable marks of progress made, during this
period, by the constitution and forms of Parliament. If we now
consider Parliament, no longer in itself and its own internal
proceedings, but in its relations to the government properly so
called, we shall find that its rights and influence in matters of
taxation, legislation, and public administration were the same as
it had won under Edward III. and Richard II., and that it merely
exercised them with greater assurance and less opposition. Henry
IV. tried more than once to resist the power of the House of
Commons; but it had set him upon the throne, and felt itself in a
position to confine him within the limit of his authority. In
1404, it demanded of him the dismissal of four officers of his
household; and he replied with singular humility "that he knew no
cause why they should be removed, but as the Lords and Commons
judged it for the interest of the kingdom and his own advantage,
he would remove them, and would do as much in future to any
minister who should incur the hatred of his people." In 1406, the
Commons submitted for the approbation of the king thirty articles
which, they said, they had drawn up to ensure the better
administration of public affairs, and which they demanded that
the king's officers should swear to observe. These articles,
though of a temporary nature, were intended to repress many
existing abuses, and to restrict the royal prerogative in certain
respects. The king thought that he could not refuse his assent.
Towards the end of his reign, Henry IV. appeared more bold, and
less disposed to yield unresistingly to the control of the
Parliament; but his death prevented all serious conflict. The
glory of Henry V. and the passion for wars with France filled up
his somewhat brief reign; the Parliament sustained him in all his
measures, and even went so far as to grant him, in 1415, a
subsidy for life, with power to use it arbitrarily and at his
pleasure. During the minority of Henry VI., or rather during all
that part of his reign which was not stained with civil war, and
was in fact a long minority, the power of Parliament reached its
climax, and absorbed the entire government. All matters were
decided between the Lords and Commons; but it was too soon for
the nation, thus left to its own guidance, to provide itself with
a regular government. Violent factions arose among the
aristocracy, which the House of Commons was not in a condition to
repress. That great development of public institutions and
liberties which had commenced under king John, and continued with
such regularity since the reign of Edward III., was suddenly
interrupted, and England plunged into the violent anarchy of the
wars of the Red and White Roses, to emerge only into the
despotism of the House of Tudor.
{519}
Review Of The State Of Europe.
How came it that institutions, already so strong and active, at
least in appearance, decayed so rapidly? How came it that
parliamentary government, which seemed in possession of all its
essential rights and principles, paused in its progress, and
yielded for more than a century to the rule of an almost absolute
monarchy? Now that I have reached the conclusion of this course
of lectures, I cannot investigate with you the causes of this
apparently singular fact; but they may be discerned in another
very remarkable fact in the analogy which prevails between the
history of England and the history of France at this period. In
France, also, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, we
discern the appearances of attempts at representative government;
these incoherent and superficial essays were succeeded by the
wars of religion, the League, and the great disorders of the
sixteenth century; and order was not restored, France did not
regain repose and vigour, until the establishment of absolute
power by Cardinal Richelieu and Louis XIV., and by the
annihilation, as a political power, of that ancient feudal
aristocracy who had been able neither to procure for the country,
nor to assume for themselves, in the government of France, their
legitimate and lasting position.
In England, as you have just seen, representative government,
originating in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, did not
confine itself to incoherent and feeble essays; but established
itself upon its essential foundations, and speedily obtained
considerable development. The sanguinary conflicts for the
succession to the throne, the protracted dissensions of the Red
and White Roses, abruptly arrested its progress. Just as in
France, from the reign of Louis XI., we hear nothing of attempts
at the establishment of free institutions, so in England, during
the reigns of Edward IV. and Richard III., the Parliament has no
history.
{520}
In the intervals of the civil war, it appears only as the
instrument of the vengeance of the victorious party, and to pass
bills of attainder against the leaders of the vanquished faction.
It voted a few taxes, but this was the only one of its rights
which, it still maintained, and even this was eluded by the
practice of _Benevolences_, or gifts in appearance
voluntary, but in reality compulsory, of which we meet with a few
examples in antecedent times, but which received great extension
under Edward IV. Finally, more than once several years elapsed
without a Parliament being convoked, especially from 1477 to
1482; such a suspension had been unprecedented since 1327.
The civil wars of the fifteenth century, however, are only the
superficial, and as it were, external cause of this sudden
decadence of representative government in England; in order to
discover its true cause, we must penetrate deeper into the state
of society.
Until this period, the three great forces in English society
--the royal power, the aristocracy, and the Commons--had
maintained intimate and continual relations amongst themselves,
and had served each other by turns, either as an obstacle or as a
means of success. It was by the aid of the great barons that the
Commons had been enabled to win their liberties. The royal power,
though strong in itself, had nevertheless been obliged to resort
sometimes to the barons, and sometimes to the Commons. From the
political concurrence of these three great social forces, and
from the vicissitudes of their alliances and fortunes, the
progress of representative government had resulted. Liberty can
be established only where there does not exist in the State any
constituted power sufficiently preponderant to usurp absolute
authority.
In the latter half of the fifteenth century, the equipoise of
these three forces ceased. The royal power disappeared in some
sort, in consequence of the imbecility of Henry VI. and
afterwards by the uncertainty of the right of succession to the
crown. The government fell into the hands of the high
aristocracy, who were divided and distracted by their intestine
quarrels. The Commons were not in a condition to act the part of
mediators between these terrible factions, and to impose upon
them respect for public order.
{521}
The knights of the shire took part in the train of the great
barons with whom they were still dependently connected by a
multitude of ties: and the towns, thus left alone, could do
nothing, but were carried away in the general stream. In this
state of disorder and violence, the Commons disappeared, or if
they were not materially annihilated, their political power
vanished. The high aristocracy worked its own dissolution; many
great families were destroyed, and many more were ruined. Henry
VII., at his accession, found only the wreck of that nobility
which had made his predecessors tremble. The great barons,
wearied with their own excesses, and stripped of a great part of
their resources, were no longer inclined or able to continue that
struggle against the royal power, which had been headed by their
ancestors ever since the days of king John. On this side
therefore, the royal power no longer had any powerful
antagonists. On the other side, the Commons, wasted and enervated
by civil war, were not in a condition to take the place of the
high aristocracy in the struggle against the royal authority.
They had taken part in the government as followers of the nobles;
and when they found themselves standing almost alone in presence
of the crown, it did not even occur to them that this
interference was their right: they, therefore, contented
themselves with defending a few special rights, particularly that
of consenting to large subsidies; and, in other respects, they
allowed themselves to be governed. Hence arose the government of
Henry VIII., and at a later period, that of Elizabeth.
More than a century was requisite to enable the English
Commons--re-invigorated and strengthened, in a material point of
view, by long years of order and prosperity, and in a moral point
of view, by the reformation of religion--to acquire sufficient
social importance and intellectual elevation to place themselves,
in their turn, at the head of the resistance against despotism,
and to draw the ancient aristocracy in their train. This great
revolution in the state of society broke out in the reign of
Charles I., and determined that political revolution, which,
after fifty years of conflict, finally established representative
government in England.
The End.
{522}
{523}
INDEX.
Acts of the Oxford Parliament, 357
Adalid Mayor, 248
Adalides,
election and office of the, 247, 248
Administration of Diocletian, 24
Alaric II.,
king of the Visigoths, in Gaul, 208
Alfaqueque,
appointment of, 249
Alfred the Great,
influence of,
on English legislature, 30, 41;
right of, to the throne, 53
Algila,
king of the Visigoths, 210
Allodium,
characteristics of the, 107
Allods, 106;
conversion of, into benefices, 125;
proprietors of, 107, 135
Almocadene,
appointment of the, 249
Almogavars, 248
Alode,
origin of the term, 106
Amalaric,
king of Spain, 209
Ambassadors,
French, 108
America,
elections in, 407, 408
Anglo-Saxons, 29, 37;
resemblance of, to the Normans, 281;
subjection of the, 286;
general assemblies of the, 49;
institutions of the, 38, 46, 282, 284
Anglo-Saxons, Saxon heretochs,
election of, 247
Anglo-Saxons, Normans,
institutions of the, 282, 314
Antiquity,
study of, 5-7
Antrustions, see Leudes.
Apocrisiary, or keeper of the palace, 166
Arianism, introduction of, into Spain, 210
Arimanni, or Rathimburgi, 146
Aristocracy,
origin of the, 34;
signification of the term, 56;
historical definition of, 66;
influence of the, 235
Aristocracy,
feudal origin of the, 135, 143;
powers of the, 299
Aristocracy, French, 97
Aristocracy, Norman, cohesion of the, 286
Aristocracy, Saxon, 271
Army, privileges of the,
under the Roman Empire, 194
Arthur, duke of Bretagne, 309;
death of, 310
Assembly, general, of the Saxons,
see Wittenagemot
Assemblies,
Germanic, 47, 163
Assemblies,
national, first termed Parliaments, 356
Assemblies,
of the Franks, 163, 164;
decay of, 171;
revival of, under Charlemagne, 164;
Hincmar, on the, _ib_.
Assemblies, of the Normans, 298, 311
Assemblies, of the Saxons, 291, 293
Assemblies, of the Visigoths, 210
Assessors,
appointment and duties of, 44, 158, 239
{524}
Assizes, first appointed, 315
Athanogild, 210
Austrasia,
kingdom of, 88;
queen of, 89, 210
Authority,
judicial, institution of, 239
Authority,
parental, legitimacy of, 345
Authority,
regal, progress of, in England, 499, 500, 521
B.
Ballot, origin of the scheme, 408
Barbarianism, epoch of, 258
Barons,
original qualifications of, 294;
tyranny of the, 358;
wealth of the, 457;
struggles of, with the Commons, 497-501
Barons,
Council of, 423
Barons,
factions of the, 518, 519
Barons, Norman,
coalition of the, 300, 303, 309, 311;
increasing powers of the, 306;
contests of,
with King John, 311-318;
with Henry III., 322;
with Edward I., 327;
with Edward II., 456
Barons, French, powers of the, 101
Basques, see Vascons.
Becket, Thomas,
rise of, 275;
fall of, 278
Belgium, settlement of the Franks in, 84
Benefices, 112;
tenure of, 114, 115, 120, 135;
transference of, 116;
conditions attached to, 124;
character of, 125
Benefices, Montesquieu on, 117
Benefices,hereditary, 119
Beneficiaries, 135, 160
Benevolences, substitution of, for taxes, 520
Bills,
parliamentary, origin of, 514;
amendments to, first permitted, 515
Bills, of attainder, 517
Bishops,
powers of, in Gaul, 143;
nomination of, 144;
position of, in the Roman Empire, 200, 205;
political preponderance of, 221
Black Prince, the, 489, 490
Borough representation, corruption of, 386
Boroughs,
progress of the liberties of, 28;
deputies of, first called to Parliament, 361;
forms of elections for, 387
Boroughs, representatives of, 384, 385
Bracton, on "Sovereign power," 267
Breviarium Aniani, 209, 241, 245;
abolition of the, 244
Britain, a Roman colony, 25;
first inhabitants of, 270
Britons, origin of the, 270
Brunehaut,
queen of Austrasia, 89
ancestors of, 210
C.
Cambridge, University of,
first represented in Parliament, 373
Capacity,
electoral, 395, 396;
legal signs of, 397
Capitularies, 168
Carlovingians,
wealth of the, 113;
dissolution of the kingdom under the, 95;
monarchy of the, 157;
fall of the, 160, 171
Catalonia, origin of the name, 207
Castile, ancient customs of, 246
Centralization,
origin of, 39;
object of, 201
Centralization,
progress of, in England, 268, 275, 289, 316, 364
Centralization,
tendency to, in France, 94, 158;
progress of, 160, 170, 201
Centralization, in Rome, 184, 201
Centralization, monarchical, 158
Centralization,
of power opposed to representative government, 520;
origin of, 289;
tendency to, in England, 364, 497;
tendency to, in France, 100, 289
Ceorls, history of the, 33-37
{525}
Chamberlain, office of, 166
Champs de Mars,
assemblies of, 80, 163-169
Champs de Mai, 171
Chancery, courts of, 297
Charlemagne,
political aspect of the reign of, 96 98;
attempt of, to establish monarchy, 149, 158;
government of, 154, 157, 170
Charles the Bald,
reign of, in France, 99;
government of, 158, 171;
laws of tenure under, 120
Charles the Fat, reign of, 100
Charters,
origin of, 300
Charters, English,
history of, 302-306;
general character of, 319;
statute in confirmation of, 330
Charters, of Edward I., 328
Charters, of Henry I., 273, 304
Charters, of Henry II., 306
Charters, of Henry III., 320;
violation of the, 321;
revocation of, 322;
confirmation of, 323, 324
Charters, of John, 309, 311, 316
Charters, Magna, or the great, 313-317
Charters,
relating to forests, 316, 321;
confirmation of, 493
Charters, of Stephen, 305
Charters, of William the Conqueror, 303 _n._
Charters, of manumission, 498
Charters, granted to the clergy, 311
Chartularii, 147
Chiefs, Frankish, 83
Childeric, 83
Chindasuinth, 212
Chintila, reign of, 212
Christianity,
dawn and growth of, in Rome, 187, 189;
effects of, on society, 162, 190
Chronicles, European, 259
Church,
early endowment of the, 144;
first union of, with the state, 144
Church,
property, seizure of, 118
Cinq Ports,
political importance of the, 365
Cities, defenders of,
appointed, 199;
duties of, 242
Citizenship, Roman,
terms of admission to, 182, 185
Civil list,
origin of the, 496
Civil courts, powers of the, established, 276
Civilization,
effects of, on society, 32, 33;
its aid to power, 39;
progress of, 155;
chief aim of, 161
Civilization,
in England, 282
Civilization,
European, unity of, 257
Clarendon, constitution of, 276-278, 292
Clarissimi, 193, 194
Classification of persons,
principles of, 134, 135, 137, 138, 193
Classification of members, 421, 422,
Classification of governments, 61, 75
Clement V.,
bull of, 332, 333;
letter of, to Edward I., 332
Clergy,
influence of the, 98, 162, 177, 190, 205, 212;
privileges of the, 194;
political predominance of, 220;
incompetency of, for government, 232;
powers of the, 276, 310;
decline of, in England, 282, 491;
contests of, with royalty, 310;
charters granted to, 311;
statutes in favour of, 499
Clovis,
wars of, 84;
death of, 85;
successors of, 86
Code of English laws, 286
Code of the Visigoths, 177
Colonies,
Roman, 25;
state of the, 179
Comitia, the, in Rome, 184, 185
Commons,
admission of the, to Parliament, 370-373, 451;
formation of the, 422;
intervention of, in matters of peace or war, 485;
political influence of, 452, 487, 495;
progressive rights of the, 400, 476, 480, 488, 496, 516;
resistance of, to regal power, 477, 499, 501;
power of, in government, 495, 497;
annihilation of the, 521
{526}
Commons, House of, 268, 418-423, 437
Commons, House of, a secret assembly, 81
Commons, House of, in France,
enfranchisement of the, 424
Committees, parliamentary, first formed, 492, 497
Compurgation, 250-252
Concilium, attributes of the, 290, 448, 449
Concilium, Regni, 290
Confiscation, 286
Conquest, Norman, 271;
effects of the, 281, 283, 285;
results of, 287, 288
Conquest, of England by Louis of France, 318
Conquest, of Gaul, 84, 91
Constitutions of Clarendon, 276-278, 292
Constitutions of English, basis of the, 309
Convocation, writs of, 371, 373
Corporation, municipal, right of, to elect members, 385
Cortes, acts of the, 246
Councils of Clarendon, 276
Councils of barons, 315, 320, 423
Councils of kings,
various names of the, 291, 292, 448;
increase of the, 489
Councils of State, 165
Council, national,
of England, 448, 449;
dispersion of the, 459
Council of Northampton, 292
Councillors,
election of, 165;
duties of, 167
Counts,
institution of, 152;
jurisdiction of, 152;
rise of, 158
Counties,
deputies of, called to Parliament, 351, 362
Counties, progress of the representation of, 363
County courts,
origin and laws of, 43, 150;
effects of, on feudalism, 287;
members of, 352;
functions of, 379
Courts,
civil powers of, established, 276
Courts, of Chancery, 297
Courts, of Exchequer, 297
Courts, of kings, 291, 294
Courts, of law, established in England, 297
Cromwell, Parliament under, 6, 7
Crusades, 279
Curator, 198
Curatores, 199
Curfew, laws of, 271
Curia,
attributes of the, 183, 188, 197;
importance of the, 243;
abolishment of, 204
Curia, de more, 290, 291
Curia,
regis, 291;
constitution of the, 293
Curials of the Roman Empire, 183, 193;
functions and charges of, 195
D.
Danegeld, the, 296, 305
Danes,
establishment of, in England, 270;
affinity of, to the Normans, 271
David Bruce, 486
Debt, national, progress of the, 507
Debates, parliamentary, order of, 515
Decurio, origin of the term, 183
Defensores,
appointment of, 199;
result of the, 200;
duties of, 242
Democracy,
principles of, 70
Democracy,
compared with representative government, 73, 445
Denariales, 146
Deputies of boroughs,
first called to Parliament, 361
Deputies of counties,
admitted to Parliament, 351, 363;
relation of, to the great barons, 354;
election of, 381;
union of, with borough members, 422
Deputies of towns,
first admitted to Parliament, 365
{527}
Despotism,
origin of, 156, 158, 341;
tests of, 170, 187;
union of, with privilege, 194;
forms of, 444
Despotism,
Roman, 161, 199;
effects of, in the west, 180;
dangers of, 187;
principles of, 204
Diocletian, administration of, 24
Dissolution,
tendency to, in early states, 95, 101;
phenomena of, 102
Districts, electoral, 404
Donors of benefices, 124
Doomsday-book,
compilation of, 286;
tythes granted by, 326 _n_.
Dukes,
appointment and jurisdiction of, 152
Duty on wool, first imposed, 326
Duumvir, 198
E.
Edward I.,
reign of, 325-330;
exactions of, 326;
quarrels of, with the nobles, 327, 329;
statute of, 330;
character of, 368;
Parliaments of, 368, 370, 371, 374
Edward II.,
reign of, 454-461;
Parliaments of, 455;
deposition of, 457
Edward III.,
reign of, 476, 484-489;
death of, 490;
Parliaments of, 495-498
Egica, succession of, 214
Eginhard,
on the "Tenure of Benefices," 117, 124
Election,
direct advantages of, 408;
necessity of, 411
Election,
indirect evils of, 412, 413;
source of, 416
Elections,
an element in representative government, 80, 409;
evils of, 407
Elections,
American, forms of, 407
Elections,
of borough members, 387
Elections,
of councillors, 166
Elections,
of county members, 381
Elections,
English, 404-407
Elections,
French, 408
Elections,
of kings, 222
Elections,
of knights, 380, 419;
by the sheriff, 354
Elections,
under the Merovingians, 159
Elections,
by vote, limited power of, 339
Elections,
character and power of, 63;
introduction of, 80;
forms of, 387;
necessity for, 265;
effects of, on feudalism, 422;
advantages of, 408;
fundamental law of, 405;
influence of kings upon, 492 _n_.;
abuses of, first repressed, 491;
parliamentary interference in, 507
Electors,
original qualification of, 377, 381, 385;
two classes of, 393;
rights of, 406, 407
Emperors, powers of the, 28
Empire, Roman,
political sterility of the, 24;
social condition of, in the 5th century, 193-203;
fall of the, 187, 205;
position of bishops under the, 200, 205;
Honorati of the, 243
Enfranchisement,
modes of, 146, 147;
progress of, 173;
effects of, on the continent, 424
Enfranchisement,
general, 498
England,
early history of, 29-31, 270;
division of the soil, 42;
representative government in, 56, 69, 258, 263, 266, 268, 519;
progress of feudalism in, 274, 280;
civilization of, 282;
conquest of, by Louis of France, 318;
facts which decided the political destiny of, 423;
modern state of, 448;
political aspect of, in the reign of Edward III., 477;
institutions of, 30, 149, 284, 494
Enquiry,
right of, 473
Enquiry,
commissions of, instituted, 487
Epochs of European history, 258
Error, sources of, 4
{528}
Error of the Whigs and Tories, 293, 462
Erwig, usurpation of, 213
Escuage,
establishment of, 306;
laws of, 313
Euric, king of the Visigoths, 208
Evesham, battle of, 362
Evil, conflicts of, 68
Exchequer, court of, instituted, 297
Excommunication, 310
F.
Fact, philosophy of, 426
Favourites, empire of, in England, 455, 500, 502
Feudalism,
characteristics of, 14, 35, 104, 120, 173;
first principles of, 41;
importance of, to the formation of society, 130;
rapid extension of, 146, 158, 171;
origin of, 148;
conflicts of, 149;
rudiments of, 151;
influence of, 175;
epoch of, 258;
establishment of, in England, 271, 280;
decline of, in England, 437
Feudalism,
in France, 95, 285;
effects of, 102;
progress of, 110, 111, 113;
predominance of, 153;
attacks on, 173;
source of, 284.
Feudalism,
effects of, on the Saxons, 286
Fidelity, oaths of, 123
Fiefs, book of, 117
Forests, charters relating to, 316, 321, 493
Formation and dissolution, phenomena of, 102
Fortescue, on "Sovereign Power," 267
Forty-shilling freeholders, origin of, 381
Forum Judicium,
laws of the, 216, 224, 226, 237;
study of the, 255
France,
historical position of, 3;
absolute monarchy in, 56;
representative government in, 62, 175, 519;
early settlements of, 84;
partition of the realm, 87, 92;
national assemblies established in, 163 169;
centralization of power in, 289
Franks,
origin of the, 82;
countries first inhabited by, 88;
institutions of the, 83, 103, 149;
first habitations of, 111;
condition of, under the Romans, 134;
national assemblies of the, 163, 174;
results of their settlement in Gaul, 172
Franks,
under Charlemagne, 97
Fredegonde, queen of Neustria, 89
Free-men,
various classes of, 136;
rank of, 143;
signification of the term, 145
Free-men,
in Rome, 193
Freeholders,
origin of, 295, 378
Freeholders,
court of, 353, 379
Freeholders,
rights of, 380, 381, 385
Fueros, or ancient customs of Castile, 246, 247
G.
Gaul,
invasion of, by the Germans, 26;
conquest of, by Clovis, 84;
by Pepin, 91, 93;
territorial division of, 103, 150;
settlement of the Franks in, 172;
Visigothic monarchy in, 208
Germany,
Franks in, 84;
primitive state of society in, 148;
institutions of, 148
Gibbon, history by, 259, 260
Goths,
character of the, 236;
laws of the, 246
Government,
forms and principles of, 56, 58, 443;
co-existence of, with society, 57;
true laws of, 60;
problem of, 78;
twofold object of, 155;
theories of, 341
Government,
aristocratic, 66, 70;
consequences of, 68, 457
Government,
central, rise of, 289;
principal organ of, 452
{529}
Government,
ecclesiastical, 51, 234
Government,
free, progress towards, 302
Government,
English, sources of, 283;
fundamental principles of, 369
Government,
local, 240
Government,
monarchical, sources of, 444;
encroachments upon, 487
Government, parliamentary,
struggles of, with absolute power, 495-501
Government, representative,
origin of, 12;
distinct features of, 47, 61;
principles of, 55, 71, 77, 264, 265, 267, 440, 441;
aim of, 62, 64;
requirements of, 67;
forms of, 77, 266;
characteristics of, 265;
formation of, 302;
nature of, 340, 348, 440
Government, representative, in England,
causes which led to the establishment of, 267, 289, 521;
first development of, 354, 355;
necessity for the perfecting of, 474, 475;
decadence of, 520
Government, representative,
in France, 62, 175, 519
opposed to absolute power, 441
Government, representative,
under the feudal system, 175
Government, representative,
the government of the majority, 72
Motesquieu on, 56
Governments,
classification of, 61, 75
Governments,
free, 449
Grants, parliamentary, 419, 420
Gregory VII., Pope,
contests of, with William the Norman, 272
Gundemar, reign of, 211
H.
Harold, usurpation and death of, 271
Henry I.,
usurpation of, 272;
reign of, 273;
death of, 274;
charters of, 304