REPRESENTATIVE BODIES. 593 



Quite early we may see foreshadowed a tendency to part, deter- 

 mined by unlikeness of functions. In the Carlovingian period in France 

 there were two annual gatherings : a larger, which all the armed free- 

 men had a right to attend ; and a smaller, formed of the greater per- 

 sonages and deliberating on more special aifairs. 



If the weather was fine, all this passed in the open air; if not, in distinct 

 buildings. . . . When the lay and ecclesiastical lords were . . . separated from 

 the multitude, it remained in their option to sit together, or separately, accord- 

 ing to the aifairs of which they had to treat. 



And that unlikeness of functions is the cause of separation we find 

 evidence in other places and times. Describing the armed national 

 assemblies of the Hungarians, originally mixed, Levy TS^ites : " La 

 derniere reunion de ce genre eut lieu quelque temps avant la bataille 

 de Mohacs ; mais bientot apres, la diete se divisa en deux chambres : 

 la table des magnats et la table des deputes." In Scotland, again, in 

 1367-'68, the three estates having met, and wishing, for reasons of 

 economy and convenience, to be excused from their functions as soon 

 as possible, "elected certain persons to hold parliament, who were 

 divided into two bodies, one for the general affairs of the king and 

 kingdom, and another, a smaller division, for acting as judges upon 

 appeals." In the case of England we find that though, in the writs 

 calling together Simon de Montfort's Parliament, no distinction was 

 made between magnates and deputies, yet when, a generation after, 

 Parliament became established, the writs made a distinction, " counsel 

 is deliberately mentioned in the invitation to the magnates, action and 

 consent in the invitation to representatives." Indeed, it is clear that 

 since the earlier-formed body of magnates was habitually summoned 

 for consultative purposes, especially military, while the representatives 

 afterward added were summoned only to grant money, there existed 

 from the outset a cause for separation. Sundry influences conspired 

 to produce it. Difference of language, still to a considerable extent 

 persisting and impeding joint debate, furnished a reason. Then there 

 was the effect of class-feeling, of which we have definite proof. Though 

 in the same assembly, the deputies from boroughs " sat apart both from 

 the barons and knights, who disdained to mix with such mean person- 

 ages " ; and probably these deputies themselves, little at ease in pres- 

 ence of imposing superiors, preferred sitting separately. Moreover, it 

 was customary for the several estates to submit to taxes in different 

 proportions ; and this tended to entail consultation among the mem- 

 bers of each body by themselves. Finally, we read that " after they 

 (the deputies) had given their consent to the taxes required of them, 

 their business being then finished, they separated, even though the 

 Parliament still continued to sit, and to canvass the national business." 

 In which last fact we are clearly shown that, though aided by other 

 causes, unlikeness of duties was the essential cause which at length 

 VOL. XIX. 38 



