POLITICAL HISTORY 



communities as parts of the shire and his summons was issued through 

 the sheriffs. To these early writs, however, we have no returns, and 

 we do not know the names of those who were elected. The first 

 original writ on record, endorsed with the names of the knights returned, 

 is for the parliament held at Westminster in 1290, when Walter de 

 Mulcaster, Hubert de Multon and William de Boyvill were elected to 

 serve as representatives of the county. 1 In 1295 representatives of the 

 cities and boroughs were permanently added ; and to the parliament of 

 that year the city of Carlisle and the boroughs of Cockermouth and 

 Egremont were invited to send members, two for the county, two for 

 the city, and two for each of the boroughs. The names of these eight 

 representatives are known. 2 No further summons appears to have been 

 issued to the boroughs till 1640, when the privilege of representation 

 was restored to Cockermouth. 3 From that date it continued to return 

 two members till 1867, when the number was reduced to one. It was 

 finally disfranchised under the Act of 1885. It is unquestionable that 

 boroughs such as Egremont looked upon the privilege of returning 

 members in the light of a serious burden by reason of the salaries con- 

 nected with it. These were fixed at 4.*. a day for a knight of the shire 

 and usually 2s. for a borough member, and were due for the whole time 

 of his service, his journey to and from and his stay in parliament. We 

 can easily understand, therefore, the plea made on behalf of some of the 

 smaller communities asking to be relieved of the burden which had 

 been maliciously, as they conceived, placed upon them. 4 



The representation of the clergy in the early parliaments is worthy 

 of observation. From a writ, dated 30 September 1295, we learn that 

 the prior and archdeacon of Carlisle, one proctor for the chapter and 

 two proctors for the clergy of the diocese were summoned to the parlia- 

 ment at Westminster in that year. 5 In the parliament of Carlisle in 

 1307 a great number of ecclesiastics were permitted to appear by proxy, 

 probably on account of the remote distance of the place of meeting. 

 At this parliament Bishop Halton of Carlisle and the abbot of Holm- 

 cultram were present ; and the clergy of the diocese were represented 

 by John de Boghes, William de Goseford, Robert de Suthayke, and 



Parl. Writs (Rec. Com.), i. 21. 

 Ibid. i. 35. 



3 The subject of representation was much discussed in the parliament of 1640. It does not appear 

 upon what principle a precept should have been sent to Cockermouth when Egremont was omitted, as 

 both boroughs had been represented in the parliament of 1295 (Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, 



' 375 -) 



4 The first writ on record for the expenses of the knights for the shire of Cumberland appears to be 

 that dated 20 March 1300, wherein the sheriff was directed to pay to them ' racionabiles expensas suas in 

 veniendo ad nos, ibidem morando, et inde ad propria redeundo ' according to custom (Close, 28 Edw. I. 

 m. I2d ; Parl. Writs [Rec. Com.], i. 85-6). In 1328 we have a writ to the mayor and bailiffs of the city 

 of Carlisle to pay John de Harrington and Simon de Sandford, their burgesses, the sum of j 12s. for 

 thirty-eight days' service in parliament, that is, at the rate of zs. a day (Close, 2 Edw. III. m. gd ; Rot. 

 Parliam. [Rec. Com.], ii. 441). By Act 35 Henry VIII. cap. n, the wages of a knight of the shire were 

 fixed at 4;. a day, and of a burgess of a town at ^s. a day, according to ancient custom. There is much 

 on the wages of parliamentary representatives in the Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer, i. 325, 336, 

 369 and passim. 



Carl. Epis. Reg., Halton, ff. 21-2. 



253 



