B O R 



On the other hand, it has been argued by the advocates 

 of the higher antiquity of the coinmuiis, tliat if we look to 

 the beft accounts of the original cuftoms of the ancient Ger- 

 man nations, we fliall find, that, in their comnninities, all 

 tlie freeholders enjoyed an equal right with the nobles to 

 affift in deliberations on affairs of great moment. See Tacitus 

 de Moribus German, c. 2/;. Upon their firll fettlenicnt in 

 any forei,;n country, and while their number was fniall, this 

 right might be excrcifed, without much inconvenience, by 

 the whole body of the freeholders alTcmbHng together on 

 open plains. To this purpofe, Matthew of Wellniinfter 

 (Sub. Ann. 1213. Johan. tj.) intimates, that the Anglo- 

 Saxons, atter they came into Britain, e.^ercifed their right in 

 this manner; for he fays, that the meadow near Staines, in 

 which king John granted the great charter, was called 

 " Runemeed," denoting in the Saxon language the " mea- 

 dow of couiifcl," becaufe from ar.cicnt times it had been 

 ufual to confnlt there upon bufinefs which concerned the 

 peace of the kingdom. But this cuftona had been difufcd 

 undrrr, and even before, the government of the Normans ; 

 perhaps from the time in which the Saxon heptarchy was 

 united into one kingdom. The only inllar.ce that occurs of 

 its having been revived is the meeting in tlie reign of king 

 John ; all the parliaments, or great councils, of which we 

 have any account before, were held in churches, abbies, or 

 I'oyal callles ; and therefore, if the right of the freeholders 

 continued, the greater part of them mull have exercifed it, 

 not pcrfonally, as in ancient times, but by their reprefenta- 

 tives. By a record cited by Dr. Brady, fo late as the 

 lifteenth year of king John, it appears, that not only 

 the greater barons, but all the inferior tenatits in chief 

 of the crown, had a right to be fummoned to parliament by 

 paiticnlar writs ; and therefore we may conclude, that till 

 tliat time, no repiefentatives had been fent by any of thefe 

 to ferve for them in parliament ; but they attended the great 

 councils of the nation in their own perfons : and their num- 

 ber was not fo conliderable, as not to allow of their being 

 accommodated in the body of a church, or the great hall of 

 an abbey or callle. But thefe were far from being all the 

 freeholders of the kingdom ; for this delcription compre- 

 hended all who held of the barons, either bv knight-fervice, 

 or free focage, and all the poflefibrs of allodial eftatcG, with 

 all the free inhabitants of cities and boroughs not holding of 

 the crown. Tiie number of all thefe was too great to be 

 contained in r,ny building however fpacious. But were thefe 

 men either wholly excluded from parliament, or were they 

 prefent there by any kind of reprefentation ? Some learned 

 writers have fnppofed, that every fuperior lord, who held of 

 the king immediately and in chief, gave an opinion on mat- 

 ters of government, which bound all his vafTals. But if this 

 were the cafe, the poffeflbrs of allodial eftatcs, to which 

 clafs we may refer all the parochial cltrgv, having no fupe- 

 rlcr lord to aft for them in parliament, could not be thus 

 reprelented, or virtually bound by the ails of the king's 

 barons, to whom they were not attached by any feudal con- 

 nexion, and of whom they held nothing. Belidcs, the 

 knights, citizens, and burgefles, who are now reprefentatives 

 of the commons of England, are elefted by thofe for whom 

 they lerve ; and on oceafion of every new parliament, the 

 eleilors are at liberty to make a new choice : whereas, the 

 reprefentatives, in the above hypothefis of fir H. Spclman, 

 were ne-l!:er elected, nor liable to be changed at any period 

 of lime, by thofe whom they reprefented ; their right to lit 

 in parliament not ariling from any trull conferred by the 

 people, but wholly from their tenures. It is alfo certain, 

 that the feudal fupericrity was the fame under the govern- 

 ment of Henry III. as of William I., and continued fo for 

 fome ages. If therefore the barons, and fuperior lords of 



B O R 



great Hefs, liolden immediately of the crown, hao, by vlrtire 

 ol the inilitutions of William 1., been kippofed to reprefent 

 their vaifals in parli.Tment, and the notion then was, that 

 every feudatory, holding by a mcfne tenure, was bound liy 

 the parliamentary adts of his lord, how came that notion te> 

 be dileardrd in the 49th year of Heniy III. or under the 

 reign of his foil, or at any time afterwards? A baron, who 

 held i)f the crown, was to all intents and purpofes the head 

 of his vaiTals, in the reigns of Edward I. and Edward III., 

 as much as in any of the preceding reigns. How happened 

 it then, that the confent of thefe vaifals to the making of 

 laws, or any other aft of moment to the public, was not Hill 

 included in the vote of their lord ? Why was it given, againll 

 the eourfc ot former iprocecdings, not by him, as their re- 

 prefentativc, but by knights of the Ihire, or by citizens, or 

 by burgcffes, chofen by the vaifals ? Some have referred 

 this change, as we have above ftated, to the earl of Lci- 

 ccller, in the 49th year of Henry III. But an exifting re- 

 cord, it is faid, demonftrates this date to be falfe. A writ 

 of fnmmons, direfted to the flieriffs of Bedforddiire and 

 Buckinghamihire, and requiring two knights to be fent for 

 each of thefe counties, is extant in the eloi'e roll of the 38th 

 year of Henry III. And there is alfo a claufe in the great 

 charter of the yth of the fame khig (fee Dr. Blackllone's- 

 edition of the charter), wheret)y it is declared, that, together 

 with the fpiiitual and temporal lords, other inferior free- 

 holders, ct omnes de regno, by which words lord Lyttelton 

 underftands " the whole commonalty of the realm," granted 

 to the king the fifteenth part of all their moveable goods, in 

 return for the liberties acceded to them in tliat charter." 

 " Nor," fays his lordftip [tihl irtfrii), " can I difcover in. 

 the hillory of thofe times any reafon fufhcient to render it 

 probable, that fo great an alteration fhould then have been 

 made in the conllitutioii of England." Such an alteration 

 mull have produced difputes, which v. ould have been noticed 

 by fome of the numerous hillorians of that age. But the 

 Englidi hillory is altogether filent as to any difputes between 

 the nobility and the people, on this account, from the ear- 

 liell times of the Saxon government down to the reign of 

 Charles I. Hencf it may be reafonably prcfumed, that the 

 right of the comm.ons mull have been inconteftibly eftablilhed 

 by eullom, and interwoven into the original frame of our 

 government. It is harilly conceivable, that the admiffion 

 of all the lower 01 deis of freemen, or indeed of any large 

 number, to the great council of the kingdom, and to a par- 

 ticipation of the legillative power, to which they had no- 

 right before, fliould have been brought about, and yet 

 pafs unobferved by any writer who lived in that age. 

 If we fnppofe, as fome have done, that the fitting in 

 parliament was at this time regarded only as a trouble 

 and burden, the impofition of fuch a burden on orders 

 of men, who had been before exempt from it, mull have been, 

 on their part refilled and oppofed. But from the aft of the 

 4th of Edward III., which is thus worded, " It is accortled,- 

 that a parliament Ihall be holden every year once, and more 

 oiten, if need be," we may infer, that it was generally re- 

 garded in a very different light, rather as a privilege, of 

 which they earnellly defired the frequent enjoyment, than 

 as a burden, from which they wifiud to be exempt. It is 

 true, fome boroughs, which, on account of their poverty,. 

 were unable to bear the expcnce of feuding members to par- 

 liament, declined thecxereife of that privile'ge ; but it 

 would be unfair to allege this circumftanee, which occurred 

 in particular inllances, as an argument in favour of the ge- 

 neral fenfe of the commons in counties, cities, or other more 

 wealthy boroughs. Befidts, there are fome inllances of bo- 

 roughs that petitioned to be reftored to the ufe of the privi- 

 lege of fending members to parliament, after a very long 



interruption^ 



