B O R 



interruption. Mor.-ovcr, it f«ms incrcdililf, that if tliC 

 whole Icgirtative jviwcr had, before ihc rcijjn of Henry III., 

 liecn always placed in the nobility and the king, they (hould 

 not have oppofcd ll\c txtci.fion cf it to fo many pcrfons of 

 lower rank in the llate : more cfprcially as (1)c power of tlic 

 nobility was never higher than it was in tliis rtigii. With 

 regard to the tirl of l.cicellcr, it was not his intcrtft, while 

 he was afting at the head of the noblis and people, in a very 

 dangerous contcft againrt the crown, to n'akc any innovations 

 ofTenfive or dilVartcful to either of thofe bodies ; nor is it 

 probable, that any new inftitution, begun by thst tail, fliould 

 have been confinncd and perpetuated by Edward I An-.ong 

 the clofc ro'ls of the 24th of this king, there is a writ of 

 fummons to parliament, already cited, in which it is afTLMttd, 

 not as an innovation introduced by the carl of Ijeicclter, but 

 " a maxim grounded on a moll equitable law, cliablifhcd by 

 the forefight and wifdom of facrcd princes, that what con- 

 cerns all, (hould be done with the approbation of all ; and 

 that dangers to the whole community, fhould be obviated by 

 remedies provided by the whole community. " If the earl 

 of Leiccller, or even if Edward I., or his father, had intro- 

 duced the prafticcof fummoning the commons to parliament, 

 Edward could not with proprictv have ufed this language. 

 It IS further alleged, that there is not in any of the oldeft 

 ■writs for fending up reprcfentativcs from citits or boroughs 

 the leatl intimation, that fueh cleftions were a novelty then 

 introd\iced. Some writs are taken notice of by Mr. Tynel, 

 an indullrious fcarchcr of records on this fiibjedl, which fet 

 forth a claim of certain tenants in ancitnt dcmefne, before 

 the ijth year of Edward II., that they eught not to be 

 charged with wages to knights of the fliire ; " forafmuch as 

 they and their ancellors, tenants of the fame manor, had, 

 from time beyond memory, been always exempted, by 

 cxtlom, from the expences of knights, fent by the commu- 

 nity of their county to the parli-.mcnts of the king, and of 

 Itis royal progenitors." A time bcvond memory is defined 

 by our law-books to be a time antecedent to the beginning 

 •of the reign of Richard I. ; and if no wages liad been ever 

 paid to knights of the fliire till the reign of Henry III., it 

 would have been prepoderous for thefe perfons to tell the 

 grandfon of that king, that they had enjoyed a cnlloniary 

 privilege of not paying wages from time beyond memory, 

 which mull be fuppofcd, when this exemption was claimed, 

 to go much further back than the reign of Richard I. 



With regard to cities and boroughs, there are likcwife 

 extant two claims, made in the reigns of Edward II. and Ed- 

 ward HI., which feem to decide the fenfe of that age con- 

 cerning the antiquity of the cullom of citizens and burgeffcs 

 conr.ing to parliament, and from towns that vvcre held under 

 fubjccis, not immediately of the crown. Thefe are the 

 claims of the towns of St. Albans and Barnflaple. In the 

 petition of the borough of St. Albans, fnll taken notice of 

 by Selden, and then by Petyt, Brady, Tyrrcl, and others, 

 and prtfented to parliament in the reign of Edward II. 

 the pttitiontrs aflert, that though they held In cnpite of the 

 trown, a;.d owed only for all other fervice their attendance 

 in parliament, yet the fheriff had omitted thtm in his writs ; 

 whereas, both in the reign of the king's father, and all his 

 predcccffors, they had always fent members. This expref- 

 Ijon, it is alleged, could not have been ufed, if the com- 

 mencement of the houfe of commons were in the reign of 

 Henry III. However, Madox, in his " Hiftory of the 

 Exchequer," p. 522, &c. has endeavoured to di:llroy the 

 authority of this petition for the purpofe to whicii it is ad- 

 duced. He adcrts, firll, that there was no fueh tenure in 

 England, as that of holding by attend.mce in parliament, 

 iullead of all ether fervice ; and fecondly, that the borough 



B O R 



of St. .Mh.tns never h Jd of the crown at all, bv.t was always 

 dcmefne land of the abbot. It is no wonder, therefiue. 

 favs Mr. Hume, that a petition, which advances two falfe- 

 honds, fhould contain oix hilloneal millakc, which indeed 

 amouni;; only to an inaccurate and exaggerated cxpreffion ; 

 no llr.i.ige matter in ignorant burgefTts of that sge, who 

 wanted to (hake off the authority of their abbot, and to hold 

 of the king, withinit rendering any fervices even to the 

 crown. See the difcuflion of this fabjcft, and an examina- 

 tion of the reafoning of Madox and i)r. Brady, in Lyttel- 

 ton's Hill, of Eng.Vol. iii. p. 405, &c. The advocates for 

 the antiquity of borough rt^refentatives further refer to a 

 ilatute of the /ith year of Richard II. ilat. 2. which enafts, 

 " that all and fingular perfons and commonalties, which from 

 henceforth (liall have the fummons of the parliament, (liall 

 come from henceforth to the parliaments in the manner as 

 thtv arc bound to do, and hu-vc been accujhr.isd 'zvlthin the 

 realm of England, of old limes. And if any perion of the fame 

 realm, which from henceforth (liall have the faid fummons 

 (be he avchbifliop, biflv.p, abbot, prior, duke, earl, baron, 

 banneret, hi'ight oflheJJure, citizen of dly, lurgefs of Loroiigh, 

 or other fingular perfon or comn-onalty ), do abfent himftlt, 

 S;c. he fhnli be amerced, and otherwife punifiied, according 

 as of old times halh been ufed to be done luilhin the faid realm in 

 ihe faid cafe." Upon this (lalute it is argued, that it makes 

 no dillindtion between the antiquity of fummons to parlia- 

 ment fent to the greater nobility, and thofe to citizens, bur- 

 gefTes, and knigiits of the fliire. Befides this remarkable 

 teflimony of the whole legiflature in the reign of Richard II. 

 to the antiquity of the cullom of the commons coming to the 

 parliament, v/e have a petition of the commons in the fecond 

 ])arliamcnt of the reign of Henry V., which fets forth to 

 that prince, " that as it hath ever been their libertie and free- 

 dom, that there (lionid no ilatute nor law be made, unltfs 

 they pall thereto tlieir afTent, conlidering that the commune 

 of vour land, the which is and ever halh been a member of 

 your parliament, be as well aflenters as petitioners, &c.'* 

 This claim was not difallovvcd either by the lords or the 

 king. Befides thtfe authorities drawn from (latutes and re- 

 cords, it is faid, that very evident indications of the prefence 

 of the people in the national councils, and of their being 

 ccnllituent parts thereof, t!;ough in a diforderly manner, are 

 to be found in fomc ancient hiilories, and contemporary ac- 

 counts of tranfaftions in parliament, from the death of Ed- 

 ward the ConfefTor to that of Henry II. Several inftances 

 to this purpofe, occurring in the reigns of William the Con- 

 queror, William Rufus, Henry I., Stephen, Henry II., 

 &c. are produced by lord Lyttelton, in the Notes to his 

 Hiftory, vol. iii. p. 421, &c. We may further add, that 

 the prefence of the people in the Saxon councils, and their 

 having had a (hare in the higheft adls of legillature and go- 

 vernment, even till the entrance of the Normans, feems to 

 be proved very ftrongly from the preambles of laws and other 

 proceedings of thofe councils, and from the words of the bed 

 hillorians who lived near to thofe times. On this long ufage, 

 fays lord Lyttelton, their right was eflabliflied ; and it ap- 

 pears to have been contiruied under William the Conqueror, 

 with other culloms and rights confirmed by him to the na- 

 tion, and under his fucceffors, by like famftions of ancient 

 liberties granted in repeated royal charters. In ancient 

 times, however, the property of the commons was fo un- 

 equal to that of the nobles, and the feudal obligations of the 

 inferior landholders to the lords under whom they held, 

 created fueh a dependence of the former on the latter, that 

 although, in the idea and fcheme of the government, a po- 

 pular power was mixed with the regal and ariftocratical, yet, 

 in reality, the fcale of the people was not weighty enough 



to 



