No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Rejoinder to Mr. Graves's Reassessment of Proctorial Representation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2014
Extract
It would be rewarding at the outset of this rejoinder to single out several areas of agreement between Mr. M. A. R. Graves and myself. First, we share a common objective: both of us aim to describe the system of parliamentary politics in the Edwardian House of Lords. Since Graves found little fault with section I of my article, which explained the proxy procedures, I assume that he concurs with that explanation. Secondly, we both are attempting to account for the behavior of individuals and groups within that system. Here we seem to agree on intention, although we differ on many specifics. Thirdly, we both rely upon quantitative techniques to explain certain political actions. It is in this area that the gap between objectives and results appears to be greatest. Graves has leveled most of his criticism at my statistical evidence, the method of quantification and the conclusions drawn from that evidence.
It is appropriate at this juncture to make some concessions. Graves has made a more complete survey and intensive study of attendance and absenteeism than I have. While I confined my attention to proctorial representation and absenteeism reflected in the proxies, he has amassed statistics and calculated percentages from the daily attendance records as well, and in so doing has improved the methodology and produced more accurate calculations pertaining to the political behavior of absentees. In short, he has out-quantified me and I concede that most of his conclusions relating to the incidence of absenteeism are sound.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1971
References
1. Mr. Graves has been researching Edwardian attendance and absence patterns for several years in connection with his doctoral thesis; unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity of reading the thesis before this writing.
2. M. A. R. Graves, “Proctorial Representation in the House of Lords during Edward VI's Reign: A Reassessment,” supra, p. 19.
3. For a discussion of the complicated procedures governing licenses see Roskell, J. S., “The problem of the attendance of the lords in medieval parliaments,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXIX (1956), 179–95Google Scholar and Miller, Helen, “Attendance in the House of Lords during the Reign of Henry VIII,” The Historical Journal, X (1967), especially pp. 329–44Google Scholar.
4. Journals of the House of Lords, I, 293–445Google Scholar. According to D'Ewes, this variance stemmed from the fact that some lords, especially the spiritual lords, wrote the proxies from their residences, while others used the Clerk of the Parliaments' standardized form.
5. Snow, Vernon F., “Proctorial Representation in the House of Lords during the Reign of Edward VI,” Journal of British Studies, VIII (1969), 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6. The licenses are located in the PRO, SC 10/50-52. For a tabulation and discussion of these licenses see Miller, , “Attendance,” Historical Journal, X, 337–49Google Scholar. It is entirely possible that the licenses were presented to the Lord Chancellor or one of his clerks (such as the Clerk of the Petty Bag, who handled writs of summons) for preservation, for they became part of Chancery archives rather than part of the parliamentary archives under the jurisdiction of the Clerk of the Parliaments.
7. There was considerable confusion in the parliamentary archives between 1542 and 1550. Many duties were delegated by the nominal Clerk of the Parliaments to subordinates. See Bond, Maurice F., “Clerks of the Parliaments,” English Historical Review, LXXII (1958), 79Google Scholar. At the same time, moreover, the Clerks of the Parliaments were striving to become independent from Chancery. Possibly the originals were lost in 1548, when Sir Edward North turned over the “muniments of Parliament” to Sir John Mason; see Bond, Maurice, “The Formation of the Archives of Parliament, 1497–1691,” Journal of the Society of Archives, I (1957), 151–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8. Graves, “Reassessment,” supra, pp. 20-21.
9. Technically speaking, these procedures were not formally adopted by the upper house until 1626, although they appear to have been in effect during the Elizabethan era. See SirD'Ewes, Simonds, The Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, both of the House of Lords and the House of Commons (London, 1682), especially p. 421Google Scholar.
10. Graves, “Reassessment,” supra, p. 28.
11. H.M.C.R. Salisbury Mss., I, 51Google Scholar. Surely this letter and the postscript were written from London.
12. It is possible that his name appears among the parliamentary pawns in the PRO. Since Graves possesses this information, I refer the matter to him.
13. According to Dugdale, Lord Vaux was not summoned to either the 1548-49 parliament or the 1549-50 parliament, as Graves claims (supra, p. 28.). If Graves secured his data from the parliamentary pawns in the PRO, there is “no contest” and I accept his evidence; however, if he obtained the information from another source, we shall have to defer to the parliamentary pawns.
14. The original proxy was a legal instrument, a power of attorney, initiated by the absentee after receiving his license to be absent. It would be drawn up, presumably, by the absentee or his attorney. It was then forwarded to the procurators) who presented it to the Clerk of the Parliaments; the latter, in turn, recorded the pertinent information in the Lords Journals. In some cases, it seems, the absentee forwarded the proxy directly to the Clerk of the Parliaments for registration. In either case, the Clerk of the Parliaments received the proxy and registered it in the official record, for which he received a fee of 30 shillings. It is possible that he returned the originals to the absentees, but more likely he retained them for the duration of the session and then either put them in a “dead file” or destroyed them. It is also possible that they were subsequently discarded or destroyed by fire.
15. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), 10, 12Google Scholar.
16. Graves, “Reassessment,” supra, p. 25.
17. See Miller, , “Attendance,” Historical Journal, X, 332Google Scholar for the case of Bishop Tunstal's instructions to his procurator. In 1607 the Earl of Derby asked Cecil to award his proxy to “men who will say nay to the Union” (C.S.P. Dom., 1603-10, p. 355). Similarly, in 1624 Lord Zouch instructed his proxy, the Earl of Pembroke, to protect the privileges of the Cinque Ports which, he feared, might come under attack (Cal.S.P. Dom., 1623-25, p. 160).
18. It would seem that this practice began late in the reign of Henry VIII when Sir John Mason was, for all practical purposes, Clerk of the Parliaments. In the 1543 parliament the joint proxies are not arranged along lines of precedence. But in the 1545 parliament and thereafter the joint procurators are listed according to precedence. I have found only two exceptions to this arrangement during the reign of Edward VI. In the 1547 parliament the Bishop of Worcester was listed before the Bishop of Ely as joint proctors of the Bishop of Westminster; in the same session the Bishop of Asaph was listed before the Bishop of St. David as joint proctors of the Bishop of Chester. In each case, according to the rules of precedence governing other listings in the Journals, they should have been reversed. However, since in each case the names were in justaposition, these two instances would appear to be clerical errors.
19. See D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar On p. 9 D'Ewes claimed that he was writing in 1630. Yet, he included a discussion of the Mulgrave-Essex proxy case, which occurred in April, 1646; in fact, D'Ewes admitted drafting the letter and power of attorney Mulgrave submitted to the Upper House (p. 7).
20. D'Ewes, , Journals, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar D'Ewes claims (see the Preface) ) to have used the manuscript version of Elsynge's Modus.
21. Elsynge, Henry, The Manner of Holding Parliaments in England (London, 1768), p. 132Google Scholar.
22. Lords' Journals, II, 40Google Scholar.
23. The word “contemporary” demands a brief explanation. Sir Thomas wrote his commentary on English government from “memory,” he related, without the assistance of “a single book and no men of law to consult.” When did he observe voting procedures in the House of Lords? Not during the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth, when he sat in the House of Commons as an ordinary member, but when he was Secretary of State during the Somerset protectorate, that is some time between April 1548 and 1549. In short, he wrote as a firsthand witness to the second session of Edward VI's first parliament. See SirSmith, Thomas, De Republica Anglorum, ed. Alston, Leonard (Cambridge, 1906), pp. xiv, 48, 51, 53, 56, 107Google Scholar.
24. Ibid., p. 53.
25. Lords' Journals, II, 40Google Scholar.
26. They were used in the vote on the Bill of Uniformity, 15 January 1548/9; see Shirley, T. F., Thomas Thirty, Tudor Bishop (London, 1964), p. 100Google Scholar.
27. SirCoke, Edward, Fourth Institute (London, 1797), IV, 12Google Scholar.
28. Inner Temple Library, Petyt 637/6. The House of Lords Record Office possesses a zerox copy of Bowyer's transcript which I used. I am indebted to Dr. Elizabeth Foster for this reference.
29. D'Ewes, , Journals, especially pp. 3–9Google Scholar. In addition to this general discussion of proctorial procedures, he included material on proxies in the introductory section of each session of parliament.
30. Henry Elysnge, The Method of Passing Bills in Parliament. This procedural handbook, first printed in 1685, is reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany (London, 1810), V, 226–34Google Scholar.
31. Ibid., p. 231.
32. Graves, “Reassessment,” supra, p. 25.
33. D'Ewes, , Journals, p. 5Google Scholar.
34. Elsynge, , Manner, p. 132Google Scholar.
35. Coke, , Fourth Institute, IV, 12Google Scholar.