^{page 21 note 1} Select Charters (8th ed.), p. 46.

^{page 21 note 2} Constitutional History (5th ed.), iii. 267–8.

^{page 22 note 1} Richardson, , ‘The Origins of Parliament,’ ante, 4th Series, xi. 153–5Google Scholar.

^{page 22 note 2} Bracton’s general position regarding changes in the law is stated in his commentary on the coronation oath at fo. 107 and in his discussion of the several kinds of writ at fo. 413b. His rather ambiguous statement at fo. ib must be read in the light of these passages. His position regarding the correction of injustice done by the king has excited controversy, largely because the most forceful statement is to be found in the ‘addicio de cartis’ at fo. 34. Although I see no reason for rejecting this addicio as non-Bractonian, it is unnecessary to rely upon it, for he adopts the same position at fo. 171b, where he deals with disseisin. At fo. 5b, he explains that a writ will not run against the king but that there is an alternative remedy, the petition of right, and we know from the records that this procedure was fully developed by 1270 (Richardson, and Sayles, , Select Cases of Procedure without Writ, pp. lxx, clxxxvi f.)Google Scholar. Here, however, Bracton puts the point ‘What if the king will not correct and amend his wrongful act?’ and he answers that God will avenge the wrong. At fo. 171b he repeats almost verbatim, what is said at fo. 5b, but he adds ‘nisi sit qui dicat quod universitas regni et baronagium suum hoc facere possit et debeat in curia ipsius regis’. This is saying in measured language what is put more picturesquely in the ‘addicio de cartis’, namely, ‘Rex habet superiorem, Deum scilicet, item legem …, item curiam suam, videlicet comites et barones … Et ideo, si rex fuerit sine freno, id est sine lege, debent ei frenum apponere …’ It does not, however, seem to be to a court composed of earls and barons that Bracton considers obscure and difficult cases should be referred, but to the magna curia (fo. Ib). From his other references to the magna curia (fo. 105b, 186, 330b, 332–3, 379b), it would seem clear that the ‘great court’ is the bench, a name it had had since the twelfth century (Richardson, and Sayles, , op. cit., p. xvGoogle Scholar: cf. Fleta, lib. iv, c. 9, where the author substitutes ‘ad bancum’ for Bracton’s ‘ad magnam curiam’). Presumably what Bracton chiefly has in mind are decisions on assizes coming before justices itinerant, who are, in effect, advised to leave difficult decisions to a more competent tribunal. He pictures the bench at Westminster acting as it had done before the emergence of the king’s bench. The procedure is well illustrated by a roll relating to the Yorkshire eyre of 1218–19 printed by MrsStenton, (Rolls of the Justices in Eyre for Yorkshire in 3 Henry III (Selden Soc.), pp. 390–428)Google Scholar. The magna curia at this period might be afforced by members of the council, who were not ordinarily employed on judicial work, and by magnates also (ibid., pp. 137, 414; Curia Regis Rolls, viii. 11). Whether this was still possible in Bracton’s day is a question that awaits investigation. He is, however, contrasting, and not coupling, the jurisdiction of the bench in such cases with the amendment and repeal of laws which, he says, cannot be effected ‘sine communi consensu eorum omnium quorum consilio et consensu fuerint promulgate’ (fo. 1b).

^{page 23 note 1} Langlois, , Textes relatifs à l’histoire du Parlement, pp. 229–34Google Scholar; Ducoudray', Les origines du Parlement de Paris, pp. 50–5Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 2} Richardson, , ’The Origins of Parliament’, ante, 4th Series, xi. 153–62Google Scholar.

^{page 23 note 3} Richardson and Sayles, The Provisions of Oxford (reprinted from Bulletin John Rylands Library, vol. xvii), pp. 8–12.

^{page 24 note 1} References to baronial petitions are given later. An early statement of the right of the barons to a share in the government is to be found in the expanded version of the Laws of Edward the Confessor which may be dated c. 1200 and may be as early as the reign of Richard I. It is here said that the king ‘debet iudicium rectum in regno facere et iustitiam per consilium procerum regni sui tenere’ (Liebermann, , Gesetze der Angelsachsen, i. 636)Google Scholar. This portion of the Laws of the Confessor underlies Bracton’s discussion of the coronation oath, where therefore a like principle is stated (fo. 107): but he says independently much the same thing elsewhere, when he explains that writs ‘of course’ granted and approved ‘de consilio totius regni’ cannot be modified ‘absque consensu eorundem et voluntate’ (fo. 413b). Grosseteste had previously used words to the same effect, when he said that he was not so simple as to think that laws could be made or altered ‘sine principis et magnatum consilio’ (Epistolae, p. 96): he also cites the authority of the king and his council for the statement that the archbishop of Canterbury, with the bishops, earls and barons of England, had agreed to the form of enquiry to be made of bishops when bastardy was alleged (ibid., p. 104). When we turn to the records we may often learn no more than that something has been done ‘by common council’, but there are sufficient instances to show that what is meant is the council of the magnates. Thus, at Easter, 1204, the assize of bread at Winchester was made by the king, ‘communi consilio baronum nostrorum’ (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 41)Google Scholar. A decision to allocate the king's galleys among various ports was similarly taken, in April 1205, ‘communi consilio baronum nostrorum’ (ibid., p. 52b). On the same occasion, it would seem, the decision that every nine knights should provide a tenth knight for the king's service was taken ‘cum assensu archiepiscoporum, episcoporum, comitum, baronum et omnium fidelium nostrorum’ (ibid., p. 55). In 1223 Henry III writes: ‘Cum nuper post festum Pentecostes venerabiles patres nostros archiepiscopos et episcopos, abbates ac omnes magnates totius regni nostri vocassemus ut nobis occurrerent apud Northamton’ daturi nobis ibidem consilium et auxilium facturi ad defensionem terre nostre in Pictavia …’ (Shirley, , Royal Letters, i. 224)Google Scholar. Again, on 1 June 1233, it is stated that the order relating to the conservation of the peace ‘provisum fuit coram nobis et magnatibus nostris de communi consilio eorum’ (Foedera, i. 209; Close Rolls, 1231–34, pp. 309–10). Shortly afterwards this is called ‘provisio nuper facta apud Glouc' de communi consilio barnagii nostri’ (ibid., p. 317). There is a similar reference on 4 August following to a ‘provisio nuper facia de communi consilio barnagii regis apud Oxoniam’, requiring the arrest of armed men on the roads and forbidding tournaments, which was apparently a supplementary ordinance (ibid., p. 318). These illustrations will suffice to indicate the extent to which the barons were consulted.

^{page 25 note 1} This comes from the ‘addicio de cartis’, the authenticity of which, as stated above, has been disputed. It is embodied in Fleta, lib. i, c. 17. The same idea is expressed by the barons in 1312: the king, prelates, earls and barons are bound to furnish redress ‘ad querimoniam vulgi’ (Annales Londonienses in Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II (Rolls Series), i. 215). Again, in Scrope's speech in the Northampton eyre of 1329, he says that ‘à parlement dreyn tenu à Northamton pleintz vindrent à nostre seignur le roi de totes costes de roialme qe le peuple fut si malement demené par divers oppressions des grauntz … Les pleintz oyz, le roi et les grauntz à ceo parlement esteauntz par comune assent ordinerent …’ (Cam, , Liberties and Communities in Medieval England, p. 159)Google Scholar.

^{page 25 note 2} Br. Mus. Royal MS. 17 B. xlvii, fo. 147. The spelling has been modernised.

^{page 26 note 1} The process by which the name of ‘peers’ came to be applied specially to magnates summoned to parliament can be illustrated by parallel passages from Bracton, Fleta and Britton. In his discussion of lese-majesty, Bracton writes: ‘Videtur, sine preiudicio melioris sententie, quod curia et pares iudicabunt’ and again ‘Si autem gravis fuerit et proxima exheredationi, quod redemptionem inducat, ibi debent pares iustitiariis associari, ne ipse rex per seipsum vel iustitiarios suos sine paribus actor sit et iudex’ (fo. 119b). Abbreviated, these sentences become in Fleta, lib. i, c. 21: ‘nam si sit felonia vel transgressio gravis, proxima exheredationi, que redemptionem ad minus inducat, tune coram curia et paribus procedere debet iudicium’; while Britton, with Fleta before him, writes: ‘et en cas ou nous sumes partie, voloms nous qe nostre court soit jugs, sicum countes et barouns en tens de parlement’ (ed. Nichols, , i. 103)Google Scholar. Doubtless contemporary knowledge of the twelve peers of France contributed to the conception of an English peerage (cf. Paris, Matthew, Chronica Maiora, v. 281Google Scholar; Trivet, , Annales, p. 339Google Scholar; Hemingburgh, , Chronicon, ii. 78)Google Scholar. Under Edward II the word ‘peers’ is used in the treaty of Leek, (Parliamentary Writs, 11. ii. 184)Google Scholar and the phrase ‘peers of the land’ in the sentence of exile on the Despensers (Statutes of the Realm, i. 181, 184). The prelates are stated to be ‘peers of the realm’ in 1322 (Cal. Close Rolls, 1318–23, pp. 543, 545). In September 1326 the king speaks of the ‘juggementz des piers et parlement’ with reference to the condemnation of Mortimer, Roger (Parl. Writs, II. ii. app. 292)Google Scholar. Other references to ‘peers’ and ‘peers of the land’ will be found in the documents preserved in the Annales Londonienses and by the Bridlington, writer (Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II (Rolls Series), i. 211, 224, 227, ii. 51)Google Scholar.

^{page 26 note 2} English Hist. Rev., xlvii. 199–201.

^{page 26 note 3} For petitions in 1223, 1225, 1244(?), 1248, 1253, 1255, see Wendover, , Floras Historiarum (ed. Coxe, ), iv. 83–4, 99–100Google Scholar; Annales Monastici, iii. 93; Rot. Litterarum Clausarum, ii. 153; Paris, Matthew, Chronica Maiora, iv. 362–8, v. 5–8, 20–1, 373–5, 493–5Google Scholar. MrDenholm-Young, has suggested that the petition which Paris, Matthew introduces s.a. 1244 should be referred to 1238 (English Hist. Rev., lviii. 401–23)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 26 note 4} For the text see ibid., pp. 169–71.

^{page 27 note 1} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, ix. 7–8.

^{page 27 note 2} Ibid., pp. 9–11.

^{page 27 note 3} ‘Omnes pares sunt iudices et iusticiarii’ (Modus, c. 22). It is said expressly in 1330 that the ‘countes, barouns et pieres’ are ‘juges de parlement’ (Rot. Parl., ii. 53–4).

^{page 27 note 4} As was said in parliament in 1399, ‘les communes sont petitioners et demandours … le roy et les seignurs de tout temps ont eues et averont, de droit, les jugementz en parlement’ (ibid., iii. 427 b).

^{page 27 note 5} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Res., ix. 12–13.

^{page 27 note 6} Ibid.; Richardson, and Sayles, , The Early Statutes, pp. 21–3Google Scholar.

^{page 27 note 7} Stubbs, even went beyond this: ‘the third estate,’ he said, ‘claimed and won its place as the foremost of the three’ (Constitutional History, ii. 320Google Scholar; see also ibid., iii. 503).

^{page 28 note 1} ProfessorNotestein, W., The winning of the initiative by the House of Commons (Raleigh Lecture, 1924)Google Scholar.

^{page 28 note 2} On this point I must, I fear, differ, with respect, from ProfessorPowicke, (‘Recent work on the English Parliament’, L'Organisation corporative du Moyen Age (Université de Louvain), iii. 138–9)Google Scholar, and from MrMcFarlane, K. B. (‘Parliament and “Bastard Feudalism”’, ante, 4th Series, xxvi. 64–73)Google Scholar.

^{page 28 note 3} Δολοѕ ‘Eπκτ ητοѕ γενόμην, κα σμ’ νάπηροѕ,

κα πενίην Iροѕ, καΦλοѕ θανάτοιѕ.— Anth. Pal., vii. 676.

^{page 28 note 4} For a summary, see Stubbs, , Constitutional History, iii. 269–74Google Scholar.

^{page 28 note 5} Cf. Richard the Redeless, passus iv. 11. 46–9

… We beth …

… ysent fro the shiris to shewe what hem greveth

And to parle for her prophete and passe no ferthere

And to graunte of her gold to the grett wattis

By no manere wronge way, but if werre were.

See also Paston Letters, v. 178: ‘No more, but I prey God send yow the Holy Gost amonge yow in the Parlement Howse, and rather the Devyll, we aey, then ye shold grante eny more taskys.’

^{page 29 note 1} Weske, , Convocation of the Clergy, pp. 147–79Google Scholar; Stubbs, , op. cit., iii. 351–2Google Scholar.

^{page 29 note 2} Stubbs, , op. cit., ii. 595–9, iii. 271–4Google Scholar.

^{page 30 note 1} This is not necessarily true of the earliest impeachments, those of Lord Latimer and Richard Lyons in 1376. The evidence of the Anonimalle Chronicle, pp. 85–90, combined with that of the parliament roll (Rot. Parl., ii. 323–7), suggests that on this occasion the commons played a leading part, but not without encouragement from above.

^{page 30 note 2} In the ninth of the Ordinances of 1311 this is stated as an accepted fact, nor would the king be likely to dissent, although he rejected the consequences that were drawn from it.

^{page 30 note 3} Rot. Parl., iii. 145–8. See especially the speaker's statement ‘qe combien qe ceste leur charge de le passage nostre seignur le roy ne l'ordinance de son viage ou de nul autre grant viage à faire soleit ne doit appertenir à la commune, einz au roy mesmes et as seignurs du roialine, come lour semble’. The commons, however, indicated a preference for the bishop of Norwich's, proposal: see my John of Gaunt and the parliamentary representation of Lancashire (from Bulletin John Rylands Library, vol. xxii), pp. 27–8Google Scholar, where the evidence is reviewed.

^{page 31 note 1} For these see Statutes of the Realm, i. 150–2, 316–18, 329, 385–7, ii. 69–74, 84–6; Rot. Parl., i. 219–23, ii. 144–5, 153–4. 232–3. 252, 284–5, iii. 304.

^{page 31 note 2} English Hist. Rev., li. 5–9.

^{page 31 note 3} Rot. Parl., iii. 459, 466–7, 473–4; Statutes of the Realm, ii. 125–8. Measures against heresy had been foreshadowed in convocation in October 1399 (Wilkins, , Concilia, iii. 239)Google Scholar.

^{page 31 note 4} Bulletin. Inst. Hist. Research, xi. 152–4; English Hist. Rev., li. 21–22.

^{page 31 note 5} Stubbs, , Constitutional History, iii. 371–5Google Scholar: but see Richardson, and Sayles, , The Early Statutes, p. 16Google Scholar n for the act of 1406.

^{page 31 note 6} Statutes of the Realm, i. 307–8, 311–13; Rot. Parl., ii. 225b, 227b, 233–5: cf. Putnam, , Enforcement of the Statutes of Labourers, p. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 31 note 7} Rot. Parl., ii. 246, 253b.

^{page 31 note 8} For references, see above.

^{page 32 note 1} Rot. Parl., iii. 100.

^{page 32 note 2} Ibid., p. 420, no. 36.

^{page 32 note 3} Ibid., p. 427, no. 79.

^{page 32 note 4} There is a convincing example of this in 1402: the substitution of a great council is stated expressly to be ‘pur tost remedier as susdites busoignes au meindre vexacion de nostre poeple’ (Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xi. 158–60). The alternative of great council or parliament is found in the fourteenth century, as in 1386 when Richard II informs Pedro IV of Aragon that certain business will be dealt with ‘ad nostrum proximum parliamentum vel magnum consilium’ (Perroy, , Diplomatic correspondence of Richard II, p. 41)Google Scholar. A similar alternative is found in 1317, though the term used is ‘convocatio prelatorurn et magnatum de regno’ (Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, vi. 73).

^{page 32 note 5} Ordinances of Privy Council, iii. 233: cf. ibid., p. 238.

^{page 33 note 1} Register of John de Grandisson, ii. 840: ‘la substance de la nature de la corone est principaument en la persone le roi, come teste, et en les piers de la terre, come membres, qi tenent de lui par certeyn homage, et noméement des prélatz, quiele chose est si annexé à la dite corone q' ele ne poet pas estre sevrée sans division du roiaume …’

^{page 33 note 2} Edward II succeeds, without any interval of time and before the ceremony of coronation, on the death of his father. The king can do no wrong, because wrong-doing is incompatible with kingship and because the king's torts, though remediable, are not justiciable. It seems true that the maxim is not stated in express terms, but it is implicit in the law in the thirteenth century: cf. Holdsworth, , History of English Law, iii. 464–6Google Scholar, where, however, the development of the doctrine seems to be put too late. Already in the thirteenth century proceedings are directed against the king's ministers and not the king himself (Richardson, and Sayles, , Select Cases of Procedure without Writ, pp. lxx f., clxxxvii ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 3} Rot. Parl., ii. 160, no. 11, 237, no. 8.

^{page 33 note 4} English Hist. Rev., xlvi. 534–6, 542–6, xlvii. 195–201, 379–86.

^{page 33 note 5} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, ix. 9–10.

^{page 33 note 6} The account given by Stubbs, (Constitutional History, ii. 622–9)Google Scholar needs correction in detail, but it provides the principal references, which need not be repeated here. References to heresy legislation have already been given.

^{page 34 note 1} The original of a petition included among those put forward by the commons in the parliament of November 1372 (Rot. Parl., ii. 311, no. 20) has survived.; It begins: ‘Au parlement nostre seigneur le roi moustrent les marchauntz et marineres d'Engleterre’, and continues as in the parliament roll (Exch. T. of R., Council and Privy Seal, E. 28/1, ninth document).

^{page 34 note 2} MrMcFarlane, minimises the importance and frequency of these consultations and scouts the suggestion that the clerks who made up the parliament rolls may have omitted to note their occurrence (ante, Fourth Series, xxvi. 54, n. 1)Google Scholar. He seems to have overlooked the important document of 31 October 1399, printed in Bulletin Inst. Hist. Res., xi. 155–8, which furnishes an instance of such an omission. As evidence of the long continuance of these consultations, it is unnecessary to do more than cite Hall's, Edward Chronicle (ed. 1809), pp. 655, 766–7, 775–80Google Scholar, describing various meetings between members of the two houses in the parliaments of 1523 and 1529. Of the value of Hall's testimony for the light it casts on medieval conditions, more is said later.

^{page 34 note 3} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, ix. 3–5, 17; English Hist. Rev., xlvii. 379–80.

^{page 35 note 1} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, ix. 11–12. Cf. Ordinances of the Privy Council, iii. 219–20; ‘and specialy that no man of lawe be shirrief, for evere it is to suppose that thai have oone parties matiere or other in hande.’

^{page 35 note 2} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, p. 12, n. 3; Gray, , The influence of the Commons on early legislation, pp. 348–56Google Scholar.

^{page 35 note 3} For example, only one of the ten petitions sent forward by the commons in 1397, mentioned in the note below, is addressed to them. They are printed imperfectly in Rot. Parl., iii. 447–8, but a full transcript is in Lansdowne MS. 482, fo. 23–30.

^{page 35 note 4} Rot. Parl., iv. 250, no. 39: ‘Item, une autre petition fuist baillé as ditz seignurs en mesme parlement par les merchantz de l’ estaple, conteinantz cynk articles, laquelle petition depuis fuist mandé par mesmes les seignurs as ditz communes pour ent avoir leur avys, les queux communes mesme la petition rebaillerent come une de lour communes petitions’.

^{page 35 note 5} This might be deduced from the customary inscription on petitions ‘Soit bailié aux seiǵneurs’, but the procedure is perhaps best illustrated by the detailed arrangements made on certain occasions when time did not permit all petitions to be answered before the session ended. The earliest statement that has come to light relates to 1397, though it is erroneously referred to 1399 in Rotuli Parliamentorum, iii. 448. Since it is there printed imperfectly from a damaged original, it may be well to reproduce it from a certified copy of 9 February 1675/6 (Lansdowne MS. 482, fo. 30 b): ‘Fait à remembrer qe celles dis peticions, qi sont annexés ensemble, furent envoiéz au roi par les comunes en parlement, empriantz au roi, de sa grace, q' il plerroit tendrement prendre à coer la matire comprit en ycelles et faire graciouse remedie en celle partie; sur quoy le roy, entendues mesmes les peticions, les livere en parlement par ses maines propres et mesmes les peticions, de sa grace par assent du parlement, ad commys as certeines seignurs, c'est assavoir, l'ercevesque de Canterbirs, le due de Lancastre, l'evesque de Wyncestre, l'evesque de Sarum, le cont de Roteland, le count Mareschall, ovek les officers le roy, pur trier, regarder et examiner les ditz peticions en la quinzaine de Pasqe proschein et outre ceo pur faire, par auctorité du parlement, graces et pardone et autres remedies resonables en ceo cas, solonc ceo qe leur semblera meulx, par leur bone discrecion, pur l'estat, honour et honesté nostre seignur le roi en celle partie’. A similar procedure was followed in 1422 when petitions were sent to the council ‘àl'entent qe les seignurs de mesme le conseil pur le temps estéantz facent determinations de et sur les matiers contenuz en ycelles peticions’: no distinction is made between petitions sent forward by the commons and others (Rot. Parl., iv. 174, no. 21). Likewise in 1428 petitions were sent to the lords of the council (ibid., p. 334).

^{page 36 note 1} Besides the petitions printed in the Rotuli Parliamentorum, e.g., iii. 515–16 (no. 9–11), 517 (no. 14), 520 (no. 21, 23), there are many unprinted petitions which illustrate the point. Thus there is a petition from Sir William Bowet who desires to prosecute his suit for reversal of outlawry (Coram Rege Roll, Mich. 7 Hen. V, K.B. 27/634, Rex, m. 29). A petition from Margery Boys and others for the correction of an erroneous record of an assize of novel disseisin leads to a decree in the court of chancery (Ancient Petitions 9862–4). The earl of Somerset and his brother, both minors and prisoners of the Scots, ask to be ransomed (Anc. Pet. 9860). Edward, Lord Hastings, asks for the appointment of commissioners to decide his action against Reginald, Lord Grey of Ruthyn, regarding the right to bear the Hastings arms (Anc. Pet. 9883).

^{page 36 ntoe 2} For the text see Murimuth, and Avesbury, , Chronica (Rolls Series), pp. 138, 353Google Scholar; there is a Latin version in Hemingburgh, , Chronicon, ii. 401–3Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 1} Foedera, 1, ii. 926–7; Parliamentary Writs, i. 102–4.

^{page 37 note 2} Rot. Parl., i. 207–8; cf. ibid., pp. 220–1.

^{page 37 note 3} Lords' Reports on dignity of a Peer, v. 161. This manifesto, of 7 June 1406, may never have been used, since it was superseded by another, of 22 December 1406, which incidentally does not repeat the description given to the commons.

^{page 37 note 4} Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xi. 160–2; Lords' Reports on dignity of a Peer, v. 163–7.

^{page 37 note 5} Rot. Parl., iii. 427, no. 79.

^{page 38 note 1} For the proceedings see Rot. Parl., iii. 216–20, v. 176–83. Stubbs's, commentary has not been superseded (Constitutional History, ii. 495–9, iii. 149–54)Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 2} That the knights maintained a separate identity within the general body of the commons does not admit of doubt. Not only did they represent a distinct interest but, although they were not consistently an entirely homogeneous group, speaking generally they enjoyed both wealth and social superiority and unquestionably dominated the commons (Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, ix. 13–14; McKisack, , Parliamentary representation of the English boroughs, p. 131)Google Scholar. I have already suggested that, if it could be assumed that the knights sat in the common house while the burgesses stood, we should have an explanation of an obscure line in Richard the Redeless, ‘No burne of the benche, of borowe nother ellis’ (Cam, , Liberties and Communities in Medieval England, p. 230Google Scholar n). Could a knight be appropriately called a ‘burne of the benche’? That the knights sat is quite clear from the account of the parliament of 1376 in the Anonimalle Chronicle (pp. 80–2), but, since only knights are reported to have spoken, we do not learn whether burgesses sat or not. A passage in the report of the Colchester burgesses on the parliament of 1485 seems to make it tolerably clear that they stood or, at least, that seats were not reserved for them. Modernising their spelling, the Colchester members state as follows: ‘The seventh day of November by nine of the clock so for to proceed unto election for to choose a speaker. So the election gave their voice to Thomas Lovell, a gentleman of Lincoln's Inn. That done, it pleased the knights that were there present for to rise from their seats and so for to go to that place where as the speaker stood and brought him and set him in his seat …’ (Red Paper Book of Colchester (ed. Benham, W. G.), p. 62)Google Scholar. The knights then were seated together, while Lovell was standing apart: anyone familiar with the Chapter House at Westminster will appreciate how limited the seating accommodation was and can visualise the scene. The implication is that Lovell was not a knight. If so, he was the first town member to be elected speaker. We cannot verify this, for the returns for the parliament are lost, but it is as well to say that the statement that he was a member for ‘Norfolk or Middlesex’is a mere conjecture (Wedgwood, , History of Parliament, 1439–1509 (Biographies), pp. 555–6)Google Scholar. In any case the Colchester report illustrates effectively the dominance of the knights.

^{page 39 note 1} William of Embledon and David of Wooler are the clerks in question: see Return of Members of Parliament, i. 114, 122, 125, 127. For biographical details, see Wilkinson, , The Chancery under Edward III, pp. 162, 164–5Google Scholar, and Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th Series, xi. 33–6, where, however, there seems to be some confusion with another William of Embledon.

^{page 39 note 2} John of Gaunt and the parliamentary representation of Lancashire, pp. 17–23.

^{page 39 note 3} Here are particulars of nine disputed elections, which, however, there is no reason to regard as exceptional in respect of the number of candidates. Rutland, , 1404: 3 candidates (Rot.Parl., iii. 530)Google Scholar. Bucks, 1429: 4 candidates (Exch. Parliamentary and Council Proceedings, E. 175/3/27). Hunts, , 1429: 4 candidates (Return of Members of Parliament, i. 316)Google Scholar. Hunts, , 1450: 3 candidates (Prynne, , Parliamentary Writs, iii. 156–9)Google Scholar. Norfolk, , 1450: 3 candidates (Paston Letters, ii. 176, 184–5)Google Scholar. Kent, 1455: 3 candidates (Exchequer Plea Roll, E. 13/146, mm. 36, 43, 466). Suffolk, 1455: 3 candidates (ibid., mm. 69, 70, 81b). Norfolk, , 1461: 4 candidates (English Hist. Rev., xl. 79–86Google Scholar; Paston Letters, iii. 36, 284, 290, 297). Suffolk, 1472: 3 candidates (E. 13/158, mm. 59, 62b, 66b, 67, 73, 75).

^{page 39 note 4} On candidates from outside the borough, see McKisack, , op. cit., pp. 100–1, 106–18Google Scholar, and Wedgwood, , History of Parliament, 1430–1509 (Register), pp. lxxxviii–xcGoogle Scholar.

^{page 39 note 5} Information is scanty, except in the case of London, where conditions were exceptional: for other towns, see McKisack, , op. cit., pp. 101–6Google Scholar.

^{page 39 note 6} The two known cases belong to the reign of Richard II (McKisack, , op. cit., pp. 39–40)Google Scholar, and it is unsafe to generalise therefrom. One of the noteworthy features of the case of the Shaftesbury representation in the parliament of 1384 is that the town made a return direct to John Montague, steward of the household, and professed to be entirely devoted to the king's interest. As Prynne pointed out, the sheriff actually returned the two members elected by the town and did not substitute his own nominee, despite the burgesses’ apprehension (Prynne, , Parliamentary Writs, iii. 286–7)Google Scholar. The strongest evidence at preserit available for the fifteenth century appears to be a petition from the commons ascribed to 15 Henry VI, in Rot. Parl., iv. 511Google Scholar, and the petition and resulting statute of 1445 (ibid., v. 115–16; Statutes of the Realm, ii. 340–2).

^{page 40 note 1} The statutory indentures usually afford no indication of the numbers present. When we get details the numbers are large. In Bucks, in 1429, there were 125 suitors named and a great many others (E. 175/3/27). In Hunts, in 1450, there were 124 freeholders and 300 good commoners who voted for the successful candidates: seventy others voted for the unsuccessful candidate (Prynne, , Parliamentary Writs, iii. 158)Google Scholar. In Suffolk, in 1455, there were 164 named and very many others, to the number of 300, who were qualified voters: these were said to have voted for the successful candidates and presumably a further number of supporters of the unsuccessful candidate should be added (E. 13/146, mm. 69b, 70). In Norfolk, in 1461, there is mention of 500 persons on one occasion and 1,000 on another, although these figures are obviously unreliable (English Hist. Rev., xl. 82–5). In Cambridge, in an uncertain year, but apparently 1439 (not 1454), there was a ‘multitude of people’ (Ordinances of the Privy Council, vi. 335: cf. Rot. Parl., v. 7–8).

^{page 40 note 2} So it is said of the supporters of Gilbert Debenham, the unsuccessful candidate for Suffolk in 1472, that they ‘tune et ibidem nominarunt et voces suas ibidem dederunt et elegerunt ipsum Gilbertum esse unum militum comitatus Suff' predicti’ (E. 13/158, m. 67b).

^{page 40 note 3} As in Cambridge (ut supra) and in Norfolk, in 1461 (English Hist. Rev., xl. 79–86Google Scholar; Paslon Letters, iii. 36, 297).

^{page 40 note 4} The difficulties are well illustrated by the Norfolk election of 1461. After the first, abortive, election it was suggested that the candidates should get a list of their qualified supporters who had voted (ibid., p. 290). At the second election, the sheriff seems to have attempted to verify the qualifications of those voting, but apparently gave up the attempt (English Hist. Rev., xl. 85).

^{page 40 note 5} Rot. Parl., iii. 601; Statutes of the Realm, ii. 156.

^{page 40 note 6} Prynne, , Parliamentary Writs, ii. 128–131, iii. 173–8, 252–4Google Scholar; Stubbs, , Constitutional History, iii. 421–2Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 7} In the Suffolk election of 1455 (E. 13/146, mm. 69b, 70).

^{page 41 note 1} In 1429 an indenture for John Hampden and Andrew Sperlyng was sealed by 125 suitors, but the sheriff of Bucks returned John Cheyne and Walter Strickland (E. 175/3/27). In 1461 the undersherifi of Norfolk writes to John Paston ‘I purpose me, as I wol answer God, to retorne the dieu eleccion, that is after the sufficiente, yow and Master Grey; nevir the latyr I have a master’ (Paston Letters, iii. 36). In 1472 the sheriff of Suffolk ‘aliquam indenturam inter ipsum ac easdem personas que voces suas sic ibidem dederunt de eleccione ilia facere noluit’ (E. 13/158, m. 67b).

^{page 41 note 2} As in the case of the Rutland election of 1404 (Rot. Parl., iii. 530, no. 38). In 1384 there was a petition from Shaftesbury (Prynne, , Parliamentary Writs, iii. 286–7)Google Scholar.

^{page 41 note 3} Statutes of the Realm, ii. 162: amending statutes were passed in 1427 and 1445 (ibid., pp. 235–6, 340–2).

^{page 41 note 4} The statute provided for an action of debt against the returning officer by an elected member not returned or, in his default, by any other person. Process was to be as in an action for trespass. The action in the exchequer was on the sheriff's account, the allegation being that he was in debt to the plaintiff to the amount of the statutory penalty. In the case of the Suffolk election of 1455, the defendant in the exchequer stated that an action was pending against him in the Common Bench (E. 13/146. m. 70). In the case of the Suffolk election of 1472, ‘the unsuccessful candidate commenced an action in the exchequer in the Michaelmas term 1472, but abandoned it (E. 13/158, m. 59): in the following Hilary term independent actions were commenced by John Peverell and John Gravener (ibid., mm. 67, 75).

^{page 41 note 5} No conclusion is reached in the actions I have noted in the Exchequer Plea Rolls. In two instances it is stated that the action is discontinued (Kent, 1455, E. 13/146, m. 46b; Suffolk, 1472, E. 13/158, m. 59). In the other cases, after many adjournments, the action fades out. The court does not appear to protect the plaintiff against what seem obviously to be deliberate delays by the defendant.

^{page 41 note 6} Rot. Parl., iii. 601, v. 115.

^{page 41 note 4} ‘Item that no man beyng stuarde withe any lorde be neither shirrief ne eschetour in the shires that he is jdmcer in’: this is in 1426 (Ordinances of the Privy Council, iii. 221; Rot. Part., v. 4096).

^{page 42 note 1} The sheriffs themselves say that ‘it pleased youre Highnes to commaunde dyvers of your seid besechers by your honourable letters of pryvie seall to procede to election in their severall shires of knyghtes for shires for this your present parlement for the good and hasty speed thereof’ and that the elections were ‘aswele by force of youre writtes as by force of youre letters of pryve seall as other wise’ (Rot. Parl., v. 367, no. 35). The following year the commons say that the parliament ‘was unduely summoned and a grete parte of the knyghts for dyvers shyres … and many citezeins and burgeys for dyvers citees and burghes … were named, retourned and accepted, some of theym withoute dieu and free election and some of theym withoute any election’ (ibid., p. 374). See also the English Chronicle (ed. Davies, J. S., Camden Soc), p. 83Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 2} Rot. Parl., v. 367 (35). The P.R.O. List of Sheriffs shows that in a number of instances, but by no means universally, the serving sheriffs were retained for more than a twelve-month.

^{page 42 note 3} ‘Bale's Chronicle’ in Flenley, , Six Town Chronicles, pp. 139–40Google Scholar.

^{page 42 note 4} ‘The elections to the October parliament of 1399,’ Bull. Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 137–43.

^{page 42 note 5} The evidence is examined in my John of Gaunt and the parliamentary representation of Lancashire, pp. 34–43.

^{page 42 note 6} For the allegations against Henry IV in the light of the available evidence, see ibid., pp. 43–5.

^{page 43 note 1} Plumpton Correspondence, pp. 48–9. Similarly the Colchester members reported that the bill ‘sore was questioned with’ (Red Paper Book of Colchester, p. 64). For the attainders, see ibid, and Rot. Parl., vi. 275–8.

^{page 43 note 2} So the Duchess of Norfolk writes on behalf of ‘our right welbelovid cosin and servaunts, John Howard and Syr Roger Chambirlayn’. That this was to gratify Howard can hardly be doubted, since, at a hint that he was not persona grata with the gentlemen of the shire, he was as ‘wode as a wilde bullok’ (Paston Letters, iii. 34, 39). However, he was elected.

^{page 43 note 3} E. 13/146, mm. 36, 43, 46b.

^{page 43 note 4} Ordinances of the Privy Council, vi. 246–7; Rot. Parl., v. 450–1, no. 39.

^{page 43 note 5} Ante, 4th Series, xxvi. 64. If read in their context, however, it will be seen that these words were carefully limited in their application (John of Gaunt and the parliamentary representation of Lancashire, pp. 33–4).

^{page 44 note 1} Rot. Part., ii. 303–4. For a discussion by the commons of the number of parishes in England, see Hall's Chronicle, p. 656.

^{page 44 note 2} See the commentary of Stubbs, (Constitutional History, ii. 495–9Google Scholar) and of Tout, (Chapters in Mediaeval Administrative History, iii. 413–14)Google Scholar, supplemented by that of Lewis, N. B. in English Hist. Rev., xlii. 402–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 44 note 3} Rot. Parl., v. 377, no. 17.

^{page 44 note 4} See his accounts of the parliaments of 1523 and 1529 (Chronicle, pp. 652–3, 655–7, 764–8, 774–81, 784–6, 788–9). Of the latter parliament Hall was a member and his account of the commons' proceedings is that of an eyewitness (Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, ix. 174–5).

^{page 44 note 5} The relevant passage is now conveniently reprinted, together with a modern version, by MissCam, in Liberties and Communities in Medieval England, pp. 230–1, 233–5Google Scholar.

^{page 45 note 1} The medieval protestations of the speaker referred to speech in parliament, that is, before the lords. The process by which the speaker's petition became one for freedom of speech in the commons' own house has been traced by ProfessorNeale, in ‘The Commons’ privilege of free speech in Parliament’, Tudor Studies, pp. 257–86Google Scholar. It is not until 1451 that there is an overt claim to the commons' ‘freedom to speak and say in the house of their assembly’ and then the claim is not made by the speaker (Rot. Parl., v. 337). That this freedom, in so far as it existed, was very limited is sufficiently indicated by the resentment displayed against tale-bearers. They are mentioned, not only in Richard the Redeless, but also by the speaker in 1401, who asked the king to disregard them (ibid., iii. 456). Already in 1376 the commons were apprehensive lest the secrets of their house should be divulged and, at the instance of de la Mare, Peter, they took an oath to keep their own counsel (Anonimalle Chronicle, p. 80)Google Scholar. However, tale-bearing to the king continued and it is mentioned by Edward Hall, who specifically names Cromwell, Thomas (Chronicle, pp. 775, 788)Google Scholar. Reticence on any subject affecting the king was, in any case, a mere matter of prudence so long as the clerk to the commons was a chancery clerk, whose first duty was to the king and who might well disclose unguarded words: for these clerks, see Pollard, , ‘The mediaeval under-clerks of parliament’, Bulletin Inst. Hist. Research, xvi. 65–87Google Scholar. But free speech was not to be expected even in the king's, council, as Fortescue remarks (Governance of England, p. 145)Google Scholar and as is implied by the order of 1426 ‘that every man have full freedom to say what that him thinketh’ (Proceedings of the Privy Council, iii. 215; Rot. Parl., v. 408).