Multimedia Mania/abacus-multimedia-mania.iso/dp/0091/00912.txt

Text File | 1993-07-27 | 32KB | 496 lines

$Unique_ID{bob00912}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Part XII}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Hallam, Henry}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{parliament
et
footnote
ii
london
burgesses
henry
vol
commons
towns
see
pictures
see
figures
}
$Date{}
$Log{See English Market*0091201.scf
}
Title:       History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Book:        Book VIII: The Constitutional History Of England
Author:      Hallam, Henry

Part XII

     From the middle of the twelfth century to that of the thirteenth the
traders of England became more and more prosperous.  The towns on the southern
coast exported tin and other metals in exchange for the wines of France; those
on the eastern sent corn to Norway - the Cinque Ports bartered wool against
the stuffs of Flanders. ^w Though bearing no comparison with the cities of
Italy or the Empire, they increased sufficiently to acquire importance at
home.  That vigorous prerogative of the Norman monarchs, which kept down the
feudal aristocracy, compensated for whatever inferiority there might be in the
population and defensible strength of the English towns, compared with those
on the continent.  They had to fear no petty oppressors, no local hostility;
and if they could satisfy the rapacity of the crown, were secure from all
other grievances. London, far above the rest, our ancient and noble capital,
might, even in those early times, be justly termed a member of the political
system.  This great city, so admirably situated, was rich and populous long
before the Conquest.  Bede, at the beginning of the eighth century, speaks of
London as a great market, which traders frequented by land and sea. ^x It paid
15,000l. out of 82,000l., raised by Canute upon the kingdom. ^y If we believe
Roger Hoveden, the citizens of London, on the death of Ethelred II., joined
with part of the nobility in raising Edmund Ironside to the throne. ^z Harold
I., according to better authority, the Saxon Chronicle and William of
Malmesbury, was elected by their concurrence. ^a Descending to later history,
we find them active in the civil war of Stephen and Matilda.  The famous
Bishop of Winchester tells the Londoners that they are almost accounted as
noblemen on account of the greatness of their city; into the community of
which it appears that some barons had been received. ^b Indeed, the citizens
themselves, or at least the principal of them, were called barons.  It was
certainly by far the greatest city in England. There have been different
estimates of its population, some of which are extravagant; but I think it
could hardly have contained less than thirty or forty thousand souls within
its walls; and the suburbs were very populous. ^c These numbers, the enjoyment
of privileges, and the consciousness of strength, infused a free and even a
mutinous spirit into their conduct. ^d The Londoners were always on the
barons' side in their contests with the crown.  They bore a part in deposing
William Longchamp, the chancellor and justiciary of Richard I. ^e They were
distinguished in the great struggle for Magna Charta; the privileges of their
city are expressly confirmed in it; and the mayor of London was one of the
twenty-five barons to whom the maintenance of its provisions was delegated.
In the subsequent reign the citizens of London were regarded with much dislike
and jealousy by the court, and sometimes suffered pretty severely at its
hands, especially after the battle of Evesham. ^f

[See English Market: From the middle of the twelfth century to that of the
thirteenth the traders of England became more and more prosperous.]

[Footnote w: Lyttelton's History of Henry II., vol. ii. p. 170. Macpherson's
Annals of Commerce, vol. i. p. 331.]

[Footnote x: Id. p. 245.]

[Footnote y: Id. p. 282.]

[Footnote z: Cives Lundinenses, et pars nobilium qui eo tempore consistebant
Lundoniae, Clitonem Eadmundum unanimi consensu in regem levavere. p. 249.]

[Footnote a: Chron. Saxon. p. 154.  Malmesbury, p. 76.  He says the people of
London were become almost barbarians through their intercourse with the Danes;
propter frequentem convictum.]

[Footnote b: Londinenses, qui sunt quasi optimates pro magnitudine civitatis
in Anglia.  Malmsb. p. 189.  Thus, too, Matthew Paris: cives Londinenses, quos
propter civitatis dignitatem et civium antiquam libertatem Barones consuevimus
appellare. p. 744.  And in another place: totius civitatis cives, quos barones
vocant. p. 835.  Spelman says that the magistrates of several other towns were
called barons.  Glossary, Barones de London.

     A singular proof of the estimation in which the citizens of London held
themselves in the reign of Richard I. occurs in the Chronicle of Jocelyn de
Brakelonde (p. 56 - Camden Society, 1840).  They claimed to be free from toll
in every part of England, and in every jurisdiction, resting their immunity on
the antiquity of London (which was coeval, they said, with Rome), and on its
rank as metropolis of the kingdom.  Et dicebant cives Lundonienses fuisse
quietos de theloneo in omni foro, et semper et ubique, per totam Angliam, a
tempore quo Roma primo fundata fuit, et civitatem Lundoniae, eodem tempore
fundatam, talem debere habere libertatem per totam Angliam, et ratione
civitatis privilegiatae quae olim metropolis fuit et caput regni, et ratione
antiquitatis.  Palgrave inclines to think that London never formed part of any
kingdom of the Heptarchy. Introduction to Rot. Cur. Regis. p. 95.  But this
seems to imply a republican city in the midst of so many royal states, which
seems hardly probable.  Certainly it seems strange, though I cannot explain it
away, that the capital of England should have fallen, as we generally suppose,
to the small and obscure kingdom of Essex.  Winchester, indeed, may be
considered as having become afterwards the capital during the Anglo-Saxon
monarchy, so far as that it was for the most part the residence of our kings.
But London was always more populous.]

[Footnote c: Drake, the historian of York, maintains that London was less
populous, about the time of the Conquest, than that city; and quotes Hardynge,
a writer of Henry V.'s age, to prove that the interior part of the former was
not closely built.  Eboracum, p. 91.  York however does not appear to have
contained more than 10,000 inhabitants at the accession of the Conqueror; and
the very exaggerations as to the populousness of London prove that it must
have far exceeded that number.  Fitz-Stephen, the contemporary biographer of
Thomas a Becket, tells us of 80,000 men capable of bearing arms within its
precincts; where, however, his translator, Pegge, suspects a mistake of the
Ms. in the numerals.  And this, with similar hyperboles, so imposed on the
judicious mind of Lord Lyttelton, that, finding in Peter of Blois the
inhabitants of London reckoned at quadraginta millia, he has actually proposed
to read quadringenta.  Hist. Henry II., vol. vi. ad finem.  It is hardly
necessary to observe that the condition of agriculture and internal
communication would not have allowed half that number to subsist.

     The subsidy-roll of 1377, published in the Archaeologia, vol. vii., would
lead to a conclusion that all the inhabitants of London did not even then
exceed 35,000.  If this be true, they could not have amounted, probably, to so
great a number two or three centuries earlier.  But the numbers given in that
document have been questioned as to Norwich upon very plausible grounds, and
seem rather suspicious in the present instance. [Note XX.]]

[Footnote d: This seditious, or at least refractory, character of the
Londoners, was displayed in the tumult headed by William Longbeard in the time
of Richard I., and that under Constantine in 1222, the patriarchs of a long
line of city demagogues.  Hoveden, p. 765.  M. Paris, p. 154.]

[Footnote e: Hoveden's expressions are very precise, and show that the share
taken by the citizens of London (probably the mayor and alderman) in this
measure was no tumultuary acclamation, but a deliberate concurrence with the
nobility.  Comes Johannes, et fere omnes episcopi, et comites Angliae eadem
die intraverunt Londonias; et in crastino praedictus Johannes frater regis, et
archiepiscopus Rothomagensis, et omnes episcopi, et comites et barones, et
cives Londonienses cum illis convenerunt in atrio ecclesiae S. Pauli . . .
Placuit ergo Johanni fratri regis, et omnibus episcopis, et comitibus et
baronibus regni, et civinibus Londoniarum, quod cancellarius ille deponeretur,
et deposuerunt eum, &c., p. 701.]

[Footnote f: The reader may consult, for a more full account of the English
towns before the middle of the thirteenth century, Lyttelton's History of
Henry II., vol. ii. p. 174; and Macpherson's Annals of Commerce.]

     Notwithstanding the influence of London in these seasons of disturbance,
we do not perceive that it was distinguished from the most insignificant town
by greater participation in national councils.  Rich, powerful, honorable, and
high-spirited as its citizens had become, it was very long before they found a
regular place in parliament.  The prerogative of imposing tallages at
pleasure, unsparingly exercised by Henry III. even over London, ^g left the
crown no inducement to summon the inhabitants of cities and boroughs.  As
these indeed were daily growing more considerable, they were certain, in a
monarchy so limited as that of England became in the thirteenth century, of
attaining, sooner or later, this eminent privilege.  Although therefore the
object of Simon de Montfort in calling them to his parliament after the battle
of Lewes was merely to strengthen his own faction, which prevailed among the
commonalty, yet their permanent admission into the legislature may be ascribed
to a more general cause. For otherwise it is not easy to see why the
innovation of a usurper should have been drawn into precedent, though it might
perhaps accelerate what the course of affairs was gradually preparing.

[Footnote g: Frequent proofs of this may be found in Madox, Hist. of
Exchequer, c. 17, as well as in Matt. Paris, who laments it with indignation.
Cives Londinenses, contra consuetudinem et libertatem civitatis, quasi servi
ultimae conditionis, non sub nomine aut titulo liberi adjutorii, sed tallagii,
quod multum eos angebat, regi, licet inviti et renitentes, nume rare sunt
coacti. p. 492.  Heu ubi est Londinensis, toties empta, toties concessa,
toties scripta, toties jurata libertas! &c., p. 627.  The king sometimes
suspended their market, that is, I suppose, their right of toll, till his
demands were paid.]

     It is well known that the earliest writs of summons to cities and
boroughs, of which we can prove the existence, are those of Simon de Montfort,
Earl of Leicester, bearing date 12th of December, 1264, in the forty-ninth
year of Henry III. ^h After a long controversy almost all judicious inquirers
seem to have acquiesced in admitting this origin of popular representation. ^i
The argument may be very concisely stated.  We find from innumerable records
that the king imposed tallages upon his demesne towns at discretion. ^j No
public instrument previous to the forty-ninth of Henry III. names the
citizens and burgesses as constituent parts of parliament; though prelates
barons, knights, and sometimes freeholders, are enumerated; ^k while, since
the undoubted admission of the commons, they are almost invariably mentioned.
No historian speaks of representatives appearing for the people, or uses the
word citizen or burgess in describing those present in parliament.  Such
convincing, though negative, evidence is not to be invalidated by some general
and ambiguous phrases, whether in writs and records or in historians. ^l Those
monkish annalists are poor authorities upon any point where their language is
to be delicately measured.  But it is hardly possible that, writing
circumstantially, as Roger de Hoveden and Matthew Paris sometimes did,
concerning proceedings in parliament, they could have failed to mention the
commons in unequivocal expressions, if any representatives from that order had
actually formed a part of the assembly.

[Footnote h: These writs are not extant, having perhaps never been returned;
and consequently we cannot tell to what particular places they were addressed.
It appears, however, that the assembly was intended to be numerous; for the
entry runs: scribitur civibus Ebor, civibus Lincoln, et caeteris burgis
Angliae.  It is singular that no mention is made of London, which must have
had some special summons.  Rymer, t. i. p. 803.  Dugdale, Summonitiones ad
Parliamentum, p. 1.]

[Footnote i: It would ill repay any reader's diligence to wade through the
vapid and diluted pages of Tyrrell; but whoever would know what can be best
pleaded for a higher antiquity of our present parliamentary constitution may
have recourse to Hody on Convocations, and Lord Lyttelton's History of Henry
II. vol. ii. p. 276, and vol. iv. pp. 79-106.  I do not conceive it possible
to argue the question more ingeniously than has been done by the noble writer
last quoted.  Whitelocke, in his commentary on the parliamentary writ, has
treated it very much at length, but with no critical discrimination.]

[Footnote j: Madox, Hist. of Exchequer, c. 17.]

[Footnote k: The only apparent exception to this is in the letter addressed to
the pope by the parliament of 1246; the salutation of which runs thus:
Barones, proceres, et magnates, ac nobiles portuum maris habitatores, necnon
et clerus et populus universus, salutem.  Matt. Paris, p. 696.  It is plain, I
think, from these words, that some of the chief inhabitants of the Cinque
Ports, at that time very flourishing towns, were present in this parliament.
But whether they sat as representatives, or by a peculiar writ of summons, is
not so evident; and the latter may be the more probable hypothesis of the
two.]

[Footnote l: Thus Matthew Paris tells us that in 1237 the whole kingdom, regni
totius universitas, repaired to a parliament of Henry III. p. 367.]

     Two authorities, however, which had been supposed to prove a greater
antiquity than we have assigned to the representation of the commons, are
deserving of particular consideration; the cases of St. Albans and Barnstaple.
The burgesses of St. Albans complained to the council in the eighth year of
Edward II., that, although they held of the king in capite, and ought to
attend his parliaments whenever they are summoned, by two of their number,
instead of all other services, as had been their custom in all past times,
which services the said burgesses and their predecessors had performed as well
in the time of the late King Edward and his ancestors as in that of the
present king until the parliament now sitting, the names of their deputies
having been constantly enrolled in chancery, yet the sheriff of Hertfordshire,
at the instigation of the Abbot of St. Albans, had neglected to cause an
election and return to be made; and prayed remedy.  To this petition it was
answered, "Let the rolls of chancery be examined, that it may appear whether
the said burgesses were accustomed to come to parliament, or not, in the time
of the king's ancestors; and let right be done to them, vocatis evocandis, si
necesse fuerit." I do not translate these words, concerning the sense of which
there has been some dispute, though not, apparently, very material to the
principal subject. ^m

[Footnote m: Brady's Introduction to Hist. of England, p. 38.]

     This is, in my opinion, by far the most plausible testimony for the early
representation of boroughs.  The burgesses of St. Albans claim a prescriptive
right from the usage of all past times, and more especially those of the late
Edward and his ancestors.  Could this be alleged, it has been said, of a
privilege at the utmost of fifty years' standing, once granted by a usurper,
in the days of the late king's father, and afterwards discontinued till about
twenty years before the date of their petition, according to those who refer
the regular appearance of the commons in parliament to the twenty-third of
Edward I.?  Brady, who obviously felt the strength of this authority, has
shown little of his usual ardor and acuteness in repelling it.  It was
observed, however, by Madox, that the petition of St. Albans contains two very
singular allegations; it asserts that the town was part of the king's demesne,
whereas it had invariably belonged to the adjoining abbey; and that its
burgesses held by the tenure of attending parliament, instead of all other
services, contrary to all analogy, and without parallel in the condition of
any tenant in capite throughout the kingdom.  "It is no wonder, therefore,"
says Hume, "that a petition which advances two falsehoods should contain one
historical mistake, which indeed amounts only to an inaccurate expression."
But it must be confessed that we cannot so easily set aside the whole
authority of this record.  For whatever assurance the people of St. Albans
might show in asserting what was untrue, the king's council must have been
aware how recently the deputies of any towns had been admitted into
parliament.  If the lawful birth of the House of Commons were in 1295, as is
maintained by Brady and his disciples, is it conceivable that, in 1315, the
council would have received a petition, claiming the elective franchise by
prescription, and have referred to the rolls of chancery to inquire whether
this had been used in the days of the king's progenitors?  I confess that I
see no answer which can easily be given to this objection by such as adopt the
latest epoch of borough representation, namely, the parliament of 23 E. I.
But they are by no means equally conclusive against the supposition that the
communities of cities and towns, having been first introduced into the
legislature during Leicester's usurpation, in the forty-ninth year of Henry
III., were summoned, not perhaps uniformly, but without any long intermission,
to succeeding parliaments.  There is a strong presumption, from the language
of a contemporary historian, that they sat in the parliament of 1269, four
years after that convened by Leicester. ^n It is more unequivocally stated by
another annalist that they were present in the first parliament of Edward I.
held in 1271. ^o Nor does a similar inference want some degree of support from
the preambles of the statute of Marlebridge in 51 H. III., of Westminster I.
in the third, and of Gloucester in the sixth, year of Edward I. ^p And the
writs are extant which summon every city, borough, and market town to send two
deputies to a council in the eleventh year of his reign.  I call this a
council, for it undoubtedly was not a parliament.  The sheriffs were directed
to summon personally all who held more than twenty pounds a year of the crown,
as well as four knights for each county invested with full powers to act for
the commons thereof.  The knights and burgesses thus chosen, as well as the
clergy within the province of Canterbury, met at Northampton; those within the
province of York, at that city.  And neither assembly was opened by the king.
^q This anomalous convention was nevertheless one means of establishing the
representative system, and, to an inquirer free from technical prejudice, is
little less important than a regular parliament. Nor have we long to look even
for this.  In the same year, about eight months after the councils at
Northampton and York, writs were issued summoning to a parliament at
Shrewsbury two citizens from London, and as many from each of twenty other
considerable towns. ^r It is a slight cavil to object that these were not
directed as usual to the sheriff of each county, but to the magistrates of
each place.  Though a very imperfect, this was a regular and unequivocal
representation of the commons in parliament.  But their attendance seems to
have intermitted from this time to the twenty-third year of Edward's reign. ^s

[Footnote n: Convocatis universis Angliae prelatis et magnatibus, necnon
cunctatum regni sui civitatum et burgorum potentioribus.  Wykes, in Gale, XV.
Scriptores, t. ii. p. 88.  I am indebted to Hody on Convocations for this
reference, which seems to have escaped most of our constitutional writers.]

[Footnote o: Hoc anno . . . convenerunt archiepiscopi, episcopi, comites et
barones, abbates et priores, et de quolibet comitatu quatuor milites, et de
qualibet civitate quatuor.  Annales Waverleienses in Gale t. ii. p. 227.  I
was led to this passage by Atterbury, Rights of Convocations, p. 310, where
some other authorities less unquestionable are adduced for the same purpose.
Both this assembly and that mentioned by Wykes in 1269 were certainly
parliaments, and acted as such, particularly the former, though summoned for
purposes not strictly parliamentary.]

[Footnote p: The statute of Marlebridge is said to be made convocatis
discretioribus, tam majoribus quam minoribus; that of Westminster primer, par
son conseil, et par l'assentements des archievesques, evesques, abbes, priors,
countes, barons, et tout le comminality de la terre illonques summones.  The
statute of Gloucester runs, appelles les plus discretes de son royaume,
auxibien des grandes come des meinders.  These preambles seem to have
satisfied Mr. Prynne that the commons were then represented, though the writs
are wanting; and certainly no one could be less disposed to exaggerate their
antiquity.  2d Register, p. 30.]

[Footnote q: Brady's Hist. of England, vol. ii.  Appendix; Carte, vol. ii. p.
247.]

[Footnote r: This is commonly denominated the parliament of Acton Burnell; the
clergy and commons having sat in that town, while the barons passed judgment
upon David Prince of Wales at Shrewsbury.  The towns which were honored with
the privilege of representation, and may consequently be supposed to have been
at that time the most considerable in England, were York, Carlisle,
Scarborough, Nottingham, Grimsby, Lincoln, Northampton, Lynn, Yarmouth,
Colchester, Norwich, Chester, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Hereford, Bristol,
Canterbury, Winchester, and Exeter. Rymer, t. ii. p. 247.

     "This [the trial and judgment of Llewellin] seems to have been the only
business transacted at Shrewsbury; for the bishops and abbots, and four
knights of each shire, and two representatives of London and nineteen other
trading towns, summoned to meet the same day in parliament, are said to have
sat at Acton Burnell, and thence the law made for the more easy recovery of
the debts of merchants is called the Statute of Acton Burnell. It was probably
made at the request of the representative of the cities and boroughs present
in that parliament, authentic copies in the king's name being sent to seven of
those trading towns; but it runs only in the name of the king and his
council." Carte, ii. 195, referring to Rot. Wall. II Edw. I. m. 2d.

     As the parliament was summoned to meet at Shrewsbury, it may be presumed
that the Commons adjourned to Acton Burnell.  The word "statute" implies that
some consent was given, though the enactment came from the king and council.
It is entitled in the Book of the Exchequer - des Estatus de Slopbury ke sunt
appele Actone Burnel.  Ces sunt les Estatus fez at Salopsebur, al parlement
prochein apres la fete Seint Michel, l'an del reigne le Rey Edward, Fitz le
Rey Henry, unzime.  Report of Lords' Committee, p. 191.  The enactment by the
king and council founded on the consent of the estates was at Acton Burnell.
And the Statute of Merchants, 13 Edw. I., refers to that of the 11th, as made
by the king, a son parlement que il tint a Acton Burnell, and again mentions
l'avant dit statut fait a Acton Burnell.  This seems to afford a voucher for
what is said in my text, which has been controverted by a learned antiquary.
^* It is certain that the lords were at Shrewsbury in their judicial character
condemning Llewellin; but whether they proceeded afterwards to Acton Burnell,
and joined in the statute is not quite so clear.

[Footnote *: Archaeological Journal, vol. ii. p. 337, by the Rev. W.
Hartshorne.]]

[Footnote s: [Note XXI.]]

     Those to whom the petition of St. Albans is not satisfactory will hardly
yield their conviction to that of Barnstaple.  This town set forth in the
eighteenth of Edward III. that, among other franchises granted to them by a
charter of Athelstan, they had ever since exercised the right of sending two
burgesses to parliament.  The said charter, indeed, was unfortunately mislaid;
and the prayer of their petition was to obtain one of the like import in its
stead.  Barnstaple, it must be observed, was a town belonging to Lord Audley,
and had actually returned members ever since the twenty-third of Edward I.
Upon an inquisition directed by the king to be made into the truth of these
allegations, it was found that "the burgesses of the said town were wont to
send two burgesses to parliament for the commonalty of the borough;" but
nothing appeared as to the pretended charter of Athelstan, or the liberties
which it was alleged to contain.  The burgesses, dissatisfied with this
inquest, prevailed that another should be taken, which certainly answered
better their wishes.  The second jury found that Barnstaple was a free borough
from time immemorial; that the burgesses had enjoyed under a charter of
Athelstan, which had been casually lost, certain franchises by them
enumerated, and particularly that they should send two burgesses to
parliament; and that it would not be to the king's prejudice if he should
grant them a fresh charter in terms equally ample with that of his predecessor
Athelstan.  But the following year we have another writ and another inquest;
the former reciting that the second return had been unduly and fraudulently
made; and the latter expressly contradicting the previous inquest in many
points, and especially finding no proof of Athelstan's supposed charter.
Comparing the various parts of this business, we shall probably be induced to
agree with Willis, that it was but an attempt of the inhabitants of Barnstaple
to withdraw themselves from the jurisdiction of their lord.  For the right of
returning burgesses, though it is the main point of our inquiries, was by no
means the most prominent part of their petition, which rather went to
establish some civil privileges of devising their tenements and electing their
own mayor.  The first and fairest return finds only that they were accustomed
to send members to parliament, which a usage of fifty years (from 23 E. I. to
18 E. III.) was fully sufficient to establish, without searching into more
remote antiquity. ^t

[Footnote t: Willis, Notitia Parliamentaria, vol. ii. p. 312; Lyttelton's
Hist. of Hen. II., vol. iv. p. 89.]

     It has, however, probably occurred to the reader of these two cases, St.
Albans and Barnstaple, that the representation of the commons in parliament
was not treated as a novelty, even in times little posterior to those in which
we have been supposing it to have originated.  In this consists, I think, the
sole strength of the opposite argument.  An act in the fifth year of Richard
II. declares that, if any sheriff shall leave out of his returns any cities or
boroughs which be bound and of old times were wont to come to the parliament,
he shall be punished as was accustomed to be done in the like case in time
past. ^u In the memorable assertion of legislative right by the commons in the
second of Henry V. (which will be quoted hereafter) they affirm that "the
commune of the land is, and ever has been, a member of parliament." ^v And the
consenting suffrage of our older law-books must be placed in the same scale.
The first gainsayers, I think, were Camden and Sir Henry Spelman, who, upon
probing the antiquities of our constitution somewhat more exactly than their
predecessors, declared that they could find no signs of the commons in
parliament till the forty-ninth of Henry III.  Prynne, some years afterwards,
with much vigor and learning, maintained the same argument, and Brady
completed the victory. But the current doctrine of Westminster Hall, and still
more of the two chambers of parliament, was certainly much against these
antiquaries; and it passed at one time for a surrender of popular principles,
and almost a breach of privilege, to dispute the lineal descent of the House
of Commons from the witenagemot. ^w

[Footnote u: 5 Ric. II. stat. 2, c. iv.]

[Footnote v: Rot. Parl. vol. iv. p. 22.]

[Footnote w: Though such an argument would not be conclusive, it might afford
some ground for hesitation, if the royal burghs of Scotland were actually
represented in their parliament more than half a century before the date
assigned to the first representation of English towns.  Lord Hailes concludes
from a passage in Fordun "that as early as 1211 burgesses gave suit and
presence in the great council of the king's vassals; though the contrary has
been asserted with much confidence by various authors." Annals of Scotland,
vol. i. p. 139.  Fordun's words, however, so far from importing that they
formed a member of the legislature, which perhaps Lord Hailes did not mean by
the quaint expression "gave suit and presence," do not appear to me conclusive
to prove that they were actually present.  Hoc anno Rex Scotiae Willelmus
magnum tenuit consilium.  Ubi, petito ab optimatibus auxilio, promiserunt se
daturos decem mille marcas: praeter burgenses regni, qui sex millia
promiserunt.  Those who know the brief and incorrect style of chronicles will
not think it unlikely that the offer of 6,000 marks by the burgesses was not
made in parliament, but in consequence of separate requisitions from the
crown.  Pinkerton is of opinion that the magistrates of royal burghs might
upon this, and perhaps other occasions, have attended at the bar of parliament
with their offers of money.  But the deputies of towns do not appear as a part
of parliament till 1326.  Hist. of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 352, 371.]

     The true ground of these pretensions to antiquity was a very well-founded
persuasion that no other argument would be so conclusive to ordinary minds, or
cut short so effectually all encroachments of the prerogative.  The populace
of every country, but none so much as the English, easily grasp the notion of
right, meaning thereby something positive and definite; while the maxims of
expediency or theoretical reasoning pass slightly over their minds.  Happy
indeed for England that it is so!  But we have here to do with the fact alone.
And it may be observed that several pious frauds were practised to exalt the
antiquity of our constitutional liberties.  These began, perhaps, very early,
when the imaginary laws of Edward the Confessor were so earnestly demanded.
They were carried further under Edward I. and his successor, when the fable of
privileges granted by the Conqueror to the men of Kent was devised; when
Andrew Horn filled his Mirror of Justices with fictitious tales of Alfred;
and, above all, when the "Method of holding parliaments in the time of
Ethelred" was fabricated, about the end of Richard II.'s reign; an imposture
which was not too gross to deceive Sir Edward Coke. ^x

[Footnote x: [Note XXII.]]