the 24th of January, 1679. It thus existed for nearly eighteen years. It derived its name of "pensionary" from the fact that many of its members were in the habit of receiving bribes from the King and the Ministers; and it has also been discovered that some of them were in the pay of the Court of France.

Parliamentary Hostages.-Oldfield records that in the sixth year of King John (1205) a Parliament was held, at which the children of the barons were required as hostages for their allegiance.

An Unwise Counsellor.-Henry III., being straitened for money, issued a warrant ordering the nobles to meet him in London. Accordingly, on the day of St. Hilary, 1237, a countless multitude proceeded to the palace at Westminster to hear the King's pleasure. Having heard with consternation the royal demand for a thirtieth of all movable property, they were about to retire for the purpose of consultation, when Gilbert Bassett said to Henry, in the hearing of all, "My lord King, send some one of your friends to be present at the conference of your barons." In reply to his speech, Richard Percy said, "What is it, friend Gilbert, that you said? Are we, too, foreigners; and are we not among the number of the King's friends?" And Gilbert felt himself rebuked for his unpleasant speech.-Matthew Paris.

Selection of Partial Parliaments.-In ancient times it was ordinary for kings to make a show of summoning Parliaments, whenas properly they were but parliamentary meetings of some such lords, clergy, and others as the King saw most convenient to drive on his own designs; and therefore we find that Henry III., about the latter part of his reign, when his government drew towards the dregs, he having in the kingdom two hundred and fifty baronies, he summoned unto one of these parliamentary meetings but five-and-twenty barons and one hundred and fifty of his clergy.-Nathaniel Bacon's "Discourse on the Government of England."

Neglect of the King's Summons to Parliament.-Edward III., being troubled with a quarrel between the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York concerning superiority in bearing the cross, and the important affairs of Scotland so urging, summoned a Parliament at York, which was fain to be delayed and adjourned for want of appearance, and more effectual summons issued forth; but at the day of adjournment none of the clergy of the province of Canterbury would be there; and upon this occasion the Parliament was not only interrupted in their proceedings, but an ill precedent was made for men to be bold with the King's summons in such cases as liked not them; and thereupon a statute was made to enforce obedience upon citizens and burgesses, and such ecclesiastics as held per baroniam. Nor did Edward III. ever after hold the presence of the prelates at so high repute at such meetings; and therefore summoned them, or so many of them as he thought meet for the occasion-sometimes more, sometimes fewer; and at a Parliament in his forty-and-seventh year he summoned only four bishops and five abbots.

Albeit the clergy still made their claim of vote, and desired the same to be entered upon record.-1bid.

Representation an Expensive Luxury.-A correspondent of Notes and Queries writes:-"Whatever estimate the people of the present day may put upon the elective franchise, it would seem that our ancestors held the privilege very lightly; for, although the wages to be received by members of Parliament were fixed by the 16th of Edward II. at the low rate of 4s. a day for a knight of the shire, and 28. for a citizen or burgess, yet we are told by Prynne that many boroughs petitioned to be excused from sending members to Parliament, on account of the expense; and in a note to 'Blackstone' we learn that from the 33rd Edward III., uniformly through the five succeeding reigns, the sheriff of Lancashire returned that there were no cities or boroughs in his county that ought or were used, or could, on account of their poverty, send any citizens or burgesses to Parliament. There were some instances where even a less sum than that established by statute was allowed; and it is on record that in 1463 Sir John Strange, the member for Dunwich, agreed to take a cade and half a barrel of herrings as a composition for his wages."

A Member Suing for his Wages.-Hatsell records that Mr. Hall, member for Grantham, having published a book in 1580, which gave offence to the House, was ordered to be expelled, fined, and imprisoned. On the 21st of November, 1586, Mr. Markham, then member for Grantham, informed the House, on the part of the inhabitants of that borough, that Mr. Arthur Hall, at one time their member, had brought a writ for his wages (amongst other times) for his attendance at the late session of Parliament, holden at Westminster in the twenty-seventh year of Queen Elizabeth, during which time he did not serve in the House. A committee appointed by the House desired him to remit the said wages, which he did "freely and frankly."*

Safety and Quietude for Members.-A Parliament was summoned by Edward III. to meet at Westminster, March 12th, 1332, the summons reciting the King's reasons for calling them. Where-that we may see (says Joshua Barnes) what prudent care was then taken by these august assemblies that their debates should not be awed by fear or disturbed by tumults-it was first by the King's order proclaimed, "That no man, upon pain of forfeiting all his substance, should presume to use or wear any coat of metal, or other weapon, offensive or defensive, in London, Westminster, or the suburbs of the same. And also that during the time of this session no games or other plays of men, women, or children should be used in Westminster, to the disturbance of the Parliament." A Parliament met at York in the following year. On the first day of their sitting commandment was given to the Mayor of York, in presence of the King and all his Parliament, to see the King's peace kept in the said city and suburbs thereof, and to arrest all that offended against it. Also, proclamation to be made against weapons and plays, by the steward and

See "Parliamentary Usages-Payment of Members."

marschal, before the house where the Parliament sat, and by the mayor and bailiffs in the city.

An Early Speaker's Address on Election.-The House of Commons which met in 1376 chose Sir Peter de la Mare, knight of the shire for Herefordshire, as their Speaker, and he is sometimes mentioned as the first who bore the title. Sir Peter on this occasion (says the "Parliamentary History ") made a protestation and said, “That what he had to declare was from their whole body; and therefore required that if he should happen to speak anything without their consents, that it ought to be amended before his departure from the said place. He commended the feats of chivalry heretofore practised, for which this nation was so renowned; and said that by the decay of the same, the honour of the realm did and would daily decrease."

A Faithful Speaker Punished.-Sir Peter de la Mare, elected prolocutor or speaker of "the Good Parliament " (p. 5), suffered for his boldness on behalf of that body, which had so severely handled court abuses. The death of the Black Prince, who had countenanced its proceedings, left power in the hands of John of Gaunt, against whom and his friends they had been directed. The Parliament was dismissed, and proclaimed to have been no Parliament at all; steps taken in consequence of its petitions were cancelled; and Peter de la Mare was summoned before the King's court and imprisoned. A new Parliament met in January, 1377, no pains having being spared to "pack" it; and this (says Professor Stubbs) is the first occasion on which any definite signs are traceable of an attempt to influence the elections for a political purpose. Sir Thomas Hungerford, the Duke of Lancaster's steward, and one of the knights of the shire for Wilts, was chosen speaker. A strong minority vainly endeavoured to procure the release of Sir Peter de la Mare, and the Londoners insisted that he should have a fair trial; but he was detained in prison some months, until the occurrence of the jubilee of the old King, Edward III.

A Royal Absentee.-Oldfield relates that in the tenth year of Richard II. (1387) the Commons sent a message to the King, in which they stated that if the King shall wilfully estrange himself from his Parliament, and be absent from them for the space of forty days, it shall be lawful for all and every of them, without any damage from the King, to go home and return into their own countries. "And now you,” continue the remonstrants, "for a longer time have absented yourself, and have refused to come among them."

An Earl's Apology.-In a Parliament of Richard II., held at Westminster, 1394, the Earl of Arundel exhibited a complaint against the Duke of Lancaster, consisting of four distinct charges. To the accusation the King himself answered and affirmed that what the Duke of Lancaster had done was all right and good. And his Majesty, with the assent of the Lords, awarded that the said earl should ask the duke's pardon, in full Parliameut, and in the very words following, which he spoke accordingly: "Sir, Sith that it seemeth to the King and other lords, and eke that each here hath been so mickle grieved and displeased

by my words; it forethinketh, and I beseech you of your grace and lordship to quit me your man-tallant."-Parliamentary History.

The House of Commons making a Scapegoat.-While, in the early Parliaments, the House of Commons occasionally spoke out with boldness, it was often ready at the next moment to meet the King and his council with great subserviency. The following instance is given in the "Parliamentary History:" In 1397 the House of Commons required of the King (Richard II.), amongst other demands, an avoidance of the extravagant expenses of the King's household, and that bishops and ladies, who had no particular business there, should be forbidden to frequent the court. The King, hearing of this, was highly incensed, and charged the Speaker, Sir John Bussy, upon his allegiance to inform him who it was that had brought the matter into Parliament. The Commons, on being told the King's mind in a conference with the Lords, made a most submissive and even abject apology for their presumption; gave up the name of the person who had brought it into their House-one Thomas Haxey, clerk; and furthermore, proceeded to try poor Thomas Haxey, clerk, and condemned him to die the death of a traitor. The King then informed the Commons that he, out of his royal benignity and gracious seigniory, freely excused them. The scapegoat also came in for a share in the royal clemency, his life being spared on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other prelates; but this was chiefly on account of his clerical capacity.

A Suicidal Parliament and a Suicidal King.-A Parliament, elected (writes Professor Stubbs) under the undisguised influence of Richard II., met at Westminster on the 17th of September, 1397. The King's agents in the House of Commons were Sir John Bussy, the Speaker, Sir Henry Green, and Sir William Bagot. The Chancellor declared in his opening speech that the cause of summons was to establish the King in his rights, and to consult on the revocation of all measures by which those rights were diminished.. The whole of the acts of the Parliament of February, 1388, were, at the prayer of the Commons, declared null, and the persons prejudiced by those acts were restored to all their rights. Large subsidies were granted, some of them for the term of the King's life. "The last Act (says Stubbs) of this suicidal Parliament was to delegate their authority to eighteen members chosen from the whole body ten lords temporal, of whom six were to be a quorum, two earls as proctors for the clergy, and six members of the House of Commons, three or four to be a quorum. All these were men whom the King believed to be devoted to his interests, and whom he had spared no means to attach to himself. He held, therefore, his Parliament in his own hand. It was a resolute attempt not to evade, but to destroy, the limitations which for nearly two centuries the nation, first through the baronage alone, and latterly through the united Parliament, had been labouring to impose upon the King." These acts laid a foundation for the downfall of Richard in 1399. In the articles of accusation on which his deposition was grounded, the delegation of the powers of Parliament to a committee of estates, and the fraudulent use of that delegation

to engross the entire authority in his own hands, were prominent features.

A Pious Subsidy.-Henry IV. called a Parliament which met October 6th, 1404. The Chancellor," says Lord Campbell, " in a speech from the text Rex vocavit seniores terræ,' having pressed most urgently for supplies, the Commons came in a body, and, the King being on the throne, proposed that without burdening his people he might supply his occasions by seizing on the revenues of the clergy. Archbishop Arundel replied that the stripping the clergy of their estates would put a stop to their prayers night and day for the welfare of the State. The Speaker of the Commons, standing at the bar, smiled and said openly that he thought the prayers of the Church a very slender supply."

Royal Rewards to the Speaker. Of the Parliament which assembled at Westminster March 1st, 1406, Sir John Tibetot was chosen Speaker. Sir John excused himself on account of his youth and other causes ; nevertheless, the King confirmed his election. This youthful Speaker appears to have discharged his functions to the satisfaction of the Court at least; for at the close of the Parliament the King, to show his generosity and gratitude to Sir John, granted to him, in fee, all the lands and hereditaments of Richard ap Griffith ap Voethus, in the counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan, and elsewhere in the principality of South Wales, forfeited to the King by his being an adherent to Owen Glendower, rebel and traitor; and also the office of keeper of the forests of Weybridge and Sapley, in the county of Huntingdon, without any fee or out payments; and further, the goods and chattels of Peter Priswick, carpenter, a felon, amounting to £150. He was afterwards made Earl of Worcester.-Parliamentary History.

The Lords and the Privilege of the Commons.-From the case of Speaker Thorpe it is quite evident (writes Mr. James Gairdner) that in the days of Henry VI. the privileges of the lower chamber were entirely in the keeping of the House of Peers. Speaker Thorpe had been arrested in 1453, during the parliamentary recess, at the suit of Richard, Duke of York. The action was for trespass; Thorpe was cast in damages of £1000, and he still lay in prison in the following February when Parliament reassembled. The Commons at once petitioned for the liberation of their Speaker, as without him they could not proceed, and also of another member who was incarcerated at the same time. The Duke of York's counsel, in the Lords, opposed the application, explaining the circumstances of the case. The Lords, being anxious to preserve the liberties and privileges of the lower house, asked the opinion of the judges, and the judges made a very careful reply. They declared "that they ought not to answer to that question, for it hath not been used aforetime that the justices should in any wise determine the privilege of this High Court of Parliament; for it is so high and so mighty in its nature that it may make law, and that that is law it may make no law, and the determination and knowledge of that privilege belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament, and not to the justices.". They only added that there was no existing form of procedure to quash all processes against privileged