one Parliament at least was held every year, sometimes two or three. The custom of holding sessions of Parliament was not introduced for a long time subsequently. When mention is made therefore of a "Parliament " being summoned or held, it is a new Parliament that is meant, not a new session of an old Parliament. In 3 Edward II. it was ordained that the king shall hold a Parliament “once a year, or twice, if there should be need," and the average of once a year was well kept up and even exceeded in early times. Thus during the twelve remaining years of the reign of Edward I., dating from 1295, eleven Parliaments were held; in the following reign there were twenty-two Parliaments in twenty years; in the next reign fifty-eight Parliaments in fifty-one years, and in the next succeeding reign twenty-four

Parliaments in twenty-one years. It appears from

the dates of the writs, and from the frequent complaints of the Commons,1 that Parliament was not summoned regularly every year during the two last reigns, some years there being no Parliament held and in others more than one. It was during the last of the reigns referred to, that the practice of proroguing Parliament commenced, and which has been continued to this day.

1

Certain qualifications were required of represen50 Edward III., I Richard II., and elsewhere.

1 e.g. in

tatives in the early Parliaments, but these were neither hereditary nor territorial, nor even pecuniary. They were simply personal and topical. The writs directed the sheriffs or mayors to return "discreet," "honest," or "able and discreet persons," and none others, for the shires, cities and boroughs alike; the representatives for the shires, however, were to be knights or freemen (liberi homines), but otherwise there was no distinction between the representatives of the different kinds of constituencies. These were the personal qualifications; but in addition to these a residential qualification was required. The representative had to be a resident within the shire, city, or borough which elected him. This condition was regarded as an essential one, and for a long time it was strictly enforced. In the reign of Henry VIII. the rule began to be relaxed, and in 13 Elizabeth a bill for the "Validity of burgesses non resient” was introduced into the Commons and read a first and second time and committed after much debate, but was not proceeded with beyond this stage. From this time, however, non-resident representatives began to be common, but the law was not altered till the statute of 14 George III. c. 58, formally repealed the restriction of residence both as to voters and members. Sometimes members were required to have special knowledge of shipping and

commerce,1 and a statute provides against apprentices, lawyers and sheriffs being elected. It appears from more recent writs that it had been common at one time to elect few or any but yeomen or persons of inferior rank as representatives. Originally no qualifications were required for electors beyond what entitled them to take rank as citizens or burgesses in the cities and boroughs respectively, and for a long period none whatever were required for voters in the counties. It was enacted in the Parliament of 8 Henry IV. that "all who shall be present at the proclamation in full county, as well as suitors in any case, as others, should attend the election of their knights, and those in the county shall go to the elections freely and indifferently, notwithstanding any prayer or command to the contrary." It has now been thoroughly established that the Act of 8 Henry VI., limiting the franchise in the counties. to 40s. freeholders, was a reactionary measure, which was passed in consequence of a petition presented by the Commons, praying "that whereas knights of the shire had of late been chosen by outrageous and excessive numbers of people of small substance." 8

The freedom of elections was guaranteed by

See Cox's Ancient Parliamentary Elections, p. 80.

numerous statutes. According to an Act passed in 13 Henry VI., if any soldiers or armed persons disturbed the electors, the sheriff might refuse to proceed with the election; and in consequence of several knights, citizens and burgesses returned for the Parliament of 38 Henry VI. not having been freely elected, all the acts of that Parliament were repealed by the Parliament succeeding. Nevertheless, the Commons had frequently to complain of interference with the freedom of elections, and one of the grievances of the rebels under Jack Cade was "that the freedom of election for knights of the shires hath been taken from the people by the great men, who sent letters to their tenants and dependents, to choose such men as the people approve not." The Crown also exercised great influence over the elections. In early times, the king had absolute power in the issuing of writs, and in prescribing the qualifications for members to be elected; and by omitting to issue writs for refractory constituencies, or regulating the qualifications of representatives for others, he could to a great extent control the proceedings of Parliament. In 7 Edward VI. the sheriffs of certain counties were desired to return certain individuals mentioned by name, and the writs issued by Mary direct the sheriffs to return men of the "wise, grave, and Catholic sort." It appears also

from a statement made by the Attorney-General during a debate in 12 James I., that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had the nomination of one of the borough representatives in one of the Duchy towns, and that "it hath been so in his remembrance, and is ancient." 1

The place and mode of election was determined by custom and statute. The elections were held at the county court, as being the most convenient place for all classes of electors, who had to attend there on other business. The representatives of the cities and boroughs as well as of the shires were elected there, and usually on the same day as the knights were chosen. It was customary for the mayor of any city or borough, within the county, and a few leading citizens or burgesses deputed for the purpose, to meet at the county court, and then and there elect representatives for their respective cities and boroughs. From the returns collected by Prynne, extending over a period of fifty years (1407-1459), we get a good idea of the manner in which elections were conducted during the first half of the fifteenth century. Thus "twelve persons" elect two knights for the county of Kent, and the same individuals, at the same time and place, choose two representatives for Rochester, and two for Canterbury. "The mayor Parry's Parl., P. 266.

1

C