I cannot upon the whole overcome the argument from the silence of all historians, from the deficiency of all proof as to any presence of citizens and burgesses, in a representative character as a house of commons, before the 49th year of Henry III.; because after this time historians and chroniclers exactly of the same character as the former, or even less copious and valuable, do not omit to mention it. We are accustomed in the sister kingdoms, so to speak, of the continent, founded on the same Teutonic original, to argue against the existence of representative councils, or other institutions, from the same absence of positive testimony. No one believes that the three estates of France were called together before the time of Philip the Fair. No one strains the representation of cities in the cortes of Castile beyond the date at which we discover its existence by testimony. It is true that unreasonable inferences may be made from what is usually called negative evidence; but how readily and how often are we deceived by a reliance on testimony! In many instances the negative conclusion carries with it a conviction equal to a great mass of affirmative proof. And such I reckon the inference from the language of Roger Hoveden, of Matthew Paris, and so many more who speak of councils and parliaments full of prelates and nobles, without a syllable of the burgesses. Either they were absent, or they were too insignificant to be named; and in that case it is hard to perceive any motive for requiring their attendance.
A record, which may be read in Brady's History of England (vol. ii. Append. p. 66) and in Rymer (t. iv. p. 1237), relative to the proceedings on Edward II.'s flight into Wales and subsequent detention, recites that, "the king having left his kingdom without government, and gone away with notorious enemies of the queen, prince, and realm, divers prelates, earls, barons, and knights, then being at Bristol in the presence of the said queen and duke (prince Edward, duke of Cornwall), by the assent of the whole commonalty of the realm there being, unanimously elected the said duke to be guardian of the said kingdom; so that the said duke and guardian should rule and govern the said realm in the name and by the authority of the king his father, he being thus absent." But the king being taken and brought back into England, the power thus delegated to the guardian ceased of course; whereupon the bishop of Hereford was sent to press the king to permit that the great seal, which he had with him, the prince having only used his private seal, should be used in all things that required it. Accordingly the king sent the great seal to the queen and prince. The bishop is said to have been thus commissioned to fetch the seal by the prince and queen, and by the said prelates and peers, with the assent of the said commonalty then being at Hereford. It is plain that these were mere words of course; for no parliament had been convoked, and no proper representatives could have been either at Bristol or Hereford. However, this is a very curious record, inasmuch as it proves the importance attached to the forms of the constitution at this period.
The Lords' committee dwell much on an enactment in the parliament held at York in 15 Edw. II. (1322), which they conceived to be the first express recognition of the constitutional powers of the lower house. It was there enacted that "for ever thereafter all manner of ordinances or provisions made by the subjects of the king or his heirs, by any power or authority whatsoever, concerning the royal power of the king or his heirs, or against the estate of the crown, should be void and of no avail or force whatsoever; but the matters to be established for the estate of the king and of his heirs, and for the estate of the realm and of the people, should be treated, accorded, and established in parliament by the king, and by the assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and the commonalty of the realm, according as had been before accustomed. This proceeding, therefore, declared the legislative authority to reside only in the king, with the assent of the prelates, earls, and barons, and commons assembled in parliament; and that every legislative act not done by that authority should be deemed void and of no effect. By whatever violence this statute may have been obtained, it declared the constitutional law of the realm on this important subject." (p. 282.) The violence, if resistance to the usurpation of a subject is to be called such, was on the part of the king, who had just sent the earl of Lancaster to the scaffold, and the present enactment was levelled at the ordinances which had been forced upon the crown by his faction. The lords ordainers, nevertheless, had been appointed with consent of the commons, as has been mentioned in the text; so that this provision in 15 Edward II. seems rather to limit than to enhance the supreme power of parliament, if it were meant to prohibit any future enactment of the same kind by its sole authority. But the statute is declaratory in its nature; nor can we any more doubt that the legislative authority was reposed in the king, lords, and commons before this era than that it was so ever afterwards. Unsteady as the constitutional usage had been through the reign of Edward I., and willing as both he and his son may have been to prevent its complete establishment, the necessity of parliamentary consent both for levying money and enacting laws must have become an article of the public creed before his death. If it be true that even after this declaratory statute laws were made without the assent or presence of the commons, as the Lords' committee incline to hold (p. 285, 286, 287), it was undeniably an irregular and unconstitutional proceeding; but this can only show that we ought to be very slow in presuming earlier proceedings of the same nature to have been more conformable to the spirit of the existing constitution. The Lords' committee too often reason from the fact to the right, as well as from the words to the fact; both are fallacious, and betray them into some vacillation and perplexity. They do not, however, question, on the whole, but that a new constitution of the legislative assemblies of the realm had been introduced before the 15th year of Edward II., and that "the practice had prevailed so long before as to give it, in the opinion of the parliament then assembled, the force and effect of a custom, which the parliament declared should thereafter be considered as established law." (p. 293.) This appears to me rather an inadequate exposition of the public spirit, of the tendency towards enlarging the basis of the constitution, to which the "practice and custom" owed its origin; but the positive facts are truly stated.
Writs are addressed in 11th of Edw. II. "comitibus, majoribus baronibus, et prælatis," whence the Lords' committee infer that the style used in John's charter was still preserved (Report, p. 277). And though in those times there might be much irregularity in issuing writs of summons, the term "majores barones" must have had an application to definite persons. Of the irregularity we may judge by the fact that under Edward I. about eighty were generally summoned; under his son never so many as fifty, sometimes less than forty, as may be seen in Dugdale's Summonitiones ad Parliamentum. The committee endeavour to draw an inference from this against a subsisting right of tenure. But if it is meant that the king had an acknowledged prerogative of omitting any baron at his discretion, the higher English nobility must have lost its notorious privileges, sanctioned by long usage, by the analogy of all feudal governments, and by the charter of John, which, though not renewed in terms, nor intended to be retained in favour of the lesser barons, or tenants in capite, could not, relatively to the rights of the superior order, have been designedly relinquished.
The committee wish to get rid of tenure as conferring a right to summons; they also strongly doubt whether the summons conferred an hereditary nobility; but they assert that, in the 15th of Edward III., "those who may have been deemed to have been in the reign of John distinguished as majores barones by the honour of a personal writ of summons, or by the extent and influence of their property, from the other tenants in chief of the crown, were now clearly become, with the earls and the newly created dignity of duke, a distinct body of men denominated peers of the land, and having distinct personal rights; while the other tenants in chief, whatsoever their rights may have been in the reign of John, sunk into the general mass." (p. 314.)
The appellation "peers of the land" is said to occur for the first time in 14 Edw. II. (p. 281), and we find them very distinctly in the proceedings against Bereford and others at the beginning of the next reign. They were, of course, entitled to trial by their own order. But whether all laymen summoned by particular writs to parliament were at that time considered as peers, and triable by the rest as such, must be questionable; unless we could assume that the writ of summons already ennobled the blood, which is at least not the opinion of the committee. If, therefore, the writ did not constitute an hereditary peer, nor tenure in chief by barony give a right to sit in parliament, we should have a difficulty in finding any determinate estate of nobility at all, exclusive of earls, who were, at all times and without exception, indisputably noble; an hypothesis manifestly paradoxical, and contradicted by history and law. If it be said that prescription was the only title, this may be so far granted that the majores barones had by prescription, antecedent to any statute or charter, been summoned to parliament: but this prescription would not be broken by the omission, through negligence or policy, of an individual tenant by barony in a few parliaments. The prescription was properly in favour of the class, the majores barones generally, and as to them it was perfect, extending itself in right, if not always in fact, to every one who came within its scope.
In the Third Report of the Lords' Committee, apparently drawn by the same hand as the Second, they "conjecture that after the establishment of the commons' house of parliament as a body by election, separate and distinct from the lords, all idea of a right to a writ of summons to parliament by reason of tenure had ceased, and that the dignity of baron, if not conferred by patent, was considered as derived only from the king's writ of summons." (Third Report, p. 226.) Yet they have not only found many cases of persons summoned by writ several times whose descendants have not been summoned, and hesitate even to approve the decision of the house on the Clifton barony in 1673, when it was determined that the claimant's ancestor, by writ of summons and sitting in parliament, was a peer, but doubt whether "even at this day the doctrine of that case ought to be considered as generally applicable, or may be limited by time and circumstances."[] (p. 33.)
It seems, with much deference to more learned investigators, rather improbable that, either before or after the regular admission of the knights and burgesses by representation, and consequently the constitution of a distinct lords' house of parliament, a writ of summons could have been lawfully withheld at the king's pleasure from any one holding such lands by barony as rendered him notoriously one of the majores barones. Nor will this be much affected by arguments from the inexpediency or supposed anomaly of permitting the right of sitting as a peer of parliament to be transferred by alienation. The Lords' committee dwell at length upon them. And it is true that, in our original feudal constitution, the fiefs of the crown could not be alienated without its consent. But when this was obtained, when a barony had passed by purchase, it would naturally draw with it, as an incident of tenure, the privilege of being summoned to parliament, or, in language more accustomed in those times, the obligation of doing suit and service to the king in his high court. Nor was the alienee, doubtless, to be taxed without his own consent, any more than another tenant in capite. What incongruity, therefore, is there in the supposition that, after tenants in fee simple acquired by statute the power of alienation without previous consent of the crown, the new purchaser stood on the same footing in all other respects as before the statute? It is also much to be observed that the claim to a summons might be gained by some methods of purchase, using that word, of course, in the legal sense. Thus the husbands of heiresses of baronies were frequently summoned, and sat as tenants by courtesy after the wife's death; though it must be owned that the committee doubt, in their Third Report (p. 47), whether tenancy by courtesy of a dignity was ever allowed as a right. Thus, too, every estate created in tail male was a diversion of the inheritance by the owner's sole will from its course according to law. Yet in the case of the barony of Abergavenny, even so late as the reign of James I., the heir male, being in seisin of the lands, was called by writ as baron, to the exclusion of the heir general. Surely this was an authentic recognition, not only of baronial tenure as the foundation of a right to sit in parliament, but of its alienability by the tenant.[k]