RICHARD II. DEPOSED.

13

But in one of the articles drawn up against him at his deposition, we find him accused of causing persons to be made sheriffs, not in the way provided by law, but "according to the capricios of his pleasure, sometimes his favourites or creatures, and sometimes such as he knew would not oppose his humour, for his own and others' private advantage, to the great grievance of his people and against the laws of his kingdom." Another of these articles is: "Although by the statute and custom of his realm in the calling together of every Parliament his people in the several counties of the kingdom ought to be free in choosing and deputing two knights to be present in such Parliament for each respective county, and to declare their grievances, and to prosecute such remedies thereupon as to them shall seem expedient, yet the aforesaid King, that in his Parliaments he might be able more freely to accomplish the effects of his headstrong will, did very often direct his com

mands to his sheriffs that they should cause to come to his Parliaments, as knights of the shire, certain persons by the said King named, which knights, being his favourites, he might lead, as often he had done, sometimes by various menaces and terrors, and sometimes by gifts, to consent to those things as were prejudicial to the kingdom and exceeding burdensome to the people." A similar charge of tampering with the elections through the sheriffs was made against Henry IV. in the challenge of the Earl of Northumberland, on the eve of the battle of Shrewsbury. The justice of this accusation is practically admitted in a statute afterwards exacted from this King, that the electors all present in the county courts (where elections then took place) should proceed to elections "freely and indifferently, notwithstanding any request or commandment to the contrary." The culpability of constituencies in saving the wages of members of Parliament at the cost

THE FRANCHISE LIMITED.

15

of their annual Parliaments, and the sovereign's

corrupt control over such

held, gradually led to the

elections as were

exaltation of the

prerogative, and slowly but surely to sharp punishment for the neglect of the duties of citizenship. It may be here added, that in Henry VI.'s time interference with elections had become so easy that the Parliament, by a statute which Freeman describes as the most reactionary measure which any Parliament ever passed, did not scruple to limit the hitherto open franchise to forty-shilling freeholders. It was many years, however, before the practice of frequently calling Parliaments was given up. Edward III. reigned fifty years, and held almost as many Parliaments; though in some years he held none, in others he held two or three. Intervals of nearly two years are sometimes met with in the next two or three reigns, but intervals of three years are rare indeed before the time of Henry VI. And the Parliaments

which met annually were really Parliaments. Separate writs were issued, and prorogation, in the sense now attached to the term, was unknown. One Parliament was prorogued, in the sense of being postponed, by reason of the plague. A prorogation which was a mere adjournment for the Easter holidays took place in Richard II.'s reign. Edward IV., who held only six Parliaments, was the first to make notable use of the proroguing power, and when by prorogations a Parliament called by him in 1472 was made to last two years and a half, this was considered a Parliament of very long duration. From this Parliament Edward IV. succeeded in getting large subsidies-a good reason with a needy sovereign for its prolongation. The moment the royal assent was given to bills, the Parliament used to be by that fact dissolved. That fiction was given up for the public convenience, and the expedient of prorogation was adopted by kings for their own.

YEARLY SESSIONS INSUFFICIENT.

17

To prove the second proposition at the head of this chapter-that the yearly sessions assured to us in modern days do not satisfy the claim which our ancestors made for short Parliaments, it must be made clear that the ancient custom and the claim depending upon it did not arise merely out of the judicial necessities of the time. Parliament was then, as Hallam points out, "the great remedial court for relief of private as well as public grievances." The assumption seems natural that this was the cause of the ordinance in Edward II.'s time, that the King should hold a Parliament once, or, if necessary, twice every year. One is apt to think this view confirmed by the discovery that among the petitions of the Commons to Richard II. on his first Parliament is one that he should hold a Parliament in a convenient place once a year, "to redress delays in suits, and to end such causes wherein the judges were of different opinions." That this, however, was not the only object in view

C