success as among the Anglican race. It is, therefore, a question of no common interest to inquire into the circumstances which led to the use of a political instrument so powerful in its results, so obvious (as it now seems to us) in its application, and yet for so many centuries unknown to the ablest thinkers and the most skilful statesmen. For the discovery of any such political expedient two conditions at least are essential. The want which it is designed to satisfy must be keenly felt. The existing state of political knowledge and sentiment must be such as to suggest, or at least must not be inconsistent with, the means for satisfying this want. In England these conditions concurred. It was the acknowledged right of the vassals of the Crown to determine both the expedience and the amount of the extraordinary assistance which the Crown might require for the exigencies of the state. It was their acknowledged duty to attend for the render of suits and services at the Royal Court. The inconvenience of assembling in one spot at one time so large a body as the whole of the tenants in capite was obvious. Such attendance must have been burdensome to all; but to the smaller tenants it must have been peculiarly oppressive. It was, especially while the Normans and the English were not yet amalgamated, dangerous to leave the country districts without their proper defenders. The privilege which these military tenants assumed of appearing under arms did not tend to render these assemblies more desirable. If the tenures were subdivided, and the numbers of those who ought to be summoned increased, these difficulties were proportionately augmented; and unless those who obeyed the Royal summons could bind those who neglected to attend, the powers of the Assembly must have been very defective. But while the attendance of all the tenants of the Crown was thus inconvenient, their

*

absence was equally objectionable. Not merely was their consent in some form required, but the King, finding his greater Barons difficult to manage, seems to have contemplated the erection of a counteracting force in his council. If he had failed with his more powerful tenants, he might, perhaps, have better success with his Knights. Such seems to have been the policy of John,† and such was the course that, throughout the whole of his long reign, his son unsuccessfully pursued.

There are several circumstances which in the reign of Henry the Third at least tended to prepare the public mind for the principle of political representation. At all times some kind of delegation had been customary. All those suitors who petitioned the King and his Great Council for the redress of their several grievances attended on the meeting of that body to make known their wants to the Fountain of Justice. When counties cities and towns. desired to make in their corporate capacity any such application, they must from the very nature of the case have sent delegates to present their petitions or to prefer their complaints. The system of Ecclesiastical Councils rested, as Mr. Hallam § observes, on a virtual or an express representation, and may have had some tendency to render the application of the principle of national assemblies more familiar. At different times, too, we read of Knights being chosen, apparently as a sort of jurors, either to give information on certain local matters which the King desired to know or to assess subsidies. But whatever weight we may attach to these considerations as facilitating the introduction of representation, the immediate origin of that system seems to me to be due to a different cause. It commenced not as representation, but as agency.

It

related not to the exercise of political functions, but to the payment of private money. Attendance upon the King's Court was always burdensome. It was an obligation imposed upon the tenants of the Crown which they were required to fulfil, not a privilege which they were eager to enjoy. Under the earlier Plantagenet kings, as the render of suit and service became less important, the object of these assemblies was merely financial. It was not, as we have seen, until a later period that these financial assemblies acquired political functions. It was not, therefore, in the light of a delegation of strictly personal rights that political representation first presented itself to our forefathers. Whatever might have been the usage as to such affairs, there was no doubt that for money matters, for the transaction of ordinary business, the appointment of an agent was both convenient and customary. If a military tenant were unable to appear when the Royal standard was unfurled, he might find if he could a substitute. Those ecclesiastics who held lay fiefs were from the nature of the case obliged habitually to render a substituted service. The Statute of Merton* expressly provides that every man who owes suit at the County Court or other local court may freely make his attorney to do those suits for him. The persons who were summoned to attend at the meetings of the Great Council, and who could not personally be present, were usually allowed to appear by their attorney or proxies. In such circumstances the election of a few persons to act as proxies for all the military tenants of a district was inevitable. It resulted from that tendency in human nature by which men are led to reduce to the lowest possible quantity the effort that the attainment of their object demands. Representation arose

in the same manner and for the same reason as the class of factors or of carriers is developed amongst ourselves. Between these two cases, however, there was a fundamental difference. While the varied occupations that are due to modern industry grew and expanded without any material interference from the state, the agency of the Crown tenants was soon regarded as a public duty. The King was eager to receive persons fully authorized to grant him the money he required. The constituent bodies were glad to have their business transacted on moderate terms. It was, therefore, quickly established that a representative, when once chosen, was bound to serve. It was not competent for him either to decline or to neglect the task. He was, indeed, entitled to a fixed compensation; but, subject to that compensation, a Knight could no more refuse to give his services to his country than his descendent can now refuse to give his land, if it be required under a Railway Act.

It was thus, I think, that the representation of the counties and that of the inferior clergy commenced in England. The extension of the principle to the towns was an easy matter. The tallages on towns were usually levied on them collectively, and not upon the individual citizens. The tendency of early times to extend the principle of corporate bodies was strongly marked, and towns were always regarded as separate existences. It was also easier for the Royal officers to deal with the civic officials, and leave them to reimburse themselves as best they might, than to collect a hated tax from a poor population. Thus, both from their own customs and from the convenience of the King, each town was regarded as a corporate community. But there is no other way by which, either in law or in fact, a corporation can appear, except by its attorney or agent. When, therefore, the communities of the shires

were required to appear by their authorized agents, the same rule was naturally extended, when their presence was required, to the communities of the towns. This view is consistent with the language of the early writs. In the writ of 1254 the Knights are to come "in the stead of each and all." In the great writ of 1295, and in the subsequent writs of the same reign, the Knights are to have “full and sufficient power for themselves and the community of the aforesaid county to do what shall then be ordained of common council in the premises." The same direction is given in respect of the citizens and burgesses. The same words are used in writs sent in 1302 to the Cinque Ports and to Yarmouth. Between these places various disputes had arisen, and both bodies were required to send three or four representatives to the Court of Parliament, " to learn the King's pleasure in this matter, and further to do and receive what of our council we have thought fit to ordain."* In this case the agency is clear; the purpose only is different from the preceding case.

of counties.

§ 3. No shock, therefore, was given to any received opinions or prejudices by the appearance of our earliest representatives. They were merely agents with History of representation general powers, but sent for a special purpose, and, at least in the case of the military tenants and the parochial Clergy, acting from motives of convenience each for a great number of principals. With this view the early history of our representation entirely corresponds. The dream of Saxon Parliaments elected by universal suffrage has long passed away. Neither Saxons nor Normans knew the name or the substance either of Parliament or of the suffrage. Even in the Great Charter

1 Lords' Report, 469.