414 Constitutional History. [chap.
Petition of
1376.
Variations
become less
frequent.
writs of 1373 aɪe ∖ery explicit, but the lawyers are not
specifically excluded : the knights of the shire are to be belted
knights or squires, worthier and more honest and more expert
in feats of arms, and discreet, and of no other condition ; the
citizens and burgesses are to be chosen from the more discreet
and more sufficient of the class who have practical acquaintance
with seamanship and the following of merchandise; no sheriff
or person of any other condition than that specified may be
chosen1. The form does not seem to have been approved.
Two years later the simpler rule2 prescribing ‘ duos milites
gladiis cinctos magis idoneos et discrètes ’ appears ; the prohibi-
tion of the sheriff continues to be a part of the writ. Yet in
the Good Parliament half the county members were squires
unknighted. The petition of 13l76 that the knights may be
chosen by common election from the better folk of the shire, and
not merely nominated by the sheriff without due election, was
set aside by the king ; but the request seems to have been
regarded as a warning to the crown not to tamper with the
elections. Under Richard II the direction to elect in full
county court and by assent of the same was always inserted.
From the year 1376 onwards the sheriffs are directed to cause
to be elected ζduos milites gladiis cinctos magis idoneos et
discretes,’ and for the towns two members ‘ de discretioribus et
magis sufficientibus.’ Although John of Gaunt was able the
next year to pack the parliament with his own adherents, it is
a long time before any new variation occurs in the writs. In
one writ of 1381 the old form is reverted tos; in 1382 the
knights to be returned are to be either the same as attended
the last parliament, or others; a hint perhaps to return the
same4; in 1387 Richard’s unlucky attempt to secure men ‘in
modérais debatis magis indifferentes5 ’ was summarily defeated ;
and the following year the clause inserted in 1373, forbidding
1 Lords’ Report, iv. 661 ; Prynne, Reg. ii, 114, ɪɪʒ.
2 Lords’ Report, iv. 664, 667 ; Prynne, Reg. ii. 116.
3 Lords’ Report, iv. 693 : discretioribus, probioribus et ad Iaborandum
potentionbus∙,
4 Lords’ Report, iv. 696.
5 Lords’ Report, ɪv. 725, 726.
Writs of the Knights.
XX.]
the election of persons of any other condition than that
specified, was permanently omitted1, the sheriffs alone being
disqualified. With these exceptions the writs remain uniform
until the year 1404, when Henry IV stirred up strife by
excluding lawyers from his ‘ unlearned parliament 2.'
415
From this date all the changes in the writs are made in changes
, . . made in
consequence of the statutes by which from time to time the consequence
. 1 _ _ of alterations
elections were regulated, and they generally reproduce them the law.
exact language of the acts. The clause of the statute of 1406
ordering that the election be made by the whole county in the
next county court3, and that the names chosen be returned in
an indenture, appears as part of the writ : this example is
followed down to the year 1429. In 1430, after the passing of
the statute which fixes the forty shillings franchise, the same
rule is followed, the clause of the act being inserted in the
writ4. Again in 1445 the commons petitioned that the statutes
touching elections should be better enforced : the king agreed,
and added that the persons chosen should be notable knights
of the shire which elected them, or else notable squires, gentle-
men of birth capable of becoming knights, and that no man
of the degree of yeoman or below it should be eligible5. The Final
result of the petition and its answer was a long statute, all the ɪn uɪeform.
essential clauses of which were inserted in the writs from the
year 1446 to the end of the reign. Edward IV altered the
form in his first year °, omitting specific references to the two
statutes of Henry VI and the restrictions inserted in 1446, but
retaining the more essential parts of the prescribed procedure.
This form is observed to the end of the period before us.
It is difficult to draw any definite conclusions from the General
variations which occur in the writs of Edward III ; they seem, from ttX
however, to imply a mistrust of the influences supposed to be τaπatωns∙
1 Lords’ Beport, iv. 731 ; Prynne, Reg. ii. 117.
2 Lords’ Report, iv. 792 ; Prynne, Reg. ii. 123.
3 ‘ Quod facta proolaɪnatione in proximo Comitatu tuo.....Iibere et
indifferenter per illos qui proclamation! interfuerunt ; ’ Lords’ Report,
iv. 802 ; Piynne, Reg. ii. 126.
4 Lords’ Report, iv. 877 ; Prynne, Reg. ii. 132.
5 Lords’ Repoit, iv. 913, 920, 924, &c. ; Prynne, Reg. ii. p. 135,
6 Lords’ Report, iv. 951 sq.