Constitutional History.
464
[chap.
The whole number of boroughs summoned to the various parlia-
ments of that reign was 166 ; but the highest number that
attended any session of which the returns are extant was n61.
From 1382 to 1445 the normal maximum was ninety-nine, in-
cluding London 2. The number of burgesses, including the four
members for London, was just two hundred; but this was
reduced, by the imperfect representation of some dozen small
Distribution towns, to about ι8o. These were very unequally distributed ;
mentary from three counties, Lancashire, Rutland, and Hertfordshire,
no borough members were sent between the reign of EdwardIIT
and that of Edward VI. Fifteen counties sent up, during the
same period, only the two representatives of their chief town 3 ;
and seven of the others contained two parliamentary boroughs
each4. The remaining twelve counties were more abundantly
supplied ; Yorkshire, Berkshire, Norfolk, and Hampshire con-
tained each three boroughs5 ; Surrey four ; Somerset and
Cornwall six each ; Devon and Dorset seven ; Sussex nine, and
1 The returns of the reign of Edward I are all imperfect ; the number
of boroughs for which returns exist is, in 1295, ɪɪo; in 1298, 82; in
1301, 85; in 1305, 105 ; in 1306, 82 ; and in 1307, 94. If six boroughs
be added for the missing returns from Norfolk and Suffolk, the great
parliament of 1295 must have contained the representatives of xι6
boroughs.
2 The numbers of summoned towns are variously given, the returns
being imperfect and confusing: Prynne (Reg. iii. 225) makes 17θ towns
in all summoned, and ι6ι occasionally represented. The returns in the
reigns of Edward I and Edward II, the period during which the maximum
of representation was reached, may be ascertained from the Parliamentary
Writs; 166 are mentioned in the former reign, 127 in the latter; but of
these many towns although summoned made no return. *
3 The fifteen counties with their chief towns were :—Bedfordshire, Bed-
ford ; Buckinghamshire, Wycombe ; Cambridgeshire, Cambridge ; Cumber-
land, Carlisle; Derbyshire, Derby; Gloucestershire, Gloucester; Hunt-
ingdonshire, Huntingdon ; Leicestershire, Leicester ; Northamptonshire,
Northampton ; Northumberland, Newcastle ; Nottinghamshire, Notting-
ham ; Oxfordshire, Oxford ; Warwickshire, Warwick ; Westmoreland,
Λppleby ; Worcestershire, Worcester ; to which may be added Middlesex
as containing London, and making sixteen in all.
4 These are :—Essex—Colchester and Maldon ; Herefordshire—Here-
ford and Leominster ; Kent—Canterbury and Rochester ; Lincolnshire
—Lincolnand Grimsby; Salop—Shrewsbury and Bridgenorth; Stafford-
shire—Stafford and Newcastle under Lyme ; Suffolk—Ipswich and Dun-
wich.
5 Yorkshire—York, Hull, and Scarborough ; Berkshire—Reading, Wal-
lingford, and Windsor ; Norfolk—Norwich, Lynn, and Yarmouth; Hamp-
shire—Portsmouth, Southampton, and Winchester.
XX.] Boroughs Bepresented, 465
Wiltshire twelve1. The Cinque Ports altogether returned
sixteen members2. After the minimum had been reached,
Henry VI added eight new boroughs, four of which were in
Wiltshire, and one each in Devon, Dorset, Surrey, and War-
wickshire. Edward IV added or restored five3.
The causes of this strange distribution are very obscure. To
some extent they may be, so far as legal and technical details
go, explained by the varieties of local constitutions, by the
ancient or customary means of evading the action of the sheriff,
or the positive restraints on his authority. But the further
influences can only be conjectured. The amount of maritiπ^ or
manufacturing industry which had made Devonshire, Dorset,
Kent, Wiltshire, and Sussex the wealthiest counties of England
may help to account for the fulness of their representation4. The
Possible
reasons for
the uneven
distribution.
1 Surrey—Bletchingly, GuildfordjReigate, and Southwark ; Somerset—
Bridgewater, Taunton, Wells, Bristol, Bath, and perhaps Ilchester ; Corn-
wall—Bodmin, Launceston, Helston, Liskeard, Lostwithiel, and Truro ;
Devon—Barnstaple, Dartmouth, Exeter, Plympton, Tavistock, Totnes, and
Torrington (see below) ; Dorset—Bridport, Dorchester, Lyme Regis,
Melcomb, Shaftesbury, Wareham, and Weymouth; Sussex—Arundel,
Tramber with Steyning, Chichester, East Grinstead, Horsham, Lewes,
Midhurst, Shoreham ; Wiltshire—JBedicind, Caine, Chippenham, Criclc-
lade, Devizes, Downton, Ludgarshall, Malmesbury, Marlborough, Salis-
bury, Old Sarum, and Wilton. The names in Italics denote the towns
which were least regularly represented.
2 The Cinque Ports, which in 1265 were ordered to send representatives,
during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II were directed to elect two
barons each ; but their actual representation seems to date from 40 Edw.
Ill; see Prynne, Reg. iv, and Willis, Notitia Parl. p. 71 ; Return of
Members, p. 178. The eight ports were—Dover, Hastings, Sandwich,
Hythe, Romney, Winchelsea, Rye, and Seaford. The first five were the
original Cinque Ports.
3 In the reign of Henry VI the irregular boroughs seem to have
returned their members more frequently, and that king added Coventry,
Gatton, Poole, Plymouth, Hindon, Heytesbury, Westbury, and Wootton
Basset ; Edward IV, Grantham, Ludlow, Wenlock, Stamford, and perhaps
Ilchester.
i Dr. Riess, after a very careful examination of the Parliamentary Writs,
has rejected the considerations Conjecturally given above, and formed some
definite conclusions on the subject which are partially accepted by Dr.
Gneist, and explained by him as follows : t A recent searching inquiry
leads to the inference that the exclusion of many towns from the right of
election was to be accounted for by the form of the summons. London
had from the first been honoured by a special summons, like that addressed
to the great barons, and in the course of this period ten other cities also
received the honour of a special invitation. Consequently in the case of
these towns a neglect of the summons and the loss of their right of election
VOL. III. H h