466
Constitutional History.
[chap.
Conjectural
causes.
distance from London was an important element in the consid-
eration of the boroughs themselves, many of which felt the
wages of the members as a heavy tax. A cause of diminution
might be supposed to be the depopulation of the ancient towns
by the Great Plague ; and this doubtless did in a small degree
affect the returns, but the lowest point of diminution had been
reached before the visitation of the Black Death. Another may
have been, at all events until the incidence of taxation was
stereotyped on the model of 1334, the desire of the country towns
to be taxed with their country neighbours, to be rated to the
fifteenth with the shires and not to the tenth with the boroughs1.
But the most influential cause was probably the desire to avoid
could not occur. As to other towns, the writs of summons were addressed
to the sheriffs to be transmitted to the local authorities (ballivi civitatum').
To such towns as formed a separate hundred, the sheriff sent the summons
direct asking for a report thereon which he remitted to the state authorities
with the “return” of the county. For those towns on the other hand
which formed only a part of a hundred, the writs appear to have been sent
to the district authorities of the hundred (balliυi hundredi). In such cases
no reports were returnable to the sheriff, so that under these circumstances
neither the sheriff nor the state authorities could exercise any control over
the proceedings. Hence such towns easily succeeded in escaping the
summons.’ Gneist, English Parliament (transi. 1887), page 180.
Dr. Riess’s formal conclusions are briefly stated at p. 35 of his essay :
the summons was kept up (ɪ) in the towns coordinate with hundreds,
and (2) for the towns included in hundreds in the counties of Wilts,
Devon, Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall. The summons was lost (ɪ) in
the towns included in hundreds in other counties ; and (2) in the towns
contained in liberties.
Considerable force is given to these generalisations by the tables eon`
tained in the Introduction to the Alphabetical Digest, in Palgrave’s
Parliamentary Writs, vol. ii. division iii. But the conclusions are given
much too positively, and, at the utmost, only throw back the difficulty one
step. For there can be no doubt that the sheriff could, by obtaining a
writ with the clause ‘non omittas/ have compelled the local officers to
make a return ; the crown could have issued such a writ, as it did to compel
the attendance of the clergy under the praeιmιnientes clause; and the
towns might have executed the precept if they had been willing. These
conclusions then amount to little more than a formulating of results for
which more remote causes must be sought : some of which are Conjecturally
put in the text : X have, however, from respect to Dr. Gneist’s authority,
somewhat modified them.
1 It is difficult to get evidence on this point, the time in question being
so very short : but on the whole the conclusion seems to be, that whether
or no the unrepresented towns expected to be rated for the fifteenth, they
were obliged to pay the tenth : if they were content to be represented by
the knights, they must have been bound, on any theory, to agree to the
general scheme of taxation of towns.
XX.]
Borough Bepresentation.
4б7
the expense of the members’ wages. It was much cheaper for a
town to pay its fifteenth and contribute to the payment of the
knights than to pay the tenth and remunerate its own burgesses.
The petition of the borough of Torrington, in Devonshire, Cases of
presented to Edward III in 1368, declared that the burden of s.°AP⅛ns,n,
the members’ wages was very grievous, and prayed that the town staple,
might be relieved from the duty of representation. Although
this town had been represented in the parliaments of the last
two reigns, the burgesses declared that, until the 24th year of
Edward III, they had not been ordered to send members ; and
the king, having searched the rolls, allowed that no returns
could be found before the 21 st year. He therefore granted the
prayer, and Torrington ceased to be a parliamentary borough ’.
S. Alban’s and Barnstaple showed as little regard for truth
when, in order to prove themselves free from the demesne rights
of their lords, they declared that they had sent members in the
days when there were no parliaments, and, in the latter case,
from the days of Athelstan2. But the petition of Torrington is
unique ; a much simpler way of evading the duty was to dis-
regard the sheriff’s precept, and this was adopted in a large
proportion of cases. In others probably the sheriff purposely
omitted the smaller towns. On a close examination of the Numbers
returns, most of the omitted boroughs are found to have made
only one or two elections, or to have returned members in only
one reign. In the reign of Edward I, as has been already
stated, 166 boroughs were represented once or twice3; of these
33 were not again summoned, and 38 more ceased until they
were restored to the list in modern times; about a dozen
1 SeeRot-Parkii. 459; Prynne, Reg. ii. 239; iv. 1175, 1176; 4th Inst,
p. 32. There are some cases in which permission was granted, for a
number of years, to dispense with attendance, but these are unimportant.
2 On the S. Alban’s case see above, vol. ii. p, 231 ; Rot. Parl. i. 327 ;
Hallam, Middle Ages, iii. 28 ; and on the Barnstaple case, Hallam, Middle
Ages, iii. 32.
3 These numbers may be verified or corrected by reference to Prynne,
or to Browne Willis’s Notitia ParIiamentaria ; but the recent publication,
in a Return to the House of Commons, of the names of all members
returned to Parliament from the earliest times, for which the thanks of
historical students are due to Mr. Gerard Noel and Sir William Fraser,
has placed the means of testing these generalisations within the reach of
all. A good deal of uncertainty hangs over the whole calculation.
H h 2