498 Constitutional Histori/. [chap.
Eloquence of imitated the more popular usages of the rival house, likewise
made speeches to both lords and commons ; and in particular,
in dissolving his first parliament, addressed the speaker in
simple and touching language of gratitude and promise1. All
these speeches were made by the king either in full parliament,
that is, in the presence of both houses, or in the house of lords
to the lords who were then and there in attendance upon him.
Pnvacyof It was fully recognised that for anything like consultation
the two houses had a right to the utmost privacy ; the com-
mons had a right to deliberate by themselves, and the lords by
themselves ; and, when they desired to be private, the king was
ill-advised indeed if he listened to any report of their pro-
ceedings other than they presented to him 2. Although, how-
ever, a good deal of the business of the lords was no doubt
transacted in the king’s presence, medieval history affords no
instance of his visiting the house of commons whilst they were
debating. The question of freedom of debate belongs to another
part of our subject.
Royal power 445. The right of suspending the session by adjournment or
⅛aja°dɪuo- prorogation, of countermanding a meeting once called, and of
ιoguιug. dissolving the parliament itself, was throughout the middle
ages vested in the king alone3. The distinction between ad-
journment and prorogation, in so far as the one belongs to
the houses and the other to the crown, is a modern distinction.
The necessary adjournment from day to day, as well as the
countermanding of a parliament called, and the longer inter-
mission of the session, was known as prorogation4 : the houses
were ordered by the king to meet from day to day until business
was finished, and the rule of adjourning at midday originated
probably as much in the necessity of .dining as in the wish
to claim a privileges. The countermanding power is proved
1 Rot. Part. v. 487.
2 Queen Anne was the last sovereign who attended debates in the house
of lords ; May, Treatise on Parliament, p. 449.
s See above, vol. ii. pp. 643-645.
4 The word t prorogation’ is constantly used for countermanding or
Jelayingthedayof meeting; see Parl. Writs, i. 33, 120, &c. A parlia-
ment is ‘revoked’ altogether in 1331 ; Lords’ Repjrt, iv. 402.
s Under Henry VIIl, when the house of lords adjourned, owing to the
XX.] Dissolution of Parliament. 499
by numerous instances : in some cases the king was prevented Adjourn-
t o x ment and
from attendance at the time fixed, and warned the estates not prorogation.
to assemble ; in others they met to be prorogued, as in the case
of the parliament of 14541, and in several formal sessions of
the reign of Edward IV, the political importance of which has
been noticed already. The circumstances under which the
right was exercised differ widely from those under which in
later times the right of prorogation has been regarded as
important. It was then, as now, somewhat difficult to keep
the members together until business was in a fair way of being-
finished ; but the long-continued practice of holding one or
more than one new parliament every year was in strong con-
trast with modern usage. A parliament of Richard II threatens
to dissolve itself2, but no medieval parliament threatens to sit
in permanence. The houses, unlike the clerical convocations,
which very unwillingly allowed any interference with their
times and places of session, showed an unbounded respect for
the king’s order in this matter : and the kings showed similar
ιespect for the estates. The long prorogations, when they
become usual, are, like the early annual or terminal sessions,
defined by the season of harvest and the church festivals.
446. When the business of the session was finished, the Ceremony of
king’s questions answered, the petitions heard and decided, the parliament,
laws ingrossed for final acceptance, and, above all, the money
grants agreed upon, all parties were ready and anxious to go
home. The session, which, it is scarcely necessary to repeat,
was in early times the whole action of the particular parlia-
ment, was solemnly closed. Sometimes, as in 1305, the parlia-
ment was dissolved by proclamation, sometimes the king in
person appeared to take and give leave to depart3. The roll
absence of the prelates in convocation, the adjournment was ordered by
royal authority. The growth of the claim of the houses to adjourn them-
selves may be traced in Hatsell’s Precedents, ii. 31τ sq. In 1621 Sir E.
Coke says ‘ the commission [of adjournment] must be only declaratory of
the king’s pleasure but the court must adjourn itself; ’ ib. p. 311. On the
modern law, see May, Treatise on Parliament, p. 50.
1 See Bot. Parl. v. 238, 497-500, &c. 2 See above, vol. ii. p. 494.
3 See the proclamation of dissolution by Edward I in 1305 ; Parl. Writs,
i. 155 ; Bot. Parl. i. 159.