Proxies of
the lords.
Proxies not
used in the
house of
commons.
506 Constitutional History. [chap.
instance, the proxies of both barons and prelates were accepted
as a substitute for their personal attendance, and the practice
became very common. Originally the permission may have
been given merely to bind the absent person to the decisions
of those who were present ; or to excuse his absence. But it
speedily acquired a much greater importance. The earl of
Warenne, in 1322, appoints Sir Balph Cobham and John
Dynyeton, clerk, to speak and treat in his place in the parlia-
ment of York, and to assent to all that shall be agreed on by
his peers for the honour of the king and the benefit of the
people. And it was no doubt in such a sense that they were
admitted or licenced by the kings1. In 1347 the earl of Devon
is released from the duty of attendance, and allowed to send
a proxy to do all that he could have done if he had been
present2. The proxies of the absent lords were read on the
day of the opening of parliament2. The restriction of the
exercise of this power, by limiting the choice of a proxy to
members of the house, grew up later, and its history has not
been minutely traced. It was however in full use in the
sixteenth century.
The privilege of appointing a proxy does not seem to have
ever belonged to the members of the house of commons, al-
though, if we consider the frequency of such usage in the
equally representative house of the clergy, the rule that a
delegate cannot make a delegate would hardly exclude the
possibility4. Iji the parliament of 1406 the speaker proposed
to the king that, as Richard Cliderhow, one of the knights for
Kent, had gone to sea as an admiral, his fellow knight, Robert
1 Archbishop Reynolds in 1322 makes two bishops his proctors; Pail.
Writs, II. i. 284.
2 Lords’ Report, iv. 562. See other examples, ib. p. 593 ; Prynne, Reg.
i. 116-120, 214, &c. Madox, in the Rormulare Anglicanum, gives two
proxies (Nos. 625, 626), one of lord de la Warr, in 21 Hen. VIII, to lord
Berkeley ‘ ad tractandum et communicandum, necnon ad Consentienduin
vice et nomine meis ; ’ the other given by the abbot of Colohester to two
abbots. The proxies of 1322 are ‘ad tractandum, providendum et ordi-
nandum.’
3 See the Roll for 1380, Rot. Parl. iii. 88; and the Lords’ Journals for
the reign of Henry VIII, vol. i. p. 4.
4 Instances of proctors appointed with a power of appointing a proxy
will be found in Parl. Writs, i. 186.
.∖v.∣ Parliamentary Privilege. 507
Clifford, should be allowed to appear in parliament in their
two names as if they were both present1. To this the king
agreed, but the example was not followed. There are a few Suppie-
instances, the most important perhaps being the case of the ’members,
city of London 2, in which the counties or towns elected more
than the due number of representatives, so that in case of sick-
ness one might take another’s place ; a practice not unusual
in the election of clerical proxies.
450. A second important right of the individual lords was Eight of
that of recording a protest against acts of the house with which to record
they did not agree ; no such power has been exercised by the a protest
commons. In the upper house the early examples are those of
the episcopal protests against the legislation on provisors and
praemunire which are recorded in the rolls or even in the
statute itself. These again seem to look back to the days when
a baron declined to recognise legislation to which he had not
personally consented3. The more general practice of protests
by the lords dates from the seventeenth century. It is difficult
to find anything in the powers of members of the lower house
which can be set against these practices, of proxy and protest,
and it is perhaps a mistake to call them privileges at all.
451. The third head comprises some very important points : з- Pjiviiogos
, ɪ common to
for upon the possession of the common privileges of the houses ⅛hβ t"°
and their individual members hangs their real independence
and the national liberty. Both houses possess the right of
debating freely and without interference from the king or from
each other. This is secured to the house of commons and to pɪɪviɪoge of
the members collectively by the king’s promise to the speaker :
and he would have been a bold king indeed who had attempted
to stop discussion in the house of lords. Invaluable as the
privilege is, it is not susceptible of much historical illustration,
and it must suffice to recur to the parliamentary history of
ɪ Rot. Parl. iii. 572.
2 See above, p. 467, note. A few such instances may be detected in the
Returns ; some of them perhaps cases of double returns. In 1295 Bedford-
shire returns thιee knights, and Hampshire four; Exeter three citizens.
But perhaps these and other eases may be otherwise explained.
3 See above, vol. ii. p∙ 255.