Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/326

 304 PARLIAMENT were a recognition of the political rights of the people. By the charter of Henry I. restoring to the people the laws of Edvard the Confessor, the continuity of English institutions was acknowledged ; and this concession was also proclaimed through Archbishop Anselm, the church and the people being again associated with the crown against the barons. And throughout his reign the clergy and the English people were cordially united in support of the crown. In the anarchic reign of Stephen also dis tinguished by its futile charters the clergy were driven into opposition to the king, while his oppressions alienated the people. Henry II. commenced his reign with another charter, which may be taken as a profession of good intentions on the part of the new king. So strong-willed a king, who could cripple his too powerful nobles, and forge shackles for the church, was not predisposed to extend the liberties of his people ; but they supported him loyally in his critical struggles ; and his vigorous reforms in the administrative, judicial, and financial organization of his realm promoted the prosperity and political influence of the commons. At the same time the barons created in this and the two previous reigns, being no longer exclu sively Norman in blood and connexion, associated them selves more readily with the interests and sympathies of the people. Under Kichard I. the principle of repre sentation was somewhat advanced, but it was confined to the assessment and collection of taxes in the different shires. The Great Charter. It was under King John that the greatest progress was made in national liberties. The loss of Normandy served to draw the baronage closer to the English people ; and the king soon united all the forces of the realm against him. He outraged the church, the barons, and the people. He could no longer play one class against another ; and they combined to extort the Great Charter of .their liberties at Runnymede. It was there ordained that no scutage or aid, except the three regular feudal aids, should be imposed, save by the common council of the realm. To this council the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons were to be summoned per sonally by the king s letters, and tenants in chief by a gene ral writ through the sheriff. The summons was required to appoint a certain place, to give forty days notice at least, and to state the cause of meeting. At length we seem to reach some approach to modern usage. Growth of the Commons. The improved administration of successive kings had tended to enlarge the powers of the crown. But one hundred and fifty years had now passed since the Conquest, and great advances had been made in the condition of the people, and more particularly in the population, wealth, and self-government of towns. Many had obtained royal charters, elected their own magistrates, and enjoyed various commercial privileges. They were already a power in the state, which was soon to be more distinctly recognized. The charter of King John was again promulgated under Henry III., for the sake of a subsidy ; and henceforth the commons learned, to insist upon the redress of grievances in return for a grant of money. This reign was memorable in the history of parliament. Again the king was in con flict with his barons, who rebelled against his gross mis- government of the realm. Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, was a patriot, in advance of his age, and fought for the English people as well as for his own order. The barons, indeed, were doubtful allies of the popular cause, and leaned to the king rather than to Simon. But the towns, the clergy, the universities, and large bodies of the commonalty rallied round him, and he overthrew the king and his followers at Lewes. He was now master of the realm, and proclaimed a new constitution. Kings had made promises, and granted illusory charters ; but the rebel earl called an English parliament into being. Church men were on his side, and a few barons ; but his main reliance was upon the commons. He summoned to a national council, or parliament, bishops, abbots, earls, and barons, together with two knights from every shire and two burgesses from every borough. Knights had been sum. moned to former councils ; but never until now had repre sentatives from the towns been invited to sit with bishops, barons, and knights of the shire. In the reign of Edward I. parliament assumed substan tially its present form of king, lords, and commons. The irregular and unauthorized scheme of Simon de Montfort was fully adopted in 1295, when the king himself sum moned to a parliament two knights from every shire, elected by the freeholders at the shire court, and two bur gesses from every city, borough, and leading town. The rebel earl had enlarged the basis of the national council ; and, to secure popular support, the politic king accepted it as a convenient instrument of taxation. The knights and freeholders had increased in numbers and wealth ; and the towns, continually advancing in population, trade, and com merce, had become valuable contributors to the revenue of the state. The grant of subsidies to the crown, by the assembled baronage and representatives of the shires and towns, was a legal and comprehensive impost upon the entire realm. Secession of the Clergy. It formed part of Edward s policy to embrace the clergy in his scheme for the repre sentation of all orders and classes of his subjects. They were summoned to attend the parliament of 1295 and succeeding parliaments of his reign, and their form of summons has been continued until the present time ; but the clergy resolutely held aloof from the national council, and insisted upon voting their subsidies in their own con vocations of Canterbury and York. The bishops retained their high place among the earls and barons, but the clergy sacrificed to ecclesiastical jealousies the privilege of sharing in the political councils of the state. As yet, indeed, this privilege seemed little more than the voting of subsidies, but it was soon to embrace the redress of grievances and the framing of laws for the general welfare of the realm. This great power they forfeited ; and who shall say how it might have been wielded, in the interests of the church, and in the legislation of their country ] They could not have withstood the Reformation ; they would have been forced to yield to the power of the crown and the heated resolution of the laity ; but they might have saved a large share of the endowments of the church, and perhaps have modified the doctrines and formularies of the reformed establishment. Reluctance of the Commons to Attend. Meanwhile the commons, unconscious of their future power, took their humble place in the great council of the realm. The knights of the shire, as lesser barons, or landowners of good social standing, could sit beside the magnates of the land without constraint ; but modest traders from the towns were overawed by the power and dignity of their new associates. They knew that they were summoned for no other purpose than the taxing of themselves and their fellow townsmen ; their attendance was irksome ; it inter rupted their own business ; and their journeys exposed them to many hardships and dangers. It is not surprising that they should have shrunk from the exercise of so doubt ful a privilege. Considerable numbers absented them selves from a thankless service ; and their constituents, far from exacting the attendance of their members, as in modern times, begrudged the sorry stipend of 2s. a day, paid to their representatives while on duty, and strove to evade the burden imposed upon them by the crown. Some