to represent who were of land the fication; acquisition in parliament to the knighthood gave way only when the their right difficulty of forcing their attendance led to the statute which the shires in extended the privilege to such notable esquires and gentlemen parliament; of birth as might become knights. This honorary title of es- a title finally quire, sparingly granted before the Tudor period began, gradu- applied ally became after that time the common possession of that to all ever increasing civic class composed of those who, by virtue of known as gentlemen; wealth, education, and magisterial services, finally came to be known as gentlemen.2 The most necessary qualification for possession entrance into the ranks of the gentry as thus widened was the most necespossession of a landed estate, whose acquisition had always sary quali been possible by reason of the fact that knights' fee had from the beginning been both divisible and alienable, qualities unintentionally emphasized through the practical effect of the statute of Quia emptores. The acquisition of small estates, how the that thus began with a splitting up of the great feudal pos- of small sessions, was greatly accelerated by virtue of the series of estates was facilitated; statutes, enacted immediately after the dissolution of the monasteries, which, through the removal of the more serious feudal removal of restraints upon alienation, made real property in a sense never restraints before known the subject of bargain and sale. At the base upon of the social fabric which thus arose as feudalism fell into decay still abided the immemorial principle that has always vitalized individual energy and ability in the English nation, by providing a way through which the ranks of every class have ever been open to members from the class beneath it.5 Through this power of the individual to rise in the social scale power of it was possible for the laborer in the country by thrift and in- blest indidustry to become a tenant and small proprietor; for the retail vidual to trader or artisan of the town to become a freeholder; for the social scale, wealthy merchant to buy an estate with the rights of a manor attached, to find his way to municipal offices, commissions of the peace and parliament; while to the exceptional few among the higher gentry, specially distinguished by unusual posses- until the sions, position at the bar, or eminent public services, remained peerage the hope of a summons from the crown calling them to a place reached. in the ranks of the peerage itself. 1 Vol. i. p. 475 2Cf. Mackintosh, Hist., vol. i. p. 269. 3 Vol. i. p. 413, and note 1. 4 See above, pp. 95, 96. 5 Vol. i. pp. 132, 133. feudal alienation; the hum rise in the itself was The new spirit of liberty the progres class; a growing independ ence appears in the reign of Edward VI.; forced to 66 manage the com mons; Into this ever widening and progressive middle class that dominated the house of commons when Elizabeth's reign began enters into entered the new spirit of liberty, which impelled each soversive middle eign Christian man to question and challenge all claims upon his civil and political obedience, whenever such claims were rejected by the supreme oracle supposed to be enthroned in each individual Christian conscience. As early as the reign of Edward VI. the coming change began to be felt through the disappearance of that slavish spirit of obedience which had characterized the parliaments of Henry VIII. To overcome the opposition to its policy that thus arose out of the revivthe crown ing spirit of independence, the crown was driven to adopt a system for the " management" of the house of commons which consisted not only of its packing with royal nominees1 through a direct interference with elections, but also of the creation of new boroughs, generally small towns or hamlets of no importance, whose constituencies the crown could dominate. In that way under Edward VI. were created or restored boroughs twenty-two boroughs; 2 under Mary, fourteen; while Elizabeth by Edward, in the same way increased the numbers of the house by the Elizabeth; addition of sixty-two members. And yet, in spite of all such expedients, the Puritan opposition to the Tudor system, that opposition grew stronger and stronger as Elizabeth's reign advanced, not only reasserted successfully many vitally important parliasystem ac- mentary privileges, but also maintained to a marked extent complished. the right of the house to deal with the three great questions touching the succession, the church, and the regulation of trade, which were claimed by the Tudor sovereigns as within the exclusive province of the king in council. creation of new Mary, and what the Puritan to the Tudor Parliamentary the reign of Among the parliamentary privileges belonging either to the privileges house as a whole, or to its individual members, which were asserted in thus asserted during the reign of Elizabeth, should be noted Elizabeth; here: (1) The right of the house to determine contested electhe right to tions. In the first year of Queen Mary's reign the right to look into the returns, previously vested first in the king in elections; council and then in the justices of assize, was assumed by the house, and so widened as to embrace the question involved in determine contested 1 See above, p. 131. 2 While some of these were places of note, at least half of the number, including seven in Cornwall, were of no kind of importance. Cf. Hallam, case; Norfolk; house to the validity of the election of Alexander Nowell, a prebendary Nowell's of Westminster. The committee charged with the inquiry reported that as Nowell had a voice in the convocation house, he "cannot be a member of this house, and the queen's writ to be directed for another burgess in his place." That assertion of the right of the house to pass upon such questions, without the intervention of the judges, was followed in Elizabeth's reign by the action taken in regard to an irregular election held in the county of Norfolk, in reference to which case of the the committee reported that they had not inquired into the county of action taken by the lord chancellor, "because they thought it prejudicial to the privilege of the house to have the same determined by others than such as were members thereof." 2 (2) The right of the house to punish members for violations right of the of its rules of order was emphasized in the reign of Edward punish its VI. by the imprisonment of John Storie, a burgess, who was members; committed to the Tower until he made a full submission for some offence committed against the king and council; 3 and in the next reign Thomas Copley was given in custody to the Copley's sergeant of the house for disrespectful words spoken of her majesty. In the reign of Elizabeth the house, probably for the first time, asserted its right to expel a member in the case right of exof Arthur Hall (1581), whose expulsion was followed a few pulsionyears later (1585) by that of Dr. Parry. In the next year it Hall and was that the house reasserted its right to punish a person not right to a member by bringing one Bland to its bar and fining him for punish a having spoken contemptuously of it. (3) The right of the a member; commons to release a member or his servants from custody by release by the authority of the mace alone, first maintained in the reign the authorof Henry VIII. in the case of Ferrers, was reasserted in that mace alone; 1 Commons' Journals, 1 Mary, p. 27. Another prebendary (Dr. Tregonwell) was returned at the same time, but being a layman was, on consideration, permitted to retain his seat. See Froude, Hist. Eng., vol. v. p. 283. As to the final settlement of the whole question, see vol. i. pp. 530, 531. The proceedings are recorded in the Commons' Journals of the first parliament of Edward VI., 21st of January, 20th of February, and 2d of March, 1547-48. 8 4 Commons' Journals, 5th and 7th of 5 D'Ewes, p. 291; Hatsell, p. 93. 7 D'Ewes, p. 366; Hallam, Const. 8 The commons refused a writ of privilege offered by the lord chancellor, "being of a clear opinion that all commandments and other acts proceeding Storie's case; case; cases of Parry ; person not right to ity of the right to punish bribery at of Elizabeth in the cases of Smalley, Fitzherbert, and Neal1 (4) In the reign of Elizabeth was also asserted for the first time the right of the house to punish bribery at elections by the fine imposed in 1571 upon the borough of Westbury for elections; having received a bribe of four pounds from Thomas Long, a sitting member.2 (5) The spirit which thus prompted the right of the house to maintain its lesser privileges did not fail to fully ashouse to sert itself when its vital and exclusive right to originate money money bills bills was unsuccessfully assailed in 1593 by the house of lords.3 in 1593; (6) While the right to freedom of speech in parliament, frankly freedom conceded by Henry VIII., was challenged persistently by Elizof speech defined at a abeth, the precedents by which it was finally established belong to a later time, a circumstance that may be explained by the fact that in all such conflicts the queen, in spite of her prejudices, generally gave way. originate assailed later day. Crown right to initiate all legislation touching the succession and the church; Whenever the statement is made that the Tudor sovereigns claimed the claimed the right to deal with all questions touching the succession and the church with the advice of the council only, it must be understood to mean that in reference to such matters of state the crown claimed the exclusive right to initiate all necessary legislation, which the parliament was expected to ratify when called upon to do so. When, in Elizabeth's reign, that body attempted to reverse the rule by assuming the initiative, the crown resented its attempt to so legislate as an right of assault upon the prerogative. The history of the conflicts thus parliament to deliber brought about clearly illustrates how the earlier right of delibate upon all eration as to all matters touching the commonwealth 5 was questions narrowed and modified by the Tudor system of government, of which the council was the embodiment. From the time of of state denied; from the nether house were to be done 1 Hatsell, vol. i. p. 107; D'Ewes, 2 Commons' Journals, p. 88. 8 D'Ewes, p. 486. For the earlier history of that right, see vol. i. pp. 525, 526. In 1671 the commons successfully disputed the right of the lords to amend money-bills, a contention which the upper house has admitted since that time. For a full statement, see May, Const. Hist., vol. i. pp. 104 112. 4 The history of this right down to and including the reign of Henry VIII. has heretofore been stated, vol. i. pp. 522-524. Its later history will be considered hereafter. 5 Vol. i. pp. 498–502. ventured to Elizabeth; of the that of Elizabeth's half-promise to her first parliament to marry,1 the question of the succession grew more and more urgent, until in 1563 it became the subject of serious debate,2 and in 1566 the cause of a serious conflict between the crown and the commons, in the course of which the queen expressed her displeasure "that the succession question should have been raised in that house without her consent," and the commons their inten- commons tion not only to debate it fully, but also, if the queen should discuss the persist in her refusal to marry, to name a successor against marriage of her will. On that occasion the protestant element then dominant in the commons, fearful of the accession of Mary of Scotland, first linked the question of the succession with that question. of supply, and then called upon the lords to join them in an succession address, prepared by committees of the two houses, to which linked with the queen replied with a vague promise to marry, coupled supply; with a positive order that the subject should be discussed no further on pain of her displeasure. Aroused by this assault upon the right of deliberation, Paul Wentworth moved to know whether such order "was not against the liberties" of parliament.5 In the course of the discussion that ensued, Dalton, Mr. Dalton, who ventured to touch upon the forbidden sub- ventured to ject of the Scottish title, was arrested by royal order and ex- Scottish amined before the star chamber. In the midst of the crisis title, thus brought about, in which the question of the succession royal order; was lost in that of privilege, Elizabeth was forced to yield Elizabeth by releasing the prisoner, and by relieving "the house of the to yield burden of her commandment."7 In spite, however, of this for the apparent concession, the queen was careful, in her reply to the usual demand of freedom of speech made in the next parlia- but reasment of 1571, to reassert her pretensions by reminding the serted her pretensions house that they would "do well to meddle with no matters in 1571; who arrested by forced moment; |