for the changes, both positive and comparative, which time has wrought, it seems to us improbable that many of these places could have ever possessed a wealth and population equal to what is owned by scores of towns which now send no member to Parliament. The northern counties, which have become so powerful by their commercial and manufacturing industry, had at this time a very moderate representation in the legislature. York sent twenty-three members and Lancashire twelve; but Cornwall alone sent forty-two; Wiltshire, thirty-two; Southamptonshire (Hants), twenty-six; Dorset, twenty; and Devonshire, eighteen. Wales supplied a contingent of twenty, with four seats apparently unfilled. Among the men of eminence who were returned and served, were the secretary of state, Cecil, son of the great Lord Burleigh, and himself afterwards Earl of Salisbury; Francis Bacon, of immortal, alas! not of unclouded memory; and Sir Walter Raleigh, (whose name is always spelt Rawleigh by the reporter,) who contributed no mean chapter to his own "History of the World.' Bacon sat for Gippenrich, a Suffolk borough; and Raleigh was one of the members for Cornwall. A 'Hamden' sat for the county of Bucks, and an 'Oliver Cromwell' for Huntingdon,-uncle of the famous kingbreaker. It is certain that at this period, and long afterwards, the county freeholders were a far more independent and enlightened class of men than the electors resident in boroughs. In this very Parliament a question of privilege was brought forward; one of the members for Leicester being charged with procuring his election by passing himself off as a servant of the Earl of Huntingdon, without whose good will it was represented, in the information preferred by the AttorneyGeneral, that the burgesses would never think of electing a candidate. Aristocratic influence was probably supreme in most of the lesser boroughs; and the absence of political parties would make electoral struggles, where they occurred, mere tilting matches between the great proprietary families of the locality. That on such occasions blows should be given, and blood drawn, was a likely event; and one which in the elections for the town and county of Denbigh, described in this report, actually occurred. The sheriff interfered after swords were drawn, and the elections were deferred: indeed, as no members' names afterwards appear, it is probable that for that Parliament no election for either town or county was held. The City of London proper was represented by four members; the City of Westminster and Borough of Southwark having two each. These were all. Greenwich was a village, the Tower Hamlets corresponded to their name, Finsbury was a moor, and

Marylebone was fields and forest-land. Liverpool, which returned two members, had, electorally, the start of her great neighbour and rival, by the vast interval separating the reign of the first Edward from the accession of the fourth William.

Let us now return to the day when, for the last time, the lionhearted Elizabeth went with royal equipage and sound of trumpet to meet the newly assembled estates of the realm. But in truth she did not meet one of the estates; and the reason of this is remarkable. While the queen and her lords were listening to the sermon in the Abbey, the Commons were being sworn by the lord admiral in the Court of Requests; but time pressing, the comptroller, vice-chamberlain, and second (i. e., under) secretary of state 'adjourned to the space before the Parliament House door, where they swore all the Lower House confusedly, four at one time, six at another, eight at another;' those who were sworn passing into the House. Even this confusion some would conceive to be more desirable than the tedious process which is pursued in the present day. When the queen's arrival in the House of Lords was notified, all who were ready proceeded to the entrance of the upper chamber-when, lo! they found the door shut against them, and could hear nothing of the lord keeper's speech, nor get a glimpse of the royal person. On their return to their own room the indignaut members were loud in their complaints, one of which was that the usher of the lords had gone so far as to threaten that ‘if they were not quiet they should be set in the stocks!' The comptroller of the household apologized for the exclusion on the ground of mistake, and promised that for the special insult of the usher satisfaction should be made. To mollify the discontent, Mr. Secretary Cecil delivered the substance of the lord keeper's speech, prefacing the delivery by elaborate apologies, such as that it was 'hard to tell a wise man's tale after him, seeing a man of the best sufficiency may forget where one of ordinary abilities may remember. My mind was not then fit for attention when I had some cause of distraction!' The election of a Speaker was the first business undertaken; and the comptroller proposed that the office should be filled by Mr. John Crooke, recorder of London, whom, amidst a surfeit of compliments, he eulogized as a most worthy and able man for this service.' The reporter adds, 'At these words Mr. Crooke put off his hat with a kind of strange admiration,'-astonishment, as we should now say. 'Every man cried, I, I,' but the recorder in a self-depreciatory harangue declined the honour proposed. The comptroller then asked the House if they were

agreed as before, and all answered, I, I, I;' whereupon the vicechamberlain and the comptroller took the blushing recorder between them, and marched him into the chair, from which, before sitting down, he made a second address, promising to show himself for this assembly most careful, and to any particular member respective (respectful) and thankful.'

The presentation of the Speaker to the queen had then to be arranged; and this took place the following Friday in the Upper House, at the door of which the Commons were detained 'a long half hour.' On entering, they beheld their sovereign 'under a state (canopy.)' The Speaker, after making three reverences, begged to be relieved from his office: but the queen whispered to the lord keeper, and the lord keeper replied, that the eloquent speech he had just made was a sufficient reason why he should retain his honours. This by-play over, the Speaker delivered a magniloquent speech, in which he ascribed the defence of the land to the mighty arm of our dread and sacred queen.' It is pleasing to find that this gross flattery was not received by Elizabeth in silence, but that she corrected it herself, 'No; but by the mighty hand of God, Mr. Speaker.' When he had concluded, the Queen again whispered to the lord keeper, who gave the Commons, through their Speaker, much plain counsel, the burden being that they were 'to have a special eye and regard not to make new and idle laws, and trouble the House with them, but rather to look to the abridging and repealing of diverse obsolete and superfluous statutes.' Those good people who now-a-days think that Parliament would be more usefully employed in rescinding than in augmenting the statutes at large, will be glad to see that Elizabeth was of their way of thinking when laws were few compared with the present accumulation. There was a reason, however, for the advice so emphatically tendered to the Lower House,-one which was understood by all parties, and which weighed little with the stubborn Commons. The patents granted by Elizabeth and her predecessors had become a national grievance; the outcry against them was universal; and she had cause for believing that the new Parliament, provoked by the aggravation of the evil, despite previous promises of abatement, would take some decided action which would bring her royal prerogative into question. The drift of the lord keeper's address was therefore little relished; and to the soreness thus caused was owing the remarkable incident graphically described by Mr. Townshend. 'The queen on her return had to pass,' he tells us, 'through the Commons' House

Internal Economy of the House.

123

on her going to the Painted Chamber; and, in doing this, she preserved a silence which was generally reciprocated. Few said "God bless your majesty," as they were wont on all great assemblies; and the throng being great, and little room to pass, she moved her hand to have more room; whereupon one of the gentlemen ushers said openly, "Back, masters, make room;" and one answered stoutly behind, "If you will hang us, we can make no more room," which the queen seemed not to hear, though she heaved up her head, and looked that way towards him that spake.' Elizabeth must have felt keenly wounded at the few God bless you's' which hailed her presence; yet she could divine the cause, and had the magnanimity (a princeliness unknown to her Stuart successors) to repair the breach by a full compliance with her subjects' wishes. Her knowledge became her wisdom; and so her passage through the Lower House was attended with happy issues to herself and to the nation.

That the Commons expected some attack on their prerogatives we may gather from the fact, that in meeting next day, (Saturday, October 31st,) a council was made for maintenance of the privileges of the House.' Greatly should we malign the representatives of the people at this distant period, did we infer that either fear or flattery could disarm their vigilance and resolution. Many points in constitutional law were unsettled; the spirit of loyalty was at its height, and the expression of it extravagant; but on all main and essential questions the Commons were, as we shall see, as firm in their maintenance of their legislative rights as those who occupied their seats in more troublous times.

In regard to the internal economy of the House, of course, Treasury and Opposition benches were words and things of the future; and it would appear from such expressions as 'the honourable around the chair,' that the front rows, especially the seats near the Speaker, were allotted to members who either were privy councillors, or held office in the royal household. Motions were put from the chair as now, and were carried or rejected, according to the preponderance of voices, though it was always open to the weaker party to try a division of the House. When this took place, the Noes remained seated in the House, and the Ayes (pronounced I's, as with us) went out of it. That this practice obtained we have several proofs from Mr. Townshend's reports. On one occasion, when none offered to move, a member bluntly stated, that during that session ' he had noticed that the Noes in a division of the House had always carried it,' assigning as a reason the disinclination of

members to risk losing their places! He therefore challenged the Ayes to go forth, saying, And for my part I'll begin;' and the appeal carried a majority of the House along with him. The present practice is, for each member to write his name on a card each afternoon before the House begins, which secures him the place where it is affixed. Hence, it is uncharitably surmised, so many members attend regularly at prayers. But a member's particular preference of a place is, when known, generally respected by his associates. As to prayers, too,-one of the first things done by the Commons, in 1601, was to obtain a form of prayer which, with other prayers, was read by a clergyman daily. Questions of order were frequent. It happened once that a Bill, in which many were interested, having been rejected by a majority of one, a question arose whether the Speaker was entitled to vote as did the other members? which the right honourable gentleman decided in the negative. It was then charged against a member that he had taken one of the Ayes by the sleeve, and detained him in the House,--conduct which was severely condemned, and not the less because Sir Walter Raleigh owned that he had often done so; but Mr. Townshend is careful to inform us that two of the Ayes had dragged one of the Noes out with them into the lobby,—thus restoring the former relation of the numbers.

A Bill having been voted against by the burgesses for London, several points were raised, which the Speaker submitted in three forms:-Should those who had opposed a Bill serve on a committee of it? And all said, No.' Could those who served on a committee of a Bill speak against it afterwards? And all said, Yea.' Should the burgesses of London serve on this particular committee for important reasons? 'And the Yeas were greater than the Noes.' At another time, when Sir Walter Raleigh was speaking, Sir Edward Hoby exclaimed, 'We cannot hear you; speak out; you should speak standing, that the House might hear you.' To which Sir Walter as tartly answered, 'that the House being in committee, he might speak sitting or standing.' A Bill having been brought in a second time under a new title, it was opposed because 'all Parliament men say a Bill once cast out should not be read again,' i.e., during the same session; and, on division, this version of parliamentary law was ratified by a large majority. Even Mr. Speaker was put right when he strayed. A member having looked at a Bill which had been engrossed, another member blamed the permission given by the chair;—a criticism 'which was confessed by all [to be just,] and the Speaker took it.' Another time, when he allowed the clerk to deviate from an understood arrangement