Part 10

Mr. Tyrrell observes, that “neither Prynne nor Dr. Brady, with all their diligence, have taken any notice of these writs to summon this Parliament.

“The writs were directed to all the Earls and Barons by name, to the number of 110; but the writs to the cities and boroughs are more remarkable, especially as they are the first upon record, requiring the attendance of the Knights of the shire, Citizens, and Burgesses, except those issued in the name of the late king Henry the third.”

The cities and boroughs to which these writs were directed were the following:—Bristol, Canterbury, Carlisle, Colchester, Chester, Exeter, Grimsby, Hereford, Lynn, Lincoln, Newcastle (Tyne,) Norwich, Northampton, Nottingham, Scarborough, Shrewsbury, Winchester, Worcester, Yarmouth, (Norfolk) and York.

In the 23d of Edward the third, 1294, a Parliament was summoned to meet at Westminster, and writs were sent to the several sheriffs of England to cause to be elected two Knights for each county, two Citizens for each city, and two Burgesses for each borough, to be at the said Parliament, to consent and agree to such things, as the Earls, Barons, and Peers of the Realm should ordain; and from this year is to be dated the first regular general summons of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses to Parliament. It is proper to observe that in this Parliament, the Earls, Barons, and Knights of the several counties, sat, treated, and consulted altogether, and gave the king an eleventh part of all their moveable goods; the Citizens and Burgesses acted separately, and granted a seventh part of all their moveables.

In the more early period of the history of the House of Commons, when the Parliament frequently sat only for a single day, the whole business being to grant the king a subsidy, it is probable that the Speaker might with more propriety be called the chairman, for sometimes one of the members was appointed to the chair, and sometimes another; some resolutions were ordered to be made by one member, and others to be reported by another.

In the 19th of Edward the second, 1325, William Trussell was in the chair, when Hugh Spenser the younger was accused of Treason, in Parliament.

In the 6th of Edward the First, the Commons made answer to the king by Sir Geoffrey le Scroop, and it was agreed by the king, and the whole in full Parliament, that certain Bishops and Peers named, should meet on the business in discussion by themselves; the other Prelates, Earls, and Barons, and the Proxies[40] by themselves; and the Knights of the shires and Commons by themselves. In the fifty first of the same king Sir Thomas Hungerfore was Speaker of the Commons.

In the first of Richard the Second, 1377, Sir Peter de la Mare, knight of the shire for the county of Hereford, was Speaker of the Commons, as he had been in the last Parliament but one of Edward the Third. In the fifth of the former king, 1382, Sir Richard Waldegrave was chosen by the Commons to be their Speaker, who made an excuse, and desired to be discharged. He is the first Speaker that appears upon record to have made an excuse, but the king commanded him, upon his allegiance, to accept the office, seeing he had been chosen by the Commons.

In the fifth of Henry the fourth, 1404, Sir Arnold Savage being chosen Speaker, after making an excuse, requested the king, in the name of the Commons, that they might freely make complaint of any thing amiss in the government, and that the king would not by the sinister information of any person take offence at that of which they should complain, which petition was granted by the king.

In the seventh year of the same king, 1406, Sir John Tiptoft being chosen Speaker, made an excuse on account of his youth, which not being accepted, he requested that if any writing was delivered by the Commons, and they should desire to have it again, to amend or alter any thing therein, it might be restored to them, which was granted. Whilst he was Speaker, he signed and sealed in the name of the Commons the deed which entailed the crown upon Henry the fourth. This _young_ Speaker is said to have taken more upon him, and to have spoken more boldly and freely to the King and the Lords, than any before him, insomuch that his example being followed, the king gave a check to it, when Thomas Chaucer, Esq. was chosen Speaker in his room.

In the 20th of Henry the sixth, 1450, the Commons presented Sir John Popham to the king as their Speaker, who making an excuse, it was received, and he was discharged, on which the Commons presented William Tresham, who had twice before been Speaker, who was accepted.

In the 31st of the same king, 1453, Thomas Thorpe, Esq. Speaker of the House of Commons was arrested in execution at the suit of the Duke of York during the vacation between two sessions, and the opinion of the judges being demanded by the Lords, they refused to judge of the liberties of Parliament as not belonging to their jurisdiction, whereupon the Lords without their advice adjudged that the Speaker was not entitled to any privilege, which, on being-signified to the Commons, and also the king’s pleasure being made known to them that they should choose another Speaker, they chose Sir Thomas Charleton.

In the 15th of Henry the eighth, 1523, Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons. He made the usual protestation for himself, and prayed that if any member should in debate speak more largely than he ought, that he might be pardoned by the king, which was granted.

In the first year of queen Elizabeth, 1559, Sir Thomas Gargrave was chosen Speaker; in his speech to the queen he made four requests, namely first, free access to her majesty; secondly, for liberty of speech; thirdly, privilege from arrests; and fourthly, that his mistakes might not prejudice the house.

In Scotland the system of representation was not adopted till the reign of James the first, of that kingdom, in 1427. By an act of that year it was enacted, that “the king with consent of the whole council generally has statute and ordained that the small Barons and free Tenants need not to come to Parliaments nor general councils, so that of each sheriffdom there be sent, chosen at the head court of the sheriffdom, two or more wise men after the largeness of the sheriffdom, &c.”—Scottish Acts printed in 1682, p. 30.

In Scotland the Lords and Commons unquestionably sat in the same House till the Union of the two kingdoms, and the Commissioner who represented the sovereign, debated with them from the throne, although he had the power, which he sometimes used, of adjourning the assembly when he pleased.

Footnote 35:

Several of these were men remarkable for their talents and learning: among whom were Petyt, Tyrrel, Sir Robert Filmer, Dr. Brady, Prynne, Rymer, &c. &c.

Petyt and Prynne were keepers of the Records in the Tower; and Rymer, who was the king’s Historiographer, had a warrant not only to search the Records in every office in the kingdom, but to make copies of such as he should select for publication. How diligent he was in using this authority is evident from the invaluable collection of Records, &c. published by him, and from a large collection of others in manuscript, now in the Museum.

Petyt makes a direct charge, and not unfounded, against Prynne, for an intended omission of a reference to the Rolls of Parliament (2d Hen. V. p. 2. No. 10.) in the Abridgment of the Rolls made by Sir Robert Cotton, and printed by Prynne.

Even Sir Robert Atkyns, a man eminently distinguished for his integrity and learning, as well as for his deep research into the ancient History of Parliament, who had been a Judge of the Common Pleas, and was afterwards Chief Baron of the Exchequer and Speaker of the House of Lords, in his learned and elaborate argument in the year 1680, in the case of an information by the Attorney General against Williams, Speaker of the House of Commons, in asserting the antiquity of that House, fell into some mistakes, from not having resorted to the original records. He states, and insists much on it, that the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Thomas Hungerford, 51 Edward III. was Speaker _of the Parliament_; whereas the words in the Record are, “Monsieur Thomas de Hungerford, Chivaler, q’i avoit les Paroles pur les Communes d’ Engleterre.” Rolls of Parl. vol. ii. p. 374, a. In the first of Richard the Second, the Speaker, Sir Robert says again, was termed the Speaker _of the Parliament_; the words in the Record are, “Mons. Pere de la Mare Chivaler q’avoit les Paroles de Par la Commune.”—Vol. iii. p. 5, 6.

The same with respect to Sir John Bussey, 20 Richard II. The words in the Record are, “les Communes presenterent Mons. John Bussey pour leur Parlour.”—Page 338, a.—339, b.

Footnote 36:

In 1766, the late Thomas Astle, Esq. was consulted by the Sub-Committee of the House of Lords, concerning the printing of the Rolls of Parliament, and in 1768, on the death of Mr. Blyke, Mr. Astle introduced his father-in-law, the Rev. Philip Morant, author of the History of Essex, to succeed that gentleman in preparing the Rolls for the press. Mr. Morant died in November, 1770, after proceeding in them as far as the 16th of Henry the fourth, when Mr. Astle was appointed by the House of Lords to carry on the work, which he completed in 1775. They are printed in six volumes, _folio_.

Footnote 37:

Some reliance was placed by his Lordship on the Treatise “de Modo tenendi Parliamentum;” the authority of which, if not entirely destroyed by Prynne, will not at least in future have much weight.—Prynne’s Animadversions on 4 Inst. p. 1. to p. 8. and p. 331.

Footnote 38:

In the Parliament of the 18th of Edward the first there were no Citizens or Burgesses. There is a bundle of writs yet extant, by which this Parliament was summoned. They are directed to the sheriffs of several or most of the counties of England, by which two or three Knights were directed to be chosen for each county, and accordingly the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon, and Cumberland returned each of them _three_ Knights, and the other counties two each. This Parliament gave the King a fifteenth of all their moveables as appears by the account of the same which is entered upon the Great Roll of the 23d of that king, in which account we have the style of this Parliament, namely, “The account of the fifteenth, granted to the king in his 18th year, by the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and _all others of the kingdom_, assessed, collected, and levied,” &c.

We may here observe that the two or three Knights, chosen by the several counties, did represent those counties, and according to the form of the writ, consulted upon and consented to this grant of a fifteenth.

So also in the 22d Edward the First there were neither Citizens nor Burgesses summoned to the Parliament of that year. On the 8th of October the king issued writs directed to every sheriff in England to cause two discreet Knights to be chosen for each county, with full powers, “so that for defect of such powers, the business might not remain undone.” And on the following day the king issued other writs to the sheriffs to cause to be elected two knights more, to be added to the former two, making four for each county, and these four Knights for each county, and the Earls, Barons, and Great Men, on the day of their meeting gave the king a tenth part of all their goods.

Footnote 39:

This was only a grant of forty shillings for every Knight’s fee.—See Rolls of Parliament, vol. 2, p. 112, a. hereinafter referred to in 14 of Edward III.

Footnote 40:

Proxies in Parliament is a privilege appropriated to the Lords only; the first instance of a Proxy that occurs in the History of the English Parliament, is in the reign of Edward the first.

In a Parliament at Westminster in the reign of Edward the second, the bishops of Durham and Carlisle were allowed to send their Proxies to Parliament.

In the early period of the History of Parliament, the Lords were not obliged to make Barons only their Proxies as the custom now is; the Bishops and Parliamentary Abbots usually gave their letters of proxy to Prebendaries, Parsons, and Canons; but since the first year of king Henry the eighth, there appear in the journals no Proxies but such as were Lords of Parliament.

In the 35th of king Edward the third, 1360, the following Peeres were summoned by writ to Parliament, to appear there by their Proxies, namely, Mary, Countess of Norfolk; Eleanor, Countess of Ormond; Anna, Baroness Despenser; Philippa, Countess of March; Joanna, Baroness Fitzwalter; Agneta, Countess of Pembroke; Mary de St. Paul, Countess of Pembroke; Margaret, Baroness de Roos; Matilda, Countess of Oxford; Catherine, Countess of Athol. These ladies were called _ad colloquium et tractatum_ by their Proxies.

MOSAIC PAINTING.

Mosaic is a representation of painting by means of small pebbles, or shells of sundry colours, and, of late years, with pieces of glass coloured at pleasure; it is an ornament of much beauty, and lasts for ages, and is mostly used in pavements and floors.

The term _Mosaic_ is derived from the latin _musivum_, and ought to be pronounced _musaic_. It is odd enough that many persons have really fancied they could trace the etymology of this word to the name of the great Jewish legislator. It is well observed by Wotton that Mosaic has “long life;” and we have much to lament that, the art was not practised in ancient Rome with the perfection it has attained in modern Rome. Had Mosaic been applied to exact imitations of the pictures of Apelles, Zeuxis, and the great artists of ancient times, we should still have been the contemporaries of every fine genius, and a new polish had renewed their fading beauties, and restored them to immortal youth.

Pliny has proved that the Greeks first practised Mosaic, and notices a curious work of the kind which was called “the unswept piece.” This singular performance exhibited to the eye, crumbs of bread and other things which fall from a table, so naturally imitated, that the eye was perfectly deceived, and it looked as if the pavement had never been swept; it was formed of small shells, painted of different colours.

There were several pieces of Mosaic found in Herculaneum; one much resembled a Turkey carpet. The ancients probably gave in Mosaic some historical subjects, for there was also discovered the Rape of Europa, composed of small flints.

Mosaic has been practised in Italy two thousand years; the manner of working it in that country is by copying in very small pieces of marble of different colours, every thing which a picture can be expected to imitate. Instead of common stones, too difficult to collect for so great a work, or which would require too much time to prepare and polish, the Italian artists sometimes have recourse to paste, that is to a composition of glass and enamel, which after passing through a crucible takes a brilliant colour. All these pieces are inlaid, and very thin, and their length is proportioned to their slenderness. They sometimes inlay a piece not thicker than a hair, and the artist afterwards arranges these pieces according to the colours and design of the picture before him. They are easily fixed in the stucco or plaster of Paris placed to receive them which soon hardens and dries. Such works are so solid that they are capable of resisting the assaults of time through ages. The Mosaic of St. Mark at Venice has existed above 900 years in perfect splendour and beauty.

Several fine pieces of Roman Mosaic work have been discovered in England in the last and preceding centuries, particularly at Woodchester in Gloucestershire, and at Horkstow, in Lincolnshire, both of which have been elaborately described and engraved by the late Samuel Lysons, Esq. Others have been found at Winterton, Roxby, Scampton, and Denton, in the county of Lincoln; in Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, &c. &c.

Sir Christopher Wren intended to have beautified the inside of the Cupola of St. Paul’s Cathedral, instead of painting it in the manner in which it now appears, with the more durable ornament of Mosaic work, as is nobly executed in the Cupola of St. Peter’s at Rome. For this purpose he intended to have procured from Italy four of the most eminent artists in that profession; but as this art was a great novelty in England, and not generally understood, the plan did not receive the encouragement it deserved. It was thought also that the expense would prove too great, and the time very long in the execution; but though these and all other objections were fully answered, yet this excellent design was no further pursued.

KING EGBERT.

It is a generally received opinion, sanctioned by nearly every modern historian, that Egbert king of the West Saxons, having dissolved the Heptarchy, about the year 828, became the first sole monarch of England. This is, however, one of those historical points which it is more easy to assert than to confirm. There were undoubtedly many chief monarchs of the heptarchy, both before and after the time of Egbert, that sovereign himself having been one of those chief monarchs, but some of those petty kingdoms subsisted for nearly one hundred and twenty years after Egbert’s death. That this was the fact is proved both by their coins and their laws. Several of their coins are still to be found in the cabinets of the curious. Thus we find that in the kingdom of the East Angles, king Edmund, called the Saint, and Ethelstan, (Guthrun the Danish general being so named by Alfred at his baptism,) coined money, the first in 857, and the latter in 878. The kings of Mercia coined money until A. D. 874, and the kings of Northumberland till A. D. 950. In the last mentioned year, the kingdom of Northumberland, which included all the country north of the Humber, terminated, and England became one kingdom. It was again divided by Edwy, who began to reign in 959, so that Edgar may more justly be regarded as commencing the series of kings of all England. It may be proper here to remark that two kingdoms of the Heptarchy never coined any money; these were the kingdoms of the East Saxons and the South Saxons.

Alfred was the first king that made a code of laws which was common to the whole kingdom. There were very few legislators among the Saxon Monarchs. The laws of Ethelbert, who died in 617, are the most ancient that we have. The next are those of Lothaire, 673; Edric, 684; and Wightred, 694; all of them kings of Kent. Ina, king of the West Saxons, 688, and Offa king of the Mercians, 757, were the only other kings of the Heptarchy who formed any laws which have been preserved by historians. If it be objected that the people of the other kingdoms could not subsist without laws suited to the situation of their affairs, we may observe that the monarchs of those kingdoms received into their states and adopted the laws of the kings already mentioned. The laws of Ina were received by the other kings of the Heptarchy, and in one of the great councils held by Offa, king of Mercia, there were present the king of the East Saxons, the king of the West Saxons, the king of Kent, the king of Northumberland, and three kings of Wales.

Alfred having conquered the Danes at Edington, and Guthrun their general and his principal officers having been baptized in the church of Aller, near Langport, in Somersetshire, Alfred concluded a treaty of peace with Guthrun, and gave him the kingdoms of East Anglia and Northumberland for himself and his Danes, appointing the boundaries of his dominions and giving him laws which were agreed to and confirmed by Alfred’s and Guthrun’s nobles. In all cases which were not provided for by this treaty, Guthrun consented that the Danes should observe the general laws of Alfred. This treaty was afterwards confirmed and enlarged by Edward the Elder, Alfred’s son, with the consent and approbation of his and Guthrun’s nobles.

THE LATIN LANGUAGE.

So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national manners, that it was their most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the latin tongue. The ancient dialects of Italy, the Sabine, the Etruscan, and the Venetian, sunk into oblivion; but the eastern were less docile than the western provinces to the voice of its victorious preceptors. This obvious difference marked the two portions of the empire with a distinction of character, which, though it was in some degree concealed during the meridian splendour of prosperity, became gradually more visible, as the shades of night descended upon the Roman world. The western countries were civilized by the same hands which subdued them. As soon as the barbarians were reconciled to obedience, their minds were opened to any new impressions of knowledge and politeness. The language of Virgil and Cicero, though with some inevitable mixture of corruption, was so universally adopted in Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain and Pannonia, that the faint traces of the Punic or Celtic idioms were preserved only in the mountains or among the peasants. The Celtic was indeed preserved in the mountains of Wales, Cornwall, and Armorica; and it may here be observed that Apuleius reproaches an African youth, who lived among the populace, with the use of the Punic, whilst he had almost forgot Greek, and neither could nor would speak Latin. The greater part of St. Austin’s congregations were strangers to the Punic. Education and study insensibly inspired the natives of the countries just mentioned with the sentiments of Romans; and Italy gave fashions, as well as laws, to her latin provincials. They solicited with more ardour, and obtained with more facility, the freedom and honours of the state; supported the national dignity in letters and in arms; and at length in the person of Trajan, produced an Emperor whom the Scipios would not have disowned for their countryman. Spain alone produced Columella, the Senecas, Lucan, Martial, and Quinctilian.

The situation of the Greeks was very different from that of the barbarians. The former had been long since civilized and corrupted. They had too much taste to relinquish their language, and too much vanity to adopt any foreign institutions. Still preserving the prejudices, after they had lost the virtues of their ancestors, they affected to despise the unpolished manners of the Roman conquerors, whilst they were compelled to respect their superior wisdom and power. The Greeks seemed to be entirely ignorant that the Romans had any good writers; and it is believed that there is not a single Greek critic, from Dionysius to Libanius, who mentions Virgil or Horace. Nor was the influence of the Grecian language and sentiments confined to the narrow limits of that once celebrated country. Their empire, by the progress of colonies and conquests, had been diffused from the Adriatic to the Euphrates and the Nile. Asia was covered with Greek cities, and the long reign of the Macedonian kings, had introduced a silent revolution into Syria and Egypt. In their pompous courts, those princes united the elegance of Athens with the luxury of the East, and the example of the court was imitated, at an humble distance, by the higher ranks of their subjects. Such was the general division of the Roman empire into the Latin and Greek languages.