disorders which prevailed in several subsequent reigns. Perhaps there is no better way of accounting for the extraordinary appearance of the old statutes than by supposing that it remained with the king to supply the defects which occasionally appeared in the course and order of proceeding; which being founded originally on custom and usage, was, in its nature, more susceptible of modification than any positive institution, that not as acts of parliament but as immemorial usage and custom from which there is no doubt much of the common law of England is derived.

§ 16. It has already been remarked that the laws were termed sometimes "assisa," and sometimes "constitutiones." The most solemn and usual way of ordaining laws was to get the concurrence of the commune concilium regni, yet it seems that in these times the king took upon himself to do many legislative acts, which when conformable with the established order of things were easily acquiesced in, and became the law of the land. The very frame indeed of such laws as were sanctioned with all possible formalities, carried in them the strongest appearances of regal acts: if a law passed concilio baronum suorum, it was still rex constituit. Of the laws of Wil. liam the Conqueror, though in some parts they seem to have the authority of the great council, statuimus, volumus, præcipimus, yet in others they speak in the person of the king only, hoc quoque præcipio, et prohibeo. The form of a charter, in which the king was considered as a person granting, was a very common way of making laws at this time, and carries with it evidence of the sen timents entertained in those ages concerning legislation. It should be remarked that some of these charters, from the solemnities attending the execution of them, might be regarded as having all the solemnities of valid laws as in some of them the barons of the realm seem to have been parties. Others seem to have no authority but

could not be easily tampered with, without a manifest discovery of the change.

§ 17. In an unlettered age, it was convenient and beneficial, that the king should exercise such a superintendence over the laws as to declare, explain and direct what his justices should do in particular cases; such directions were very readily received as positive laws, always to be observed in future, and no doubt numbers of such regulations were made of which at present there remain no traces. While this supreme authority was exercised only in furtherance of justice, by declaring the law, or even altering it in instances which did not much entrench upon the interest of the great men of the kingdom, it was suffered to act at freedom. But no alteration in the law which affected the persons or property of the barons, could be attempted with safety, without their concurrence in making it, as in deed it could not always be executed without the assistance of their support. Thus it happened that when any important change was meditated by the king a communi concilium was summoned where the advice of the magistrates was taken, and then the law if passed was mentioned to be past with their concurrence. On the other hand, had the nobles any point which they wanted to be authorized by king's parliamentary concurrence a commune concilium was called if the king could be prevailed to call one, and if the matter was put into a law, the king here was mentioned to have commanded it at the prayer and request of his barons, so that one way or the other the king is mentioned in all laws, as the creative power which gives life and effect to the whole.

§ 18. As laws made in the solemn form by a commune concilium, were upon points of great importance, and often the subjects of violent contests; they were in the nature of concords or compacts between the parties interested and were sometimes passed and executed with the,

ceremonies suitable to such a transaction. The constitutions of Clarendon, (which too are called the ancient law of the kingdom and therefore only to be declared and recognized as such,) were passed in that way.

Becket and all the bishops took an oath to observe those laws; and all except Becket signed and put their seals to them. The laws were drawn in three parts, one counterpart or authentic copy was given to Becket, another was delivered to the Archbishop of York, a third was retained by the king to be enrolled among the royal charters.

The Magna Charta of King John was executed with similar solemnity and bore a similar appearance of a compact between the king and his nobles.

It was not uncommon that the people as well as the makers should be sworn to observe the laws. The assisæ statutæ et jurata are mentioned by Bracton as an article of inquiry before the justices in Eyre in the reign of Henry the third.(a)

§ 19. It may not be amiss at this point to digress for a moment and inquire into the origin of the British Parliament. Edward the first who has been justly denominated "the English Justinian" was possessed of great natural talents, and succeeding to a prince whose weakness and injustice had rendered his reign unhappy, being sensible that nothing but a strict administration of justice could, on the one side curb a nobility whom the troubles of the preceding reign had rendered turbulent; and on the other appease and reconciliate the people, by securing and guarding the property of individuals. To this end he made jurisprudence the principal object of his attention, and insomuch did it improve under his care that the mode of process became fixed and settled. It is during his

(a) Reeve's English Law, Vol. 1, p. 215, 216, 217, 218; Steven's Eng. Const. Vol. 1 p. 5.

reign in which we find the first instance of the admission of deputies of towns and boroughs into Parliament.

Edward continually engaged in wars, either against Scotland or on the continent, seeing his demesne considerably diminished, was frequently reduced to the most pressing necessities. But though in consequence of the spirit of the times, he frequently indulged himself in particular acts of injustice, yet he perceived that it was impossible to extend a general operation on a body of nobles, and a people who so well knew how to unite in a common cause. In order to raise subsidies, he was obliged to employ a new method, and to endeavor to obtain through the consent of the people, what his predecessors had hitherto expected from their own power. The sheriffs were ordered to invite the towns and boroughs of the different counties to send deputies to parliament, and it is from this era that we are to date the origin of the house of commons. No writs can be found to summons knights and burgesses and citizens to parliament before the year 1264, 49 Henry III. Knights of Shires were, however, summoned under King John. In 1283, Edward I. held a parliament at Shrewsbury where the lords sat in a castle and the commons in a barn. In 1337 the lords and commons met at Eltham, in Kent, in the palace of Edward II., the remains of which are still extant. It is certainly a question when the commons first formed a distinct assembly from the lords. Parliament or general councils have existed from the earliest period of British history; the word is derived from the French parler, to speak, because it is a deliberative assembly and means the great council of the nation. They have existed in the early ages under various names. The Saxons called these councils synoth or michel synoth, the great council, or great synoth, because they were of a religious character; also michel gemoth or gemote, the great assembly and wittena gemoth the assembly of wise men, After the conquest

they were called by the latin names of commune consilium regni, magnum consilium regis, curia magna, conventus magnatum vel procerum, assisa generalis, and sometimes communitas regni Angliæ,(a) and finally parliamentum which was the name last adopted. Mr. Barrington in his remarks upon the more ancient statutes(b) observes in contradiction to lord Coke's Etymology of the word "parliament, as being composed of the words parler la ment," to speak one's mind, that it was a compound of two Celtic words, parley and ment or mend both of which are to be found in Bullet's Celtic Dictionary published at Besancon in 1754. He renders parley by the French infinitive parler, and we use the word in the English as a substantive viz., parley and ment or mend is rendered quantite abondance. And he concludes that the word parliament, therefore, being resolved into its constituent syllables may not be improperly said to signify what the Indians of North America call the great talk. The word parliamentum, it is universally admitted was not used in England, till the reign of Henry III., which is contrary to the assertion of Lord Coke,(c) that the word was in use before the conquest.(d) It is generally supposed that the origin of the house of commons may be dated from the 17th King John; (1215) but the institution of parliament is involved in great obscurity. In the first report of the lords' committees upon the peerage, will be found the result of their lordships' inquiries as to the constitution of parliament, and for what purpose it was originally summoned but it is one of those matters, to use the words of Blackstone, which "lie so

(a) Glanvil, liber 13, C. 32. L. 9, C. 10; 2d Inst. 256.

(b) Barr. p. 48.

(c) Co. 1 Inst. 110, a; Co. 2 Inst. 156; 1 Com. 147.

(d) Co. 4 Inst. 12; Prynne's An. 4 Inst. 2, Christian's note; 1 Blackstone's Com. 147; Taylor's Civil Law, 70.