in the Lower House.1 These examples are sufficient to prove the great and preponderating authority of the House of Commons. These preliminary observations upon the system of parliamentary government in England will, it is hoped, afford some idea of its true character, and serve to explain the chief points of contrast between our present political institutions and those which were in operation prior to the Revolution of 1688. It must be evident to the student of history, that parliamentary government is no modern political device Parliamentary to substitute the supremacy of Parliament for that government. of the crown; that it owes its origin to the growth of fundamental principles in the English constitution; and that the transition, from the ancient method of government by prerogative to that which now prevails, has been a gradual and legitimate development. Whether the modern system is, in every respect, the most perfect or the best adapted to the wants and wishes of the nation, it is not the object of the present writer to inquire. He is not concerned with the special advocacy of any particular form of government; his aim has been simply to describe the actual working of representative institutions in England as they now exist. He has not refrained from noticing, as opportunity offered, the peculiar defects of parliamentary government, and the dangers to which he conceives that system to be exposed. On the other hand, he is bound in fairness to point out its peculiar merits and advantages, which have contributed to make it popular at home, and a model for imitation in many foreign countries. 1 See Mr. Lowe's speech, Hans. D. v. 244, p. 208. CHAPTER II. THE COUNCILS OF THE CROWN, UNDER PREROGATIVE GOVERNMENT. THE origin of the political institutions of modern England Origin of our must be sought for in the governmental system of national polity. Our Anglo-Saxon progenitors. Meagre and imperfect as is our information on this subject, enough is known of the leading principles of the Anglo-Saxon government to show that in them were to be found the rudiments of the institutions which we now enjoy. 2 8 4 The precise features of the polity of England before the Norman conquest, although they have given rise to much learned inquiry, are still, to a considerable extent, conjectural. But the researches of Sir Francis Palgrave1 and of Mr. Kemble, supplemented and corrected by the more recent investigations of Mr. E. A. Freeman and Professor Stubbs,* have been of inestimable service in elucidating much that was previously obscure in this branch of historical inquiry. The student of political history will find in their works ample materials to aid him in forming an intelligent idea of the fundamental laws and established institutions of this country in the earliest days of our national life. And these writers are all agreed in testifying that, however striking may be the contrast, in many points of detail, between the primitive form Anglo-Saxon of government in the time of our Anglo-Saxon government. forefathers and that which now prevails, "the germs alike of the monarchic, the aristocratic, and the demo 1 Rise and Progress of the Eng. Commonwealth, 2 vols. 4to. 1832. 2 The Saxons in England: a History of the Eng. Commonwealth till the period of the Norm. Conq. 2 vols. 8vo. 1849. 3 History of the Norm. Cong. v. I; Preliminary History to the Election of Edward the Confessor (1867). • Const. Hist. of Eng. (1874). cratic branches of our constitution will be found as far back as history or tradition throws any light on the institutions of In common with other tribes of similar Teutonic origin, the Saxons in England, from a very early period, were ruled over by kings, whose power was not arbitrary and despotic, but was subjected to certain well-defined limitations by the supreme controlling authority of the law. The dignity, authority, and power of the chief ruler in England were gradually developed from that of The king. an ealdorman (who combined in his own person the functions of a civil ruler and of a military chieftain) into that of a king—a change that is not peculiar to our own land, but which marked the progress of political society elsewhere, in countries inhabited by the Teutons and other kindred peoples. The transition from ealdorman to king brought with it an accession of power to the ruler. As the territory over which his headship was recognized expanded, his royal dignity and importance increased.2 The nobles. The early Teutonic constitution, when transplanted into English soil, was, like that of many of the small states of the Old World, essentially free. It consisted of a supreme leader, with or without royal title, an aristocratic council composed of men of noble birth, and a general assembly of freemen, in whom the ultimate sovereignty resided. By degrees, however, the primitive democracy of the ancient Teutonic communities gave place to the rising influence of the comitatus, or personal following of the chiefs. And in proportion as the kings of England advanced in strength and dominion, they naturally acquired a more complete supremacy over their comitatus. The thanes, or body-servants of the king, were gradually invested with rank and power in the kingdom. Thus there arose a new kind of nobility, virtute officii, which at length obtained precedence over the older hereditary nobles.* But the power of the crown was, from the first, subjected to the control of the Witenagemot, or "Meeting of The the Wise Men," which appears to have formed part Witenagemot. of the national polity of the Teutons, from their earliest 2 Ib. pp. 76-81; Stubbs, c. vii. ♦ lb. pp. 91-97. 1 Freeman, v. I, p. 75. 2 appearance in history, and was introduced by them into the Saxon commonwealth.1 Originally a democratic assembly, Freeman describes the process by which this popular council gradually assumed an aristocratic aspect. Under the Heptarchy, every separate king in England had his own Witenagemot; but, after the other kingdoms were merged in that of Wessex, their respective Witans became entitled to seats in the Gémot of Wessex, as being the common Gémot of the realm. Our knowledge of the constitution of these great councils, in any English kingdom, is extremely vague and scanty. But we have proof that the great officers of the court and of the kingdom were invariably present in the Witenagemot, together with ealdormen, bishops, abbots, and many other of the king's thanes. There was also an infusion of the popular element, by the attendance of certain classes of freemen, though to what extent and in what manner this took place cannot be positively determined. The Witans. The powers of the Witenagemot have been defined, by Kemble, as follows: "1. They possessed a consultative voice, and right to consider every public act which could be authorized by the king. 2. They deliberated upon the making of new laws which were to be added to the existing folcriht, and which were then promulgated by their own and the king's authority. 3. They had the power of making alliances and treaties of peace, and of settling their terms. 4. They had the power (subject to the restriction hereinafter mentioned) of electing their king. 5. They had the power to depose the king, if his government was not conducted for the benefit of the people. 6. They had the power, conjointly with the king, of appointing prelates to vacant sees. 7. They had power to regulate ecclesiastical matters, appoint fasts and festivals, and decide upon the levy and expenditure of ecclesiastical revenue. 8. The king and his Witan had power to levy taxes for the public service. 9. The king and his Witan had power to raise land and sea forces, when occasion demanded. Io. The Witan had power to recommend, assent to, and guarantee grants of land, and to permit the conversion of folcland into 1 Kemble, v. 2, pp. 185-195. 2 Freeman, v. 1, pp. 106-110; and see his Paper on "The Origin of Parl. Representation," in Int. Rev. v. 3, p. 728. bócland, and vice versa. II. They had power to adjudge the lands of offenders and intestates to be forfeit to the king. 12. Lastly, the Witan acted as a supreme court of justice, both in civil and criminal causes.' All these instances of the powers exercised by the Witenagemot are illustrated, in Mr. Kemble's narrative, by numerous examples, taken from the records and chronicles of the period. office. In asserting that the king was elected by the Witan, and was subject to be deposed by their authority, it The kingly must not be inferred that the Anglo-Saxon state was, either in spirit or in form, an elective monarchy, in the modern acceptation of the term. In every Teutonic kingdom there was a royal family, out of which kings were chosen ; but within that royal family the Witan of the land were privileged to exercise choice. The eldest son of the last king was considered as having a preferential right; but if he were too young, or were otherwise objectionable, some other and more capable member of the royal family would be chosen instead. Again, the recommendation of the king himself as to his successor on the throne had great weight, and was usually respected. On every occasion, indeed, the right to the kingly office must be substantiated and confirmed by a competent tribunal. But in so doing the members of the great council are not national representatives, offering the empire to a candidate whom their voices have raised to authority; but they are 'Witan,' the judges, whose wisdom is to satisfy the people that their allegiance is demanded by their lawful sovereign." "Though we cannot adopt the theory that the Anglo-Saxon empire was elective, we arrive at the conclusion that it was governed by law. The Constitution required that the right of the sovereign should be sanctioned by a competent tribunal." Thus, the inchoate title of the sovereign was confirmed by the national assent, and his claim was to be recognized by the legislature. In this sense," says Sir Francis Palgrave," the king was said to be elected by the people." 2 66 In like manner, the extreme right of deposing their sovereign, which the law assigned to the Witan, was one that was obviously to be resorted to only in cases of emergency, when the conduct of the reigning monarch had made him intolerable 1 Kemble, v. 2, pp. 204-232. 2 Eng. Commonwealth, v. I, pp. 558-562; Kemble, v. 2, p. 214; Freeman, v. I, p. 117. |