ance, are noticed in
Cotton's Abridgment. It may be worth while to consult the preface to
Ruffhead's edition of the Statutes, where this subject is treated at
some length.
Perhaps the triple division of our legislature may be dated from this
innovation. For as it is impossible to deny that, while the king
promulgated a statute founded upon a mere petition, he was himself the
real legislator, so I think it is equally fair to assert,
notwithstanding the formal preamble of our statutes, that laws brought
into either house of parliament in a perfect shape, and receiving first
the assent of lords and commons, and finally that of the king, who has
no power to modify them, must be deemed to proceed, and derive their
efficacy, from the joint concurrence of all the three. It is said,
indeed, at a much earlier time, that le ley de la terre est fait en
parlement par le roi, et les seigneurs espirituels et temporels, et tout
la communaute du royaume. Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 293. But this, I must
allow, was in the violent session of 11 Ric. II., the constitutional
authority of which is not to be highly prized.
[207] 8 H. V. vol. iv. p. 127.
[208] The house of commons thanked the king for pardoning
Northumberland, whom, as it proved, he had just cause to suspect. 5 H.
IV. p. 525.
[209] 5 H. IV. p. 505.
[210] Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 529, 568, 573.
[211] p. 547.
[212] 13 H. IV. p 624.
[213] Rot. Parl. 8 H. IV. p. 585.
[214] 13 H. IV. p. 648, 658.
[215] Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 549, 568, 574, 611.
[216] This passage was written before I was aware that the same opinion
had been elaborately maintained by Mr. Luders, in one of his valuable
essays upon points of constitutional history.
[217] Rot. Parl. 8 H. V. vol. iv. p. 125.
[218] p. 128.
[219] p. 130.
[220] 7 R. II. vol. iii. p. 170.
[221] p. 215.
[222] 7 R. II. p. 315.
[223] 4 H. V. vol. iv. p. 98.
[224] p. 135.
[225] Rot. Parl. 4 H. V. vol. iv. p. 211, 242, 277.
[226] p. 371.
[227] 23 H. VI. vol. v. p. 102. There is rather a curious instance in 3
H. VI. of the jealousy with which the commons regarded any proceedings
in parliament where they were not concerned. A controversy arose between
the earls marshal and of Warwick respecting their precedence; founded
upon the royal blood of the first, and long possession of the second. In
this the commons could not affect to interfere judicially; but they
found a singular way of meddling, by p
|