oral,
presumption of an original charter. But "many boroughs and towns in
England have burgesses by prescription, that never were incorporated."
Ch. J. Hobart in Dungannon Case, Hobart's Reports, p. 15. And Mr. Luders
thinks, I know not how justly, that in the age of Edward I., which is
most to our immediate purpose, "there were not perhaps thirty
corporations in the kingdom." Reports of Elections, vol. i. p. 98. But I
must allow that, in the opinion of many sound lawyers, the
representation of unchartered, or at least, unincorporated boroughs was
rather a _real_ privilege, and founded upon tenure, than one arising out
of their share in public contributions. Ch. J. Holt in Ashby v. White, 2
Ld. Raymond, 951. Heywood on Borough Elections, p. 11. This inquiry is
very obscure; and perhaps the more so, because the learning directed
towards it has more frequently been that of advocates pleading for their
clients than of unbiassed antiquaries. If this be kept in view, the
lover of constitutional history will find much information in several of
the reported cases on controverted elections; particularly those of
Tewksbury and Liskeard, in Peckwell's Reports, vol. i.

[259] Brady on Boroughs, p. 75, 80, and 163. Case of Tewksbury, in
Peckwell's Reports, vol. i. p. 178.

[260] Littleton, s. 162, 163.

[261] Brady, p. 97.

[262] Brady on Boroughs, p. 110. 3 Prynne, p. 231. The latter even
argues that this power of omitting ancient boroughs was legally vested
in the sheriff before the 5th of Richard II.; and though the language of
that act implies the contrary of this position, yet it is more than
probable that most of our parliamentary boroughs by prescription,
especially such as were then unincorporated, are indebted for their
privileges to the exercise of the sheriff's discretion; not founded on
partiality, which would rather have led him to omit them, but on the
broad principle that they were sufficiently opulent and important to
send representatives to parliament.

[263] Willis, Notitia Parliamentaria, vol. i. preface, p. 35.

[264] p. 117.

[265] It is a perplexing question whether freeholders in socage were
liable to contribute towards the wages of knights; and authorities might
be produced on both sides. The more probable supposition is, that they
were not exempted. See the various petitions relating to the payment of
wages in Prynne's fourth Register. This is not unconnected with the
question as to their right of