422
NOTES AND QUERIES. 112 s. 11. NOV. 25, WIG.
at London seven days longer to take part in
orders made in the said Parliament " ; and
here again a zone system is to be detected in
the following figures :
Days Beds and Berks . . . . . . . . 36
Wilts 38
Derby 40
Lincoln . . . . . . . 42
Yorks 44
Lanes . . . . ... . . 46
Beds and Berks, it will be observed, appear in both lists, but that is because one member was taken and the other left for each of these shires, while both representatives were ordered by the king to remain for each of the other shires just named ; and it would be interesting to know the cause. This, in- deed, was not the earliest example of such special detention, for to the Close Roll of Feb. 14, 1338, dealing with the first Parlia- ment of that year, summoned to meet at Westminster on the 3rd of that month (the second being summoned to meet at North- ampton on the following July 26), a memoran- dum was attached noting that certain of the knights, citizens, and burgesses stayed at London three days beyond the time of the first licence, by reason of a proclamation of the king, and, therefore, they had that number of days allowed to them in the writ de expensi's (ibid., 1337-9, p. 389). The explanation I would suggest is that these members remained behind their colleagues in order to sit as a committee appointed for a special purpose. Josef Redlich, in his monumental study of ' The Procedure of the House of Commons ' (edition of 1908), gives precisely this period as that at which com- mittees first seem to have been appointed, furnishing extracts from ' Rotuli Parliamen- torum' of 1340 and 1341 in support of this view (vol. ii. p. 203) ; and I submit these facts from the Close Rolls in further aid of the argument.
One more illustration may be given of the working of the zone system of payment, and that is from the Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster on Feb. 24, 1371, when the number of days paid for varied from thirty-five to fifty-one, as follows :
Days Middlesex and .Rutland .. .. ..35
Herts, Kent, and Surrey . . . . 37
Beds, Berks, Bucks, Cambs, Essex, Hants,
Hunts, Northants, Oxon, and Sussex . . 39 Gloucester, Leicester, Norfolk, Suffolk, Wilts,
and Worcester . . . . . . 41
Derby, Dorset, Hereford, Lincoln, Notts,
Salop, Staffs, and Somerset . . . . 43
Yorks 47
Devon, Lanes, and Westmorland . . 49
Cornwall, Cumberland, and Northumberland 51
Here again the writs for cities and boroughs
give like allowances as for the counties in
which they were situate, as, for example :
Days
Guildford 3T
Oxford 39
Leicester and Warwick . . . . . . 41
Kingston-upon-Hull . . . . . . . . 47"
Donhevedburgh (Launceston), Lostwithiel, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne . . . . . . 51
Ibid., 1369-74, pp. 288-90.
There is a fresh point to be noticed, how- ever, in regard to this later Parliament. The - original writ of expenses was issued in February ; but when, two months later, it was felt desirable to consult the legislature again, a " warning " was issued by the king that,
"as it would be burdensome for all the lords,, knights, citizens, and burgesses who at his com- mand came to the Parliament last holden to be assembled a second time for that cause, in order to spare them labour and expense, he had ap- pointed to hold speech and treaty with certain of them touching the premises."
Only one of the two members for each con- stituency, therefore, was summoned to this resumed Parliament, and he apparently the first on the list, " if yet living, or otherwise - their fellows who were elected with them so to do"; and such were to come without excuse to Winchester in the ensuing octaves of Trinity to make a grant to the- king (ibid., pp. 297-8).
This care for the comfort of the member as well as for the cost to his constituency is at all events, in the latter respect of a piece with the systematic graduation of the- allowance for expenses to the days it was necessary for the legislator to be away from home on business of State. One would like to find, however, whether any check existed on such members as represented two con- stituencies a not uncommon occurrence in our early Parliamentary days so as to ensure that they did not draw a double share of allowance. I am the more moved to raise this point because on March 21, 1332, there was issued a writ to Roger Byle, as member for Tavistock, for 36s., his allow- ance for eighteen days' service, and one to Roger Byle " of Lenecote," as member for Launceston, for 40s. for twenty days' the Devonshire borough thus, in the way already shown to have been usual later,, having to pay two days' less allowance than the Cornish. As the constituencies named are not twenty miles apart, I suspect that these writs were given to the same man ; but the Tamar was so very decided a boundary between Devon and Cornwall, and
