in spite of the part played by the commonalty in these early attempts at constitutional reform, the tendency of the time was oligarchical. This is clearly shown by the struggle between Henry 111. and Simon de Montfort (qq.v.). Though in the course of it distinction was first made be tween the representatives of shires and of boroughs. Simon called upon the commons only to further his ambitions plans, and even then gave them no voice in the formation of his govern mental scheme. In 125S a form of provi sional government was ratified, embodied in the Provisions of Oxford (q.v.), which was distinctly oligarchical and altogether unsatisfactory. In 1261 the barons under the leadership of Simon summoned three knights from each shire south of the Trent to the autumn Parliament at Saint Albans to consider the Provisions. The King, not to be outdone. summoned the same knights to Windsor, with the result that neither council was held. Three years later, after the battle of Lewes, Simon gathered his first Parliament, to which somewhat extended powers were granted. It is with the Parliament of Westminster, how ever, which met in January, 1265, that Simon's name is especially connected. To this assembly were summoned not only two knights from each shire, but also two burgesses or citizens from twenty-one boroughs or cities mentioned by name in the writ. Thus for the first time the third estate, made up of county freeholders and burgesses, was fully represented in a national assembly. Nevertheless, the importance of Mont fort's act has been somewhat exaggerated. In the first place. the Parliament was not truly rep resentative. Of the lords, who as a whole were unfavorable to his cause, only five earls and eighteen barons were summoned, while of the clergy, who were his supporters, there was a very disproportionate number. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the Parliamentary represen tation of the third estate was intended to be per manent. Yet Simon cleverly adapted existing materials to his own ends and showed the lines on which a real Parliament was to be formed. Meanwhile there was developing on the part of the commons a tendency inward organized op position to excessive taxation and a somewhat indefinite theory that a grant of supply should receive the consent of P:a•li:oHent. It was a step in advance that Henry III. recognized the neces sity of support from the barons and that both parties no longer ignored the rights of the towns.
To Edward I belongs the honor of completing the work of founding Parliament. During the first twenty years of his reign. though there was no important advanee, he summoned representa tive assemblies occasionally. Whether conscious ly or not, he seems to have been experimenting in order• to determine the proper representation of the various classes which had crystallized during the struggle of the last reign. In 1294 the right of the clergy to give consent to taxation was for mally acknowledged. In the following year Ed ward was beset with difficulties on account of his wars with Wales and France. He needed money, and accordingly summoned representa tives of the three estates, the consent of which had become essential in the matter of taxation. This assembly, which met in November, 1295. is known as the Model Parliament. To it came, aside from the bishops and the abbots, the earls and the barons, two knights from each of 37 shires and representatives of 110 cities and boroughs. The Parliament was held at West minster, which became from this time the reimlar meeting place of the assembly. That Parliament was not formed into three chambers rather than into two was due to the attitude of the lower clergy, who soon withdrew and voted grants of money in their own assembly or Convoca tion. It was not till the reign of Edward I IT. that the definite separation into two Houses took place. The knights at first vacillated between the lords and the commons, but in 1332 is found the first clear reference to the arrangement which after 1339 was permanent, the lords form ing the Upper House, the knights and burgesses the Lower.
If the thirteenth century marks the formation, the fourteenth century is especially notable for the development of the privileges of Parliament.
In 1322 Edward 11. definitely acknowledged that "the matters which are to be established for the estate of our lord the King ani of Li- heirs, and for the estate of the realm and of the people, shall be treated, accorded, and e-tabli-hed in parliaments by our lord the King. and Cy the assent of the prelates. earl-, and baron-, and the commonalty of the Though t po sition of the lords and common- war tl•erehy rec ognized, the latter had yet to struggle for actual power. Laws were still male by means of pe titions to the King. and only the King coul proclaim them. A purely formal survival of tak condition explains the phraseology of the laws in our own time, which, according to the st. reo typed preamble, alway- emanate from the Crown, Parliament merely consenting. The ]ear-' War 'q.v., -till furl ter increased the power of Parliament. because of the 1 c -.-city of appealing to the peoph• to meet 'Cie enormous expenses which it entailed upon the Government. The advance in privilege during the period from the accession of Edward 11. to the death of Henry V. may be ,ununarizel fu llows: 11 ity the ordinance of 1311. succeed.. 1 by the acts of 1330 and 1362, it became Cie rule to summon Parliaments every ye..r. This pn vision wa often evaded; but regular and frequent assem blies were nevertheles- Feld throug'mut the four teenth and fifteenth centuries. 2) From 1340 taxation without the consent of both 1-1.-u-e. wa illegal. (3 i After 1407 the C An111011.; -- se*ed the preponderating voice in making money grant-. .41 Parliament began to exercise tile right of supervising expenditure, which involved not only the audit cf accounts. 1 ut the peachment of royal This was first done by the Good Parliament q.v. • in 1376. an I con stituted an early but important step toward ministerial nsibility.
The Wars of the Posts proved in a manner detrimental to the development of Parliament. since the destruction of the powerful nobles left the cu 'unions unaided in their struggh - against the Crown. Yet the introduction of legislation by means of bills in-teal of petitions in tl e reign of Henry VI. really lai 1 the foundations for the subsequent power of Parliament. During the earlier part of the Tudor period Parlic went was denied even the semlilat ee of power. but Thoma Cromwell showed Henry VIII. the way to use it for hi- OW11 ends while oh- •rving the letter of the law. ;ubsequently the Tudors were de-p by means of their control over Parlian eat. The course they f• Bowed was this: t 1 tecasionally they employed the ol 1 device cf dispen-ing with Parliament altogether: but 2 they four.] a safer method in creating a number of small boroughs. later called *r• ttcn boroughs.' and barn wing the right of Iran 3 t.. y cured the n initiation cf tin speaker of t e Ceti mons and made the of a member of that body: 4 as a re-ort they fell back upon the royal prerogative of vern meta by proclamation. The lief. rmation worked toward the -ante nil. sine° the I the 27 abbots an 1 priors to the Upper House left the temporal peer- in the n a" rity an I !. ye t e Crown the opportunity of crntrolling r1 e by meark of new creations by letter- patent. At first temporal peers had been tl e gee: t t nants in-chief : from the time of they were those barons who received per-oral summot - to the Great Couneil: 1111.. r Edwar 1 1. such liana were Confirmed in their herediMry right-; hut not till the device of creation by letter, patent \Va., e-tablklied of I the modern sense appear. Instanct- f bIll creations an found a- early a, the reign e ? but they were rare till the tin e of Richard 11. •sinee the Its forinatio . the al lords hat e Lein the two archbi 101r, .111,1 1..e ,e{ era] I i?II? hob mg .111 i• 11.