occasions. We have no hint of any relaxation of the law in this respect before the Commonwealth Parliament. In that Parliament the Commons (13th November, 1654), resolved, "that whereas the sheriff was incapable of being chosen for any place, he may be chosen anywhere but as a knight for his own county." Formerly sheriffs were ineligible as representatives for any constituency, but now, according to this resolution, they might represent any place except their own county, clearly implying that non-residence was no longer a disqualification. Subsequently, in the Parliament of 25 Charles II., it is mentioned, in a debate on elections in the Commons, that it was then usual for non-residents to be elected; and again, in the 27th of the same reign, during another debate in the same place on the same subject, it was agreed that "none should be capacitated to be chosen but such as have estates, or reside in the county." From the alternative here presented, we may infer that the possession of an estate within the constituency was now considered as equivalent to residence. At all events we find that from this time forth the residence qualification was practically abandoned, although the law in the case remained, and still remains, unaltered. The immediate results of this change were :

1. A great increase in the number of candidates seeking election. As long as candidates were re

stricted to local residents their numbers were necessarily limited, for in many places there were few who cared to serve. When the area of selection was increased, however, the competition was no longer confined to the few constituencies where candidates were plentiful but was generally extended over the whole county. Under the old system it was an easy matter for a constituency to get rid of an undesirable candidate, by pleading the law in the case, as witness the following entry in the proceedings of the corporation of Lynn Regis :-" February 21st, 1613-14. Two letters, one from Sir Robert Hitchen, Knight, the other from Sir Henry Spelman, Knight, desiring to be elected burgesses for the next Parliament, forasmuch as the statute of the I Hen. V. c. I., doth appoint that burgesses should be men residing and free in the borough at the time of their election, it is agreed to answer their letter, the corporation is reminded to choose according to statute." Thirty-five years later, however, when the law began to be relaxed, we find another entry (dated January 19th, 1648), announcing the fact that the borough had elected the Earl of Salisbury, a non-resident, as “a burgess of the Parliament of England."1

2. There was also a corresponding increase in the cost of elections. The competition amongst candi1 Archæology, vol. xxiv. p. 326.

3.

dates had, in accordance with a well-known economic law, the immediate effect of increasing the cost of obtaining a seat. Thus we find it stated in a debate on elections in the Commons in 25 Charles II., that "the expenses are so vast that it goes beyond all bounds. These changes arise commonly from competitors who live in another county. Some carry their elections by awe and force, and some by ability to expend."

3. The introduction of a system of treating at elections, and other mild forms of bribery followed in due course, as soon as the restriction as to residence was removed. The practice began to be noticed at the time of the Commonwealth, although it was probably not unknown before. Thus we find the Commons, on 28th August, 1650, resolved "that in the case of bribery by any member, such witnesses as shall give testimony shall not be damnified, except in the case of perjury," and that the committee shall have power to examine witnesses on oath. "This bribing men by drinking is a lay simony," is the quaint remark of a member in the debate in 27 Charles II., already referred to, who, while condemning the practice, acknowledged that it had then become quite prevalent; and the result of the debate was a resolution which affirmed that "if any person or persons, hereafter to be elected, shall by himself, or

other in his behalf, or at his charge, at any time before the day of election, give any person or persons having voice in such election, any meat or drink exceeding in their value of £5, in any place, but in his own dwelling-house, or shall, before such election be made or declared, make any other present, reward, or promise," such election shall be null and void. The House seemed to think it had gone too far on this occasion, however, as we find that in the next session of the same Parliament, it was resolved that meat or drink up to the value of £10 might be given by a candidate or his agent without incurring any penalty or disqualification. The practice of bribing electors was getting more common, and was therefore considered not so venal an offence.

4. A great change was brought about in the composition of the representative body. Heretofore local wants and opinions were represented by local residents. The knights or freeholders represented the freeholders of the shire where they resided; the mayors or aldermen, themselves merchants or handicraftsmen, represented their own class in the city or borough where they lived and carried on their business. The representatives of those days may not have been so wealthy, or in so good a position socially, as were those of a later period; the member for the borough may have been a tanner, a tavern keeper, or a tailor,

if discreet and honest; and the representative for the county may not have been much superior in rank, although a higher social status was sometimes insisted on in his case. Indeed, the county representatives seem not to have always come up to the required standard, as we find the Commons sometimes complaining of the inferior social position of the county members. It was in consequence of a petition of the Commons, that an Act was passed in 23 Henry VI., to prevent the election of persons of "mean quality and estates" for the counties, "which the vulgar people in these levelling times were so much inclined to." But if the representatives as a whole did not occupy a high social position in the early Parliaments, they had other qualifications which were of far more service to their constituents. They had local knowledge and local sympathies, and what in some respects was even better, they had class sympathies, as they belonged to the same order which they represented. But all this was changed when the restriction as to residence was removed. The yeoman or freeholder of his shire, the mayor of his borough, or the alderman of his ward, no longer represented his own order in Parliament. A new class of members appeared upon the scene, men of greater wealth and of superior social position, perhaps, to the plain burgesses and citizens of bygone times, but strangers to the place they repre