advise with them on matters of war, peace, and alliances. In the fifth year of his reign he called a Parliament "to consult upon the whole state of his differences with the King of France, asking their advice whether he should refer them to arbitration, or treat amicably with him, or proceed to open war." The prelates, earls, barons, and other great men, "thereupon advised in favour of a treaty; and the king, in Parliament, and with its consent, named the Commissioners for negociating the same," and "part of their powers and business was there prescribed to them." To show that these submissions to parliamentary authority were not mere matters of form, we have a case in the thirty-sixth year of the same reign, when an offer of peace from Robert Bruce of Scotland, being referred to a Parliament, the latter unanimously resolved "that they could not assent to it, as prejudicial to the king's

crown."

In the seventh year of the reign of Richard II. we meet with rather a curious case, in which the reason is stated why the people should be consulted, not only before making war, but before closing war by a treaty of peace. A treaty with France was in negociation, but the Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, told both Houses "that the king, out of tender love to his people, and in consideration of the great expenses they had been at during the war, would not finally conclude the peace without their assent and knowledge, though he might do it because (as it was conceived) France was the king's own proper inheritance, and not belonging to the Crown of

England." And then he declared that "the king desired and earnestly charged them carefully to examine and consider the said articles in relation to this treaty, and advise what was best to be done for the kingdom's honour and advantage."

Henry IV. in the very first year of his reign, and repeatedly afterwards, summoned Parliament "to have their advice" about expeditions he had in contemplation, and as to treaties about to be made. In the reign of Henry V. we read of an alliance with Sigismund, King of the Romans, which "was confirmed, approved of, and ratified by Parliament ” in these words :-"Be it known, etc., Our most sovereign lord aforesaid, willing that the said alliance may be perpetual, and the matters contained in the said letters patent having been duly and solemnly debated in this Parliament, etc., by their common assent and consent in the said Parliament, and by authority of the same, they did ratify, approve, and confirm, etc." Henry V. consulted his Parliament as to his claims to France, and in his reign a treaty of peace with that country was laid before Parliament, and "ratified and confirmed by the Lords and Commons." Under Henry VI. in several Parliaments the advice of the Lords and Commons was sought for in matters of peace and war. In the ninth year of that reign was passed an Act of Parliament authorizing negociations for peace with France, Spain, and Scotland in these words:-"That it is ordained and advised by the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, being in this Parliament that [certain parties named] may

treat of peace on the king's behalf with the said parties, or any other."

Under the Tudors, who would not easily concede anything that concerned their prerogative, the authority of Parliament in state affairs was never disputed. Under Henry VII. a Parliament was called, A.D. 1488, to which the Lord Chancellor addressed a long statement of the position of affairs abroad, concluding thus :-"Therefore by this narrative you now understand the state of the question, whereupon the king prayeth your advice, which is no other than whether he shall enter into an auxiliary defensive war for the Britons against France." The proposed policy was approved of, and a supply granted. Four years afterwards the same king when meditating a war with France on his own account, summoned a Parliament, which he addressed in person, for the reasons stated by him. My Lords, and you the Commons," he said "when I proposed to make a war in Brittany by my lieutenant, I made a declaration thereof to you by my Chancellor, but now that I mean to make war upon France in person I will declare it to you myself," ending with, "Go together in God's name, and lose no time, for I have called this Parliament wholly for this cause." After which, we are told, "the Parliament with great alacrity advised the

king to undertake the war." In the fourth year of Henry VIII., William of Waring, Archbishop of Canterbury, having addressed the Parliament upon the injustice threatened against the king in withholding from him his dominions, "it was concluded

by the whole body of the realm in the High Court of Parliament assembled that war should be made on the French king and his dominions, and an act was thereupon made."

Queen Mary during her brief and inglorious reign did not get on very pleasantly with her faithful Commons. She married Philip of Spain, in despite of their address to the contrary, and kept herself as much as possible aloof from the representatives of England's nobility and wealth. Nevertheless,

"when dangers came to press from abroad after the loss of Calais, she consented to resort to the advice and assistance of Parliament, but in a disrespectful and unconstitutional manner. Instead of coming down to Parliament, or even sending her lieutenant, as her grandfather Henry VII. had done, she sent for the Speaker of the House of Commons to attend her, and ordered him "to open to them the ill condition the nation was in," and the necessity for putting it into a state of defence. This "gracious message" so ungraciously communicated, met with but little favour at the hands of the sturdy Commons of those genuine unmixed English days, for, as we are told, "the Commons were now so dissatisfied that they would come to no resolution." A week afterwards Her Majesty consented to a more conciliatory, but still a very unusual and unconstitutional mode of proceeding, and sent down to the Commons a deputation consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, the Duke of Norfolk, and several other peers, who, however, met with but a sorry reception.

"The Speaker left his chair, and he with the privy councillors that were of the House, came and sate on the low benches before them. The Chancellor shewed the necessity of granting a subsidy to defend the nation both from the French and the Scots when he had done, the Lords withdrew ; but though the Commons entered both that and the two following days into debate, they came to no issue in their consultation." The Queens death-"Calais " engraved on her heart-put an end to this lame proceeding.

A considerable amount of disagreement of opinion exists as to the extent to which Queen Elizabeth recognised or repudiated the deliberative authority of Parliament in matters of state policy. Davenant says, "She had such an absolute control over the hearts of her people that she did what she pleased with both Houses of Parliament. It being notorious that she drove at no interest distinct from the Commonwealth, she was suffered to pursue the measures tending to the public good in her own method." So far good as a generality; but when he adds "No wonder, then, if we find her making peace and war, and entering into foreign leagues and alliances, without advising with the great council of the kingdom," he perhaps speaks a little in excess of the truth, whilst the very remark implies that such conduct, if it had been carried out to the extent suggested, was considered by the writer as exceptional and repugnant to that of general usage. It is true that in the first year of her reign she concluded a treaty of peace with France, which she