on account of a practice of the same kind
in the Saxon times, when they were of more repute. It is certain that
many places now called boroughs were formerly towns or villages in
ancient demesne of the king, and had, as such, writs directed to them to
appear in Parliament, that they might make a free gift or benevolence,
as the boroughs did; and from thence arose the custom of summoning them.
This appears by sufficient records. And it appears by records also, that
it was much at the discretion of the sheriff what boroughs he should
return; a general writ was directed to him to return for all the
boroughs in a shire; sometimes boroughs which had formerly sent members
to Parliament were quite passed over, and others, never considered as
such before, were returned. What is called the prescription on this
occasion was rather a sort of rule to direct the sheriff in the
execution of his general power than a right inherent in any boroughs.
But this was long after the time of which we speak. In whatever manner
we consider it, we must own that this subject during the Saxon times is
extremely dark. One thing, however, is, I think, clear from the whole
tenor of their government, and even from the tenor of the Norman
Constitution long after: that their Witenagemotes or Parliaments were
unformed, and that the rights by which the members held their seats
were far from being exactly ascertained. The _Judicia Civitatis
Londoniae_ afford a tolerable insight into the Saxon method of making and
executing laws. First, the king called together his bishops, and such
other persons _as he thought proper_. This council, or Witenagemote,
having made such laws as seemed convenient, they then swore to the
observance of them. The king sent a notification of these proceedings to
each Burgmote, where the people of that court also swore to the
observance of them, and confederated, by means of mutual strength and
common charge, to prosecute delinquents against them. Nor did there at
that time seem to be any other method of enforcing new laws or old. For
as the very form of their government subsisted by a confederacy
continually renewed, so, when a law was made, it was necessary for its
execution to have again recourse to confederacy, which was the great,
and I should almost say the only, principle of the Anglo-Saxon
government.

What rights the king had in this assembly is a matter of equal
uncertainty.[62] The laws generally run in his name, with the