unsparingly exercised by Henry III. even
over London,[60] left the crown no inducement to summon the inhabitants
of cities and boroughs. As these indeed were daily growing more
considerable, they were certain, in a monarchy so limited as that of
England became in the thirteenth century, of attaining, sooner or later,
this eminent privilege. Although therefore the object of Simon de
Montfort in calling them to his parliament after the battle of Lewes was
merely to strengthen his own faction, which prevailed among the
commonalty, yet, their permanent admission into the legislature may be
ascribed to a more general cause. For otherwise it is not easy to see
why the innovation of an usurper should have been drawn into precedent,
though it might perhaps accelerate what the course of affairs was
gradually preparing.

[Sidenote: First summoning of towns to parliament, in 49 H. III.]

It is well known that the earliest writs of summons to cities and
boroughs, of which we can prove the existence, are those of Simon de
Montfort, earl of Leicester, bearing date 12th of December, 1264, in the
forty-ninth year of Henry III.[61] After a long controversy almost all
judicious inquirers seem to have acquiesced in admitting this origin of
popular representation.[62] The argument may be very concisely stated.
We find from innumerable records that the king imposed tallages upon his
demesne towns at discretion.[63] No public instrument previous to the
forty-ninth of Henry III. names the citizens and burgesses as
constituent parts of parliament; though prelates, barons, knights, and
sometimes freeholders, are enumerated;[64] while, since the undoubted
admission of the commons, they are almost invariably mentioned. No
historian speaks of representatives appearing for the people, or uses
the word citizen or burgess in describing those present in parliament.
Such convincing, though negative, evidence is not to be invalidated by
some general and ambiguous phrases, whether in writs and records or in
historians.[65] Those monkish annalists are poor authorities upon any
point where their language is to be delicately measured. But it is
hardly possible that, writing circumstantially, as Roger de Hoveden and
Matthew Paris sometimes did, concerning proceedings in parliament, they
could have failed to mention the commons in unequivocal expressions, if
any representatives from that order had actually formed a part of the
assembly.

[Sidenote: Author