communities electing them but for the
communities, as entities, from which
they came. Moreover, every member of
Parliament was regarded, to the extent
that he might represent citizens, as rep-
resenting all of the English citizenry.13
The fact that the colonists were con-
versant with the practice in England is
shown by a provision of an act adopted
by the 1638 session specifying that bur-
gesses should "supply the places of all
the freemen consenting or subscribing
to such their election in the same man-
ner and to all the same intents and pur-
poses as the Burgesses of any burrough
in England in the Parliament."14
In the context of the foregoing view
disparities in representation would be of
absolutely no moment. This view of
representation is reflected in the act
adopted by the 1638 session which pro-
vided that the gentlemen personally sum-
moned freemen, and burgesses elected by
other freemen and so supplying the places
of such electing freemen would when
summoned and assembled (provided al-
ways that there be at least twelve so
assembled including the lieutenant gen-
eral15 and the secretary of the province)
be called the "house of Assembly."16
Acts approved by the house, or the
"major part of the persons assembled,"
and assented to by the lieutenant gen-
eral in the name of the lord proprietor
were to become law.17 It will be noted
that approval required action of a
13 See 1 blackstone, commentaries
*159. Perhaps the explanation of this view
best known today is that given by Burke in
his letter to Sir Langrishe in 1792 on Ireland
and Catholic emancipation. See 4 works
293 (Nimmo'sed. 1899).
14 1 archives 82.
15 The governor was from time to time
called the lieutenant general or lieutenant
governor under the proprietary government.
16 1 archives 82.
" Ibid.
|
majority of those present, without stat-
ing whether they were acting individu-
ally as freemen or as elected burgesses.
The call for the session that met in
July, 1642, required the freemen in each
hundred to assemble and "to make elec-
tion of one or two Burgesses for every
hundred during the said Assembly."18
The writ went to the person in charge
of each hundred, requiring that he call
the election and certify to the lieutenant
general those elected burgesses. It will
be recalled that despite the fact that the
writs for the 1639 session also called for
election of burgesses, Cuthbert Fennick
of Saint Mary's was seated as a freeman
on the grounds that he had not assented
to the election of the Saint Mary's bur-
gesses. In contrast to that earlier episode,
when Richard Thompson and Robert
Vaughan appeared in 1642 with proxies
from the freemen of Kent and claimed
admission, they were excluded on the
grounds that the writs had called for
the election of burgesses. Subsequently,
certificates of their election as burgesses
were found and they were admitted.19
A smoldering issue, referred to ear-
lier, burst into the open during this
session. This was the problem of the
relative weight of votes of individual
members versus those of the elected
burgesses. The claimed passage of a bill
specifying what constituted lawful ten-
der was disputed on the grounds that
"the voting of this Bill . . . was not by
the major part of Burgesses as it ought
to be."20 The archives show that all
present voted in favor of the bill except
for eight burgesses. The records for the
day show the assembly was "assembled
as afore," which, tracing back through
the records, indicates the presence of
18 1 archives 127.
19 1 archives 129.
20 1 archives 141.
133
|
