Perhaps the triple division of our legislature may be dated from this innovation. For as it is impossible to deny that, while the king promulgated a statute founded upon a mere petition, he was himself the real legislator, so I think it is equally fair to assert, notwithstanding the formal preamble of our statutes, that laws brought into either house of parliament in a perfect shape, and receiving first the assent of lords and commons, and finally that of the king, who has no power to modify them, must be deemed to proceed, and derive their efficacy, from the joint concurrence of all the three. It is said, indeed, at a much earlier time, that le ley de la terre est fait en parlement par le roi, et les seigneurs espirituels et temporels, et tout la communauté du royaume. Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 293. But this, I must allow, was in the violent session of 11 Ric. II., the constitutional authority of which is not to be highly prized. [207] 8 H. V. vol. iv. p. 127. [208] The house of commons thanked the king for pardoning Northumberland, whom, as it proved, he had just cause to suspect. 5 H. IV. p. 525. [209] 5 H. IV. p. 505. [210] Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 529, 568, 573. [211] p. 547. [212] 13 H. IV. p 624. [213] Rot. Parl. 8 H. IV. p. 585. [214] 13 H. IV. p. 648, 658. [215] Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 549, 568, 574, 611. [216] This passage was written before I was aware that the same opinion had been elaborately maintained by Mr. Luders, in one of his valuable essays upon points of constitutional history. [217] Rot. Parl. 8 H. V. vol. iv. p. 125. [218] p. 128. [219] p. 130. [220] 7 R. II. vol. iii. p. 170. [221] p. 215. [222] 7 R. II. p. 315. [223] 4 H. V. vol. iv. p. 98. [224] p. 135. [225] Rot. Parl. 4 H. V. vol. iv. p. 211, 242, 277. [226] p. 371. [227] 23 H. VI. vol. v. p. 102. There is rather a curious instance in 3 H. VI. of the jealousy with which the commons regarded any proceedings in parliament where they were not concerned. A controversy arose between the earls marshal and of Warwick respecting their precedence; founded upon the royal blood of the first, and long possession of the second. In this the commons could not affect to interfere judicially; but they found a singular way of meddling, by petitioning the king to confer the dukedom of Norfolk on the earl marshal. vol. iv. p. 273. [228] Rot. Parl. 1 H. VI. p. 189; 3 K. VI. p. 292; 8 H. VI. p. 343. [229] vol. v. 18 H. VI. p. 17. [230] 28 H. VI. p. 185. [231] Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 430, 449. [232] Rot. Parl. 28 H. VI. vol. v. p. 176. [233] If this were to rest upon antiquity of precedent, one might be produced that would challenge all competition. In the laws of Ethelbert, the first Christian king of Kent, at the end of the sixth century, we find this provision: "If the king call his people to him (i.e. in the witenagemot), and any one does an injury to one of them, let him pay a fine." Wilkins, Leges Anglo-Saxon. p. 2. [234] Hatsell, vol. i. p. 12.