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
Londoniæ_ 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 assent of
his wise men, &c. But considering the low estimation of royalty in those
days, this may rather be considered as the voice of the executive