Archæological, Historical, and
Genealogical Monthly Magazine,

ESTABLISHED JANUARY, 1880, AS A LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE MEDIUM
FOR ALL WHO, CONJOINTLY WITH ITS PROMOTER AND EDITOR, ARE
INTERESTED IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF LOCAL RESEARCH AND INQUIRY,
OR ARE DESIROUS OF ILLUSTRATING AND DESCRIBING, IN ITS PAGES,
THE RESULTS OF THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL LABOURS.

ABORE OMNIA VINC

ABSQUE LABS RE NIMI

CREDE SICNO.

LONDON AND MANCHESTER: ABEL HEYWOOD & SON.

MANCHESTER: JOHN HEYWOOD.

WARRINGTON: PEARSE.

CHESTER: MINSHULL & HUGHES.
BOLTON WINTERBURN.

:

AND ALL BOOKSELLERS THROUGHOUT LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.

ho Gough Addy Lanes; bur

II. A COMPLETE LIST OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FOR LANCASHIRE AND THE SEVERAL

BOROUGHS WITHIN THE COUNTY FROM THE YEAR 1295 TO THE PRESENT TIME. 4

(To be continued)

III. A RELIC OF OLD BOLTON, with two illustrations and fac-similes of signature and seal)

of John Blackburne (the noted Lancashire botanist and natural historian) a former 12

owner. (To be concluded in our next issue)

IV. COLLECTANEA; OR, WHAT THE RECORDS SAY............

V. BOUNDARIES (of Parishes and Townships): ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE PARISH

VI. OUR MONTHLY CONVERSAZIONE...........

VII. OBITUARY

.......................................

31

32

33

40

VIII. NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS

IX. OUR MISSION (Wrapper).

IN

̄N Lancashire, a person is often reluctantly obliged to acknowledge an alias
when his patronym, for some cogent reason, or probably for some very
flimsy or unassignable reason, is denied him by his re-baptisers. In some
such manner our county politicians re-christened the Hundred of Salford, and
although in legal circles the quondam title is still maintained, the territory is
now generally identified under its Parliamentary alias of "South-East Lanca-
shire," which alias, with an antiquarian prefix, we have adopted as the title of
our new magazine. We confess that we should, if questioned, experience some
difficulty in assigning a reason for making a selection, which may seem pre-
judicial to the dignity of the ancient hundred and its time-honoured name. We
might, of course, urge that the Census Commissioners, for example, for their
purposes ignore the hundreds as territorial distinctions, but we decline to
endorse their policy. We might be expected to advance the plea that under a
modern title we shall be privileged to treat "Salford Hundret " as a kind of fossil,
but we have no desire to dispose of it in that fashion. On the contrary, we
seek to honour the ancient territory topographically and archæologically, and
shall not, by any means, treat its ancient title as an obsolete term, or the
territory as an effete geographical expression. We have much to say of and
concerning Salford Hundred, as it was, and not as it is-its Parishes, its
Townships, and its byegone worthies. If we do so with an honest purpose,
and succeed in securing the friendly counsel and co-operation of fellow
labourers, we presume our readers will not quarrel with us upon a point of
baptism, seeing that it is our prerogative to christen our hobby according to
our own fancy. After all, what's in a name? Our new magazine, by any
other name, would fulfil its archæological, historical, and genealogical mission
equally well.

'Enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search
of their fathers."-Job viii. 8.

COMPLETE LIST*

OF

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FOR LANCASHIRE

AND THE

SEVERAL BOROUGHS WITHIN THE COUNTY, FROM THE YEAR 1295 TO THE PRESENT TIME.

E

COMPILED BY J. F. MATTHEWS.

XISTING Records show that during the half century which preceded the general comprehension of the regeneratory element-representatives from all the Cities and Boroughs in England-on the occasion of the meeting of the "First House of Commons," Writs had been occasionally issued requiring the Sheriffs to send representatives from all or some Counties and Boroughs to certain Parliaments, or to Parliaments summoned for certain specified purposes. In the year 1213 (15th King John) Writs were addressed to all the Sheriffs, requiring them to send all the Knights of their Bailiwicks in arms, and also four Knights from their Counties, "ad loquendum nobiscum de negotiis regni nostri," but as no Returns or names can be found relating to the Parliament thus summoned to meet at Oxford on the 15th of November of that year, it cannot now be ascertained whether Lancashire was then represented. It appears that no Writ was issued to the Sheriff of Lancashire in the year 1226 (10th Henry II.), when the mission of the Knights who assembled in the Parliament summoned to meet at Lincoln on the 22nd September in that year, as the elect of the "Milites et probi homines" of Gloucester, Dorset and Somerset,† Bedford and Buckst, Westmoreland, Northampton, and Lincolnfour from each County-was to set forth their disputes with the Sheriffs as to certain articles of their Charter of Liberty. Writs were issued in the year 1254 (38th Henry III.), requiring every Sheriff to send two Knights, to be elected by each County, "vice omnium et singulorum eorundem ad providendum quale Auxilium nobis in tanta necessitate impendere voluerint," to the Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster on 26th April of the same year, but there is no existing record to show that Lancashire was then represented. With respect to the Parliament summoned to meet at Windsor on the 21st September, 1261 § (45th Henry III.), it may be mentioned that the Bishop of Worcester, the Earl of Leicester, and other magnates, having ordered three Knights from each County to attend an Assembly at St. Albans on 21st September of that year, secum tractaturi super communibus negotiis regni," and the same day having been appointed by the King for a meeting between himself and those same magnates at Windsor, "ad tractandum de pace inter nos et ipsos," the

66

* Complete so far as the Writs and Returns preserved in the Public Record Office and Crown Office, and all other discovered public and private records, afford reliable data.

† One writ seems to have then sufficed for Dorset and Somerset, and one for Bedford and Bucks.

Aid required towards carrying on the war in Gascony against the King of Castile. § The "Mad Parliament " met at Oxford, in 1258.

66

King enjoined the Sheriffs to send the same Knights also to him at Windsor, supra præmissis colloquium habituri," but as the Returns and names for that Parliament are missing it cannot be stated, otherwise than doubtfully, whether Lancashire was represented on the occasion. The Writs for the Parliament summoned to meet at London, on the 20th January, 1264-5 (49th Henry III.), required the Sheriffs of Counties and the Cities of York and Lincoln, and the other Boroughs of England, to send two Knights, Citizens, or Burgesses respectively, and the Barons, &c., of each of the Cinque Ports were required to send four men. Notwithstanding the previous issue of casual Writs, and the practical character of the Returns made thereto, the Parliamentary Assembly of the year 1264-5 is historically reckoned as the "First House of Commons," or first Parliament, in which elected Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses sat as the "Third Estate of the Realm." Unfortunately, no official Returns to the Writs of that period remain to show the names of those members who represented Lancashire and its Boroughs in that august body. That Lancashire was represented thereat need scarcely be doubted, as it is on record that a Writ was issued to the Sheriff of this County. For the Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster on the 13th October, 1275 (3rd Edward I.), a solitary Return (without date) for the County of Kent is alone forthcoming. No Return whatever, or names, can be found of the members who constituted the Parliament summoned to meet on the 20th January, 1282-3 (11th Edward I.), at Northampton for the Counties "South of Trent," and at York for those "North of Trent." Four Knights were required to be sent to that Parliament from each County, and two men from each City, Borough, and Market Town, but the Returns are all missing. The Writs for the Parliament summoned to meet at Shrewsbury on 30th September, 1283 (11th Edward I.), required that two Knights be sent from each County, and two Citizens or Burgesses from London and twenty other Cities and Boroughs, but all the Returns are missing, except one for the County of Gloucester, which appears to relate to that Parliament. The Writs issued for the Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster, on 15th July, 1290 (18th Edward I.), required that "two or three" Knights be sent from each County. The Return (which is without date) is the first existing record of its kind which supplies details. It gives the names of members returned for 28 Counties of England, but no Returns can be found to the Writs issued to the Sheriffs of the other Counties, including Lancashire. Two sets of Writs seem to have been issued in 1294, the first set requiring that two Knights be sent from each County, and the second set that "two more" be sent from each County, to the Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster on the 12th November of that year, but the Returns are not forthcoming, and names are wanting.

The first mention of names of elected members returned as representatives of the County of Lancaster and the Boroughs of Lancaster, Liverpool, Preston, and Wigan, is made with respect to the Parliament of the year 1295 (23rd Edw. I.). Two Knights were returned from this County, and two from each of those Boroughs, to serve in the Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster on the 13th, and (by prorogation) on the 27th November, 1295.