Parliament was not definitely divided into two houses until the reign of Edward III.  In this reign the Commons succeeded in establishing the illegality of raising money without consent; the necessity that the two houses should concur for any alterations in the law; and the right of the Commons to enquire into public abuses and to impeach public counsellors.  Under the second heading is introduced a distinction between statutes and ordinances; the latter being of a temporary character, and requiring to be confirmed by Parliament before they acquire permanent authority.  In the next reign the Commons assert the right of examining the public expenditure.  Moreover the Parliaments more openly and boldly expressed resentment at the acts of the king’s ministers and claimed rights of control.  For a time, however, the king secured supremacy by a coup d’etat; which in turn brought about his deposition, and the accession of Henry IV., despite the absurd weakness of his title to the inheritance of the Crown.

The rights thus acquired developed until the War of the Roses.  Notably redress of grievances became the condition of supply; and the inclination of the Crown to claim a dispensing power is resolutely combated.  It is also to be remarked that the king’s foreign policy of war or peace is freely submitted to the approval of Parliament.

This continues during the minority of Henry VI.; but the revival of dissatisfaction with the government leads to a renewed activity in the practice of impeachments; and Parliament begins to display a marked sensitiveness on the question of its privileges.  The Commons further definitely express their exclusive right of originating money bills.

At this time it is clear that at least all freeholders were entitled to vote in the election of the knights of the shire.  The selection of the towns which sent up members, and the franchise under which their members were elected, seems to have been to a considerable extent arbitrary.  Nor can we be perfectly certain of the principles on which writs were issued for attendance in the upper house.  We find that for some time the lower clergy as well as the higher were summoned to attend Parliament; but presently, sitting in a separate chamber, they ceased to take part in Parliamentary business.

We have seen the King’s Court divided into three courts of justice.  The court itself, however, as the king’s Council, continued to exercise a juridical as well as a deliberative and administrative function.  In spite of the charter, it possessed an effective if illegal power of arbitrary imprisonment.

So far the essential character of our constitution appears to be a monarchy greatly limited by law but swerving continually into irregular courses which there was no constraint adequate to correct.  There is absolutely no warrant for the theory that the king was merely a hereditary executive magistrate, the first officer of the State.  The special advantage enjoyed by England lay in the absence of an aristocracy with interests antagonistic to those of the people.  It would be truer to say that the liberties of England were bought by money than by the blood of our forefathers.