Transcript:Cokayne, George Edward. Complete Peerage/01/Preface

The Complete Peerage

[2nd edition, volume 1, page vii]

Preface

It is hoped that a second edition of The Complete Peerage may find favour for the following reasons :—

The period which has elapsed since the original work was published has been marked by the appearance of a multitude of volumes in which public Records, private Letters, Memoirs etc., have been printed, providing a great fund of material for rendering these pages more complete and for increasing their precision and interest. The present Editor has spared no pains to utilise to the utmost these sources of information, on which he has been engaged for more than fifteen years. It would be tedious to set out all the authorities that have been gone through, but as an illustration it may be mentioned that the Close Rolls, Patent Rolls, and Papal Letters, so far as they have been printed, all the publications of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, and the obituaries of the Gentleman's Magazine have been systematically searched for matter bearing on the Peerage ; every number, also, of the London Gazette, since its first issue in 1665 has been examined by the Rev. A. B. Beaven, and his notes of the official dates of public appointments, as gazetted, have been utilised throughout. It will be found, accordingly, that a large addition has been made not only to the facts and dates, but also to those thumb-nail sketches of character, and particulars of life and manners, which enlivened the work in its earlier form and contributed so much to its popularity. In the House of Lords also, since the first edition appeared, some important cases have been decided, and the results of these will be incorporated, together with comments on their features and their bearing on peerage law. Lastly, the changes in the peerage itself, since the first volume of the original edition was published—more than 20 years ago—have already made a new [page viii] one needful, extinctions, creations, promotions and successions, involving no small alteration.

Plan of the work

As regards the plan or scope of the work very little change has been made, and none at all except after conference with the former Editor. Baronies by tenure not being Peerage dignities, and having only been dealt with in the first edition under the letter “ A ”, have, except in one or two cases such as Abergavenny and Berkeley, disappeared altogether. As G. E. C. wrote, when deciding to discontinue them, “ The reproduction of such accounts without accurate supervision (which the Editor has neither the will nor the capacity to bestow) does more harm than good.”

The heirs apparent of living Peers, who come within its scope, are set out in the body of the work in all cases, and not merely, as in the previous edition, when they enjoyed a courtesy title.

The longer notes have been removed to appendices, because in some cases they so much reduced the text on a page as to interfere with its continuous and convenient examination. Where notes have been added which did not appear in the first edition, the present Editor has affixed his initials ; where notes which did so appear have been altered or modified, the Editor has sometimes attached his initials and sometimes not, being conscious that whichever course he elected to pursue he must lay himself open to one of two charges, that of saddling G. E. C. with opinions for which he is not responsible, or that of claiming credit for remarks which are in truth due to another.

In those parts of the book which deal with the mediæval period an attempt has been made to describe people by the Christian names and Surnames which they may be supposed to have borne and by which they were known to their contemporaries, and not by the charter Latin equivalents or (even less suitably) by anglicized variants of the Latin, as has been the custom in all Peerages since the time of Dugdale. As this matter will be found fully discussed in vol. iii, Appendix C, it is not necessary to dilate further on it here. The brackets which appear round the Surnames of Peers are not meant to support the foolish modern phantasy that peers have no Surnames, but are merely inserted for convenience, with a view to indicating where the Christian names end and the Surnames begin.

The text is confined to giving, concisely and precisely so far [page ix] as they have been obtainable, particulars of the parentage, birth, honours, orders, offices, public services, politics, marriage, death and burial, of every holder of a Peerage. In the above list the only novel item is that of the politics, which have been systematically recorded from the period of the Exclusion Bill agitation of 1679–81 (when the terms Whig and Tory first came into general use as party definitions) to the present day. The Editor hopes that this additional information (which has not hitherto been obtainable in a collected form, and is not easy to procure individually in the case of the less prominent politicians of the period before the Reform Bill of 1832) will not be without interest to the general reader, while it cannot fail to be of service to the future historian and biographer.(^9a) The party designations allotted in the text, as well as the notes appended in particular cases, to explain the political divagations of peers whom it is difficult to classify under one definite epithet, have all been furnished by the Rev. A. B. Beaven, whose familiarity with the minute details of the political and party history of England since the Restoration is probably unrivalled.(^9b)

Authorities

Many more authorities have been cited in this than in the former edition, but it has been found impossible to quote them habitually on account of the intolerable size to which such a course would have swollen these volumes—e.g., such a typical (though imaginary) sentence as the following :—“ He m., 14 April 1627, at Boston, co. Lincoln, at her age of 17, and without the knowledge of her parents, Jane, only child of Sir John Smith, Mayor of Boston (1620), by Jane, da. of James Jones, of York, Leatherseller,” might well have been built up from a dozen different sources, and might entail references to (1) a Parish Register, (2) a Newsletter, (3) a Peerage, (4) a Diary like Luttrell's, (5) an entry in a Bible, (6) a note in a genealogical magazine, (7) a private letter to the Editor from a friend with genealogical tastes, (8) Correspondence printed by the Hist. MSS. Com., (9) Pedigrees both of Smith and Jones, (10) an unedited MS. at the British Museum, Record Office, or College of Arms, etc. Accordingly, as a general [page x] rule, authorities have only been given where the statements seem likely to be doubted or where they conflict with accounts previously given by writers of standing. In many cases a reference to the original English or Scottish Records (now available) has been substituted for notes referring to Dugdale, Douglas, Courthope, or other Peerage writers.

As this work is concerned rather with the history of the peerage than with the events of the moment, it has been thought well to exclude from this edition any account of persons who have become peers, whether by succession or creation, since the death of Queen Victoria, an event which practically synchronizes with the close of the 19th century. Thus a definite point of termination has been secured which will be the same through all the volumes.

Notes

In the notes, the editor has allowed himself a free hand. “ Quidquid agunt homines nostri est farrago libelli.” Many of them will be found to contain passages from Swift, Hervey, Walpole, Macky, and other such writers, whose crisp epigrammatic style lends itself readily to quotation ; but it should be borne in mind that (whether flattering or the reverse), these nearly contemporary comments are largely coloured by political or personal prejudice, truth being often sacrificed to smartness. If, however, not merely the unfairness but the triviality of some of these sketches should be urged against them, the defence of Francis Osborn (in his Queen Elizabeth) seems applicable, who remarks—“ Neither can I apprehend it a greater folly in me to register the yellownesse of Queen Anne's hair with other levities, which may seem pertinent to posterity though trivial now, yet of as high concernment as Cæsar's nose.”

Anyone who reads this part of the work will go “ from grave to gay, from lively to severe,” and, as the fancy takes him, may turn from the canonized Earl of the 14th to the bigamous Baron of the 19th century. He may learn who were the Scottish nobles slain at Flodden, or discover how two noble ladies were locked up in “ the Cage ” for being drunk and disorderly.

Acknowledgments

The present Editor would certainly not have tried unassisted to draw the “ bow of Ulysses,” but he has been fortunate in securing not only, as he would confidently have expected, the constant advice and assistance, dating back now for many years, of G. E. C., the “ onlie begetter ” of this work, but also of those [page xi] whose names follow in alphabetical order, on whom he had no sort of claim for the cordial and valuable co-operation which they have given.

(*) Those marked with an asterisk also assisted G. E. C. in the compilation of the first edition.

Oswald Barron has kindly undertaken to furnish the armorial bearings of all peers of England or Great Britain, a difficult task, for which his fitness will be generally recognised, and which was not attempted in the first edition.

The Rev. Alfred B. Beaven has not only supplied information as to the politics of peers as already mentioned, but has also revised, and (where necessary) corrected, and added to, all statements with reference to the offices, honours, orders, or seats in the House of Commons, held by peers—no light labour—and last but not least has carefully read and commented on all proofs.

*George Dames Burtchaell, Athlone Pursuivant and Registrar of the Office of Arms (Dublin), has carefully and systematically revised the Irish portions of the work, and has devoted much labour to investigation with regard to some of the early and obscure Irish titles which will be found acknowledged in loco. He has also read all proofs relating to Irish peers and been ready to help in any case of difficulty.

Sir Henry Maxwell Lyte, K.C.B., Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, has given the benefit of his special knowledge with regard to some of the early baronies by writ, and both officially and unofficially has done everything in his power to aid the Editor.

Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon King of Arms, as all who know him will anticipate, has been most obliging not only in fulfilling the same important function concerning Scotland which G. D. Burtchaell has undertaken with regard to the sister island, but has observed without a murmur the “ conveyance ” of matter from his Scots Peerage into the following pages.

*John Horace Round needs no trumpet from the present writer to be the herald of his fame ; he also has been good enough, in spite of many conflicting claims upon his time, to examine the proofs, and though it would be grossly unfair to saddle him with any sort of responsibility for statements in this work, yet if no errors should hereafter be detected bearing upon [page xii] peerage law, their absence may safely be attributed in large measure to his immense knowledge and watchful eye.

*George Wentworth Watson. Those who read the Genealogist will know something of the capacity of this writer, but of the extent to which the present Editor is indebted to him they can have no knowledge, and he finds it quite impossible to overstate his sense of obligation. The special articles which he has re-written are duly acknowledged in their place, but these do not represent a tithe of the assistance which he has rendered, for he has scrutinised every word, nay every comma, of the proofs with a minuteness which could not have been surpassed.

Besides the above many others have aided in a greater or less degree by sending communications, and the Editor desires to express his hearty thanks to H. W. Forsyth Harwood, Editor of The Genealogist, H. J. Ellis, of the British Museum, W. H. B. Bird, D. G. Warrand, Sir James Ramsay, Major Francis Skeet, H. Stuart Moore, Josiah Wedgwood, M.P., W. F. Carter, A. Crawley-Boevey, and to all who have helped in and looked kindly on this enterprise.

The list of those to whom the Editor is under obligation must not be concluded without mentioning his publisher, H. A. Doubleday, whom zeal has led, and knowledge has enabled, to make many valuable suggestions for the improvement not only of the form but of the matter of these pages.

It will be seen therefore that, if the Editor should be found to have attempted something greater than he was capable of accomplishing, he will not be able to plead in excuse the lack of competent and generous helpers. Whatever may be thought of the work on other grounds, he is satisfied that it will not deserve the praise that has been accorded to other peerages, namely :—“ The best thing in fiction that the English have ever done.”

Nor is it only to men but to books also that the Editor must proclaim himself a debtor. J. H. Round's recently published Peerage and Pedigree has proved most useful, The Scots Peerage has already been mentioned, but to this should be added Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage, Crisp's quaintly named but useful Visitations, Burke's and other annual Peerages, and similar works as to which want of space has prevented acknowledgment in the cases where they have been laid under contribution. [page xiii]

Early writs

In an historic peerage the compiler is constantly confronted with the difficulty that it is impossible to reconcile the facts of history with the Law of Peerage. More especially is this the case when the question arises of how to describe men who were summoned to Parliament by writ before the time of Henry V. Take for example the incidental mention of, say, Ferrers of Groby ; when we find that in the most formal documents Henry IV never describes this man otherwise than William de Ferrers of Groby knight, it seems both inaccurate and anachronistic to describe him as Lord Ferrers of Groby. On the other hand, he cannot conveniently be described otherwise in the article “ Ferrers,” and it seems unreasonable to give no indication that the Sir William de Ferrers of one part of the work is the same as the Lord Ferrers of another.

On the whole the best compromise in the case of a man summoned at an early date to Parliament, appears to be to refer to him when mentioned incidentally as Sir (—) (—) [Lord —], and, when he is dealt with directly in the article which gives an account of him, to set out the dates of his writs of summons and to add “ whereby he is held to have become Lord —.”

To write a peerage from a purely historic standpoint would be to exclude a number of men summoned at an early date to Parliament whose descendants in some cases are now sitting in the House of Lords in virtue of those summonses. To write a peerage from a purely legal standpoint would be to produce a work demonstrably and grotesquely untrue in fact.

Even in the case of a peerage written from a strictly legal standpoint, the arbitrary, conflicting, and unhistoric, decisions of the House of Lords would render it impossible for the compiler to feel any confidence that he had correctly decided as to who should, and who should not, figure in his work as peers, or that even if his list were correct at the moment of going to press it would be so six months later. E.g., the decision on the Mowbray and Segrave Case in 1877 had the effect, not only of treating the writs of 1264 as bad, although all the men then summoned might have been (on account of the precedency of 1264 having been allowed to the baronies of Despenser and de Ros) included in former peerages, but it held the hitherto universally discredited writs of [page xiv] 1283 to be good, and by so doing accomplished the ex post facto creation of, or gave a new precedence to, 99 peers, or rather, to be strictly accurate, it did so as far as the supposed intentions of King Edward I are concerned. But in fact, owing to the unreasonable though desirable doctrine that proof of sitting is necessary before a man can establish his right to a peerage under a writ of summons, this startling pronouncement has very small practical effect on any one living at the present day. It is not, however, only as regards the past that the decision in 1877 as to the writs of 1283 is important, but in view of the number of such summonses to councils and other gatherings, it has opened up a wide field for the conversion in the future of knights and gentlemen of the Edwardian period into hereditary noblemen. It may be quite true that with regard to the living the Crown is the ‘ sole fountain of honour,’ but with regard to the dead and gone that position has been usurped by the Committee for Privileges.

Until 1877 the first valid writs of summons, setting aside the anomalous cases of Ros and Despenser, were supposed to have issued in 1295, but in consequence of the decision in the Mowbray and Segrave Case the Editor has felt bound to set out all the men summoned in 1283 ; for obviously all those that were summoned at the same date as Roger Mowbray were as much, or as little, peers as Roger himself.

Nevertheless, there is no ground for supposing that, because the House of Lords held Roger's peerage to have originated in the writ of 1283, they would treat another claimant whose claim rested on the same basis in the same fashion. For although we must all recognise the truth of what the learned Sir Francis Bacon advances in the Ros Case (27 April 1616), that “ matters of honour before so honourable judges cannot but receive an honourable determination,” yet it is much to be hoped that before such another occasion arises, sufficient light on the history of the subject will have penetrated into that august Chamber to prevent their Lordships repeating this decision. Remembering, however, the unanimous finding of the Committee for Privileges in the case of the Earldom of Norfolk in 1906, when the plainest historic facts were ignored because they did not square with later legal decisions, such a hope seems somewhat over-sanguine. Finality can never be reached as to who were and who were not peers until the Lords' decisions are based upon some recognised principle ; hitherto they have been [page xv] settled by the opinions of the small body sitting at the time, who did not as a rule possess expert knowledge, or else by the importance of the claimant.

The Mowbray and Segrave Case, in 1877, constituted, or implied, a reversal of the two previous awards in the Cases of Despenser and de Ros (1603 and 1616). The decision in the Case of the Earldom of Wilts in 1869 constituted a reversal of the extraordinary one in the Case of the Earldom of Devon in 1831, and no one can safely predict what the Lords will do from what the Lords have done.

The fact that an account is given of all the men summoned in 1283, and of all those who can be proved to have sat in the Parliament of 1290, forms a new and important feature which alone would differentiate this from any similar work.

It is not proposed to deal in this Preface with the large and difficult question of how far any summonses by writ can be held in their origin to have created a peerage dignity ; that matter will be discussed in an Appendix to the last volume if the writer should happily live to complete this work. He may however here say that he is abundantly convinced that there was no such thing as a peer of Parliament (i.e. a man who obtained a higher status because he had received a summons), at any rate in Edwardian times. To dogmatise as to what was, or was not, legally a good summons to Parliament is impossible, having regard to the fact that the Committee for Privileges has never (as J. H. Round has pointed out) laid down what constitutes a Parliament, although it has been regarded as necessary for this purpose that the Lords temporal, the Lords Spiritual, and the Knights of the Shire and Burgesses should be summoned.

It is, however, thought that this is as good a place as any other to discuss the doubtful writs, as to the validity of which different opinions have been held from time to time ; this, accordingly, the Editor will proceed to attempt.

Writs of 1264

The first writs on record of any summons to Parliament are those of 24 December (1264) 49 Henry III, and thereon Courthope [p. xxv sub “ Baronies by Writ ”] remarks, “ Very little can be gathered from it as it does not contain the names of one third [page xvi] part of the [Feudal] Baronial body, and though issued in the King's name, the King was himself a prisoner to the Earl of Leicester, the leader of the rebellious Barons, who [i.e. which Earl], it may fairly be inferred, summoned only those Barons who took part with him against the Royal cause.” The true date of these writs is, so far as laymen are concerned, 24 December, though owing to the fact that some of the clergy were summoned ten days earlier, viz., 14 December, to meet at the same time and place, that date is often wrongly substituted ; e.g., Courthope divides the laymen summoned on 24 December impartially between the two dates. The number of the laity summoned at this date was 23, of whom 5 were Earls.

The full list is as follows :—

The first occasion on which a writ of this date was treated as being capable of founding an hereditary peerage was in 1604, when the Barony of Despenser was allowed to Dame Mary Fane, and confirmed to her with such pre-eminence as Hugh le Despenser, Justiciar of England (1264), enjoyed. The second occasion was shortly afterwards, in 1616, when the Barony of Ros was recognised as originating in the said writ of 1264. The same view was again held on 5 Feb. 1666/7, and again on 7 May 1806, when the question of the inheritance of that Barony was at issue. On none of these occasions does the point that these writs were bad, as having issued in rebellion, appear to have been taken ; and it was not until the Mowbray and Segrave Case in 1877 that this very reasonable view was definitely adopted, although it should be remembered that previously (in 1841) the writs of 1264 were ignored in the Hastings Case. [page xvii]

Writs of 1283

These writs are recorded—merely—on the Welsh Rolls (m. 2 dorso), and are consequently ignored by Dugdale in his Summons to the Great Councils and Parliaments. The summonses were to 11 Earls ; including William de Valence, who, though summoned as 5th among the Earls is not designated Earl of Pembroke ; also including Gilbert de Umfreville, Earl of Angus, and Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick, who, though so designated, can hardly be supposed, even if the writs be accounted good, to have been summoned as English Earls, but should rather be held to have been summoned, according to modern doctrine, as Barons,(^17a) the mention of the Scottish Earldoms being merely an act of courtesy.(^17b)

In addition to the Earls, summonses were issued to 99 other persons, who must, if the writs be good, be accounted as Barons. The full list is as follows :—

(*) Sic on the Roll, but it should be “ Rogeri ”. It may be added that in this list, both as printed in the Lords' Reports, and in Palgrave's Parliamentary Writs, the words “ Davintre ” and “ Hoyland ” have been misread, and there are also a few minor mistakes common to both. (G. W. Watson.)

There were also summonses to Knights of the Shire, and to Burgesses from 21 cities or towns, but none to the Clergy.

In 1830–34 Palgrave threw a certain official halo over these [page xix] writs by recognising them in his Parliamentary Writs as good : with this exception, until 1877, it had never, as far as the Editor knows, been suggested that writs summoning men to Shrewsbury to attend the trial of David ap Griffith, at least “ super hoc et aliis locuturi ” important as the event was in marking the development of parliamentary institutions, could confer on them hereditary titles. Nevertheless at that date the Lords, as it would seem, quite lightly and unadvisedly, and without realising the important bearing of their action, but apparently desiring to offer some solatium for disallowing a writ of 1264, held that one of 1283 was valid for that purpose. The question of the validity of these writs is fully discussed by J. H. Round in his Peerage and Pedigree (1910), where he deals with the treatment of them in the successive cases of Mowbray, Wahull, and Fauconberg. In this last case the validity of a writ of this date was keenly argued and was based on its acceptance in the Mowbray case. Unfortunately the Resolutions adopted by the Committee, while studiously ignoring these writs, leave it, perhaps, open to doubt whether they have been definitely rejected. J. H. Round has now advanced against them the further argument that “ no fewer than half the ‘ barons ’ summoned were never summoned to a Parliament of clear validity ” (Peerage and Pedigree, vol. i, pp. 261–2), which is certainly significant. The argument which appeared to have most weight with Lord Halsbury, who sat on the Committee, was that because a statute was passed by the assembly in 1283, that constituted it a Parliament. Yet, as has been pointed out, Magna Charta is numbered among the Statutes, but no one will suggest that it was a regular Parliament which met at Runnymede. Even if the fact that the Clergy were not summoned were not a fatal flaw, when it is remembered that as late as the first Parliament of James I the peers of England of all ranks only numbered 82, the notion that Edward I, into whose head it never entered to make peers at all, ever contemplated such a wholesale creation as that of 99 Barons in one day is so preposterous, that the mere number alone should have made the Lords hesitate to render the law of Baronies by writ ridiculous by adopting it.(^19a) If however it be answered that Edward I never had any such intention, but that many of these men had been peers of Parliament long before, the retort can only be “ produce your evidence.” [page xx]

J. H. Round points out that Bishop “ Stubbs writing in 1875 declared there to be no valid writs between 1264 and 1295, so the production (in 1877) of 1283 [as valid] was a revolution,” and that Sir Thomas Hardy, who became head of the Record Office, stated in evidence (1841) that there were no writs of summons to Parliament between 1264 and 1295 (Peerage and Pedigree, vol. i, p. 254). He further observes that Sir H. Nicolas had previously (1825) stated the writs of 1294 to be “ the earliest on record excepting that of 1264 ” proving that he also ignored the writs of 1283.

Parliaments of 1290

In this year two Parliaments were held, one after the Feast of St. Hilary, and another after Easter [2 Apr.]. As to the first of these, there are no writs of summons thereto on record. It appears, however, from an entry in the proceedings, that Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, had come to that Parliament “ ad mandatum domini Regis : ” presumably, therefore, a writ had been issued to him for that purpose, and so to others.

As to the second Parliament, no writs to Earls or Barons are in evidence :(^20a) but, there is a memorandum stating that, “ in crastino S. Trinitatis anno xviij [i.e. 29 May 1290],” a grant was made to the King, in full Parliament, of an Aid to marry his daughter, by certain persons named, who, besides five Bishops and the Elect of Ely, were as follows :—

The scant knowledge that we have about the constitution of this Parliament, and the fact that, in spite thereof, the Lords in 1841 decided that the then Lord Hastings' Barony originated at this date, because his ancestor could then be proved to have sat, makes it desirable to consider this Parliament when doubtful writs are being discussed.

The imperfection of the present state of our acquaintance with the development stage of our parliamentary history is emphasised by the discovery of C. Hilary Jenkinson that burgesses were summoned to the first Parliament of Edward I, at Easter 1275. Until April of the present year (1910) it was not known that representatives of the towns had ever been summoned before the Assembly or Parliament of 1283, except in the case of Simon de Montfort's rebel Parliament in 1264.

That the assembly of May 1290, however constituted, proceeded to pass Statutes, including among them the well-known Quia Emptores, is certain, and if Lord Halsbury's opinion ut supra is to be accepted, that fact alone constitutes it a genuine Parliament. Fortunately, whether the Parliament was good or bad, for the purpose of converting its members into hereditary noblemen, the effect on the Peerage can be but small.

In the first place only eleven men of Baronial rank are known to have sat ; in the second, nearly all of those were summoned to an undoubted Parliament 5 years later,—in fact only two, Robert de Poynings and John de St. John, were never summoned again—and finally, as has been intimated already, the fact that the Committee for Privileges recognised the sitting in 1290 as originating the Barony in the Hastings case, is no criterion as to the line which a differently constituted Committee may take in the future. It is of course quite absurd to look for the same regularity and precision in the summoning of Parliaments during the period of transition and development temp. Edward I, as when these matters have been settled and ordered for centuries, temp. Edward VII.

The exact amount of irregularity in the constitution of an [page xxii] early parliamentary gathering which the Lords' tribunal may be prepared to overlook for the purpose of creating a man a peer or of furnishing his peerage with a high precedence, is governed by the sweet pleasure of the judicial body for the moment, is not regulated by known laws, and consequently cannot be determined beforehand. So we come back to the crucial question, What constitutes a Parliament for Peerage purposes ? And this query nobody answers, for nobody knows.

Writs of 1294

The observations of Sir N. Harris Nicolas (p. 141) on these writs are as follows :—

“ Reginald de Clyvedon was, with about sixty other persons, sum. 8 June (1294), 22 Edw. I, to attend the King, wherever he might be, to advise on the affairs of the Realm ; but there is very considerable doubt if that writ can be considered as a regular writ of summons to Parl., as none of the higher temporal Nobility nor any of the spiritual Peers were included in it ; nor was there any day fixed for the meeting. It is also to be observed that the writ in question is the earliest on record, excepting that of (1264) 49 Hen. III, that the majority of the persons summoned in (1294) 22 Edw. I were never again summoned excepting in 25 Edw. I, that several of those persons were not considered as Barons by Tenure, and that of those who were Barons by Tenure and summoned on those occasions, many were never included in any subsequent summons to Parliament. The writ of (1294) 22 Edw. I has, however, on one occasion (in the case of the Barony of Ros) been admitted as a writ of summons to Parliament at the bar of the House of Lords, but the last ‘ General Report of the Lords' Committee appointed to search for matters touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm,’ appears to confirm the objections here expressed.”

The criticisms of G. W. Watson on the above disquisition are as follows :

“ It appears from the foregoing remarks that Nicolas must have been under some misapprehension when he took these writs into consideration. For the only writ concerned in the Ros Case (1616, ‘ before the Commissioners for the office of Earl Marshal ’) was one of 1264 and not one of 1294. It would seem indeed that [page xxiii] no writs of this latter date have ever been brought forward in any Case, nor are they even mentioned in the Lords' Reports, vol. i, p. 208. It may be further observed that the person whom Nicolas here calls Reginald de Clyvedon is described, and rightly described, in the enrolment (Gascon Roll, 22 Edw. I, m. 8d) as Reymond de Clivedon : also that under “ Ros,” Nicolas has confused the writ of 1294 to William de Ros (of Hemsley) with that to William de Ros of Ingmanthorpe, though both these persons were summoned, and distinguished from each other in the writs. It remains to be added that Courthope has copied Nicolas in all these particulars.”

Writs of 1297

The validity of the writs of 1297 as regular writs of summons to Parliament (such as would now be held to originate a Peerage) is discussed at great length in Nicolas (p. 242), under “ Fitz John,” in a long and elaborate note which is reprinted in Courthope, with a few slight alterations. The doubt of such validity was suggested by the following note (written, apparently, by John Vincent, son of the well known Augustine Vincent) in a copy of the summonses in the College of Arms. “ This can be no summons [to Parl.], because it is only directed to the Temporality.”

As to the reason for the clergy not being summoned, Hamilton Hall, in N. & Q., 8th Ser., vol. xi, p. 1, points out that they were all then outlawed, Pope Boniface VIII and the Primate Winchelsey having advanced the proposition (very unlikely to be admitted by a needy and resolute King) that Church property should pay no taxes.

J. H. Round points out that, according to Stubbs (Constitutional History), “ Six earls and eighty-nine barons and knights had been invited, and most of them attended,” but the clergy and commons were not summoned. It was in this historic assembly, which met at Salisbury, 24 February 1296/7, having been summoned 26 January preceding, that the earls of Hereford and Norfolk defied the king, who exclaimed to Norfolk ‘ By God, Earl, you shall either go or hang,’ and was met by the rejoinder, ‘ By God, King, I will neither go nor hang.’ It was probably owing to this assembly being styled a parliamentum in the marginal heading on the Close Roll that it seems to have been accepted without question [page xxiv] as a ‘ Parliament ’ in 1677, when the solitary writ of summons produced in the Frescheville claim (see Frescheville) was to this assembly. But in the Wahull claim (1892), when this was one of the two ‘ Parliaments ’ to which writs of summons were produced, Lord Selborne said, in his Judgment, “ it seems to me clear that the Assembly appointed to meet at Salisbury in 1297, to which Thomas de Wahull was summoned, was not a proper Parliament.” Nevertheless, a writ of summons to it had been accepted as valid (in 1877) in the Mowbray and Segrave Case (see Round's Peerage and Pedigree, vol. i, pp. 255, 260). It should be added that the strange error of Dugdale (followed by Nicolas), who carelessly read Mathie as Mathei, which led him to suppose that the ‘ Parliament ’ was summoned for 21 September (instead of 24 February), was first pointed out in 1823. See the Lords' Reports, 2nd edition, vol. i, p. 470, note 55. In N. & Q., 5th Ser., vol. v, p. 103, James Greenstreet gives 94 coats of arms of the magnates there assembled, which he calls “ The First Nobility Roll,” being the earliest dated roll of arms known to exist.

Writs of 1342

The only other doubtful writs about which it is needful to say anything are those of 25 February (1341/2) 16 Edward III, and they do not require detailed examination. For some unknown reason they have been treated as good by peerage writers, but there seems no justification for looking on the assembly summoned by them as other than a council. The matter is of some importance, for though, so far as the Editor is aware, no attempt has ever been made to establish the validity of a writ of this date before the Committee of Privileges, yet of the multitude of men then summoned some were never summoned on any other occasion. Stubbs in his Constitutional History remarks that “ Edward did not venture to summon a Parliament ” in this year. The objections to these Writs, shortly stated by J. H. Round in a letter to the Editor, are as follows :—“ The summonses are headed “ de consilio summonito ” [not “ de Parliamento summonito ” as is the case in 1341 and 1343] and are addressed only to the Archbishop of Canterbury, seven bishops, nine Earls and the Earl of Angus, and to a great number of Barons, but to no Knights [of the [page xxv] Shire] or citizens. Clearly this is no Parliament. The summons was put in evidence in the Meinill case, but Counsel stated that this was only a summons to a council.” To the above need only be added, that whereas to the undoubted Parliaments of 1341 and 1343 there were, excluding Earls, 45 and 40 persons summoned respectively, to this intermediate council of 1342 the attendance of 96 persons was ordered.

So little regard do the voluminous Lords' Reports attach to this gathering, that in the chapter “ On the constituent Parts of the Legislative Assemblies [N.B. not merely the Parliaments] of England during the reign of Edward the Third ” it is entirely ignored in its chronological place (vol. i, p. 316), the writers passing straight from the consideration of the Parliament of 15 to that of 17 Edward III.

Notes

(^9a) The Dictionary of National Biography is conspicuously lacking in such details with regard to members of both Houses of Parliament who were not, and even some who were, ‘ front bench ’ men.

(^9b) See Appendix I in this volume.

(^17a) Again, as Bacon truly observes in the Ros case “ the name of barons is subject to equivocation.”

(^17b) Compare the similar case of Atholl under that title.

(^19a) See Preface to 1st edition, note “ a,” as reprinted on p. xxx of this volume.

(^20a) There are, however, writs enrolled (Close Roll, 18 Edw. I, m. 9d), dated 14 June, to the Sheriffs of counties, directing them each to elect duos vel tres knights of the shire to be at Westminster “ a die Sancti Johannis Baptiste proximo futuro in tres septimanas ad ultimum ” [i.e. before 15 July, some time after Parliament met] “ ad consulendum et consentiendum pro se et communitate illa [comitatus] hiis que comites barones et proceres predicti tunc duxerint concordandum.” No writs are known to have been issued to the authorities of any town.

(^21a) Parl. Rolls, vol. i, p. 25 : Palgrave, Parl. Writs, vol. i, p. 20.