The constitution of parliaments in England deduced from the time of King Edward the Second, illustrated by King Charles the Second in his Parliament summon'd the 18 of February 1660/1, and dissolved the 24 of January 1678/9 : with an appendix of its sessions / observed by Sr. John Pettus ... Knight.

CHAP. IX. Of the Fourth Exemplar Writ to the No∣bles not of the Bloud-Royal; To the Lord-Treasurer, &c.

IN the Eighth Chapter I shewed the Exemplar Writs to Princes, Dukes, and Earls of the Bloud-Royal; I am now according to the method of this Pawn, to shew the Exemplar Writs to Dukes, Mar∣quesses, Earls, and Barons not of the Bloud. I shall begin with that in Anno 1661. being agreeable to that Exemplar (before recited) to the Dukes of the Bloud, from the word (Salutem) to the end of the Writ; but the Preambles to that word do afford variety almost in all

Writs, and therefore before I make the Observation upon it, I shall give a view of the Writ at large (being only abbreviated in the Pawn.)

CArolus Secundus Dei Gratia Angliae Scotiae Franciae & Hiberniae Rex fidei defensor, &c.

Praecharissimo Consan∣guineo suo Thomae Comiti Southampton Thesaurario Angliae Salutem

Quia de Ad∣visamento & assensu Concilii nostri pro quibusdam arduis & urgentibus negotiis nos statum & defensionem regni nostri Angliae & Ecclesiae 'Anglicanae concernen' Quoddam Parliamentum nostrum apud Civitatem nostram Westm' 8. die Maii prox futur' teneri ordinavimus ac ibidem vobiscum ac cum Magnatibus & Proceri∣bus dicti Regni nostri, Colloquium habere & tractatum, vobis sub fide & ligeantia quibus nobis tenemini firmiter injungendo mandamus Quod consideratis dictorum ne∣gotiorum arduitate & periculis imminen∣tibus cessante excusatione quacunque dictis die & loco personaliter intersitis nobiscum ac cum Magnatibus & Proceribus prae∣dictis supra dictis negotiis tractatur' vestrumque Concilium impensur' Et hoc sicut Nos & honorem nostrum ac Salvationem & defensionem Regni & Ec∣clesiae praedictae expeditionem; dictorum

negotiorum diligitis nullatenus omittatis.

Teste Rege apud Westm' 18. die Febr. Anno Regni nostri 13.

SECT. II. Observations.

1. ALl Parliamentary Exemplar Writs of this nature which are extant from the 15. of Edward the Second, to the 21. of Henry the Eighth, if they were not directed to some one of the Heirs of the Crown, or to Princes, Dukes, or Earls of the Bloud, were still directed to an Earl not of the Bloud, (except Three to Three Dukes in Henry the Sixths, and Edward the Fourths time) it being evi∣dent from what hath been said, That Earls, called in Latin Comites, was a more ancient Title in this Kingdom, than Dukes; (Richard the Eldest Son to Edw. the Third, being the first that was so created) but Earls long before; and though Edward the Third did create ma∣ny Dukes more than his Son, which were of the Bloud; yet still to keep the old Title of Earl, and in veneration thereof, (as may be supposed) he in the Fourty Seventh of his Reign did think sit, as the King usually appoints the Sword to such a Person as he

directs to carry it before him) to grant the Exemplar Writ to an Earl not of the Bloud, for the Parliament to be holden that year, and so did his Successor, as may be seen in this following Table, viz.

47. Edw. 3. Richardo Comiti Arundel, who sat one Parliament.

18. Rich. 2. Henrico Comiti Darby, who sat one Parliament.

3. Hen. 5. Radulpho Nevile Comiti Westmerland, and the like Writ in the same year, so he sat two Prrliaments.

7. Hen. 5. Henrico Percey, Comiti Northumbr. and the like in the same year, and in the Eighth and Ninth of this King, and Twelfth of Hen. 6. so he sat five Par∣liaments; (note that the Christian names and Sirnames of Nevile and Percey are in this Writ, which is not usual to Earls, only the Christian names.

The three Exemplars to Dukes not of the Bloud are in time subsequent to Earls; for the first Exemplar to a Duke was not till,

28 H. 6. Gulielmo Duci Suffolciae, who sat one Parliament.

38 H. 6. Henrico Duci Oxoniae, who sat one Parliament.

1 Edw. 4. The third Johanni Norfolciae, and the like in the same year, so he sat two Parliaments.

And then after these Three Dukes, a∣gain to an Earl, viz.

3 Edw. 4. Richardo Comiti Warwick, who sat one Parliament; so from the 47. of Edw. 3. to Rich. the 3. there was Eight not of the Bloud, viz. Five Earls and Three Dukes, who had Exemplars.

From Richard the Third to the 21. of Hen. 8. there is (as I have shewn) a want of Records in the Tower; so as the first Exemplar that appears to us in the Pettibag, of such as had Exemplar Writs being not of the Bloud, do begin at the 36. of H. 8. viz.

36 Hen. 8. Thomae Wriothsley Militi Do∣mino Wriothsley Cancellario, he sat one Parliament, and was the year before made Baron of Titchfield, and in the first of Edw. 6. Earl of Southampton.

1 Edw. 6. Gulielmo Pawlet Militi Domi∣no Senescallo magni hospitii nostri ac Praesi∣denti Concilii nec non Custodi magni Sigilli: He was then Lord St. John of Bazing, and afterwards created Marquess of Wincester.

6 Edw. 6. Gulielmo Marchioni Winchester, Thesaurario Angliae, (Thomas Goodrick Bishop of Ely being Chancellor, and had his distinct Writ) this Marquess had his several Writs, viz. in the 6 of Edw. 6. and 7 of Edw. 6. and 1 Mariae, and 1 M. 1. and 2 Phil. and M. and 2 and 3 P. and M. and 4 and 5 P. and M. (in which time the Bi∣shops

of Ely, Winchester, and Archbishop of York were Lord Chancellors and had di∣stinct Writs, it being not proper for them, being Lords Spiritual, to be Exemplars to the Lords Temporal;) besides he was Ex∣emplar in the 28. 30. 35. 39. and 43. of Eliz. and Primo Jacobi, (in which time Sir Thomas Bromley, and Sir Christopher Hatton were Lord Chancellors, and Sir John Puckering, and Sir Thomas Egerton LordKeepers, and each of them had distinct Writs) so as it is remarkable, that this William Lord Pawlet Marquess of Winche∣ster was Exemplar in all the Parliament Pawns which are extant in the Pettibag, from the first of Edw. the Sixth, to the first of King James inclusive, which is 55. years, and was in that time Lord Trea∣surer 22. years, which was longer than any of his Predecessors continued in that Office, except Cicil, who continued 27. years.)

1 Car. 1. Georgio Duci Buckingham, for one Parliament, (Sir Thomas Coventry being then Lord Keeper, and had a di∣stinct Writ, and Sir Richard Weston Trea∣surer, who was then in Scotland.)

15 Car. 1. Johanni Marchioni Winchester, for one Parliament (Sir John Finch being then Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, and had a distinct Writ) also Will. Bishop of London was Lord Treasurer, and had his Writ.

13 Car. 2. Thomae Comiti Southampton, for this Parliament, (Sir Edward Hyde being then Lord Chancellor, and had his distinct Writ) this Earl was Grandchild to that Wriotheslly mentioned in the 36. of Hen. 8. and died without Issue Anno. 166—

So from the 36. of H. 8. to this Par∣liament of the 13. of Car. 2. there were three Exemplars, to Three Barons, (Two of them being Chancellors, and one Lord Keeper) and to Two Marquesses, to one Duke, and to one Earl; (and all these not of the Blood) Now as to the three Barons having Exemplars, (which Degree had not any before the 36. H. 8.) it may be presumed that the Exemplars were given them in relation to their Offi∣ces, as Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or President of the Kings Council.

And as to the two Marquesses having Exemplars, (who had not any till the 6. of Edw. 6.) one was as he was Treasurer, and the other in the 15. of Car. 1. only as Marquess, because there was no Duke Summon'd to that Parliament; (and Sir John Finch was then Lord Keeper, and William Bishop of London Lord Treasurer, and both had distinct Writs;) so there was none of the three great Officers of State remaining to be Exemplars, except Henry Earl of Manchester, then Lord Privy-Seal,

who according to the fore-mentioned Act of Precedency is placed in the Lords House before all Dukes, Marquesses, &c. (not of the Blood) but I suppose, because there was no President wherein the Lord Privy-Seal had been Exemplar since its first In∣stitution in the 11. of Hen. 4. and being not called Lord Privy-Seal, nor that place in the Lords House allotted to him, till the 31. H. 8. possibly for those reasons it was not given to the Lord Privy-Seal, but to the Marquess singly, or else it was an omission in not minding the Act of Pre∣cedency.

These latter Writs from the 36. of Hen. 8. did seem to break the method of the former; for before that Pawn of that year, no Dukes or Marquesses were made Con∣similars, where an Earl was made Exem∣plar; but in the Exemplar of the 36. H. 8. Wriothesly Earl of Southampton was made Exemplar, and the Duke of Norfolk then Lord Treasurer of England, (and Charles Duke of Suffolk the Great Master of the Kings Houshold, and President of the Council, were (besides the Marquess of Dorchester, and Thirteen Earls, and Twen∣ty eight Barons) made his Consimilars, so as the precedency of his Exemplarity must be ascribed to his Chancellorship, which according to the Act of Precedency

was to be before all Dukes, &c. (not of the Blood;) and upon the same reason, Pawlet Lord St. John in the first Edw. 6. being then Lord Keeper, had the Exemplar Writ, and the Duke of Somerset (though the Kings Uncle) Governor of the Kings Person, and Protector of England, (as also the Marquess of Dorchester, and Mar∣quess of Northampton, and Thirteen Earls and Thirty Barons) were his Consimilars, which is the only President (which I know of) where the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper had the Exemplar to a Duke of the Bloud; and upon the like reason, as (I con∣ceive in the 6 of Ed. the 6. William Marquess of Winchester, being Lord Treasurer, (the next in Precedency to the Lord Chancellor, by the Act of 31. H. 8.) had the Exemplar to two Dukes, one Marquess, Fourteen Earls, One Viscount, and Thirty one Barons, all which were his Consimi∣lars: and it is probable the reason why this Exemplar was given to the Treasurer and not to the Chancellor, was, because Thomas Goodrick Bishop of Ely was then Lord Chancellor; and so it was not pro∣per for that Bishop to be Exemplar, for the reasons before alledged.

Now in the first Car. primi, Thomas Co∣ventry being Lord Keeper, and having a distinct Writ, the Duke of Buckingham

had the Exemplar, who had one Marquess, Thirty seven Earls, Eleven Viscounts, and Fourty seven Barons to his Consimilars.

Also in the 15. Car. 1. John Marquess of Winchester (Son to the former Marquess of Winchester) was made Exemplar, (Sir John Finch being Lord Keeper, who had a distinct Writ, (and William Bishop of London being in Scotland) but he had no Duke or other Marquess, but Fifty eight Earls, Five Viscounts, and Forty four Barons his Consimilars, and so reduced the proper Consimilars to its former method.

But the 14. Car. 2. Thomas Wriothesly Earl of Southampton Lord Treasurer (Grand∣child to the former Earl of Southampton) altered it again: (there being now also a distinct Writ to Sir Edward Hyde Lord Chancellor) for this Earl had three Dukes, (one being General) Four Marquesses, Fifty five Earls, Eight Viscounts, and Sixty eight Barons his Consimilars; (I conceive as Lord Treasurer) for accord∣ing to ancient Practice, (as I have shewn) an Earl had not any Dukes entred as his Consimilars.

The number of all the Exemplar Writs extant, from the 15. of Edw. the 2d. in An. 1322. to the 13. of Car. 2di. An. 1661. are but Twenty, and but Fourteen Kings from whom they were granted; The

number of the Parliaments in which the Nobles did Sit, to whom such Exemplars were issued, were 107. and these 107. Par∣liaments were in the space of 341. Years.

As concerning the years when these Exemplars were first issued to the respe∣ctive degrees of Nobles before mentioned, they are in this order of time.

15 Edw. 2. This first Exemplar Writ, as I have shewn, was to an Earl, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was of the Bloud, viz. to Edward 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Chester, Eldest Son to Edw. 2. and ••••••¦ter King Edw. the 3d. for there was then no Duke in England.

3 Edw. 3. The first Exemplar Writ to a Prince of the Bloud, was to the same Earl being then made Prince of Wales.

37 Edw. 3. The first Exemplar Writ to a Duke of the Blood was not till this year, though the first Duke in England (distinct from that of Earl, (as Mr. Selden saith) was the Eleventh of Edw. 3d. and then Edward the Kings Eldest Son was in Par∣liament created Duke of Cornwall; (yet Speed in his Chronicle of Edw. 3d. makes this Creation in the 3d of Edw. 3d. when (saith he) he was created Prince of Wales, Duke of Aquitain and Cornwall, which agrees with the Records of the Tower, and therefore I conceive there is some mistake in Mr. Selden) but however the mistake

be, the first Exemplar Writ to a Duke was not till this year; for though Edward Prince of Wales was Duke in the Third or Eleventh year of his Father, and Thomas Earl of Norfolk soon after was created Duke of Norfolk, and Henry Earl of Lan∣caster soon after created Duke of Lanca∣ster, yet they had not any Exemplar Writs as Dukes, but before as Earls; so as John Duke of Lancaster in this Parliament of the 37. Edw. the 3d. was the first Duke which had an Exemplar Writ.

47 Edw. 3. As I have shewn the first Exemplar to an Earl of the Bloud, so this shews the first Exemplar to an Earl not of the Bloud, which was this year to Richard Earl of Arundel; for though there were many Earls before not of the Bloud, yet they had only Consimilar Writs, but no Exemplars extant to any of them till this Year.

28 H. 6. And though there were many Dukes not of the Blood since the first Crea∣tion of that Title, yet the first Duke not of the Blood who was thought fit to be an Exemplar, was not till this Parliament, and the Predecessor of this Duke was an Earl in Edw. 3ds. time, and even this Duke was Earl in the time of his Pre∣decessors, before any Duke was created.

6 Edw. 6. Though the first Marquess

(created in England) was in the 9th. of Rich. 2d. yet none were thought fit to be Exemplars, till this 6. of Edw. the 6th. that William Marquess of Winchester was made the first Exemplar in Parliament of that Dignity, but his Exemplar had the additional Title of Lord Treasurer, who is the second Officer of State.

36 H. 8. Although a Baron is a more ancient Title with us in England, than any of the other Degrees of the Nobles, yet we find no Record now extant, wherein a Baron, singly as Baron, had the Exem∣plar Writ; for (as I said) Thomas Wri∣othesly Baron of Tichfield being Chancellor, William Pawlet Baron of Bazing being Lord Keeper, were Exemplars in those Parliaments, and had Consimilars appoint∣ed them; but Edward Hyde Baron of Hindon having a distinct Assisting Writ, had no Consimilar allotted him, either in respect of his Barony or Assistancy.

Thus we find that Earls, Dukes, Mar∣quesses and Barons have been Exemplars, but we do not find any Viscounts to be so in any Parliament since the creation of that Dignity, which was (as I said) in Hen. 6ths. time to John de Beaumont.

And the reason is, because the word Vicecomes doth imply a Consimilar to Comes, so it were improper for Comites to be Consimilars to a Vicecomiti.

Concerning the additionals of the Titles to those Nobles mentioned in their Exemplars, it may be observed, That in all those Writs to Hen. the 8ths. time, the words Consanguineo Charissimo Praedilecto Dilecto & Fideli, were not so positively sixt to the several Degrees in their Writs, but since that time they have past in a more constant method, viz. to Dukes and Marquesses, Praecharissimo Consanguineo; to Earls and Viscounts, Charissimo Consan∣guineo; to Barons, Praedilecto & Fideli; and to the Lord Chancellor as chief As∣sistant, Praedilecto & perquam Fideli; but to all the other Assistants, of which I shall speak more, only Dilecto & Fideli.

SECT. III. Observations on the Consimilars to the former Exemplars.

WHen Princes of the Blood were made Exemplars, there was ever some Prince of the Blood in the Consi∣milars, and then followed in the same Re∣gister in every Clause-Roll or Pawn, the other Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons, without interposition of the Lords Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, to the Princes of the Blood, and the Temporal

Lords not of the Bloud; so it continued in that method till the 21. of King James, but then the Exemplar (being to the Prince of Wales, and no Consimilar to him, there follows the Exemplar and Con∣similars to the Lords Spiritual, (of which I have spoken) and after them follows the particular Writ to John Bishop of Lincoln, as Lord Keeper, and after that, the Exemplar to Lodowick Duke of Richmond, who had one Duke, one Marquess, Thirty eight Earls, nine Viscounts, and Fourty seven Chevaliers his Consimilars, and ever since the 21. Jac. there hath been an inter∣position either of the Lords Spiritual or Lord Chancellor between the Dukes of the Blood and the Nobles that were not of the Blood; and so in the 13 Car. 2. though the Bishops were deprived from that Roll, (as I have shewn) yet the Lord Chan∣cellors Writ did interpose; and it may further be observed, That when Princes or Dukes of the Blood, or not of the Blood, were Exemplars, other Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons were Consi∣milars; but when Earls were Exemplars, there were no other Consimilars admitted of Degrees above them, but still under them, viz. of Earls, Viscounts and Barons; and yet when the three Dukes beforemen∣tioned were made Exemplars, 'tis true

the Duke of Suffolk and Oxford had Dukes to their Consimilars, as formerly; (be∣ing pari gradu) but the Duke of Nor∣folk had no Duke to his Consimilar, for he had only four Earls, one Viscount, and Thirty one Barons, of which there is no other precedent that I can find.

2. As to the different Titles of these six Degrees, viz. Princes of the Blood, Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons, of whom I have spoke more in the Fifth Chapter; it is fit to be hinted here, that Prince in English, and Principi in the Latin Writ, Duke and Duci, Mar∣quess and Marchioni, Viscount and Vice∣comiti, have little difference in their Or∣thography; but Comiti in all their Latin Writs, and Earl (which is their general appellation in English) have very great difference; concerning which and the o∣ther Degrees I have writ more at large before, and in my Annotations, to which I refer the Reader; and so Baron and Baro have but little variation, yet this may be ob∣served here of this Title Baro, that in all the Consimilar Writs in Clause Rolls or Pawns wherein those of that Degree are enume∣rated from the 15th. of Edw. 2d. to the 13. of Car. 2. neither the Titles or words Baro, nor of Banerettus are mentioned in the Writs; but either the Articles De or

Le or La, or the words Dominus, Miles, Equies Auratus, or Chevalier are added to the Barons name, viz. Hugo de Spencer, Johanni de Bello Campo, Johanni de St. John de Bazing, Roberto de Monte albo, Johanni de Sancto amando, Willielmo de la Souch de mortuo mare, Nicolao de Cantilupo le Quint, Johanni de Insula de rubro monte, Nicolao de Sancto Mauro, Michaeli de la Pool, (who was then Banneret) Admirallo Maris, Johanni de Moubray Mariscallo.

Petro de malo lacu le Quint, Hugo de le Spencer, Willielmo la Zouch de mortuo mare, Johanni le Strange, Johanni le Shelton, and many more, and some only in their Chri∣stian names and Sirnames, viz. Richardo Gray, Richardo Talbot, Gulielmo Aincourt, Richardo Percey, Johanni Fitzwater, Ra∣dulpho Dacres, yet these were all Barons or Bannerets, though the Title of Baroni was not in their respective Writs.

3. Thus they continued without any other adjuncts to their names (than what I have mentioned) till the first of Richard the Second, and then Willielmo de Morley, Willielmo de Alborough, Hugo de Dacres were writ Chevaliers; (amongst 48. others that were Intituled as before) After, in the 7th. of Rich. the 2d. William Botereaux was brought in, and with the other Three written Chevaliers; and in the second Par∣liament

of that year, that Title of Che∣valier increas'd to three more, viz. Johan∣ni Falsly, Henry le Scroop, and Thomae Ca∣mois Chevaliers; so there were then seven Chevaliers in all, the rest of the Barons being then Fourty five, were Intituled as before, and so they continued, not exceed∣ing nine Chevaliers, till the third of H. 6. and for that Parliament there were but twenty Barons Summoned, whereof ele∣ven were Stil'd Chevaliers; and in the fourth of his Reign, all the Barons but two were Stil'd Chevaliers; and in the sixth year, all the Barons were Stil'd Che∣valiers; and so to the Twenty third, where∣in all the Barons were written Chevaliers except Thomas de Scales Miles, (who was then Lord Scalds) and Dominus de Molins, so here came in Dominus for a Baron; and in the Twenty fifth, there were Twenty six Chevaliers, whereof two Stil'd Milites, and three Domini; in the Twenty seventh Henry Percey is Writ Militi & Domino, and some others, which shews that the words Militi, Domino, and Chevalier, ha∣ving Writs to Sit in the Lords House, had one Denotation of a Baron; and in the third of Edw. 4. almost all the Barons are written Domini and Chevaliers jointly, yet in the end of these Consimilars, it is writ in the Record, Milites omnes, except

Audley and Clinton, and so in the 3d. of Ed. 4. all are Chevaliers, but in the Post∣script is, Equites aurati omnes praeter Do∣minum Scales, by which must be under∣stood, that all the rest which were Sum∣moned to those Parliaments, and their names not entred in those Rolls, were Mi∣lites or Equites Aurati: Except Audley, Clinton, and Scales, which latter in the Record of the 23d. of Hen. 6. before mentioned, is written Miles, which shews there was a distinction then between Miles and Eques Auratus (as may be seen in Mr. Seldens Titles of Honour) and so in the 7th. and 12. 22. and 23d. of Ed. 4. all Chevaliers, but two Milites, which do argue some distinction, though all in∣tended to signifie a Baron.

Then passing over other Records to the 21. of Hen. 8. all the Barons are stil'd Chevaliers; but in the 36. Hen. 8. the words Domini, and Chevaliers are mixt, and so they continued to the 28. of Eliz. and then all the Barons are writ Chevaliers, and so have continued to this time singly, with that Title of Chevaliers in all their Writs, without adding Dominus miles, or Eques Auratus.

Though the Title of Baro for Baron is not us'd in these Parliament Writs, no more is Bannerettus or Banneret; yet it is

as evident, that as Dominus does signifie a Baron, so the word Miles and Chevalier did signifie a Knight Banneret, and so I presume it was originally intended. For by com∣paring the Writ in the 8th. of Rich. 2d. to William Botereaux, with the Writ to him in the 15th. of Rich. 2d. where in one he is called Chevalier, in the other Miles; it may be presumed that the Titles are one and the same, the words Chevalier and Miles being so interchangeably used, and sometimes joyntly, yet either being applicable to Denote a Baron or Banneret.

8. This Identity of Chevalier and Banne∣ret, may be evident from the Writ to the Sheriff of Surry (hereafter transcribed) Cited by the Learned Mr. Selden, where Thomas Camois (beforementioned) some∣times Stil'd Chevalier, sometimes Miles (for brevity omitting Bannerettus (being then Lord Camois or Baron) and being chosen Knight of the Shire for that Coun∣ty to serve in Parliament in the 8th. of Rich. 2. the Sheriff was commanded by this Writ, to make an Election of another Knight for that County, because his place was in the Lords-House as a Banneret; which Writ he sets down in these follow∣ing words.

The Writ to the Sheriff of Surry 8. Rich. the 2d. concerning Thomas Camois Ban∣neret, his being Elected Knight of the Shire.

REx

Vic' Surr' Salutem

Quia ut acce∣pimus tu Thomam Camois Cheva∣lier qui Bannerettus est sicut quam plures Antecessorum suorum extiterint ad essen∣dum unum militem venientium ad proxi∣mum Parliamentum nostrum pro Comuni∣tate Comitatus predicti de assensu ejusdem Comitatus Elegisti Nos advertentes quod hujusmodi Banneretti ante haec tempora in militis Comitatus ratione alicujus Parlia∣menti eligi minime consueverunt ipsum de Officio Militis ad dictum Parliamentum pro Communitate Comitatus predicti ventur' Exonerari volumus Et Ideo tibi precipi∣mus quod quendam alium militem idone∣um & discretum gladio cinctum loco ipsius Thomae eligi & eum ad diem & Locum Parliamenti predicti venire facias cum ple∣na & sufficien' potestate ad consentiend'hijs quae in Parliamento predicto fient jux∣ta tenorem primi Brevis nostri tibi pro electione hujusmodi milit' directi & no∣men ejus nobis scire facias.

Teste Rege apud Westm' octavo die Octobris septimo Regis.* 2.1

Accordingly the Parliament did sit the 3d. of March, and Thomas Camois in the Lords House: but that which Mr. Sel∣den observes in this Writ is, that this is not to be understood of any other Banneret than a Parliament Baron, or a Banneret of that time. The expressing of hujusmodi Bannoretti shews, that it is not meant of all Bannerets, but such only as have the Ti∣tle, either by inheritance, or in such a kind, that an inheritance might be of it, which is apparent also by the precedent words in the Writ; Bannerettus est sicut quam plures Antecessorum suorum extiterint, for it was never conceived, that the Title of Banne∣ret as it denotes a Knight-Banneret was ever hereditary.

However, another Knight for Surry was Chosen; and this Thomas Camois be∣ing Lord Thomas Camois, did sit that Par∣liament in the Lords House, as his An∣cestors had done; for I find, that in the 15th. of Ed. 2d, and 4th. of Ed. 3d. Radulphus Camois was Summon'd by Writs, and did sit in those two Parlia∣ments; but I find none in 54 years after, viz. till the 7th. of Rich. 2d. and then that name continued in 37 successive Parliaments, viz. to the 8th. of Hen. 6. as may be seen in the Records. I shall make no further use of this Writ here, than

that of the words, Thomas Camois Che∣valier qui est Bannerettus, doe make it clear, that Banneret was denoted by the word Chevalier, and that that word Che∣valier amongst the Lords did shew the dif∣ference between Banneret and an Ancient or Hereditary Baron. Now in respect it is evident that the Title of Banneret was first brought into use for some meritorious action, in bearing, preserving, or re∣taking the Kings Banner in time of War; whereupon he received the honour of Knight Banneret, and thereupon as an additional honour was also thought wor∣thy to sit amongst the hereditary Barons; and in respect many Martial exploits were about that time done in France (the word Chevalier being borrowed from the French Tongue) came into so great repute, that such as did merit it, did justly Challenge it, and those of less merit did Covet it, and by meer interest and favour obtain'd it, and so by degrees (as I have formerly shewn the word Chevalier upon the account of merit or favour, did swallow up the other Titles; and in process of time, and favour of Kings, it grew to be fixt and hereditary, which was intended at first but Titulary and Temporary, which hath been the fate of most of our Titles of Honour.

Thus having dispatcht the BreviaClausa, or Close Writs of Summons, to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal before the Parlia∣ment is sitting (for these are different from the Writs which are sent out whilst a Parliament is sitting, as will be shewn.) I shall proceed to the Brevia aperta or open Writs, commonly called Patents, by which (such as are Created) are in∣abled to sit there; yet even those Lords, which by their Creations are so priviledg'd, have also Close Writs of Summons sent them pro forma, lest they should fail of their duties for want of intimation, and the Writ is and hath been anciently Clos'd, least (as I conceive) the Writ should con∣tain such private matter, or causes of Sum∣mons as are not fit to be known by the conveyor of them to their Lordships.

Notes

• * 2.1

  8. R. 2.