Conslitutional History.
40 8
[chap.
secrated, to him as bishop elect; when the bishop was abroad
the writ was directed to his vicar-general1. The writs of the
abbots and priors correspond with those of the bishops in all
other points, but omit the praemunientes clause.
Writs of
the lords
temporal.
The form
fide et Iio-
magio.
The writs of the lords temporal differ from those of the
bishops, in the change of the position of the word ‘ceteris,’
in the omission of anything corresponding with the prae-
munientes clause, and in the use of the form ‘ fide et homagio,’
‘ fide et Iigeantia/ or ‘ homagio et Iigeantia/ The difference
between these expressions has been understood to indicate some
difference between the barony by tenure, of which the homage
would be a more distinct feature, and the bafony by writ,
where the oath of allegiance would take the place of the form
of homage. But the words are used with so little discrimina-
tion that no such conclusion can be with any probability drawn
from ■'them ; and the words homage and allegiance aré in this
collocation synonymous or redundant2.
418. The writs of the judges and counsellors3 correspond so
1 Specimens of the writ to the guardians of the spiritualities may be
seen in Parl. Writs, I. 25, 47, 137; II. i. 155; Prynne, Register, i. 152,
153 ; and to bishops electj. Parl. Writs, I. 26, 47 ; to the vicars general,
Lords’ Report, iv. 500, 501.
2 See Prynne, Reg. i. p. 206 ; Coke, 4th Inst. p. 5. An examination of
the writs shows that Edward I occasionally used the form ‘ en la foi et en
la Iigeaunce/ Pari. Writs, I. 317 ; but that Edward III introduced it into
common use in writs of summons to both councils and parliament : some-
times he uses both words, ‘ fide, homagio et Iigeantia ; ’ Lords’ Report, iv.
594, 599 : but no conclusion can be drawn as to the purpose of the change :
from 1354 onwards the two words are used indiscriminately, and from
the accession of Richard II tfIigeantia , is the regular word.
3 See Parl. Writs, II. i. 42 ; Prynne, Reg. i. pp. 34τ sq., 361 sq., 365.
In several cases, if the Close Rolls are to be trusted, the writs to the
justices are identical with those to the lords ; but these may be accidental
errors. Occasionally, when the counsellor cited is a clergyman, ‘in fide
et dilectione, is used, as in 1311, to Robert Pickering; but generally the
clause is omitted. A specimen of the form is subjoined ; it is the writ
corresponding with that to the archbishop, given above, p. 404: tfRex
dilecto et fideli suo Willelmo Hankeforde capitali justitiario suo salutem.
Quia &c. ut supra usque ibi tractatum, et tunc sic: vobis mandamus
firmiter injungentes quod omnibus aliis praetermissis dictis die et loco
personaliter intersitis nobiscum ac cum ceteris de consilio nostro super
dictis negotiis tractaturi Vestrumque consilium impensuri : et hoc nul-
Iatenus omittatis/ Lords’ Report, iv. 829. Htre the omission of the
■word i ceteris ’ is not noted. But the writ to William de Shareshull in
1357 contains the words ‘ Vobiscum et cum prelatis. magnatibus, et
proceribus dicti regni nostri Angliae ас aliis de consilio nostro ; ’ ib. p.
xχ-] Writs of the Jndges. 409
very closely with those of the barons that it would seem almost Summons of
* *7 *7 the judges,
an afterthought to exclude them from equality in debate. The
variations already noticed, the omission of the word ‘ ceteris, ’
the introduction of ‘ ceterisque de consilio nostro ’ and the
absence of the injunction ‘ fide et homagio ’ are interpreted as
having that effect.
All these writs are tested by the king himself and issued Attestation
. Ofthewrits.
under the great seal. The note i per breve de pnvato sιgιlio
is frequently attached to the copy on the close roll, signifying
that the great seal had been attached in compliance with a
writ of privy seal ordering it to be done. The form ‘ per ipsum
regem ’ denotes that the warrant has been issued under the
sign manual and the royal signet. The later note ‘ per ipsum
regem et consilium,’ which appears occasionally in the writs of
Edward II and very frequently after the accession of Edward
III, has" the same force, denoting that the privy seal writ had
issued after deliberation in the privy council1. This feature
belongs to all the parliamentary writs alike. The writs ad- Writs of
summons
dressed to the prelates, barons, ana counsellors ordering them tŋagreat
to attend in a great council are worded in language very similar
to that of the writs of parliament ; but they express the king’s
intention of holding a council, * consilium ’ or * tractatum,' not a
parliament; the writs to the bishops omit the praemunientes
clause, and there are no writs to the sheriffs. Some doubt may
occasionally arise so long as the word ‘colloquium ’ is used for
both parliament and council, although that word is properly
615. It should be said that the writs to councils vary more than those to
parliament ; the judges being occasionally summoned ‘ in fide et Iigeantia,'
and in other points being placed on a level with the lords.
1 See above, p. 401, note 5. In the parliament of Coventry held in
1459, a petition was presented on behalf of the sheriffs who had returned
members under privy seal writs; the king was asked to declare the
elections valid, and discharge the sheriffs from blame ; and this was done.
See Prynne, Keg. ii._ 141 ; Kot. Parl. v. 367. The writs are indeed given
in the regular form in the Lords’ Eeport, iv. 940, 945 ; but in the act of
1460, which repealed the acts of the parliament of Coventry, it is alleged,
as one of the reasons of the invalidity of those acts, that the members were
returned, some of them without any due or free election, others without
any election at all, against the course of the king’s laws and the liberties
of the commons of this realm, by virtue of the king’s letters of privy seal ∙
Bot. Part. v. 374 ; Prynne, Beg. i. 142. See above, p. rS4 ’