456 Constitutional History. [chap.
Dignity of
banneret.
Banneret
not a rank
of peerage.
Another curious point, which more directly affects the house
of lords, is the dignity of banneret, which has been sometimes
regarded as a rank of peerage inferior to a barony1. This
however was not the case; the rank of banneret was simply
a degree of knighthood, superior to that of knight bachelor,
and entitling its possessor to use a square pennon, but conveying
no right of peerage, although of course many peers were, in
virtue of their degree of knighthood, bannerets also. On this
point much discussion has arisen ; but it is one capable of sum-
mary proof ; in very many cases barons were also bannerets ;
but the existence of a single English banneret who is never
summoned to parliament would be enough to prove that the
dignity conferred no peerage. Sir John Coupland, who took
king David prisoner at Neville’s Cross, was made a banneret by
Edward III, with a pension of five hundred pounds a year to
maintain his rank ; but he never sat in parliament2. There
are many such instances throughout the whole period during
which bannerets are heard of at all : but as the title of baron
is, as wre have just seen, very sparingly given to the peers, that
of banneret or chivaler is frequently bestowed on those who
were peers as well3.
1 Prynne, Keg. ii. ιι‰ 118; Madox∙, Baron. Angl. p. ι6o; Lords*
Beport, i. 329, 340, 350, 354; Selden, Titles of Honour, pp. 737, 790.
John Cobham, made a banneret by Edward III, had 100 marks allowance
to maintain his state, 42 Edw. Ill ; Madox, Bar. Angl. p. ι8ι : his father
and grandfather had sat in parliament as barons, and their barony
descended to his daughter. Geoffreyle Scrope in 1340 Iiadasettlement
of 200 marks per annum, on himself and his heirs, to maintain their
estate of banneret, but he died immediately after, and Iiis son was not
summoned to parliament until 1350; Lords’ Report, i. 354, 355. In this
case an hereditary banneretcy must have been contemplated. In 1344
and 1372 bannerets are mentioned on the rolls as present in parliament;
Rot. Parl. ii. 147, 309.
2 Eoedera, iii. 102; Coke, 4th Inst. p. 5 ; Camden, ^Brit⅞nm⅞ (ed. 1600),
p. 138.
3 This seems to be very conclusive ; but Hallam thought the point still
unsettled; Middle Ages, iii. p. 126. As however we have the complete
lists of summons to identify the hereditary peers, there need really be
no further question. The writ of 1378 in which it is stated that John
Camoys, being a banneret, could not be elected as knight of the shire
for Surrey is explained by the fact that he was also a baron; Prynne,
Reg. ii. 117, ιι8. According to Selden, Titles of Honour, pp. 790-792, a
banneret was a person knighted on the field of battle when the king is
present or the royal standard displayed ; the pennon of a banneret was
XX.] Number of Lords. 457
At the head of the barons of England, taking a sort of clerical 'rhβ Priora
precedence, were the English chiefs of the military orders, the orders.
Temple and the Hospital. Of these the Master of the Temple
disappears in 1308, at the suppression of the order; the Prior
of S. John’s, Clerkenwell, the Master of the Hospitallers of
England, took his due place in parliament down to the date
of the dissolution of monasteries ; although he occupied the
seat of a lord temporal, he was summoned among the lords
spiritual ɪ.
429. The number of the temporal lords varied in almost Xumber
. . of lords
every parliament; and, from time to time, we have traced the temporal,
political or other causes of this fluctuation: during the reign
of Henry IV the number never exceeded fifty ; under Henry V
it only once reached forty ; under Henry VI, beginning with
twenty-three in 1422, it reached fifty-five in 1450; and under
Edward IV the maximum was fifty in the year 1466. The
variations were caused by extinction, abeyances, minorities and
attainders on the one hand, by new creations and restorations
on the other. In some cases we may conjecture that the
omission of a name from the list of summonses was caused by
the neglect of its bearer to obey former citations2. There are Exemptions
° У from attend
many instances of barons being relieved from the duty of an∞,
attending parliament as a privilege due to old age or high
favour3 ; without some such licence or other good excuse, and
cut square into the shape of a banner, whence the name. Of the
bannerets in arms in 1322 (Pari. Writs, II. ii. 196 sq.) Sir Warin de ΓIsle,
Sir Kobert de Lidle, Sir Gilbert de Aton, Sir Thomas de Vere, were
not barons of parliament. In the Wardrobe Accounts of Edward I, most
of the persons receiving pay as bannerets were also barons receiving
special summons to parliament ; but Sir John Bottetourt who is called
a banneret in 1300 is not summoned to parliament until 1305 ; and among
the others are Sir Richard Siward, Sir Simon Fraser, Amanenus de la
Bret, Arnold de Gaveston, and Ehe de Cavapenna, all of them aliens.
It cannot be denied that the subject has some puzzling aspects, but the
authority of Selden, Prynne, and tlɪe Lords’ Report, will probably be
sufficient for most investigators.
1 Mon. Ang. vi. 799. The Master of the Gilbertines, or order of
Sempringham, ceased to be summoned in 1332. The prior of Clerkenwell
sat until 1536 ; he was allowed in 1539 to appoint a proxy. He sat for
the last time under Philip and Mary.
2 See above, p. 454, note 2.
3 See Frynne, 4th Inst. pp. 33-37.