CHAP.

IV.

One of Cnut is signed by the king, queen, two archbishops, eleven bishops, eight abbots, three earls, five milites, and five others called satraps.

That this was part of the witena-gemot is manifest, because one of the Comites expresses, in addition to his signature, that it was the decretum sapientum, the decree of the wise men. 56

The Saxon Chronicle obviously alludes to the members and assembly of the witena-gemot when he mentions that William the Conqueror wore his crown every year, in Easter, at Winchester; on Whitsuntide, at Westminster; and in mid-winter at Gloucester; and then were with him all the rice men over all England; archbishops, bishops, abbots, and earls, thegns, and cnihtas. 57 It is not at all probable that thegns and knights would have been part of the Conqueror's parliament if they had not been constituent parts of the national council before his invasion.

That the thegn, or minister, was also sometimes a miles, I infer from observing that one of Edgar's charters is signed by eight with the designation of miles, some of whose names I recognise in other charters of the same king, where they are denoted as ministri. 58

That thegn is sometimes translated minister, many charters and Saxon docuinents show 69; but there is one that has come down to us which actually distinguishes the ministri from the nobiles; it is signed by the king, the archbishop, four bishops, six duces, one abbot, three nobiles, and nine ministri. 60

59

BOOK
VIII.

That the witena-gemot contained some who had lands, and some who had none, and therefore did not sit in that assembly by virtue of their baronies, or landed property, may be justly inferred from an important charter of Kenult, king of Mercia, in the year 811.

It states that the king called to the consecration of the church, “the whole of the optimates of Mercia; the bishops, princes, earls, procuratores, and my relations, the kings of Kent and Essex, with all who were present, witnesses, in our synodical councils." The king adds, “With all the optimates of Mercia in THREE SYNODS, with unanimous advice, I gladly gave my gifts to all the archontes of Mercia, and of the other provinces, in gold, in silver, and in all my utensils, and in chosen steeds; that is, to each according to the dignity of his degree; and on all who had not lands I bestowed a pound in the purest silver, and in the purest gold; and to every presbyter one marc; and to every servant of God one shilling; and these gifts are not to be numbered, as it became our royal dignity.” 6

"

This important charter not only proves that some of the members of the witena-gemot had no lands, but it seems to intimate that they inet in three chambers. The expression“ in three synods," coupled with “ the unanimous advice,” leads the

mind to ask whether it does not refer to the three CHAP.

IV. orders of clergy, nobles, and commons meeting in separate synods, rather than to three successive meetings of the same synod. The practice from the time that the meetings of parliament become distinctly visible to us has been such separate meetings, with the custom of all uniting together when the king was present. The natural force of the words “three synods” is to express three distinct councils, not three sittings of the same council.

There is a charter, dated 970, in Ingulf, which besides the clergy, duces, and ministers, has fourteen signatures without any designation. 62

In one a person signs himself as both sacerdos and minister, as if the minister was a qualification distinct from, and additional to, that of priest.

In 833, the king says he makes his charter before the bishops, and greater proceres of all England, as if the proceres had been in two divisionsthe majores and the minores. 63

The same distinction is expressly mentioned in 851. The optimates of the universi concilii, of the whole council, are noticed; and Ingulf says, “In this council, many, tam majores quam minores, became afflicted with an epidemical disease.” 64

This distinction of the greater from the less barons, or proceres, in the Anglo-Saxon times, shows that there were two classes of them in the national council before the Conquest. That the majores, or greater barons, answered to our present House of Peers, and were, like them, called indi

VIII.

BOOK vidually to parliament by the king's writ of sum

mons, and that the others were to be sent like our Commons, we may safely infer from the provisions of Magna Charta : " We will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, majores barones, separately, by our letters: and besides, we will cause to be summoned, in general, by our sheriff's and bailiffs, all those who hold of us in capite at a certain day, at the end of forty days at least, at a certain place,” &c. The provisions of Magna Charta were not claimed as innovations, but as the ancient rights and privileges of the nation.

The same distinction of the inferior barons from the superior chamber of them, is expressively mentioned in the life of Becket, by his contemporary secretary.

AFTER stating that the king appointed a general council, or parliament, to meet at Northampton, he says, “On the second day the bishops, earls, and all the barons, were sitting.”66 In the discussion the bishops said, “We sit here not as bishops, but as barons: you are barons and we are barons, your67 peers. He afterwards adds, “ The king exacted from the earls and barons their judgment of the archbishop.” Then follows this important passage: “Some sheriffs and barons of the second dignity are called in, ancient in days, that they may be added to them, and be present at the judg

ment.” 68

These last quotations prove that there were barons of the second dignity distinct from the

IV.

greater, not only in John but in Henry the Se- CHAP. cond's times; and by comparing them with the expressions of Ingulf, it is obvious that the same distinction prevailed in the Saxon times. The passage from Stephanides also implies that, until called in, the minor barons were not sitting with

the peers.

69

The expressions of the writers immediately after the Conquest, in describing the national council, show that it consisted of other classes besides the nobles and clergy, because it is not likely that the three first Norman sovereigns would have introduced, as there is no evidence that they did introduce, a more popular representation. Thus of Henry the First it is said, by Peter of Blois, “ Having appointed a most distinguished council at London, as well of the bishops and abbots of all the clergy of England, as of the earls, barons, optimates and proceres of all his kingdom. The optimates and proceres express members different from the earls, and barons, and additional to them.

So the Saxon Chronicle mentions of the same king, Henry the First, that he “ sent his writs over all England, and commanded his bishops and his abbots, and all his thegns, that they should come to his ge-witena-mot at Candlemas day at Gloucester : and they did so: and the king bade them choose an archbishop. The bishops chose one, but it is added, that the monks, the eorles, and the thegnas, opposed him.” 70 So it is mentioned four