^{page 120 note 1} MS. Heralds IV, pp. 290 (21st June 1665), 297–304.

^{page 120 note 2} The investiture of peers has never been the subject of detailed study. Selden, in Titles of Honour, gathered together a considerable amount of information which enables the practice to be related to a continental background. It was very summarily treated in the Reports on the Dignity of a Peer, ii, 151. More recently it has been briefly discussed in the Complete Peerage, 2nd ed., vol. x, App. I, and by Sir Geoffrey Ellis in Earldoms in Fee, pp. 78–80.

^{page 120 note 3} Matthew Paris (Rolls Series, ii. 352); the sword also mentioned in the charter of 25th November I 189 (Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, Surtees Soc. ix, 1839, lxii). Roger of Hoveden (Rolls Series, iii, 94) mentions the girding of the Earl of Leicester on succession on and February 1191—again without any suggestion that this was a new practice. We are much indebted to Mr. Enoch Powell and Mr. Keith Wallis for these references.

^{page 120 note 4} Both Richard I and John were invested in this manner at Rouen in 1189 and 1199 (Matthew Paris, Rolls Series, ii, 346 and 454).

^{page 120 note 5} There are a few references to girding in the Calendars of Close Rolls. It is only in 1322 that the charter of the earldom of Carlisle records the girding of a new peer and the series of creation charters properly so called begins. Prior to this the surviving documents associated with new earldoms mention creation simply as a preamble to the grant of lands or the third penny of the county and hardly ever make any reference to the physical act of creation.

^{page 121 note 1} The last mention of the girding of earls noted before 1300 relates to that of the Earls of Lincoln and Cornwall on 13th October 1272 (Calendar of Close Rolls, 1272–9, p. 373; Complete Peerage, iii, 433). Both had succeeded to their dignities.

^{page 121 note 2} The link with the counties is also noticeable in the fact that down to the sixteenth century the annuities of dukes, marquesses, and earls (normally £40, 40 marks, and £20 respectively) were almost invariably made payable by the sheriffs of the counties from which they drew their titles.

^{page 121 note 3} The account of the investiture of Lord Marney in 1524 is to be found in Brit. Mus. Harleian MS. 6074, f. 56, and Coll. Arm. MS. WQ, f. 80.

^{page 121 note 1} The right of wearing coronets was granted on 7th August 1661 (Patent Roll 13 Car. II, pt. 38); that of wearing robes of estate on and April 1685 (Patent Roll 1 Jac. II, pt. 1).

^{page 121 note 2} Interesting light is thrown on the uncertainty surrounding the precise status of viscounts by the account of the creation of Viscount Berkeley in 1481. His investiture had to be postponed because of doubts as to whether he should be invested in parliament robes like a baron, or in robes of estate like an earl (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 6113, f. 18; and Coll. Arm. MSS. WQ, ff. 79 and 117, WA, f. 3). It is to be noted that the higher ranks of the peerage had, in addition to their robes of estate, parliament robes differentiated according to their degree. An early illustration of these robes is to be found in the illuminated Foundation Charter of King's College Cambridge (1441), pl. xvi.

^{page 121 note 3} The relevant charters and extracts from the Parliament Rolls areconveniently brought together in the Reports on the Dignity of a Peer, vol. v.

^{page 121 note 4} The occasions described are: the creation of the Duke of Lancaster and the Earl of Cambridge (1362), Reports on the Dignity of a Peer, v, 53; the Dukes of York and Gloucester and the Earl of Suffolk (1385), ibid., pp. 61–66, 70–73 (the investiture of these peers was postponed for three months so that it could take place in parliament); the Marquess of Dublin (1385), ibid., pp. 76–77; the Earl of Rutland (1390), ibid., p. 86; the Earl of Somerset (1397), ibid., p. 116; five dukes, one marquess, and four earls (1397), ibid., pp. 121–2; the Prince of Wales (1399), ibid., p. 130; the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester and the Earl of Cambridge (1414), ibid., p. 172; and the Duke of Exeter (1416), ibid., p. 183.

^{page 123 note 1} Hope, W. H. St. John, ‘The Cap of Maintenance’, in English Coronation Records, ed. L. G. Wickham Legg, 1901, pp. lxxxii–lxxxviiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 123 note 2} The King's attitude is made plain in his reply to a petition asking for the creation of the prince (Reports on the Dignity of a Peer, v, 55–56). The formulae of parliamentary assent contained in creation charters of this period were clearly intended to mark the association between the king and parliament rather than to indicate any restriction on the royal prerogative of creating peers. The Prince of Wales was actually created after the session had ended. Other examples of creation outside parliament in this period are the four earls made at the coronation of Richard II in 1377 and the Earl of Nottingham, created in 1383. Some remarks on the effect of the words ‘assent of Parliament’ may be found in H. Nicolas, Reports on the Earldom of Devon Case (1832), App. 9.

^{page 123 note 3} Creations between 1509 and 1621 are noted in the Appendix. Apart from the creation of the Prince of Wales in 1610, the only occasion during this period when creations took place while parliament was in session was in 1529 when three earls were made. However, these earls are known to have been created at York Place (Whitehall) and not at Westminster Palace, where parliament was sitting. Before 1509 the scarcity of detailed information makes it difficult to speak with certainty. One of the few peers known to have been created when parliament was in session was the Earl of Winchester in 1472. The description of this occasion makes it plain that, although the creation took place in the parliament chamber, it was not a parliamentary sitting in the ordinary sense of the word. The ceremonial in this case had much more affinity to the later practice than to that which took place formerly, as described in the Parliament Rolls.

^{page 123 note 4} See Appendix. The principal collections of these memoranda are to be found in Brit. Mus. MSS. Add. 6113 and Harl. 5176 and 6074; and Coll. Arm. MSS. WA and WQ; a few printed accounts are in Milles, Catalogue of Honour and Nicolas, Historic Peerage (1857). A list of all these accounts is to be found tabulated in the Appendix.

^{page 124 note 1} See p. 123 n. 1 supra.

^{page 124 note 2} The question why three bows and neither more nor less figure both in the old and the modern ceremony is often asked. The answer probably is that three has been a sacred number in widely separated times and places, both non-Christian and Christian, and that this is merely one example among very many. A good collection of references to three as a sacred number will be found in the article Numbers in James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ix (1917), 406–17, where it is suggested that though their currency is by no means confined to these, three and nine as sacred numbers are especially characteristic of the Indo-European peoples from Vedic and Iranian religion through Greek and Roman, Teutonic and Celtic down to Christian. Among many examples the following of thrice repeated ritual actions may be worth mentioning: the Greek funeral pyre was circumambulated three times (Dio Cassius 56, 42); in the offering to Mars and Silvanus for the welfare of cattle the offerings were three portions each of spelt and wine (Cato de Agricultura 83); Varro records that a formula against gout was repeated 27 times (De Re Rustica 1. ii. 27); Celtic mythology is full of triads, and in particular the deiseal or ceremonial circumambulation was performed three times; Adam of Bremen describes a spring festival held every nine years at Uppsala at which nine of each male kind were offered.

^{page 125 note 1} The cap was conferred upon Viscount Hereford in 1550 (Brit. Mus. MS. Egerton 2642, f. 10): Viscount Cranborne was alleged to have been the first viscount to receive a coronet—in 1604.

^{page 125 note 2} See the account of the creation of Lord Howard of Effingham (1554), Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 6113, f. 133.

^{page 125 note 3} In spite of the discontinuance of investitures the largesse fee was still being paid to the heralds in the middle of the eighteenth century (Calendar of Treasury Books, xvi, 166; xvii, 340; xxix, 787; Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers, 1739–41, p. 157).

^{page 125 note 4} See the account of the creation of the Earl of Somerset (Reports on the Dignity of a Peer, v, 116).

^{page 125 note 5} Coll. Arm. MS. Heralds IV, f. 403a. See also p. 128, infra.

^{page 125 note 6} These constitutions were printed in Latin, French, and English by J. Anstis, Garter, in his Register of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, 1724, vol. ii (some copies vol. i). The relevant clause (pp. 352–3) runs: ‘Et quant aucun Seigneur entrera premierement en nostre Chamber de parlement, le dict Jarretier luy assignera lieu et place selon son estat et anchienete, et de ce aura recompence selon le plaisir du dict Seigneur.’

^{page 126 note 1} This draft is to be found in Coll. Arm. MS. Heralds IV, f. 36. For the petition (probably by Garter Segar) presented to the House of Lords see Lords' Journals, iv, 39.

^{page 126 note 2} Lords' Journals, ii, 225.

^{page 126 note 3} Anstis, op. cit., p. 351: ‘Et quant aucune Creacion sera faicte de aucun Prince, Due, Marquis, Conte, Viscont, ou Baron, le diet Jarretier Roy d'armes de l'Ordre aura les habillemens, que le diet Seigneur aura sur luy devant qu'il recoipvera ses Robes d'estat.’

^{page 126 note 4} Original at the College of Arms, see Heralds' Commemorative Exhibition 1484–1934, Illustrated Catalogue, 1936, p. 77.

^{page 126 note 5} Coll. Arm. MS. WC, f. 34; Anstis, Register of the Garter, i, 329.

^{page 127 note 1} A copy of c. 1430 is in Brit. Mus., MS. Cotton, Nero, D. ii, ff. 256b–257. Printed versions are in Guillim, Display of Heraldry, 5th ed., 1724, pt. iii, p. 35; Hearne, Collection of Curious Discourses, ed. 1775, i, 148; Leland, Collectanea, ed. 1774, iii, 234; Dallaway, Inquiries into the Origin and Progress of the Science of Heraldry in England, 1793, pp. 142–4. The corresponding French document is printed among the works of Sicily Herald (c. 1375–1437), Parties inedites de l'œuvre de Sidle héraut d'Alphonse V roi d'Aragon, ed. le P. Roland, Mons, 1867, pp. 93–99.

^{page 127 note 2} Coll. Arm. MS. WA, ff. 5, 7–7b.

^{page 127 note 3} Statement in an early seventeenth century petition, Coll. Arm. MS. Heralds IV, f. 36.

^{page 128 note 1} f. 403a. On this manuscript see Complete Peerage, vol. ix, App. B.

^{page 128 note 2} On these rolls see Heralds' Commemorative Exhibition 1484–1934, Illustrated Catalogue, 1936, pp. 33–37.

^{page 128 note 3} Seep. 142, infra. Doubtless also a work of Wriothesley.

^{page 128 note 4} Coll. Arm. MS. Heralds IV, f. 36.

^{page 128 note 5} Historia et Chartularium S. Petri Glos., Rolls Series, i, 53.

^{page 129 note 1} Bodleian MS. Ashmole 857, ff. 142–4; Coll. Arm. MS. Vincent 151, ff. 127–31.

^{page 129 note 2} Rot. Parl. iv, 267; Proceedings and Ordinances, ii, 104.

^{page 129 note 3} Rot. Parl. iv, 262 ff.

^{page 129 note 4} Ibid. 312.

^{page 129 note 5} Matthew Paris, Chronica Major a, ed. H. R. Luard; Rolls Series, iii, 336.

^{page 129 note 6} Lausanne, 1957, p. 5.

^{page 129 note 7} Coll. Arm. MS. Heralds II, ff. 701, 705.

^{page 129 note 8} Seventeenth century copies of this roll are in the Brit. Mus. (Add. MS. 22306) and the Bodleian Library (MS. Ashmole 12).

^{page 130 note 1} ‘Sine ulla investura quia prius dux fuerat’: Harl. MS. 5176, f. 216; ‘There needed no investure beeing investid with a greater dignitie before’: Letters of John Chamber-layne, ed. McClure, i, 485.

^{page 130 note 2} Coll. Arm. MS. WA, f. 29; Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 5176, f. 221. The fact that Lord Hay had earlier been granted an English barony without a seat in parliament does not appear to have had any bearing on this decision.

^{page 130 note 3} Op. cit. ii, 65; the letters patent (Patent Roll, 14 Jac. I, pt. 23) record the names of witnesses and it is conceivable that, although there was no investiture, the letters patent were delivered to Lord Noel in the same manner as to Lord Hay in 1615.

^{page 130 note 4} Bacon, Works (1803), v, 465.

^{page 130 note 5} Ibid., v, 474–5: the Earl of Devon (1485) was invested by the king (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 6113, f. 13) as were the Duke of Somerset, the Marquess of Northampton, and the Earls of Warwick and Southampton (1547) (Coll. Arm. MS. WA, f. 15, i. 18, f. 72).

^{page 131 note 1} Op. cit. ii, 79.

^{page 131 note 2} Non obstante clauses were not invariably inserted in the letters patent creating peerages until after the Restoration when they assumed a set form. They were dispensed with in 1917 (Statutory Rules and Orders, 1917, pp. 77–80).

^{page 131 note 3} Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 5176, f. 227.

^{page 131 note 4} Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 5176, f. 228; Coll. Arm. MS. WA, f. 43.

^{page 131 note 5} Chamberlayne, op. cit. ii, 125.

^{page 131 note 6} Ibid. 162.

^{page 131 note 7} Ibid. 339.

^{page 131 note 8} It is conceivable that the Duke of Richmond was invested on his creation on 17th May 1624. No account has been found, but the letters patent, dated at Greenwich, are witnessed by a large number of dignitaries (Patent Roll, 21 Jac. I, pt. 10). This is far from being conclusive proof that an investiture took place on this occasion, as the Duke of Buckingham's patent dated the following day is identical in form, while its recipient is known to have been Bridgein Spain at the time. There does, however, survive a very circumstantial account of the fees paid by the Duke of Richmond on the occasion of his creation (Brit. Mus. Lansdowne MS. 389).

^{page 132 note 1} Coll. Arm. MS. WQ, ff. 197–200.

^{page 132 note 2} Walker, Coronation of Charles II, pp. 57–64.

^{page 132 note 3} Mayes, C. R., ‘The Sale of Peerages in Early Stuart England’ in Journal of Modern History (1957), xxix, 21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, Lawrence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558–1641, 1965, pp. 97–119Google Scholar.

^{page 132 note 4} Between the creation of the Earl of Richmond and that of Viscount St. Alban, sixteen peerages were conferred without investiture. These were: the Earl of Richmond (Duke of Lennox) (6th Oct. 1613), Lord Hay (29th June 1615), Lord Noel (23rd Mar. 1616/17), Earl of Bridge-water (27th May 1617), Marquess of Buckingham (1st Jan. 1617/18), Countess of Buckingham (1st July 1618), Viscount Doncaster (5th July 1618), Earl of Warwick (6th Aug. 1618), Earl of Devon (7th Aug. 1618), Lord Digby (25th Nov. 1618), Earl of March (7th June 1619), Earl of Cambridge (Marquess of Hamilton) (16th June 1619), Viscount Purbeck (19th June 1619), Viscount Mansfield (29th Oct. 1620), Viscount Mandeville (19th Dec. 1620), and the Earl of Holderness (30th Dec. 1620). In the case of Lord Hay, the Marquess of Buckingham, and possibly that of Lord Noel, the letters patent were delivered into the hands of the new peer by the king. In the other cases it appears that no formality was observed.

^{page 133 note 1} 30th January, 3rd and 16th February 1620/1 (Lords' Journals, iii, 7–19).

^{page 133 note 2} Lords' Journals, iii, 162. Introductions of Viscounts Colchester and Rochford and Lords Brooke, Montagu, and Cranfield. For the date of Lord Brooke's creation see Notes and Queries, 4th series, viii, 22, 88, 217, and 234.

^{page 133 note 3} For the earliest version of the Standing Orders see Calendar and House of Lords MSS. x (N.S.), 1–27; the first Standing Order related to introductions is of 27th July 1663 and was designed to ensure that they should take place on creation only, and not on succession (Lords' Journals, xi, 575–6). It seems that when the new ceremony was devised, Garter, the Clerk of the Parliaments, and possibly other officers were accorded specific fees in connexion with it, on condition that they abandoned the fees that they had previously received on the first entry of peers coming in by descent. This would explain the petition of Garter, presented to the House of Lords on 23 rd February 1628/9 (ibid. iv, 39) already referred to, where he sought restitution of these fees. No action was taken on this and the Order of 1663 finally decided the matter. The fees themselves, so far as they related to the officers of the House of Lords, were confirmed on 22nd March 1724/5 (ibid, xxii, 627–9). All fees on introductions were abolished on the recommendation in 1904 of the West Committee (Lords' Journals, cxxxvi, 316).

^{page 133 note 4} The following instances of this ceremony are to be found: Lords Talbot (14th Feb. 1588/9), Delawarr (14th Nov. 1597), Bergavenny (26th May 1604), Denny (7th Feb. 1604/5), Knyvett (4th July 1607), Howard de Walden (9th Feb. 1609/10), Clinton (2nd June 1610) (Lords' Journals, ii, 149, 197, 306, 349, 538, 549, 606). Lords Delawarr and Bergavenny were barons whose right to sit was deemed to originate in Writs of Summons and whose precedence had been in doubt.

^{page 134 note 1} For this ceremony see Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 5176, f. 273 and Lords' Journals, ii, 607.