. . . but leave us still our old nobility!

BOOKS

EDWARD BOYLE

Mr Enoch Powell's The House of Lords in the Middle Ages (Weidenfeld and Nicolson 8 guineas), written with the research assistance of Mr Keith Wallis, is a history of the evolu- tion of the English peerage between 1066 and 1540 that I have found both formidably learned and extremely interesting. At times, admittedly, the weight of detail seems oppressive; the sixteen year old Edward Hastings of Hunger- ford might well have been surprised to learn that his summons to Parliament in November 1482 would one day inspire the bottom para- graph of Mr Powell's page 523. But one can- not help being impressed by the intensity of Mr Powell's concentration on such issues as the haphazard selection of the lay magnates summoned to Parliament during the reigns of the first two Edwards, the loose rules of inheritance, the gradual divorce of titles from their earlier territorial basis, and the growing acceptance of the right of the Crown to create new peers by patent.

In a sense the title of this book is an anachronism, for the use of the term 'House of Lords' is not in fact found before 1544, as G. R. Elton has shown in The Tudor Constitu- tion; and one of Mr Powell's most interesting themes is the story of the gradual ascendancy and eventual victory of the concept of parlia- ment as two 'houses'—the 'magnates' and the `commonality' as they were already known in 1339—over the concept of the 'three estates' who specifically ratified the Treaty of Troyes of 1420. Mr Powell shows that the decisive moment came in 1521, when the judges in the Standish case accepted that the lords spiritual and temporal formed one single body 'with a common status and basis of membership.'

I have the feeling that it was the central section of the book, covering the reigns of the three Edwards (1272-1377), which engaged Mr Powell's interest most of all. No chapter is more compelling than the account of the crisis of 1341, when Archbishop Stratford asserted his wish to vindicate himself 'before the King and the prelates, magnates and peers of the realm'—in direct contrast, as we are reminded, to Beckett's repudiation of sentence by the lay powers, nearly two centuries before. Mr Powell, like Sir Lewis Namier, is always at his most interesting when he lets up for a moment on the minute examination of the material in front of him in order to draw an instructive parallel, or contrast, across a range of time.

On one important point relating to this period—the evolution of the term `banneret' —Mr Powell can claim to have made an original contribution to our historical know- ledge. In Edward I's time, 'knights banneret denoted a class or category of soldier . . . a command, and not a social or political class.' But evidence is adduced to show that, by the 1340s, the terms 'barons and bannerets' were used together to describe 'the lay magnates below the rank of earl' who received parlia- mentary summonses. And 'when those whom it was officially felt to be not correct to describe as barons were called "bannerets," this was no longer a military rank, but a social (and financial) grade.' This is an important dis-

covery on Mr Powell's part, because the fact that one could become a lord of parliament without being a 'baron' (i.e. the holder of a `barony' with its specific manor or castle identifiable as its caput) obviously marked a significant stage in the gradual evolution of an assembly of magnates into a house of peers.

Historians will also welcome, I feel sure, Mr Powell's emphasis on the continuing connec- tion between summons for parliament and summons for military service, in the reign of Edward I; actually more than two thirds of the barons summoned to the 'Model Parliament' of 1295 had a direct personal interest in the success of Edward's Welsh and Scottish policies. I was also glad to read, in an earlier chapter, a reference to English- men serving as mercenaries in the armies of Norman kings; one hopes that the curious neglect of this aspect of the Norman Conquest, long deplored by a number of scholars (e.g. J. 0. Prestwich), is now at an end.

There are, however, just two or three points which I would venture to criticise. First, I think Mr Powell lays rather too much emphasis, in his interpretation of the period, on the principle that 'all government rests on consent.' As against this, one recalls K. B. Macfarlane's remark that '[Mediaeval] England ... depended for its healthy functioning on the exercise of the kingship,' and Sir Frank Stenton's view that, throughout the Middle Ages, the king's own personal estimate of individuals counted for more than any paper constitution, or `constitutional principle' in determining the composition of his Great Councils.

Secondly, while I would always endorse Mr Powell's emphasis on 'the role of accident in human affairs,' nevertheless I think that one can afford, when writing the history of institu- tions, to generalise a little more than Mr Powell is ready to do so, and I confess I find his pages on the origins of parliament rather disappoint- ing and unsatisfactory. Surely Sir Maurice Powicke was right when he suggested that, from the second half of Henry III's reign Onwards, there was a growing tendency ;towards coin- cidence in time and place between, first, those occasions when the king summoned his mag- nates to treat with him on the affairs of the realm, and, secondly, the proceedings on im- portant judicial business which were reserved for the early part of law terms when judges, Exchequer barons, and regular members of the Council could act in concert. This coincidence had become complete by the end of Edward I's reign—hence its very real importance for our parliamentary history, even though no clear distinction between 'parliaments' and other

assemblies had as yet been formulated Incidentally, the two most useful guides t(' the early history of parliament remain, in view, first, Maitland's incomparable introduc- tion to the Memoranda de Parliament° of 1305. and, second (too little known), the admirable article which Dr Geoffrey Templeman con tributed to an early number of the University of Birmingham Historical Journal.

I did also find myself questioning, as I read Mr Powell's later chapters, the validity of a study of the peerage in parliament in isolation from the history of the commons, at a time when the latter were growing both in experience and in initiative. From time to time we catch echoes of their voices—in 1397, when they demand (successfully) that the prelates and the clergy should 'appoint a proctor with full power to consent in their name to all matters and ordinances to be established in this parliament,' and at the start of the next reign when the commons make their grant 'with the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal'—a 'new, and surely significant, formula. And we know from other sources that the commons, at this time, were even trying to insist that their petitions should be answered before they made any grant, and were shortly to claim (1414) that no statute could be valid without their assent.

When I was Financial Secretary some years ago, and it had become clear that the plans for a complete History of Parliament would have to be curtailed, all my advisers were agreed that 1377-1422 was a key period in the history of the relationship between the two 'houses.'

Undoubtedly the greater frequency of parlia- ments was in itself an important influence, as well as the growth in petitioning, and the

requests for grants. Macfarlane, in ' his im- portant article on 'Bastard Feudalism,' pointed

out the increased numbers of old parliamentary hands in the commons at the turn of the fourteenth/fifteenth century, and also the growth at this time of non-baronial landlords.

with seats in parliament, who ranked high among the great men of theii shires. To use Mr Powell's own categories, the 'most eminent and influential' as well as the most 'representative' of the governed were already beginning to share in the work of the 'com- monality.'

But, considered as a whole, this lengthy volume is a remarkable enterprise, impressiveh conceived and most conscientiously carried through, It is beautifully produced, and the plates are particularly well chosen, though one may still feel that the price is unreasonably high. I hope it will receive the courtesy of serious consideration by some, at least, of the major historical reviews. Professional his- torians are inclined, these days, to show them- selves a little sensitive regarding their academic status, and one can understand their feelings of impatience at some of those concoctions of 'instant' history which achieve ephemeral suc- cess. But this is a deeply considered work, very individual and personal, which must surely command the respect even of those who dissent most strongly from Mr Powell on a number of contemporary issues. When Wittgenstein com- pleted his Tractatus, he wrote that 'Its purpose would be achieved if it gave pleasure to one person who read it and understood it.' I haN e read Mr Powell's pages with care and, I hope.

some understanding, and if he agrees with Witt- genstein, then he can be assured that his labours of twenty years have certainly been worth while.