xxii COMPLETE PEERAGE early parliamentary gathering which the Lords' tribunal may be prepared to overlook for the purpose of creating a man a peer or of furnishing his peerage with a high precedence, is governed by the sweet pleasure of the judicial body for the moment, is not regulated by known laws, and consequently cannot be determined beforehand. So we come back to the crucial question, What constitutes a Parliament for Peerage purposes ? And this query nobody answers, for nobody knows. WRITS OF 1294 The observations of Sir N. Harris Nicolas (p. 141) on these writs are as follows : — " Reginald de Clyvedon was, with about sixty other persons, sum. 8 June (1294), 22 Edw. I, to attend the King, wherever he might be, to advise on the affairs of the Realm ; but there is very considerable doubt if that writ can be considered as a regular writ of summons to Pari., as none of the higher temporal Nobility nor any of the spiritual Peers were included in it ; nor was there any day fixed for the meeting. It is also to be observed that the writ in question is the earliest on record, excepting that of (1264) 49 Hen. Ill, that the majority of the persons summoned in (1294) 22 Edw. I were never again summoned excepting in 25 Edw. I, that several of those persons were not considered as Barons by Tenure, and that of those who were Barons by Tenure and summoned on those occasions, many were never included in any subsequent summons to Parliament. The writ of (1294) 22 Edw. I has, however, on one occasion (in the case of the Barony of Ros) been admitted as a writ of summons to Parliament at the bar of the House of Lords, but the last 'General Report of the Lords' Com- mittee appointed to search for matters touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm, ' appears to confirm the objections here expressed. " The criticisms of G.W. Watson on the above disquisition are as follows : " It appears from the foregoing remarks that Nicolas must have been under some misapprehension when he took these writs into consideration. For the only writ concerned in the Ros Case (16 1 6, ' before the Commissioners for the office of Earl Marshal') was one of 1264 and not one of i 294. It would seem indeed that
