FOOTNOTES
[1] Co. 8. Rep. pref.
[2] Madox’s Exch. 439.
[3] Ibid. 203.
[4] Ibid. 253.
[5] Hume’s Hist.
[6] Mad. Exch. 297.
[7] Ibid. 87.
[8] Hoveden, p. 600.
[9] Mad. Exch. 662.
[10] Hoveden, p. 600. n. 40.
[11] Mad. Exch. 24.
[12] Mad. Exch. 35.
[13] Ibid. 225.
[14] Leg. Anglo-Sax. p. 339.
[15] Hoveden, p. 622, 623. Note 10.
[16] Spelm. Gloss. ad voc. Justitia; and Plowden, 368. b.
[17] Hist. Hen. II.
[18] Selden. opera omnia. 1669.
[19] See 1. Reeves’s Hist. Eng. Law. 223.
[20] Robertson’s Charles 5. Vol. 1. p. 296.
[22] Madox’s Exch. 123. and Note.
[23] Reeves’s Hist. Eng. Law. 1. 213.
[24] 4 Inst. 345.
[25] Reeves’s Hist. Eng. Law 225.
[26] Hist. Charles 5. Vol. 1. p. 296.
[27] Plowd. 357.
[28] The introductory part of this Preface is in imitation of that of Justinian’s Institutes, and seems strangely to have taken the fancy of the law writers of the age, since Glanville is more or less followed by the Regiam Majestatem, Bracton and Fleta.
[29] “On these last words,” says Lord Littleton, “I would observe, that, as in those days there was no distinct Court of Equity, the Judges of the King’s Court had probably a power of mitigating in some cases the rigour of the Law.” (Hist. of Life Hen. 2. Vol. 3. p. 315. Oct. Ed.) A strong instance in point the Reader will find in L. 7. c. 1. or the present Translation p. 149.
[30] This principle, the very basis of despotism occurs in the Roman code. (Justin. Instit. L. 1. t. 2. s. 6.) It may very justly be questioned, whether it is not here cited ironically. At all events, the passage of our text can scarcely warrant the conclusion the celebrated M. Houard has drawn from it. But the Reader shall have his own words—Le Texte de notre Auteur prouve qu’après la conquête, les Anglois reçurent, de Guillaume le Bâtard, les mêmes Maximes que nous avions jusques-là suivies, a l’égard du Droit exclusif, que nos Rois avoient toujours exercé, de faire les Loix. (Traités sur les coutumes Anglo-Normandes par M. Houard. 1. 378.)
[31] “Now, as out of the old Fields must come the new corn, so our old Books do excellently expound and express this matter, as the Law is holden at this day; and, therefore, Glanville saith, Placitorum aliud est criminale, aliud Civile, where Placitum criminale is Placitum coronæ, and Placitum civile, Placitum commune, named in this Statute.” (Magna Carta.) (Vide 2 Inst. 21.)
[32] LL. Æthelbyrti, c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. &c. (Al. MS.)
[33] “The Committers of these Crimes,” says the Regiam Majestatem, “may be punished not only for any fact or deed, but also for the intent and purpose.” (Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 1.)
[34] Crimen falsi, an expression borrowed from the Civil Law. (Vide Justin. Inst. 4. 18. 7. &c.) Our author explains its import, L. 14. c. 7.
[35] Cap. 2. Hengham Magna, c. 2. p. 7. LL. Canuti R. secul. c. 61. et Somneri Gloss. in voce emenda. (Al. MS.)
The Law of Canute alluded to, is in these words: Irruptio in domum et incendium et furtum manifestum et cædes publica et domini proditio juxta leges humanas sunt inexpiabilia. (Vide LL. Anglo-Saxon. Ed. Wilkins, p. 143.)
[36] Among the Laws of Canute, are some inflicting the punishment of loss of members. (LL. Canuti, c. 15. 33. &c.)
From hence it has been inferred, that Canute first introduced this species of punishment into England.
However that may be, the Conqueror’s Law forms too remarkable a feature in his Legislation to be passed over in silence. It forbids the punishments of death and hanging for any crime, but orders, that the eyes of the offenders should be plucked out, or their feet or hands &c. amputated, ita quod truncus vivus remaneat in signum proditionis et nequitiæ suæ!! (LL. Gul. Conq. p. 218. Ed. Wilkins.)
[37] “Theft and manslaughter,” says the Regiam Majestatem, “belong to the Sheriff when any certain accuser appears: not so when those crimes are taken up by dittay.” (c. 1. L. 1.) “The Sheriff in the Tourn (for that is to be intended) held plea of Theft,” says Lord Coke. But this part of his jurisdiction was taken away by 17. c. Mag. Cart. (Vide 2 Inst. 30-1.)
[38] Medletis, or, as in Harl. Cotton. and Bodl. MSS. melletis. From Bracton it is to be collected, that some instances of this offence fell under the Jurisdiction of Lords of Franchise, and on their default, reverted to the Sheriff; whilst other instances fell under cognizance of the crown, a distinction confirmed by the Reg. Majestatem (vide Bracton 154. B. Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 2.) The term is said to be derived from the French mesler. (Vide 3 Inst. 66. Spelm. Gloss. and Cowell’s Interpreter.)
[39] The Reg. Maj. makes this allegation a ground of the Sheriff’s Jurisdiction (L. 1. c. 3.) “In this distinction, between the Sheriff’s Jurisdiction and that of the King, we see the reason of the allegation in modern Indictments and Writs, “vi et armis,” “of the king’s crown and dignity,” “the king’s peace,” and “the peace,” this last expression being sufficient, after the peace of the Sheriff had ceased to be distinguished as a separate Jurisdiction.” (Vide Reeves’s Hist. Eng. Law. 1. 113.)
[40] Our author explains this term, B. 9. c. 11.
[41] Recognitiones. Upon the words facere recognitionem, Sir Edward Coke thus comments.—“Cognitio is knowledge or knowledgement, or opinion, and Recognition is a serious acknowledgement, or opinion upon such matters of fact as they shall have in charge, and thereupon the Jurors are called Recognitores Assisæ,” (Vide Co. Litt. 158. b.) Our author treats largely on Recognitions in the 12th Book, to which we refer the reader.
[42] We learn from Bracton, that the Sheriff was in the habit of exercising Jurisdiction over many Pleas which did not belong to him ex officio; but, in such cases, he acted by the King’s precept, not as Sheriff, but as Justiciarius Regis, (Bracton 154. b.) The distinction is important, and seems not unknown to the Grand Custumary of Normandy. (Vide c. 2.)
[43] Breve, a Writ. When causes became so frequent that the king was unable to attend to them, says Craig, he remitted them to the Judge, by means of Instruments containing a brief summary of the chief points. Hence the name Breve. (Craig Jus Feud. L. 2. Dieg. 17, s. 24.) So early as Henry the first we find, that contemptus Brevium was an offence, subjecting the person guilty of it to be amerced to the king. (LL. Hen. 1. c. 14.)
[44] Clamat. Vide Spelm. Gloss. ad voc. Craig Jus Feud. L. 2. Dieg. 17. s. 25. and L. 3. Dieg. 5. s. 2.
[45] Vide Fitz. Nat. Brev. p. 5. Ed. 1687. As this is the first writ we meet with, it may not be improper to observe, that, in rendering the writs, the Translator has for obvious reasons endeavoured to adhere to the technical phraseology generally used in that species of process.
[46] Essonium, an Excuse. Sir Edward Coke derives the term from the French verb essonier or exonier. He tells us, it is all one with what the civilians call excusatio. Sir Henry Spelman mentions the same derivation, and adds, ex, privativum, soing, cura. The Greek word ἐξὸμνυσθαι has been proposed as another derivation, implying an excuse by means of an oath. The term occurs so early as the Assizes of Jerusalem, (c. 58.) So limited is the doctrine of Essoins in the present day, that it will here suffice to observe, there were five principal kinds in the reign of Henry the second; I say principal, because there were necessarily many others of less importance. These, as enumerated by Sir Edward Coke, were; 1. de servitio Regis. 2. In terram sanctam. 3. Ultra mare. 4. De malo lecti. 5. De malo veniendi; the two last being the same as those ex infirmitate de reseantisâ and ex infirmitate veniendi, so frequently mentioned by our author, in the present book. Essoins are said to have been derived to us from the Normans. (Vide Assises of Jerusalem, c. 58. le Grand Custum. de Norm. sparsim. Bracton 336. b. et seq. Fleta L. 6. c. 7. Mirror, 117. et seq. 2 Inst. 125. Spelm. Cowell. Les termes de la ley, &c. &c.)
[47] In affirmance of this period of time, see Articuli super chartas, c. 15. and Lord Coke’s comment. (2 Inst. 567.) The Norman code required the same period to render a summons lawful, Grand Custum. de Norm. c. 49. See also Bracton 334. a. and Fleta L. 6. c. 6. s. 11. 12.
[48] It seems from the Regiam Majestatem, that if the summons were made by one summoner, in the presence of lawful and sufficient witnesses, it was good. These witnesses were to verify the summons, before the defendant could be compelled to answer. (Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 6.)
[49] Seisina “is borrowed of the French seisine, ‘possessio,’ and so it signifieth in our common Law.” (Cowell ad voc.) Craig concludes, that as we had the term, so we had the doctrine from the French. (Craig Jus Feud. L. 2. Dieg. 7. s. 1.) Sir Edward Coke and Sir Henry Spelman coincided with Cowell and Craig in the derivation. (Co. Litt. 17. a. Spelm. Gloss. ad voc.) The term, it seems, was used, both by the canonists and civilians. (Cowell ubi supra: vide also Index ad Anglo-Sax. LL. verb. saisiare and references there.)
[50] Vide Bracton 367. a.
[51] Vide F.N.B. 36. 37. Ed. 1687.
[52] Duodecimâ manu. The author of the commentaries renders this expression eleven, besides the principal, an interpretation which is more or less confirmed by the following authorities: Co. Litt. 295. a. 2. Inst. 44, and the Diversity of Courts, p. 324. On the other hand, Les Termes de la Ley, in describing the ceremony as applied to the very object of the text, expressly says, that the principal should be accompanied by twelve. (Ibid. ad voc. ley.)
Bracton, when treating of the subject, employs the same expression, and observes, that the land was not to be replevied, before the tenant had waged his law, nor, if he failed in waging it; and he lays it down, that the Tenant could not wage his Law by means of an Attorney constituted for that purpose, but must do it personally. (Bracton 366. a. 410. a.) As to the origin of waging Law, the reader may consult Cowell ad voc. Law and les Termes de la ley ubi supra and Bl. comm. 3. 341. &c.
Before we quit this chapter, it may not be amiss to observe, that Sir Edward Coke refers to it to show, that previous to Magna Carta, he that would make his Law in any Court of Record, must bring with him fideles Testes. (Co. Litt. 168. b.)
[53] Bracton tells us, that it was not necessary that the compurgators should be of the same rank as their Principal: it was sufficient if they were trust-worthy, and of good characters. (Bracton 410. a.)
[54] Mr. Reeves observes, that the waging of Law is not mentioned by Glanville, as a mode of proof for the defendant in civil suits. That judicious writer must be understood, as speaking of that proof, which constituted the defence to the Action.
[55] Vide Mirror, c. 4. s. 7. Bracton 366. a. b. 368. a. b.
[56] Reseantisâ, from the French reseant, or resiant, or when anglicised, resiance, a term which Dr. Johnson explains in his dictionary, as meaning a residence, though, as he remarks, it is now only used in Law. In this, its simple sense, our author has used it, in a subsequent part of his work. (L. 12. c. 7.) Yet it assumes a different meaning, as used by the old English and Scotch Lawyers to denote an Essoin, when it indicated, as Skene expresses it, “a long and old sickness, or a resident, heavy infirmity and sore sickness.” (Regiam Majestatem, L. 1. c. 8.) An observation in the margin of our author informs us, that this Essoin was synonymous with that de malo lecti; in other words, this Essoin was resorted to on account of such a severe indisposition as necessarily confined a man to his house or bed.
[57] Or de via Curiæ, as it is termed in the Norman code. This Essoin was cast, when the party on his way to Court had fallen suddenly sick, and was thereby prevented attending. (Le grand Custum. de Norm. c. 39.)
[58] “Or on another,” according to the Cotton. Bodl. and Dr. Milles’s MSS.
[59] “Fourth,” according to Dr. Milles’s MS. and so it undoubtedly ought to be, as the context evinces.
[61] It should seem, from Bracton and Fleta, that such persons only as were inferior in dignity to Barons, were required to prove the truth of their Essoins by their own oaths. (Bracton 351. b. Fleta L. 6. c. 10. s. 15.) By the 19th c. of Marlbridge, even these persons were relieved from the obligation. (2 Inst. 136.)
[62] Vide Madox’s Excheq. c. 3. s. 3.
[63] The severity of this Law was mitigated by 9 Ed. 3. c. 2. whereby none were to lose their land, by reason of non-plevin. A note to this effect is inserted in the margin of our Author; but the reference to the chapter is erroneous.
[64] “And by two Essoiners,” according to Cotton. and Dr. Milles’s MSS.
[65] Skene explains a languor by “a vehement sickness of body, or of mind.” (Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 8.)
[66] The text is Homines. The Translator submits that it should be milites, a reading warranted by the latter part of this very writ; and authorised by the concurring testimony of Bracton, Fleta, Grand Custum. of Norm. &c. See also chapter 28. of the present Book—where, a similar object being in view, four Knights are directed to be sent.
[67] The Tenant, according to Dr. Milles’s MS.
[68] According to the Bodleian MS. it would stand, he (the Tenant) cannot recover, &c.
[69] “There is,” says the Regiam Majestatem, “another kind of Excuse or Essoin which is necessary, that is, when any one is essoined because he is beyond the water of Forth or of Spey; and, if this Essoin is found lawful, forty days shall be granted to him who is excused.” (Vide Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 8.) The inconveniences resulting from the abuse of the Essoin in our text were remedied by West. 1. cap. 44. Vide Sir Edward Coke’s Comment. 2 Inst. 251.
[70] And, as this was founded upon a political obligation, it did not extend to excuse the Defendant, if in the service of any other person. (Bracton 336. b.)
[71] Servientes. This term was received in many different senses. Sometimes it meant, persons holding military rank—Sometimes, Vassals or Tenants only—Sometimes, Esquires. It is, in this latter sense, that Lord Littleton and Dr. Brady seem inclined to think it was more generally used (Litt. Hist. Hen. 2. Vol. 3. p. 87.) Mr. Selden, however, has, in his Treatise on Titles of Honor, proved, that there were some very material distinctions between the terms, and that they were far from being synonymous. Dr. Sullivan, when he meets with the word in a Law of the conqueror, explains it as meaning “the lower soldiers, not knighted, who had not yet got lands, but were quartered on the Abbies.” (Lectures on Laws of England, p. 266.) Sir John Skene interprets, what I presume is the same Term, as meaning domestic servants. (Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 8.) This is, I apprehend, the true meaning of the text, notwithstanding that Servientes, when connected with the terms domini Regis, sometimes meant a particular description of officers, residing in every County, and possessed of an authority, perhaps, not altogether unlike that of Sheriffs or Coroners, after whom, they are enumerated by Bracton. (L. 3. Tr. 2. c. 32.)
[72] Respectus, pro mora, dilatione vel continuatione temporis. In this sense, the term frequently occurs in our old law books. (Vide Reg. Maj. L. 4. c. 20. and Spelm. Gloss. ad voc.) There is in the Register a writ respectu computi vicecomitis habendo, for the respiting a Sheriff’s accounts. There was also respectus Homagii, delaying of Homage. (See Cowell ad voc.)
[73] Terminum. “In the Civil Law,” says Spelman, “it signifieth a day set to the Defendant, and in that sense doth Bracton, Glanville, and some others sometimes use it.” (Reliquiæ Spelmannianæ p. 71.)
[74] The Regiam Majestatem lays down the doctrine of Essoins, nearly word for word with Glanville: but adds one species of Essoin not taken notice of by our author—the being absent at a public fair. (L. 1. c. 8.)
[75] It should rather seem that in Bracton’s time the Summoners only would be amerced. (Bracton 336. a.)
[76] Because, says Bracton, the County Court has for this purpose a Record (Bracton 336. a.) The force of Bracton’s remark will be seen in the sequel.
[77] Tam in civili negotio, quam criminali. (Bracton 336. a.)
[78] There is in the original a marginal reference to the 44th, for the 45th, chap. of West. the 1st.
[79] “Rectatus,” ad rectum vocatus. (Spelm. Glossar. ad voc.) Rectum not unfrequently meant an accusation.
[80] Misericordia, a fine arbitrarily imposed upon offenders, and so called, says Spelman, quod lenissima imponitur misericordia, heavy fines being contradistinguished by the significant term, redemptiones. (Gloss. ad voc. see also Co. Litt. 126. b. and Madox’s Excheq. c. 14.) In our progress through Glanville, we meet with the misericordia—misericordia domini—misericordia vicecomitis, and misericordia domini regis—Vide Infra. L. 9. c. 11. et not.
[81] Custum. Sir Edward Coke, in his Commentary on the Statute of Gloucester, observes, that “before that Statute at the common Law, no man recovered any costs of suit, either in Plea real, personal, or mixt:” and again, “this Statute was the first that gave costs,” (2 Inst. 288.) In support of this position, he cites the present chapter of our author. It is extremely difficult to discover, how this chapter corroborates Lord Coke’s position. Our author merely recites the opposite and floating opinions of others, and drops the subject, without giving any thing like an opinion of his own. Lord Coke’s doctrine may be correct; but, assuredly, Glanville cannot be cited as one of the authorities, on which that doctrine is built.
[82] Upon the word Appeal, as designating a criminal proceeding, it will suffice to refer those readers not connected with the profession to 4 Black. Comm. p. 312. et seq.
[83] “After the verification of his Essoins,” says the Regiam Majestatem, “he shall have fifteen days for vising and seeing of the Ground or Land,” (Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 9.)
[84] Visineto—“It should be vicineto. Vicinetum is derived of this word vicinus, and signifieth neighbourhood, or a place near at hand, or a neighbour place. And the reason, wherefore, the Jury must be of the neighbourhood is for that vicinus facta vicini presumitur scire,” (Co. Litt. 158. b.)
[85] “After three lawful Essoins,” says the Reg. Majestatem, “when the parties are passed from the Court to the sight of the Land, the Pursuer shall beware that he give distinctly the sight of the same, conformably to the metes contained in the King’s writ. For if he gives the sight thereof otherwise than is contained in the King’s writ of Right, the writ may be cancelled as null, and of no avail in the Law.” (Reg. Maj. L. 1. c. 9.)
[86] It will not suffice, says Bracton, simply to say, “I demand such Land, as my right,” unless the Demandant make out his right, and shew how, and by what means, it has descended to him. Neither will it suffice to allege, that the Ancestor was seised in his Demesne as of his free Tenement only, or in his Demesne as of Fee only, including, as it does, the freehold and whole possessory right, unless it be added, that he was so seised by right, which comprises the right of Propriety. Nor, again, will these two rights of possession and of propriety, or the droit droit, suffice, unless the Ancestor held the Land in question in his Demesne; for if he held it in service, it will not answer the purpose. Neither will it suffice, that the Ancestor was seised as of Fee, and in right, and in his Demesne, unless it be subjoined that he took the Esplees; because a momentary seisin is not sufficient, without a taking of the Esplees, to found a Suit touching the right of Propriety. Though all these requisites concur, it was still necessary to add the time of the king. (Bracton 372. b. 373. a.)
[87] Bladis signifieth, says Lord Coke, corn or grain whilst it groweth. (2 Inst. 81.)
[88] The judicial combat appears to have been the most ancient mode of terminating controversies known to the northern nations in their original settlements. For Velleius Paterculus, (L. 2. c. 118) apprises us, that all those questions, which were decided among the Romans by legal trial, were terminated among the Germans by arms. It was introduced into most, if not all, of those European nations, whom the Gothic tribes subdued. In unison with their passion for arms, it was consecrated by their superstition. Countenanced by their Princes, and sanctioned not unfrequently by the Clergy, it long kept its ground. (Montesq. Spirit of Laws.) One of the earliest restrictions of the practice, which is said to occur in history, was that imposed by our Henry the First, but this merely prohibited the Trial by combat, in questions concerning property of small value. (Brussel usage des Fiefs, vol. ii. p. 962.) Louis the Seventh, of France, followed this example, and promulgated a similar law. This was imitated by St. Louis; but his regulations extended only to his own demesnes, (Hist. du France par le Père Daniel tom. 5. 259.) It was reserved for the steady and masterly hand of our Henry the Second, to give the death blow to the Trial by combat, by the introduction of the Grand Assise—a remedy which, if my memory does not grossly deceive me, is said by Roger Hoveden, to have been invented by Glanville.
[89] The champion was relieved from the necessity of taking an oath, that he had seen or heard the fact, and that his ancestor desired him to deraign it, by the 41. c. West. 1. Until this alteration of the Law took place “it seldom happened,” says the act, “but that the champion of the Defendant (it should be Demandant, a translation the original French requires) is forsworn.” (2 Inst. 246.)
[90] It is thus, according to Skene’s translation of the Regiam Majestatem—“I sick ane man sayes and proponis against N. that my Father, my guidshir, or my Brother, or Sister, or some other of my Parentage or kindred, was in the possession of sic ane Land by the space of certain zieres and dayes; quhilk lyes in sic ane Towne, be certain meths and marches, betwixt the Lands perteining to sic ane man: quhilk Land I clame to perteine to me heritablie, halden of our Soveraine Lord the King, or of sic ane other Lord. Payand to him zierlie therefore sameikill and to others sameikill. Quhilk lands, with the pertinents, perteins to me heritablie, be discent, or succession, be the death of sic ane other of my blude and consanguinitie, as my awin proper right. The quhilks Lands, with the pertinents, the said N. be force and unjuslie halds fra me, against the Law of the Land; to my great shame and skeath of ten pounds money, mair or lesse. The quhilk gif the said N. denyes. I aske an assise of the indwellers of sic ane Towne or place; and referres my claim to God, and ane gude assise of neighbours. Provyding that, na suspect persons passe upon the said assise. And, mairover, that it sall be lesome to me to say, mair gif need beis.” (L. 1. c. 10.)
[91] “The Trial by Champion in a Writ of Right hath been anciently allowed by the common Law, and the Tenant in a Writ of Right hath election, either to put himself upon the Grand Assise, or upon the Trial by combat, by his Champion with the Champion of the Demandant; which was instituted upon this reason, that in respect the Tenant had lost his Evidences, or that the same were burnt or imbezeled, or that his witnesses were dead, the Law permitted him to try it by combat between his Champion and the Champion of the Demandant, hoping that God would give victory to him that right had; and, of whose party the victory fell out, for him was judgment finally given, for seldom death ensued hereupon (for their weapons were but batounes) victory only sufficed.”
Sir Edward Coke then gives the form of the champions oath; and adds, “the champions are not bound to fight but until the stars appear; and if the Tenant can defend himself until the stars appear, the Tenant shall prevail.” (2 Inst. 246.)
[92] Assisa is derived, by Cowell, from the French asseoir, to sit. The term has a variety of significations. We shall briefly mention some of the chief.—1. It signifieth a Writ, thus assisa of novel disseisin of Juris Utrum, &c. 2. It signified a Jury. 3. It meant a statute or law, thus assisa panis et cervisiæ—assisa de Clarendon, &c. 4. It is used for the court, place, or time, where writs of assise were taken. 5. It meant a certain number. 6. It imported a tax, or tribute. 7. It was used for a fine. (Vide Spelm. Gloss. Anglo-Sax. LL. Ed. Wilkins, p. 328.)
[93] Campionis. “Campio dicitur a campo, because the combat was strucken on the field, and, therefore is called camp-fight, and he must be liber homo.” (2 Inst. 246.) In this derivation Spelman concurs. The reader may consult the latter if desirous of seeing what he terms formula campi seu duelli. (Gloss.)—Also the Mirror, c. 3. s. 24. 25. Bracton, the Assises of Jerusalem, Grand Custumary of Normandy, &c.
[94] Vide Gul. 1. Instituta Saxonice in textu Roffensi, item Somneri Gloss. ad LL. Hen. in voce Bellum. (Al. MS.)
[95] Vide Mirror, c. 4. s. 11.
[96] The Cottonian, Bodleian, and Dr. Milles’s MSS. concur in omitting lawful, yet, that the true reading is as it stands in the Harleian MS. and in the Text, is more than probable, since the son of the Demandant’s champion was to be legitimate, and there can be no reason suggested, why the same rule should not prevail, with respect to the Tenant’s champion. The Rule itself most probably resulted from the warlike spirit of the age, and the desire to keep up the dignity of a species of trial, in which noble-men frequently personally engaged.