of Holcraft and Gibbons, in hopes of finding fome further illuftration, but without fuccefs. The charter then above-mentioned appears upon further enquiry to have been the foundation charter of Reading Abbey, and to have been granted by Henry I. in 1125. The words of it referred to by Chief Juftice Popham, and upon which he founded his opinion, are as follow: "Nec faciat milites nifi in facra vefte Chrifti, in qua parvulos fufcipere modefte caveat. Maturos autem feu diferetos tam clericos quam laicos provide fufcipiat." This paffage is likewife cited by Selden in his notes upon Eadmer, p. 206, and to illuftrate the word "clericos" he refers to Mathew Paris for an account of a prieft called John Gatefdene, who was created a knight by Henry III. but not until after he had refigned all his benefices, "as he ought to have done," fays the hiftorian, who in another place relating the difgrace of Peter de Rivallis, Treafurer to Henry III. (See p. 405, edit. 1640,) has clearly fhown how incompatible it was that the clergy should bear arms, as the profeffion of a knight required; and as a further proof may be added the well known ftory, related by the fame hiftorian, of Richard I. and the warlike Bishop of Beauvais. I conceive then that the word "clericos" refers to fuch of the clergy who fhould apply for the order of knighthood under the ufual reftriction of quitting their former profeffion; and from Selden's note upon the paffage it may be collected that this was his own opinion; or it may poffibly allude to those particular knights who were confidered as religious or ecclefiaftical, fuch as the knights of the order of St. John of Jerufalem, &c. concerning whom fee Afhmole's Order of the Garter, p. 49. 51. With refpect to the cuftom of ecclefiaftics conferring the order of knighthood, it certainly prevailed in this country before the conqueft, as appears from Ingulphus, and was extremely difliked by the Normans; and therefore at a Council held at Westminster in the third year of Henry I. it was ordained, "Ne Abbates faciant milites." See Eadmeri Hift. 68. and Selden's note, p. 207. However it appears that notwithstanding this prohibition, which may at the fame time ferve to fhow the great improbability that the order of knighthood was conferred upon ecclefiaftics, fome of the ceremonies at the creation of knights ftill continued to be performed by Abbots, as the taking the fword from the altar, &c. which may be feen at large in Selden's Titles of Honour, Part II. chap. v. and Dugd. Warw. 531, and accordingly this charter, which is dated twenty-three years after the Council at Westminster, amongst other things directs the Abbot, "Nec faciat milites nifi in facra vefte Chrifti," &c. Lord Coke's acquiefcence in Popham's opinion is founded upon a fimilar mifconception, and his quaint remark "que fueront milites cæleftes & milites terreftres," can only excite a smile. The marginal quotation from Fuller's Church Hiftory, B. VI, P-352. "Moe Sirs than knights" referred to in a former note by Sir J. Hawkins, certainly means" that thefe Sirs were not knights," and Fuller accounts for the title by fuppofing them ungraduated Priests. Before I difmifs this comment upon the opinions of the learned Judges, I am bound to obferve that Popham's opinion is alfo referred to, but in a very careless manner, in Godbolt's Reports, p. 399, in these words: "Popham once Chief Juftice of this court faid that he had feen a commiffion directed unto a bishop to knight all the parfons within his diocese, and that was the cause that they were called Sir John, Sir Thomas, and fo they continued to be called until the reign of Elizabeth." The idea of knighting all the parfons in a diocese is too ludicrous to need a serious refutation; and the inaccuracy of the affertion, that the title of Sir lafted till the reign of Elizabeth, thereby implying that it then ceafed, is fufficiently obvious, not only from the words of Popham in the other quotation" que eft done al afcuns clerks ceft jour," but from the proof given by Sir John Hawkins of its exiftence at a much later period. Having thus, I truft, refuted the opinion that the title of Sir was given to priefts in confequence of their being knights, I shall venture to account for it in another manner. This custom then was most probably borrowed from the French, amongst whom the title Domnus is often appropriated to ecclefiaftics, more particularly to the Benedictines, Carthufians, and Ciftercians. It appears to have been originally a title of honour and refpect, and was perhaps at firft, in this kingdom as in France, applied to particular orders, and became afterwards general as well among the fecular as the regular clergy. The reafon of preferring Domnus, to Dominus was, that the latter belonged to the fupreme Being, and the other was confidered as a subordinate title, according to an old verse : 66 Cæleftem Dominum, terreftrem dicito Domnum." Hence, Dom, Damp, Dan, Sire, and, laftly Sir; for authorities are not wanting to fhow that all thefe titles were given to ecclefiaftics: but I fhall forbear to produce them, having, I fear, already trespassed too far upon the reader's patience with this long note. DOUCE. THE END OF THE THIRD VOLUME, |