345
as a	of the clergy's	to
the judicial	of the Lords.1   They	not be
when	was	Involving loss of life
or limb, for the	it;         thiy held
from their right to be tried by their peers through their
strict	to the principle	no lay court
try them,2	the idea gradually took shape
they could not be regarded as peers, while they
certainly lords of Parliament.   After the dissolution of
the monasteries in Henry VIII/s reign the bishops,
the only prelates in the House of Lords,         in 1692 a
formal declaration	by that House that
were  not peers,  but only	of  Parliament.   The
fifteenth-century	of	to
patent could have no effect	the prelates, for no
patent could create them; their right to attend
always drew Its	from their ancient baronies.
In view of later history we are especially interested in
the meetings of barons or peers which
at the	time as were the representatives of
and boroughs and we think of	lords
as the later recognised  "houses" of Parliament,
almost perforce speak of them as such.   But a contem-
porary could not think of a "house" of lords when the
lords so often met as a great council by themselves.5
Especially in the fifteenth century when there were
Parliaments than In the century before
councils frequent.   They were probably often
as an Increase or affording of the king's ordinary or per-
petual Council'—the difference In	not very
great—and In these two               the	century
nobility sought to control the Mug,4
The number of lay lords	the four-
teenth and fifteenth centuries	from forty to
fifty or a little over; the spiritual lords	a
* See above, pp. 231, 232,
a "It is a very doubtful question what would now	if a
committed feioiay or treason/*—Maitland, C, H. J£., p. 17*-
a See below* p. 372 and note i.	4 See above, p. 207.