tary service, but not to attend parliament as peeresses¹. The
nearest approach to such a summons is tlɪat of four abbesses,
who in 1306 were cited to the great council held to grant an
aid on the knighting of the prince of Wales ; an assembly which,
although not properly constituted, exercised some of the func-
tions of a parliament.

Although instances occur in which a person not qualified to
receive a summons as judge or councillor has been summoned
to parliament and yet has not transmitted a hereditary peerage
to his descendants, it is not probable that the crown ever con-
templated the creation, by such single summons, of a barony
for life only². The higher ranks of the peerage were occa-
sionally granted for life ; such was the first dukedom of Lan-
caster, the creation of the duchess of Norfolk in 1397, of Thomas
Beaufort duke of Exeter in 1416, of Robert de Vere as marquess
of Dublin and duke of Ireland; John of Lancaster was made
earl of Kendal and duke of Bedford, and Humfrey earl of
Pembroke and duke of Glopcester, in the first instance for life³ ;
and in 1377 Guichard D’angle was made earl of Huntingdon
for lifeⁱ. No baron however was ever created for life only

¹ See above, vol. ii. p. 427. The summonses to furnish military service
are numerous and will be found on the parliamentary writs passim.
The abbesses summoned in 1306 were those of Barking, AVilton, Win-
chester, and Shaftesbury; Parl. Writs, I. 164. The countesses summoned
in 1361 were those who had estates in Ireland; Lords’ Report, vi. 628,
630.

² In the long lists of barons summoned to parliament between 1295 and
1485 occur a number of names of persons summoned either once only, or
irregularly, not hereditarily, although in writs worded exactly like those
of the hereditary peers. On these Prynne founds an argument that they
were the mere nominees of the king (Reg. i. 232, 233) and combats Coke’s
doctrine of the hereditary right to the writ. On careful examination
Prynne’s list shrinks into very small proportions; some of the names
are those of judges whose writs have been confusedly mixed with those of
the barons ; some occur only in lists of summons to councils which were
not proper parliaments. In most of the other cases the cessation of the
summons is explained by the particular family history ; for example,
the son is a minor at the time of his father’s death, and dies or is forgotten
before he comes of age. In others, nothing is known of the later family
history, and it must be supposed to have become extinct. The ingenious
distinction drawn by Elsynge between barons and peers, the latter in-
cluding bannerets and life peers, has no foundation.

³ Lords’ Eifth Report, pp. 171, 172.

¹ Ibid. p. 62.

without a provision as to the remainder, or right of succession

after his death¹. The case of a son summoned to the house
of lords as a peer in his father’s lifetime is not understood as
the creation of a new peerage : the first recorded instance of
this practice occurs in 1482, when the heir of the earl of

Arundel was summoned in his father’s barony of Maltravers.

It may be observed finally that, although all the ‘ grantz’Questionsas
_         to the title

summoned in the class of barons were no doubt peers and must of baron.

have had a right to the title of ‘ baron ’ in both the ancient and
the modern sense, that title is given in a special way to some
few among them², the more general denomination being ‘ seig-
neur,’ ‘ sieur,’ or ‘ chivaler ’.’ The exceptions seem to be the
barons of Stafford and Greystoke, who share the designation
with the поп-parliamentary barons of the two great palatinates
of Chester and Durham. This fact has never been explained⁴,
and it is the more curious as the title of ‘ lord ’ does not in

England imply a dignity created by the crown, but is simply a
descriptive or honorary appendage to some other dignity⁵.

ɪ Nicolas, Hist. Peerage, pp. xlv, xlvi. In two cases, the barony of
Hay in ι6o6, and of Reede in 1644, the creation was for life, but it
was provided that the bearers of the title should not sit in parliament.
One baroness, lady Belasyse in 1674, was created for life; similar
creations of higher ranks of the peerage, duchesses, &c., were not un-
common.

² Prynne, Reg. i. 220 sq. ; Lords’ Third Report, ii. 330 : so the title of
Dominus is said to be given only to Mowbray dominus de Axholm, and
Talbot dominus de Furnival, until the reign of Henry VI ; ibid.

^s Madox explains the usage of styling a baron ‘ chivaler ’ in the sum-
mons to parliament as implying three things, (ɪ) that he was of aetas
légitima or aetas tenendi terram, (2) that he was ‘ extra custodian!,’ and
(3) that he had taken knighthood ; Baronia Anglicana, p. 6ι.

ⁱ Mr. Horace Round has suggested that the reason why the barons
of Stafford and Greystoke seem to monopolise this special designation
among the ancient peers, is that it properly belonged to them as tenants
of a barony under a palatine earldom, and must not be understood, in
their case, as a title of peerage ; the baron of Stafford for instance being
so called, before as well as after he received a summons to parliament.
The barons however created by patent or charter, p. 452, note 4, receive
the name as a title just as the earls do: a fact which shows that the
other lords regularly summoned were barons in the modern sense.

⁵ The puerile dispute about giving the title of lord bishop to colonial
and suffragan bishops could not have arisen had this been kept in mind.
The title of lord belongs to all bishops in all churches, and not merely
to those who possess a seat in the English house of lords : nor has it
anything to do with a royal prerogative of conferring titles, not being
a recognised grade of peerage.

<<   <   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   >   >>