Patents doe grant and give licence for us and our heires so much as in us lyeth to the said Edmond to dispose and give all his Manours Lands Tenements and Knights fees with their appurtenances and Advowsons of Churches Abbies and Priories and Hospitalls which he holdeth of us in chiefe to whom he pleaseth To have and to hold to him and his heires for us and our heires by the service thereof for ever By which Grant the said Edmond gave all his Lands and Tenements to one William sonne of John Deyncourt and to his heires of his body comming And the said Edmond dyed the last yeere of Edward the second and the said William in the time of Edward the third was summoned among other Barons to the Parliament by vertue of the same gift untill his death which was Anno 3. E. 3. It appeareth by divers offices in the time of King Edward the third that John Handlow in the right of Maud his wife was seized of the Mannour of Holgate Acton Burnell c. for terme of her life remainder to Nicolas Handlow alias Burnell sonne to the said Maud and John by a fine in the Court levied and that John Lovell was next heire of the said Maud and her first-borne sonne by her first husband and afterwards the said Nicolas was summoned among other Lords to the Parliament by reason of the fine aforesaid and not the said John Lovel who was next heire Edward Burnell Baron of Holgate Philip Burnell Baron of Holgate Maud Burnell heire to her brother John Lovell the first husband John Lord Lovell Iohn Lord Lovell John Handlow second husband Nicolas Handlow Baron of Holgate Hugh Handlow alias Burnell Baron of Holgate Thomas de Beauchamp the elder Earle of Warwick by a fine levied 18. E. 3. entailed the Mannour and Castle of Warwicke with divers other possessions to himselfe for terme of his life the remainder whereof to Guy his eldest sonne and to the heires males of his body issuing for want of such heires the remainder to come to Thomas Beauchamp brother to the foresaid Guy and to his heires males of his body issuing c. And afterwards the said Guy died without heires male of his body leaving two daughters and heires living afterward the said Earle dyed and the said Thomas the sonne entred into the Castle and Mannour aforesaid with other the premisses and was Earle of Warwick by reason of the entaile aforesaid notwithstanding that Katharine daughter of Guy and next heire to the said Thomas the elder was living 30. yeers after his death Thomas Beauchampe Earl of Warwick Guy de Beauchampe first son obiit ante patrem 30. E. 3. Katharine lived in 21. R. 2. Elizabeth Tho. de Beauchampe Earle of Warwicke by reason of the entail obiit anno 1. H. 4. Rich. Beauchamp Earl of Warwick obiit 17. H. 6. William Beauchampde Beauchamp L. of Aberganey obiit 12. H. 4. Richard de Beauchamp Earl of Warwicke obiit 9. H 5. Richard Earle of Arundell by a fine 21. E. 3. entailed the Castle Towne and Mannor of Arundell with other Lands to him and to his heires Males begotten of the body of Ellenor his wife By vertue of which entaile John Lord Matrovers Earle of Arundell after the decease of Thomas then Earle which died without heire Male although the sisters of the said Thomas possessed divers Lands and honors or the which the said Thomas died seised in Fee simple war Earle of Arundell Richard Earle of Arundell Richard Earle of Arundell obiit anno 21. R. 2. Thomas Earle of Arundell obiit anno 3. H. 5. Elizabeth married to Tho. Mowbray Duke Norfolk Married to Lewthall Jane Lady of Abergany John Arundell Knight Lord Matrovers John Arund Lord Matrovers obiit 6. H. 4. Io. Arund L. Matrovers obiit 9. H. 5. Io. E. of Arun. by reason of the entail Thomas Lord Barkley was seised in his demesne as of fee of the Castle of Barkley and Mannour c. and a fine levied in the Kings Court 23 E. 3. of the aforesaid Castle Mannour c. to him for terme of his life remainder to Morrice his sonne and to the heires males of his body issuing with other remainders as aforesaid the which said Morrice had issue Thomas Lord Barkley and Iames Barkley Knight which Iames dyed in the life of his brother leaving Iames his sonne and heire living After the said Thomas Lord Barkley died Anno 5. H. 5. leaving Elizabeth his daughter and heir married to Richard Earle of Warwick after whose death Iames his Nephew on the brothers side entred into the Lands Castles and rem ' aforesaid by virtue of the entaile and was summoned among the Barons to the Parliament as Baron of Barkley 9. H. 5. which Elizabeth died in 1. H. 6. Tho. Lord Barkley Morrice Lo Barkley Tho. Lord Barkley Eliz. married to Rich Earle of Warwick Sir Ia. Barkley died before his brother Iames Lo. Barkley by reason of the entaile Thomas Lord Delaware died seised in his demesne as of fee taile to himselfe and to the heires males of his body issuing by reason of a fine levied in the time of his ancestors of the Barony Delaware with divers other lands in other counties and died 5 H. 6. without heires of his body and Reignold West Knight of the halfe blood was next heire by reason of the entaile aforesaid and was summoned to the Parliament by the name of Reignold Lord Delaware Knight although Iohn Griffith was heire generall of the aforesaid Thomas Delaware being of the whole blood as appeareth by the genealogie ensuing Iohn Lord Delaware son of Roger. Iohn Lord Delaware Elisabeth daughter to Adam L. Wels. Iohn Lord Delaware died without issue Thomas Lord Delaware died without issue Roger Lord Delaware Elisabeth daughter to the Lord Mowbray his second wife Iohn Griffin heire generall to the Lord Delaware Sir Reignold West Lord Delaware by the entail Katharine married to Nicolas Latimer Katharine married to Griffin Iohan married to Tho West Knight John de Vere Earle of Oxford seised in his demesne as of Fee taile to him and his heires Males of his body issuing of the honour and county of Oxford with divers other Lands Anno 18. H. 8. died without heires of his body and his three sisters were his next heires generall but Iohn de Vere his next heire Male as appeareth was Earle of Oxford by reason of the said entaile and none of the three sisters obtained Dignity Richard de Vere Earle of Oxford died 4. H. 5. Iohn de Vere Earle of Oxford died 1. E. 4. John de Vere Earle of Oxford died without issue 4. H. 8. George de Vere Knight Iohn de Vere Earl of Oxfo died without issue 18. H. 8. Eliz. married to Sir Antho Wingfield Knight Vrsula married to Edm. Knightley Esq Dorothy married to Nevill Sir Robert de Vere Kt. Iohn de Vere Iohn de Vere Iohn de Vere Earle of Oxford by vertue of the entaile William Lord Paget of
Bewdesert was seised in his demesn as of fee of the Baronies of Langden and Hawood and of and in the Mannours of Bewdesert Landen c. And being so seised by fine quinto Mariae entailed the Baronies and Mannours aforesaid to him and his heires males of his body issuing And afterward Anno 5. Eliz. died leaving Henry his sonne next heire male Which Henry entred into the Baronies and land aforesaid by vertue of the foresaid fine and died thereof seised 11. Eliz. leaving Elizabeth his onely daughter and heire After whose death Thomas Paget brother and heire male of the said Henry entred into the Baronies and Mannours aforesaid and was summoned to the Parliament by virtue of the aforesaid fine William Lord Paget of Bewdesert deed anno 5. Eliz. Henry Lord Paget died An. 11. Eliz. Elizabeth his daughter and heire Thomas Lord Paget by force of the entailes after the death of his brother Robert Lord Ogle entred into the Barony of Bothal and Ogle with divers other Mannors and Lands in the County of Northumberland by conveiance which was to himselfe for terme of his life the remainder to the heires males of his body begotten and he took to his wife Dorothy Witherington by whom he had issue Robert Ogle his eldest sonne and Margery his daughter married Gregory Ogle of Chippington And the said Robert the father after the death of the said Dorothy his wife took to his second wife Ioane Ratcliffe by whom he had issue Cutbert his second sonne and after died After whose death Robert the sonne was Lord Ogle from whom the same descended to Cutbert being brother of the halfe blood by vertue of the said entaile and not to the said Margery nor unto her heires being of the whole blood unto the said Robert the sonne Robert Ogle Lord Ogle Dorothy daughter of Henry Withrington first wife Robert Ogle L. Ogle died without issue Margery maried to Ogle of Chippington Cutbert Ogle of Chippington Cutbert Ogle L. Ogle died Margery Ogle married Robert Witherington Thomas Ogle Joan the daughter of Cuthbort Ratcliff Kni. the second wife Moreover concerning the second objection it is very true that many ancient Mannours which were anciently holden by Barony as the head or parcell of a Barony are now in the hands of Gentlemen meane and un-noble by blood who neither doe nor may claime any Nobility or honour thereby But the reason that some former gifts made by the Kings Majesties progenitours the supreme Soveraignes of this Realme to such as they honoured in augmentation and support of their honour and by honourable services should thus come to the hands of mean persâ—nages are twofold First for that such Mannours have been aliened by licence unto such persons before spoken whom such possessions alone cannot make noble Secondly and that was usually such Mannours as were holden by Barony have upon divers encheasons and occasions come to the Crowne by way of revertor or eschete or forfeit by meanes whereof the ancient tenures derived from the Crowne by reason of those lands so comming again to the Crown were extinct and after the said lands were given or conveyed to others reserving other services than those which at the first were due for the same so that it was no marvaile to see that some Mannours anciently holden by Barony or other honourable service should now bee holden in soccage or by other triviall or meane tenure As to that which was thirdly objected that some ancient Barons there are which have aliened and sold away those Castle and Mannours of the which they have and doe beare the name and dignity and yet neverthelesse themselves doe still retaine and keep lawfully their estate dignity and degree of a Baron and have been and are called to the Parliament such alienation notwithstanding To this I answer That it is true but it proveth nothing against the former resolution And therefore for better satisfaction of this observation it is to be considered that such Barons either be originally Barons by writ or Barons by tenure Barons by writ in this respect now in hand are of two kindes For either in such writ whereby they or their Ancestors were at first summoned they were named onely by their owne names or else there was addition given them of the principall place of their aboad which was done either for distinction sake to sever them from some honourable person of the same surname or else to give them such honourable title by addition of the place which place notwithstanding was not holden by Barony And therefore if such a Baron doe alien away that place which anciently was his seat he may neverthelesse retain his honourable title in respect had of such a place But if a Baron by tenure doe alien away the honourarable Castle or Mannour holden by Barony unto a mean person not capable of honour and that by sufficient licence so to doe and after the alienour which made such alienation be called by writ to the Parliament under the title or as Baron of such Honour Castle or Mannour so aliened he is not any more a Baron by tenure in respect of that place for that he hath aliened that away which he held by Barony but thenceforth after such writ of summons he is become a Baron by writ and may retaine the name of Baron by title of the place as Baron by writ such alienation notwithstanding forasmuch as the writ directed at the pleasure of the Prince doth give unto him that addition of name and dignity And thus much touching the resolution of the said question and satisfaction of the said objections and of Barons by tenure BARONS by writ which is the second kind of Barons mentioned in the former Divisions of BARONS A Baron by writ is he unto whom a writ of summons in the name of the King is directed to come to the Parliament appoinâ—ed at a certaine time and place to be holden and there with his Highnesse the Prelates Nobility and Peeres to treat and advise touching the waighty affairs of the Realme The forme of which writ is much to the effect of the writ before mentioned in the title of Earle which kind of writ is as well directed to the Barons by tenure as Barons by creation Patent or otherwise But those which are not Barons by tenure nor by Patent and have onely such writs are therefore called Barons by writ and upon receipt of such writ and place taken accordingly in Parliament ought to enjoy the name dignity and honour of a Baron Touching the antiquity of Barons by writ onely and their first institution I finde little or no mention before the time of H. 3. And therefore I conceive that either the first of all or at least that the first frequent use of such Barons was had and devised 49. H. 3. in case of necessity and upon a lamentable occasion For in the discord between the King and his Nobility in those troublesome warres seditions and rebellions which they moved
same Pedegree of the said Lord Dacres it is expressed that Thomas sometimes Lord Dacres had issue Thomas his eldest son Ralph his second sonne and Humphrey his third sonne Thomas the eldest dyed in the life time of his Father having Issue Ioan his daughter and heire who was marryed unto Sir Richard Fines Knight And after Thomas Lord Dacres her Grandfather and Father unto the said Sir Ralph and Humphrey dyed After whose death Henry 6. by his Letters Parents bearing date at Westminster 7. Novem. Anno 7. regni reciting the said Pedegree and Marriage doth by his Letter a Pattents accept declare and repute the said Richard Fines to be Lord Dacres and one of the Barons of his Realme But afterward in the time of Edw 4. the said Humphrey Dacres after the attaindor of the said Ralph and himselfe by an Act of Parliament which was in 1. Ed. 4. and after the death of the said Ralph and after the reversall of the same Act by another Act 12. Edw. 4. the said Humphrey made challenge unto the said Barony and to divers Lands of the said Thomas his Father whereupon both parties after their title had been considered in Parliament submitted themselves unto the Arbitrement of King Edw. 4. and entred into Bond each to other for the performance thereof Wherupon the said King in his award under his Privie seale bearing date at Westminster 8. April Anno regni 13. did award that the said Rich Fines in the right of Ioan his wife and the Heires of his body lawfully begotten should be reputed had named and called Lord Dacres and that the said Richard Fines and the Heires of his body by the said Ioane begotten should keepe have and use the same state and place in every Parliament as the said Thomas Dacres Knight late Lord Dacres had used kept c. that the heires of the body of the said Thomas Dacres Knight late Lord Dacres lawfully begotten should have and hold to them their Heires the Mannor of Holbech And furthermore the said King did award on the other part that the said Humphrey Dacres Knight and the Heires males of the said Thomas late Lord Dacres should be reputed had named and called the L. Dacres of Gillesland And that he and the heires males of the said Thomas then late Lord Dacres should have use and keepe the place in Parliament next adjoyning beneath the said place which the said Rich Fines Knight Lord Dacres then had and occupied and that the heires of the body of the said Ioan his wife should have and occupie And that the Heires males of the said Thomas Dacres late L. Dacres should have to them to the heires males of their bodies begotten the Mannor of Jothington c. And so note that the name of the ancient Barony namely Gilestand remained unto the Heire male unto whom the land was entailed Moreover this is specially observed if any Baron by writ doe dy having none other issue then Female and that by some speciall entail or other assurance there be an heire male which doth enioy all or a great part of the lands possessions and inheritances of such Barons deceased the Kings of this Realme have used to call to the Parliament by writ as Baron such heire male omitting the Husband or issue male of such heire female and this also appeareth by a notable controversie in the time of Henry 7. betweene Sir Robert Willoughby Lord Brooke and Richard Lord Latimer for the Barony of Latimer which in effect was The said Lord Brooke did challenge the Barony of Latimer as cosen and Heire to Elizabeth his great grandmother who was sister and heire to Iohn Nevill Lord Latimer who died without issue and hereupon exhibited a Petition to Henry 7. in Parliament whereto Richard then Lord Latimer was called to answer because he then enioyed the said title and dignity The said Richard Lord Latimer by his answer did shew that it was true that after the death of the said Iohn Nevill Lord Latimer dying without issue the said Elizabeth was the sister and next heire and married unto Sir Thomas Willlonghby Knight second son of the Lord VVilloughby but Henry 6. for that the said Iohn Nevill was dead without issue and that the next heire was female did therefore call to the Parliament George Nevill Knight second son of Ralph Earle of Westmerland to be Lord Latimer as Cozen and next heire male of the said Iohn Nevil Lord Latimer which George was grandfather of the said Richard Lord Latimer namely Father of Henry Lord Latimer Father of the said Richard In debate of which cause the question now in hand whether a Barony by writ may discend unto the heirea semales was advisedly considered of by the said King and his Nobility in Parliament and in the end adjudged with the said Richard Lord Latimer which President doth afford us two Iudgements in this point one in the time of Hen. 6. when the writ was directed to the said Sir George Nevill whereby he was summoned as Lord Latimer to the Parliament and as heire Male and not the said Sir Thomas Willoughby Knight husband of the said Eliza. heire male And the second judgement was given in the time of Henry 7. whereby the Barony was adiudged vnto the said Richard Lord Latimer comming of the speciall heire male against the said Lord Brooke descended of the generall heire male But here the President before remembred of the Barony of Dacres may be objected to incounter this confusion For there was an heire female martied unto Sir Richard Fines who by the declaration of Hen. 6. was Baron of Dacres in the right of his wife and there was also Ralph and Humfrey the heires males before whom the heire female was preferred by the censure of Henry 6. and Edward 4. This objection is easily answered For although Hen. 6. through the Princely favour which hee bare unto Sir Richard Fines had declared him to bee Lord Dacres in the right of his wife yet notwithstanding did Ralph Dacres being heire male unto the then Lord Dacres deceased beare also the name of 〈◊〉 Dacres and by that name was attainted in Parliament Wherefore the reason why the heire male could not bee regarded was the said attainder of the said Ralph and Humfrey his brother and therefore when Humphrey 12. Edw. 4. laboured to have the said attainder reversed he submitted himselfe vnto the Arbitrament of the King who to satisfie both Competitors because both had well deserved of him after he had admitted them to his favour he allowed the one to be Lord Dacres the other to be Lord Dacres of Gillesland thus much concerning the second point whether a Barony by writ may discend unto the heire female or not As concerning the third point admitting such discent to bee to the heire female when there is no heire male at all that may claime the same for then doth this question take place whether the husband of such heire
heires which Judgement was that the said Earldome should bee divided amongst the said copartners as other lands and that the eldest should not have it alone 23. H. 3. Fitz. partic 18. But this judgement was holden erroneous even in those times wherein it was given For Bracton a learned Judge who lived in that age thus writeth thereof treating of Partition among Copartners lib. 2. cap. 34 fol. 76. b. De hoc autem quod dicitur quod de feodo militare veniunt in divisione capitalia messuagia inter cohaeredes dividuntur hoc verum est nisi capitale messuagium illud sit caput comitatus propter jus gladis quod dividi non potest vel caput Baroniae castrum vel aliud aedificium hoc ideo ne sit caput per plures particulas dividetur plura jura Comitat ' Baroniarum deveniant ad nihilum per quod deficiat regnum quod ex Comitatibus Baroniis dicitur esse constitutum Si autem plura sunt aedisicia quae sunt capita Baronia dividi possunt inter cohaeredes facta electione salvo jure essentiae quia cùm plura sunt ibi jura quodlibet per se poterit integrè observare quod quidem non est in uno ut praedictum est licèt à quibusdam dicatur quòd in aliis regionibus aliquando de consuetudine dividatur sed quod nunquam divids debeat in Anglia videtur nec visum fuit contrarium erit consuetudo regionis observanda ubi haereditas quae petitur personae nascuntur quae petunt unde sic dicatur quòd in regno Anglia aliquando facta fuit partitio hoc fuit injustum It is therefore evident that Baronies and dignities of Honour do by the Lawes of this Realm descend unto the eldest Coapercener and the Iudgement given once to the contrary thereof Bracton doth rightly account to be unjust his reason is notable for in as much as the honour of the Chivalry of the Realme doth chiefly consist in the Nobility reason would not that such dignitie should be divided amongst Coaparceners whereby through multitude of partitions the reputation of Honour in such succession and so divided might be impaired or the strength of the Realme being drawne into many hands with the decrease of livelihood by partition should be enfeebled in which Resolution Britton the learned Bishop of Hereford who compiled his Booke of the Lawes of the Realme by the commandement and in the name of E. 1. according Britton 187. and therefore howsoever that Judgement was given or whensoever it is neverthelesse very evident that it was soone redressed for if it were given upon the death of Renulph the last of that name the Earle of Chester who dyed about 17. H. 3. without issue the Writers of that time doe testifie that the Earledome of Chester came wholly unto Iohn Scot the sonne of David Earle of Huntington and Anguish and of Maud the eldest sister of the said Renulph if it were given upon the death of the said Iohn Scot who dyed without issue about 14. H. 7. yet notwithstanding the said Judgement stood not in force for that the said King assumed the said Earledome into his owne hands upon other satisfaction made to the sisters Coparceners of the said Iohn Scot. Ne tanta hereditas colos deduceretur Matth. Paris Monast S. Albani in Arr. fol. 3.66 B. tamen vido Vill. fol. 75. et Ioh. Guill 78. For this it is to be observed out of Presidents and to be acknowledged of every dutiful Subject that the King is at liberty to call and advance to honour whom his Highnesse shall in his Princely wisdome thinke most meet and therfore whereas Ralph Lord Cromwell being a Baron by Writ dyed without issue having two sisters and co-heires Elizabeth the eldest married unto Sir Thomas Nevill Knight and Ioane the younger married unto Sir Hunt Burther hee who married the younger sister was called unto the Parliament as Lord Cromwell and not the said Sir Thomas Nevill who had married the eldest sister and Hugh Lupus the first and great Earle of Chester was by the Conquerour his Uncle creared Earle of Chester Habemus sibi heredibus adeo libere per gladium sicut ipse Rex tenuit Angliam per Corenam Hugh dyed without issue and the inheritance of his Earledome was divided amongst his foure sisters and the eldest had not the Seigniory entire unto her selfe Reade Mills 74 75. Cookes b. part 53. 7. part 15. If a Woman be Noble by birth or by discent with whomsoever she doth marry though her Husband bee under her degree yet she doth remaine Noble for her Birthright Est Character in delibilis Cook 4. part 118. b. 6. part 53. b. Other Women are enobled by Marriage and the text saith thus viz. Women with the honour of their Husbands and with the kindred of their Husbands we worship them in the Court we decree matters to passe in the name of their Husbands and into the house and sirname of their Husbands wee doe translate them but if afterwards a woman doe marry with a man of baser degree then loseth she her former Dignitie and followeth the condition of her latter Husband Fortescue de laudibus legum Angl. 100. And as concerning the second disparaged Marriage as aforesaid many other bookes of the law doe agree for these bee rules received in those Cases Si mulier nobilis nupserit ignobili desit esse nobilis eadem modo quo quidem Constitut dissolvitur Cookes 6. part 53. B. 4. part 118. It was the Case of Ralph Hayward Esquire who tooke to his wife Anne the widdow of the Lord Powes they brought an Action against the Duke of Suffolke by the name of Ralph Hayward Esquire and the Lady Anne Powes his wife and exception was taken for misnaming her because shee ought to have beene named by the Husbands Name and not otherwise and the exception was by the Court allowed For said they by the Law of God shee is Sub potestate viri and by our Law her Name of Dignitie shall bee changed according to the degree of her Husband notwithstanding the curresies of the Ladies of Honour and Court Dyer 79. And the like was also in Queene Maries Raigne when the Dutchesse of Suffolke tooke to her Husband Adrian Stoakes Prob. 4 5 6. and many other presidents have beene of latter time and herewith agreeth the Civill Law punctually Digest lib. 1. Tit. 9. Lege 8. Eodem de Dignitate Liber 12. Lege 2. In this case of acquired Nobility by Marriage of Question in Law be whereupon an issue is taken betweene the parties that is to say Dutchesse or not Dutchesse Countesse or not Countesse Baronesse or not Baronesse the tryall hereof shall not be by Record as in the former case but by a Jury of 12. men and the reason of the diversity is because in this case the Dignity is accrewed unto her by marriage which the
and of such a King who is heir unto the said Prince Edward And such a first begotten son and heir apparant to the Crown shall inherit the said Dukedom in the life of the said King his father with manner of limitation of estate was short excellent and curious varying from the ordinary Rules of the Common Law touching the framing of any estate of inheritance in fee-simple or fee-tail And neverthelesse by the authority of Parliament a speciall fee-simple is in that onely case made as by judgment may appear in the Book aforesaid and the case thereof fol. 27. and 21 E. 3.41 b. And ever since that creation the said Dukedom of Cornwall hath been the peculiar inheritance of the Kings eldest son ad supportandum nomen on us bonoris to support the name and weight of that his honourable estate during the king his fathers life so that he is ever Duxnatus non creatus a Duke born not created and the said Duke the very first day of his nativity is presumed and taken to be of full and perfect age so that he may sue that day for his livery of the said Dukedom and ought of right to obtain the same as well as if he had been full 21 yeers of age And the said Black-Prince was the first Duke in England after the Conquest for though Bracton who made his Book in H. 3. saith Et sunt sub rege duces as before appeareth yet that place is to be understood of the ancient kings who were before the conquest for in Mag. Charta which was made in Anno 9 H. 3. we finde not the name of Duke amongst the Peers and Nobles there mentioned For seeing the Norman Kings themselves were Dukes of Normandy for a great while they adorned none with this honour of Duke And the eldest son of every King after this creation was Duke of Cornwall and so allowed As for example Henry of Munmouth eldest son of H. 4. and Henry of Winsor eldest son of H. 5. and Edw. of Westminster the first son of Ed. 4. and Arthur of Winchester first son of H. 7. and Edward of Hampton first son of H. 8. but Richard of Burdeaux who was the first son of the Black-Prince was not Duke of Cornwall by force of the said creation for albeit after the death of his father he was heir apparant to the Crown yet because he was not the first begotten son of a King of England for his father dyed in the life time of king Ed. 3. the said Richard was not within the limitation of the grant and creation by authority of Parliament made in the 11 yeer of king Edward above mentioned And therefore to supply that defect in the 5. yeer of Ed. 3. he was created Duke of Cornwall by a speciall Charter Elizabeth eldest daughter to king Edw. 4. was not Durches of Cornwal for she was the first begotten daughter of king Edw. 4. but the limitation is to the first begotten son Henry the 8. was not in the life of his father king H. 7. after the death of his eldest Brother Arthur Duke of Cornwall by force of the said creation for albeit he was sole heir apparant to the king yet he was not his eldest begotten son Cooks 8 part 29. b. and 30. a. And the opinion of Stamford a learned Judge hath been that he shall have within his Dukedom of Cornwall the kings Prerogatives because it is not severed from the Crown after the form as it is given for none shall be inheritour thereof but the kings of the Realm For example whereas by the Common Law if a man hold divers Mannors or other lands and tenements of severall Lords all by knâ—â—hts service somâ— part by priority and ancient Feoffment and other lands by posterity and by a latter Feoffment and the Tenant so seized dyeth his son and heir within age In this case the custody of Wardshâ—p of the body and his marriage may not be divided among all the Lords but one of them onely shall have right unto it because the body of a man is intire and the Law doth say That the Lord of whom some part of those lands be holden by priority and by the same tenure of Chivalry shall have it except the king be any of the Lords for then though the Tenant did purchase that land last yet after his death the king shall bee preferred before all or any other the Lords of whom the Tenant did hold by priority And so shall the Duke of Cornwall in the same case have the same Prerogative if his Tenant dye holding of him but by posterity of Feoffment for any tenure of his Dutchie of Cornwall although the said Duke is not seized of any particular estate whereof the reversion remaineth in the king for the Prince is seized in fee of his Dukedom as before is said Iohn of Gaunt the fourth son of king Edward 3. did take to wife Blanch who was daughter and heir to Henry Duke of Lancaster who had issue Henry afterwards king of England so that the said Dutchy of Lancaster did come unto the said Henry by discent from the part of his mother and being a subject he was to observe the Common Law of the Land in all things concerning his Dutchie For if he would depart in Fee with any part thereof hee must make livery and seizen or if hee had made a Lease for life reserving rent with a reentery for default of payment and the rent happen to be behind the Duke might not enter unlesse hee doe make a demand or if he had aliened any part thereof whilest he was with age hee might defeat the purchaser for that cause and if hee would grant a reversion of any estate for life or yeares in being there must also be Attornment or else the grant doth not take effect But after that hee had deposed King Richard the second and had assumed upon him the Royall estate and so had conjoyned his naturall bodie in the bodie Politique of the King of this Realme and so was become King Then the possessions of the Duchie of Lancaster were in him as King and not as Duke For the name of Duke being not so great as the name of a King was drowned by the name of King and by the State Royall in him who was Duke for the King cannot bee a Duke within â—â—s owne Realme but out of his Realme hee may And likewise the name of the Duchie and all the Franchizes Liberties and Jurisdictions of the same when they were in the hands of him who had the Crowne and Jurisdiction Royall were gone by the Common Law and extinct for the greater doth distinguish the lesse and after those times the possessions of the Dutchie of LANCASTER would not passe from King Henry the fourth but by his Letters Patents under the great Seal of England without livery of seisin and without Attornment and if he make a Lease for life being Duke reserving a rent with reentry for
act in law presently upon the death of the Ancestor unto the heire or not at all Wherefore the custome of our countrey and manifold presidents doe prove that this kind of Barony doth descend from the Ancestors to the heire and there needs not any words of heirs in the writ of summons Onely one president there is in a speciall writ sometimes directed to Sir Henry Bromsted in 27. H. 6. wherein he was stiled Lord Veysey wherein there are these words inserted Volumus tamen vos haeredes vestros masculos de corpore vestro legitimè procreatos excuntes Barones de Veysey existere which is to bee read in Co. 7. part 33. b. Wherefore as it is true that where the heire of any such Baron by writ is called to the Parliament that his descent of honour is thereby established and approved by the gracious judgment of our sacred Soveraigne so it is also true that if it shall stand with his Highnesse pleasure that such heire shall not be summoned at all for none can come to so high a Councel unlesse he be called then that Nobility is much empaired and in a manner extinguished in the censure of all men for that it had none other originall but by writ of summons from the which in the judgment of the supreme soveraign he is excluded As to the second principall point whether the Barony by writ may descend to the heires females it shall not be amisse likewise to view the reasons of either part and by conflict of argument the truth may the better be discerned Those that maintain the affirmative part do reason after this manner In reason the sexe of the heire female ought no more to bar her of the dignity than the nonage of the heire male ought to bar him although during his nonage he be unable to do the service but as the service of the one is forborne for a time so the sexe of the other may at all times be supplied by the maturity and sufficiency of her husband Offices of honour which do much import the publique weale being passed by inheritance do descend to the heire female if there be no nearer heire male As the office of the high Constableship of England which descended to the daughters of Humphrey de Bohun Earle of Hereford and Essex a memoriall whereof is in Dyer 285. but more at large in Keilway 6. H. 8. Also the office of Lord-Steward descended to Blanch daughter to H. Earle of Lancaster the like may be said of the office of Earle Marshall which descended by an heire female unto the house of Norfolk all which offices are unfit to be exercised by a woman as it is unfit for a woman to be summoned to the Parliament as a Baronesse by writ And many noble houses in England do support the dignity of Baronage unto them descended by women They which stand on the negative part of this controversie do encounter their adversaries on this manner viz. The writ of summons to the Parliament whereby the Baron by writ hath his originall is to call that honourable and worthy person so summoned to be one of the number of that right high and honourable Assembly and to be a Judge to sit heare and determine life and member plea and right of land if there shall come occasion likewise to give counsell and advice in the most weighty affaires of the Realme But these things are convenient for the quality of men unfitting and altogether unbeseeming the sexe of women Ergo having respect unto the finall purpose of such writs such inheritances should only descend unto the heire male and not unto the heire female Secondly if it shall be answered that although the heire female to whom such inheritance is descended be unfit in her owne person for the accomplishing of these things yet she may marry with one sufficiently able for her and in her behalf to execute the same this answer will neither satisfie nor salve the inconveniences For admit that such heire female were at full age at the death of her Ancestor unmarried it doth lie in her own choice who shall be her husband so shall the pleasure of the Soveraigne in the choice of his Councell in the great causes of the Realme be subject to the will of his subject in the choice of her husband which were altogether inconvenient Thirdly if such husband shall be called in the right of his wife the writ should make some mention hereof for otherwise it may well be taken that the husband was chosen in his own person and in behalfe of himselfe and not in regard of his wife or such pretended dignity descended unto him But there was never such writ of summons seen wherein the wife was mentioned and if the husband of such wife have been called to the Parliament which is alwayes by generally writ not mentioning his wife he is now made thereby a Baron of himself and in his own right by that writ Having thus heard both sides speak place doth now require to interpose opinion to compound this controversie This question or point is somewhat perplexed by means of difficult presidents for first it is observed that some presidents do prove that Baronies by writs have descended unto heires females whose husbands have beene called to the Parliament whether in regard of themselves or in regard of their wives it matten not But sure it is that the marriage of such Ladies gave them occasion so to be summoned and such husbands and their posterity have and do lawfully beare the same name of dignity which the Ancestors of such wife did before rightfully beare For by this controversie there is no purpose to call the right of such noble houses into question Howbeit secondly this is to be observed out of the presidents and to be acknowledged of every dutifull subject that the Kings Majesty is neverthelesse at liberty to call to the high Councell of Parliament whom his Highnesse shall in his Princely wisdom think most meet which his Majesties Progenitors have in former ages observed And therefore whereas Radulph Lord Cromwell being a Baron by writ died without issue having two sisters and coheirs Eliz. the eldest married to Sir Tho. Nevill Knight and Joan the younger married Sir Hunt Bourcher he who had married the younger sister was called to the Parliament as L. Cromwell and not the said Sir Tho. Nevill who had married the elder sister 3. It is to be observed that if a Baron by writ die without heire male having his daughter sister or other collaterall heire male that doth or can challenge the lands of the said Baron deceased by any ancient entaile or otherwise the title of such heire female hath bin heretofore allowed as by the honourable opinions and relations of the right honourable the late Commissioners in the office of Earle Marshall signified unto the late Queene upon the Petition of the sister and heire of Gregory late Lord Dacres deceased may appeare Moreover in the
female shall enioy the dignitie in the right of his wife or no wherein wee are to rest upon a resolution had and given in this speciall question which was in this manner In the time of Hen. 8. when Mr. Winbie tooke upon him the stile of Lord Talboys in the right of his wife having none issue by her the said King assisted both by Civill and Temporall Lawyers gave sentence that no husband of Baronesse in her right should use the stile and dignitie untill he had by her a Child whereby he should become Tenant by the courtesie unto her inheritance The speciall reasons that occasioned this sentence were two First it should be inconvenient for her husband this day to bee a Baron and Peere of the Realme and to morrow by the death of his wife so become none and that without the death of the partie Secondly if he had issue by his wife and were inâ—â—taled to be Tenant by the curtesie of England of the wives land if he shall not also beare the stile and dignity of her Barony then should his sonne after the death of his mother dying in the life time of his father be Baron and Lord without land for so the Father should have the land as Tenant by the curtesie and the sonne the Lordship without Land And thus much said concerning the nature quality and estate of a Baron by writ and for resolution of the severall points and Articles of the question proposed may suffice Barons by Batent which is the third kind of Barons mentioned in the former division of Barons THere is also a fourth meanes of creation by act of Parliament but the first a mentiond and this by Patent are most for the honour of the King for thereby the donation doth proceed from his highnes onely as from the fountaine of all honour and dignity but when the creation is by Parliament every one may bee said donator Cookes 8. part 19. A Baron by creation by reason of Letters Parents is that Noble person whom the Kings Maâ—esty or any of his progenitors Kings of the Realm have created Barons by such their Letters Patents But this manner of creating Barons by Patent began in the Raign of R. 2. who created first Iohn Beauchamp of Holt Baron of Kidderminster by his Letters Patents 8. October anno 11. But Mils saith in 30. H. 6. this was brought in This kind of dignity of Baron shall bee of such countenance in discent or otherwise as shall bee limited in the Habendi in such Letters Patents contained for it may be but for the life of him to whom it is giâ—en or for teâ—â—e de anter vie of some other mans life as some hold opinion in 9. H. 6.29 for Cuius est dare eiâ—â—est disponere it may be in speciall a genetall taile and this kind of estate tayle was usuall before the Statute made 13. E. 1. by which estate taile in Lands and Tenements was created as appeareth by the Patent whereby Hubert de Burgo was made Earle of Kent in the time of H. 3. by these words Habend ' sibi hered ' suis decorpore Margaretae uxoris suae sâ—roris Alexandri Regis Scotiae procreatis pro defectu talis exitus remanere rectis heredibus dicti Huberti and that estates in taile are at this day titles of honour by the Statute of Westm 2. vide Nevils case Cooks 7. part 33. For the better explanation of this kind of dignity the resolution also of certaine questions shall be very requisite Question If a Nobleman and his Progenitors have for a long time been called to the Parliament and be a Baron either by tenure or writ have had in regard thereof a place cortaine in Parliament if afterwards the same Nobleman should be created a Baron of that Barony and by the same name by Letters Patents whether shall hee and his heires retaine his old place in Parliament which hee had according to the former dignity or whether shall be lose his old place and take a new place according to the time of his creation onely Answer The case of the Lord Delaware received a resolution somewhat answerable to this question Cook 11. â—art the Lord de â—a wares case Tho. Lord Delaware 3. E. 6. being in some displeasure with William West his Nephew and heire who was Father to the now Lord De la ware procured â—n Act of Parliament by the which the said Will West was during his naturall life only clearly disabled to clayme demand or have any manner of right title or interest by discent revenue or otherwise in or to the mannor lands tenements or hereditaments title and dignity of Thomas Lord De la ware his Vnkle After the said Thomas De la ware dyed and the said VVilliam West was in the time of the late Queene Elizabeth restored and afterwards in the 8. yeare of her Raigne was created Lord De la ware by Patent and had place in Parliament according to his creation by Patent for that by the said Act of Parliament in the time of E. 6. hee was excluded to challenge the former ancient Barony and after hee dyed whether the new Lord Delaware should take his place to the ancient Barony by writ or according to his Fathers creation by Patent was the question the opinion of the late Queenes Counsell being Her Majesties Atturney Generall and Sollicitor were that the acceptance of the new creation by the said William West could not distinguish the ancient dignity in him at the time of his creation but ahe dignity was at that time by the Act of Parliament 3. Ed. 6. in obeysance suspence or consideration of Law and he thereby utterly disabled to have the same during his life onely so as other acceptance could not extinguish that dignity which he then had not nor could not conclude his heire who was not disabled by the said act of 3. Ed. 6. to claime the ancient Barony which opinion of theirs was seene and allowed by the resolution of the chiefe Iustice of England and Lord chiefe Baron and so signified unto the Lord Keeper but this is to be noted by the reasons made for the said resolution that if the said William VVest had beene Baron and intituled or in possession of the ancient dignity when hee accepted the said creation the Law perchance might have been otherwise but that remaineth as yet unresolved neverthelesse the rule codem mado quo quid constuitur dissolvitur but by grant which is made a matter in fact a man cannot transferre his ritle of honour Cooke 7. parâ— And thus much concerning the three degrees of Barons within this Realme may suffice to be said in generall upon this occasion for the better understanding and direction of that which followeth to be handled And in this place I thinke it not impertinent to mention one case which I read in the bookes of the common Law concerning the discent of a title of honour whereof the
Lawyers tearme matter in fact and not by any record Cookes 6. part 53. a. But a noble Woman by Marriage though she take to her a second Husband a man of meane degree yet shee may keepe two Chaplaines according to the Proviso in the Statute of 21. H. 8. c. 13. for and in respect of the honour which once she had viz. at the time of the retayner and every such Chaplaine may purchase ly cense and dispensation Cookes 4. part 117. Cowels Instutions lib. tit 10.15 but her Chaplaines may not be nonresident afterwards And forasmuch as the retayning of Chaplaines by Ladies of great estates is ordinary and neverthelesse some questions in law have beene concerning the true understanding of the said Statute law I thinke it not impertinent to set downe some subsequent resolutions of the Judges touching such matters Anne Baronesse of Mount Eagle in her Widdowhood did retaine two Chaplaines according to the Statute and one of them had but one Benefice and therefore did obtaine a dispensation with a confirmation from the Queene according to the tenour of the said Statute but before he was presented to his second Benefice the Lady did take to Husband Henry Lord Compton whereby she did forsake her former dignity of Baronesse of Mount-Eagle and afterward the said Chaplain did accept a second Benefice and was therunto admitted and inducted and the Judges have resolved that the Chaplain hath done nothing herein but according to the meaning of the Statute and that the Ladies marriage between his Retainer and acceptance of his second benefice was no Countermand Revocation or determination of that Retainer which the Lady lawfully then did make but that she living he might proceed to the filling up of the qualification Causa origio est materia negoti for though the wife of a Noble-man during the covecture cannot by Law rerain a Chaplain to be quallified according to the statute because by Intendment her Husbands Chaplains are sufficient for that Office yet forasmuch as the Retainer was lawfull then she was widdow that being the principall matter shall enable him to take use and benefice after her marriage for though the husband and wife are but one person in Law yet as the Text is sunt animo duo in carne uno Bracton lib. 5. fol. 363 a. And in this case by the death of the Lord Compton her first Retainer was not determined for without any neer Retainer her said Chaplain may take his second benefice and also for that cause so long as the said Chaplains do attend upon their said Lady in her House they shall not be endammaged for Non-residency Cooks 4. part 117. fol. 90. 76. That which remains concerning the further exposition of this statute you may read before in the title of priviledge of Lords So long that the wise of a Duke be called Dutchesse or of an Earl be a Countesse and have the fruition of all the Honours appertaining to that estate with kneeling tasting serving and the rest and so long shall a Barons widow be saluted Lady and a Knights wise also by the courteous Speech of England quandiu Maj. aut viduitâ— vic durant except she happen to relaps with an Adulterer for as the Laws of this Kingdome do adjudge that 〈◊〉 woman shall lose her dower in that case viz. west cap. B. F.N.B. fol. 150. H. Perk. fel. 70. Kitchin 162. b. as Ruâ—oâ— Lands and Tenents so justly so doth the Laws of Gentry and Noblenesse give sentence against such a womaâ— advanced to Titles of Dignity by the husband to be unworthy to enjoy the same when she putting her husband out of mind hath subjected her self to another If a Lady which is married come through the Forrests he shall not take any thing but a Dutchesse or 〈◊〉 Countesse shall have advantage of the statute de Charâ—â— Porest 11. Art during the time that she is unmarried Cromptons Court fol. 167 b. Wheras it is contained in the great Charter amongâ—â— other things in the Form which followeth no Freemaâ— shall be taken or imprisoned or deseised of his Free-hoâ—â— or his Liberties or Free-customs or shall be outlawed oâ— banished or in any wise destroyed nor go upon him bâ—â— by the lawfull judgment of his Peers or by the Law oâ— the Land In which statute is no mention made how women Ladies of great estate because of their Husbands Peers of the Land married or sole that is to say Duchesse Countesse or Barronesse shall be put to answer oâ— before what Iudges they shall be judged upon an Inditement of Treason or Fellonyes by them committed oâ— done because wherof it is an Ambiguity in the Law oâ— England before whom and by whom such Ladies so endicted shall be put to answer and be judged by our said Soveraign Lord the King willing to put out such Ambiguities and Doubts hath declared by Authority aforesaid that such Ladies so endicted or hereafter to be endicted whether they be married or sole therof shall bee brought in answer and put to answer and judged before such Iudges and Peers of the Realm as Peers of the Realm should be if they were endicted of any Treasons or Fellonyes done or hereafter to be done and in like manner and Form and in none otherwise Anno 2. H. 6. Cap. 9. Which statute was but a Confirmation or Declaration of the common Law vide Cooks 6 part 52. b. This is a Rule in the civill law si filia R. nubat alicui dom vel Comiti dicetur semp Regalis As amongst Noble women there is a difference of degrees so according to their distinct excellentnesse the law doth give speciall Priviledges as followeth By the statute of 25. E. 3. cap. 2. It is High Treason to compose or imagine the death of the Queen or to violate the Kings Companion The Kings Espouse is a sole person exempted by the common law and she may purchase by Fee-simple or Make leases or Grants without the King she may plead and be impleaded which no other married woman can do without her husband Cook 4 part 23. B. Theol. lib. 1 a. cap. 4.24 E. 3.63 vide Bracton 363. a. All Acts of Parliaments for any cause which any way may concern the Queen and her Capacity are such statutes wherof the Judges ought to take recognisance as of generall statutes for though the matter do only concern the Capacity of the Queen yet it doth also concern all the subjects of the Realm for every subject hath interest in the King and none of his Subjects who are within hiâ— Lawes is divided from the King being his head and Soveraigne so that his businesse and things do touch all the Realme and as all the Realme hath interest in the King so and for the same Reason in the Queene being his wife Plouden 23.1 a. Cookes 8. Repl. 28. A man seised of divers Lands in Fee holden by Knights service some by Prioritie that is by ancient Feofment holden of others and some
where the originall was made and at last it was resolved by all the Court that the Record should be amended by the Cursitor and made according to the Note or Title delivered unto him by the Plaintiffes Attorney Cook 8. part fol. 15. b. It appeareth in our Book of Law that the highest and lowest Dignity are uniuersall For as if a King of a Forreign Nation come into England by leave of the King of this Realm as it ought to be in this case he shall â—â—e and be sued in the name of a King 11. Ed. 3. Test Breccon 473. So shall he sue or be sued by the Name of a Knight whersoever he received that degree of Dignity â—o Ed. 4.6 H. 6.14 but otherwise it is as â—f a Duke Marquesse Earl or other Title of Honour given by any Forreign King yea though the King by Letters Pattents of â—ife conduct do name him Duke or by any other his forâ—eign Title of Dignity For experience sheweth that Kings joyned in league together by a certain mutuall â—nd as it were a Naturall power of Monarchs according â—o the Law of Nations have denized one anothers subâ—ects and Ambassadors graced with this title of Honour Therefore though a Knight receive his Dignitie of Forraigne Prince he is so to be stiled in all Legall proceedings within England Vide Cooke 7. part fol. 16. b. And Kings were wont to send their sonnes to theâ—â— Neighbour Princes to receive Knighthood at theiâ— hands Vide Selden fol. 331. 308. thinking that iâ— was more honourable to take Armes of some other leâ—â— affection might seeme to prevent judgement when thâ— father gave them that honour Thus was our King H. 2. sent unto David King oâ— Scots and Malcombe also king there sent unto our H 2. and our king to the king of Castile to take of them Military or Civill Armes for the tearmes and phraseâ— they used in that age for the making of a knight Vidâ— Camden 174.8 vide Selden fol. 315. And knights in all forraigne Countries have eveâ— place and precedencie according as they are ancient knights which priviledge is deemed to Noblemen for be they never so ancient in forraigce Countries they shall goe before as Puesneys The degree of knighthood is not onely a Dignitie and honour to the party for so it is termed in Brooke title Additions fol. 44. but honourable for the kingdome and therefore it hath been an ancient Prerogative of the kings of this Realm at their pleasure to compell men of worth to take upon them this degree upon the payment of a Fine as appeareth in Ann. 7. H. 6.15 Pitzh Abridg. tit Im. 12. and by the Statute a. 1. Ed. 2. de militibus But we see by experience in these daies that none are compelled thereunto and that is the reason wherefore if the Plaintiffe be made knight hanging the Writ it shall abate because he hath changed his name and that by his owne act Vide Cooke 7. part f. 27. b. part 10. b. 1 Ed. 6. cap. 7. contrary And for that cause also by the common Law not only the king but every Lord of a Manor ought to have of every of his tenants a reasonable fine to make his eldest son knight Vide Bracton fol. 36. b. and all lands are subject to these aides except onely ancient Demeasnes and grand and petty serjeantly tenures as the Law hath been anciently delivered Vide Fiszh Nat. bre f. 83. a. and Selden f. 13. where it is also said one that wrote a little after the statute of West the first allowes as a good barre to the avowry for the tenant to plead that the father himself is no knight so that one not knighted cannot claime the aide of his own Tenants Briton de Prises de Avers And it was not at the liberty of the Lord to make more or lesse of his Tenants by the common Law in this case but by the statute at Westminster 1. cap. 35. it is put into certainty viz. forasmuch as before this time reasonable and to make one son knight or to marry his daughter was never put into certainty nor how much should be taken at that time whereby some levyed unreasonable aide and more often then seemed necessary whereby the people were sore grieved And it is therefore provided that from henceforth a whole knights see be taken but 20. s. and of more more and of lesse lesse after that rate and that none shall levie such aide to make his son knight untill the sonne be 15. yeares of age nor to marry his daughter untill she be of the age of 7. yeares and of that there shall be mention made in the kings Writs formed on the same if any one will demand it and if it happen that the Father after he had leavied any such aid of his Tenants did before he hath marryed his Daughter the Executors of thâ— Father shall be bound to the daughter for so much as thâ— Father received for the Aid And if the Fathers goods bâ— not sufficient his heir shall be charged therwith unto thâ— daughter and this Heir is so incident that although thâ— Lord do confirm unto the Tenant to hold by fealty anâ— certain Rent and release unto him all other services anâ— demands yet he shall have the aid to make his eldeâ—â— Son Knight Anno 40. E. 3. f. 22. Finches book 24. but the King was not bound by the statute beforementioned because the King was not named in that statute and therforâ— by the statute 25. E. 3. cap. 11. The Kings aids were brought to a like value Selden fol. 3.30 The intention of the Law is that an heir within the age of 21. years is not able to do Knight-service till his full age of 21. years Littleton lib. 2. cap 4. f. 22. But such a presumption of Law doth give place to 〈◊〉 judgment and proof to the contrary as Bracton saith Saâ—â—litur presumptioni donec probetur in contrarium And therfore the King who is the Sovereign and Supream Judge of Chivalty hath dubbed him Knight he by this hath judged him able to do him Knight-service and all men concluded not to say to the contrary therfore such an heir being made Knight either in the life of his Father or afterwards during his minority shall be out of ward and custody both for Lands and for his body or marriage by the ancient common Law by reason also that the Honour of Knight-hood is so great that it is not to be holden under by any yet if the King do create any such an Heir within Age a Duke or Marquesse Earl Count Viscount or Baron by this he shall be out of ward â—nd custody both for his Land and for his body vide â—ook 6 part 74 a. And therfore it is provided by the statute of Magâ—â—â—harta Cap. 3. Ita tamen quod si ipse dum infra aetatem fueâ—â—t fiat miles nihil ominus terra remaneat in custodia doâ—inorum suorum So that although
such an heir within age 〈◊〉 made a Knight and therby to this purpose is esteeâ—ed of full age yet the Laws shall remain in the custoâ—â—â— of the Lord till his age of 21. years by the provision 〈◊〉 the said Act. Quere if the son and heir of the Tenant 〈◊〉 the King by Knight-service c. be made Knight in â—aris by the King of France whether he shall be out of â—ardship after the death of his Father or no for therby â—e is a Knight in England Cook 7. par a. 2. E. 4. fo b. tamen â—ide Cooks 6. par 74. b. Mention is only made of Knights â—ade by the King himself or by his Lieutenants in Ireâ—â—nd But when the King doth make an heir apparent withâ—â— age of a Tenant by Knights service a Knight in the â—se time of his Ancestor and after the death of his Anâ—estor the said heir being within age shall in this case be 〈◊〉 of ward and shall pay no value for his marriage neiâ—her shall the Lord have the custody of the Land for in â—hat case by the making of him Knight in the life of his Ancestor he is made of ful age so that when his Ancestor â—yeth no Interest in the body nor in the Land shall inâ—est but the Knight may tender his livery as if he were 〈◊〉 full age and in this case the King shall have primer â—â—ism as if he had bin 21. years old at the time of the deâ—ease of his Ancestor and not otherwise Cooks 8. part fol. 〈◊〉 71. a. for the statute of Magna Charta doth not extend â—nto it For the purpose of it doth extend only when the Heir is in ward infra etatem is made Knight then rema neat torra in Custodia But when the Heir is in ward being Knight in the life of his Ancestor then the Custodâ— cannot remain or continue which had never any inception or essence Also when the Heir after the death of his Ancestouâ— within age is made a Knight if after tender made untâ— him he within Age doth marry else-where yet he shalâ— not pay the Forfeiture of his Marriage For by the making of him Kâ—ight he is out of ward and custody of hiâ— Lord for then he ought to be sui juris and may imploy himself in Feats of Arms for defence of ths Realm and therfore may not be within the Custody or keeping of another but none shall pay any Forfeiture but when after refusall he doth marry himself during the time when he is under the Custody or keeping of his Lord. And this doth appear by the statute of Merton cap. 6. Si maritaverit sine licentia Domini sui ut ei auferat Maritagium suum c. Which Words cannot be understood when he is out of Ward and Custody no more then when he is married after his age of one and twenty years Note hereby may appear that the King may preâ—ent his Grant or other Lords of the double value by Knighthood yet in such a Câ—se presently after the Heir is made Knight after the Death of his Ancestour the Lord may have a Writ de valore Marigii for the single Cooks 6. part 74. and 75. and note Plowden f. 267. Also by the ancient Common-law of this Realm if a Villain be be made a Knight he is immediatly enfranâ—ranchized Olanvile lib. 5. cap. 5. f. 27. and Bracton lib. 4. â—ap 198. b. Or if a Ribauld or man of base Birth and Condition had â—trucken a Knight he should by the ancient Laws have â—ost his hand wherwith he offended Britton 19. in his â—ppeales But in France it was judged antiently that when a â—ord of a villain had Knighted his villain being a Gentleman he became Free and had the Honor lawfully â—ut if another Lord had Knighted him nothing had bin â—rought by it For none could mannue him but the Lord and till Mannumission or till Knighthood had ciâ—ill Freedome for his ground he was not capable of it â—xcept by the King only vide Seldens Titles of Honour fol. 318. It was enacted in Parliament Anno 6. Ioh. Regis in â—ec verba Rex vicecom c. Sciatis quod consensum est cum assensu Archieporum Comit. Baronium omnium fidelium urum Angl. quod Novem milites per totam Angl. invenient decimum militem bene paratum equis Armis â—d defensionem Regni nostri vide Cook before his ninth Book b. There hath ever bin and still is great use of the service of Knights even in civil affairs and concerning matters of Iustice as in a Writ of right which is the highest writ in the law for the trials of titles touching the inheritance of lands the Tenant is at election to have his tryall by a grand assize or else by battle if by the great assize then 〈◊〉 de magna assiza Elegenda shâ—ll be taken out And upon the return of that Writ those four Knights nominated must appear Gladiis cinctis Dyer 79. f. 103. If the Tenant make his election by Battle each parties are to choose their Champions and the Court shall award the Battle and the Champions shall be a mainprise and sworn to perform the Battle at a certain day in the Term and idem dies shall be given to the parties at which day and place a List shall be made in an even and plain ground their Squadrant that is to say every square 60. foot East West North and South and the place or Court for the Justices of the Common Pleas without and upon the Lists furnished with the same Cloths which belong to their Court at Westminster and a Barre there shall be made for the Sergeants at Law and the Robes of the Justices and Sergeants shall be of Scarlet with their Coifes as it was Anno 13. Eliz. and then was made Proclamation with three O. yes c. and the Demandant was first solemnly demanded and did not appear Wherupon the Mainprise of the Champion was demanded to bring forth the Champion of the Demandant who came to the place apparelled with red Sandalls upon his black Armour bare legged from the knee downwards and bare headed and bare Arms to the Elbowes being brought in by a Knight namely by Sir Ierome Bowes who carryed a Red Baston of an Ell long typt with horn and a Yeoman carrying the Target made of double Leather and they were brought in at the North side of the Lists and went about the sides of the Lists and then came towards the Bar before the Justices with their solemn Congies and there was he made to stay on the Southside of the place being the right side of the Court. And after that the other Champion was brought in like manner at the South-side of the lists with like congies by the hands of Sir Henry Cheney Knight and was placed on the Northside of the Barre and two Serjeants being of the counsell of each party in the midst betweene them this done the Demandant was solemnly called