. Descent of Dignities grantee a dignity for life only; but it did not seem to have occurred to any such writer, that a writ of summons, where there were no such words, could enure to the person to whom it was addressed, for his life only; or could enure, where there were not special words in the writ, so to direct the course of the inheritance, to him and his heirs male, or any other particular line of descendants. It might be safely assumed that the doctrine was not to be found in any law book of authority; and was so extremely singular, that it might be very confidently asserted, that if the law acknowledged the doctrine, it could not have been unknown or unnoticed by the several great lawyers who had considered the nature and effect of these writs. The House of Lords resolved, that the claimant had no right in consequence of her grandfather's summons and sitting. 57. It has been stated in a former chapter, that where a dignity is created by letters patent, the state of inheritance must be limited by apt and proper words, or else the grant is void: and where the mode of descent is marked out, the dignity will of course be transmissible to that class of heirs who are desig nated in the letters patent. Thus under the common patents the dignity descends to the heirs male of the body of the person first ennobled. 58. A person claiming a dignity of this kind must deduce his pedigree entirely through males; but a brother of the half blood may inherit: for Lord Coke 1 Inst. 15 b. says, the issue in tail is ever of the whole blood to the donee. 59. By letters patent in 16 Cha. I., William Howard and Mary his wife, the only sister and heir of Henry Baron Stafford, were created respectively Baron and Baroness of Stafford, to hold respectively to the same William and Mary, and the heirs male of the bodies of the same William and Mary lawfully begotten, or to be begotten; and for default of such issue, then to the heirs of the bodies of the same William and Mary lawfully begotten, or to be begotten. 60. The most singular limitation of a dignity, which I have seen, is that of the barony of Lucas of Crudwell. It was granted by letters patent, 15 Cha. II., to Mary Countess of Kent, to hold to her and the heirs male of her body begotten by the Earl of Kent; and for want of such issue to the heirs of her body by the said earl, with a declaration, "that if at any time or times after the death of the said Mary Countess of Kent, and in default of issue male of her body by the said earl begotten, there shall be more persons than one, who shall be coheirs of her body by the said earl, the said honour, title, and dignity shall go, and be held and enjoyed, from time to time, by such of the said coheirs, as by course of descent of the common law should be inheritable to other entire and undivisible inheritances, as, namely, an office of honour and public trust, or a castle for the necessary defence of the realm, or the like, in case any such inheritance was given or limited to the said Mary, and the heirs of her body by the said earl begotten." And by a private act of parliament, 15 Cha. II., this declarative clause is ratified and confirmed. 61. The dukedom of Marlborough is limited to the eldest daughter, in default of males, by the letters patent; which are confirmed by an act of parliament. 5 Ann. c. 3. Nature of. Rot. Parl. vol. 2. 16. A SECTION 1. FRANCHISE is a royal privilege or branch of the King's prerogative, subsisting in a subject, by a grant from the Crown. Formerly grants of royal franchises were so common, that in the parliament which was held in 21 Edw. III. there is a petition from the Commons to the King, stating that franchises had been so largely granted in times past, that almost all the land was enfranchised, to the great averisement and estenysement of the common law, and in great oppression of the people; praying the King to restrain such grants for the time to come. Το which the King answered, that the franchises which should be granted in future, should be made with good advisement. 2. Franchises are extremely numerous, and of various kinds; but only some of those will here bė treated of, which are immediately annexed to, or connected with real property. 3. It is laid down by Sir W. Blackstone, that, upon A Forest. the Norman conquest, the right of pursuing and 2 Comm.415. taking all beasts of venery, or such other animals as are accounted game, was then held to belong to the King; or to such only as were authorized under him. 823. This doctrine appears to be founded on very ancient and respectable authorities. Ordericus Vitalis says of King Henry I., Omnem ferarum venationem totius Duchesne Angliæ sibi peculiarem vindicavit ; et vix paucis nobili. Script. Norm. oribus ac familiaribus privilegium, in propriis saltibus, venandi permisit. And we find the following passage in Mat. Paris, anno 1209, Rex Anglorum Johannes, ad natale domini, fuit apud Bristollum, et ibi capturam avium per totam Angliam interdixit. 4. These regulations were probably made in consequence of some violations of the King's rights, respecting game. For Bracton states the royal prerogative in the following words: Habet etiam (Rex) Lib. 2. c. 24. de jure gentium in manu sua quæ de jure naturali deberent esse communia; sicut feras bestias, et aves non domesticas. And Manwood, upon the authority of this passage, says, "In like manner wild beasts of c. 2. § 1. venery, and beasts and fowls of chace and warren, being things of great excellency, they are meetest for the dignity of a prince, for his pastime and delight; and therefore they do most properly belong unto the King only." 5. In consequence of this prerogative, the first monarchs of the Norman line not only reserved to themselves the sole and exclusive property of the ancient forests, but also created others of great extent over the lands of private persons, which they placed under the jurisdiction of particular courts: 4 Inst. 303. and enacted laws of the most arbitrary and cruel kind for the preservation of the game therein. 6. The practice of afforesting the lands of private persons, being highly destructive of their properties, was remedied by the charta de foresta, 9 Hen. III., which enacted that all the lands which had been afforested by King Hen. II., Richard I., and John, except the proper demesnes of the Crown, should be disafforested and freed from the forest laws. 7. Manwood defines a forest to be" A certain territory or circuit of woody grounds and pastures, known by its bounds and privileges, for the peaceable being and abiding of wild beasts and fowls of forest, chace, and warren; to be under the King's protection, for his princely delight; replenished with beasts of venery and chace, and great coverts of vert, for the succour of the said beasts: for preservation whereof there are particular laws, privileges, and offices belonging thereto." 8. The lands added to the royal forests by King Henry II. and his sons, and which were disafforested by the charta de foresta, are called purlieus. But though exempted from the forest laws, so that the proprietors of such districts may occupy them as their freehold, yet as to some purposes, they have the privileges of a forest against strangers. 9. Beasts of forest are properly hart, hind, hare, boar, and wolf: but all beasts of venery are equally protected in a forest; for it comprehends within it a chace, park, and free warren. 10. Several of the royal forests were granted by the Crown to great lords, by which they acquired the royal franchise of a forest. Thus, in 5 Ja. I., all the Forest, Cro. justices and barons held, that a forest may well be in the hands of a subject; and shall be used as a forest, Case of Leicester Ja. 155. |