different counties were directed to fummon the inferior ones, or barones minores.

S 10. Thus, in king John's Magna Charta, c. 14. it is ftipulated, that parliaments fhall be fummoned in this manner: Et ad habendum commune concilium regni de auxilio affidendo aliter quam in tribus cafibus prædictis, vel de fcutagio affidendo, fummoneri faciemus archiepifcopos, epifcopos, abbates, comites, et majores barones, figillatim per litteras noftras; et præterea faciemus fummoneri in generali, per vice-comites et ballivos noftros, omnes illos qui de nbis tenent in capite, ad certum diem, &c.

§ 11. About the end of the reign of Henry 3. a confiderable alteration took place in the rights of the barons to fit in parliament; for, whereas every tenant in capite was ipfo facto a parliamentary baron, and entitled to be fummoned, either by the king's writ, or by the sheriff, yet, about that period, fome new maxim or law was introduced, by which it was declared that no person, though holding lands per integram baroniam, fhould come to parliament without being particularly fummoned by the king.

§ 12. This fact appears to have been first mentioned by Camden in his Britannia; who cites an antient writer, without naming him, as his authority: Ille enim, (Hen. 3.) ex fatis antiquo fcriptore loquor, post magnas perturbationes et enormes vexationes inter ipfum regem, Simonem de Monteforti, et alios barones, motas et fufceptas, ftatuit et ordinavit; quod omnes illi comites

et

et barones regni Anglia, quibus ipfe rex dignatus eft brevia fummonitionis dirigere, venirent ad parliamentum, et non alii; nifi forte dominus rex alia illa brevia iis dirigere voluiffet.

§ 13. Selden does not give much credit to this relation, and fays, he never could difcover who this antient writer, cited by Camden, was; but thinks that, not long after the great charter of king John, or probably in his life-time, fome law was made, that induced the utter exclufion of all tenants in capite from parliament, except the antient and greater barons, and fuch others as the king thought proper to fummon.

§ 14. Lord Coke has alfo cited this paffage from Camden, and fays: "Which act or ftatute continues "in force to this day; fo that now none, although "that he hath an entire barony, can have a writ of "fummons to parliament without the king's warrant, “under the privy feal at least." And it has long been established that the king is the fountain of honour, and has the fole right of conferring dignities.

§ 15 With refpect to the different orders and titles of dignity in England, one of the most antient, although the loweft, is that of baron; which was introduced here from France; where it denoted a perfon, who held a feudum nobile, with the right of adminiftering juftice in criminal and civil cafes: for the Author of the Grand Couftumier de France, lib. 2. c. 27. fays, "tout homme, qui a haute juftice en refort, fe

peut nommer baron." And, in Normandy, the fupe rior feuds, which were held immediately of the duke, were called "Fiefs de Hautber;" which is fuppofed,

by the best writers, to mean haut baren, in order to Hervé, tom. 1. distinguish them from the inferior barons.

§ 16. Upon the establishment of the Normans in England, every perfon holding his lands immediately of the king, and having a certain number of free tenants holding of him, was called a baron: his estate was termed a barony, feignory, or manor; and the court, in which he administered juftice to his tenants, was denominated his court-baron, an appellation by which it is ftill known.

§ 17. It has been stated, that these barons were all entitled to fit in parliament; and, therefore, the first dignity or title of nobility which was known in England, was that of baron. Hence Lord Coke fays, that in antient records, "the barony included all the no"bility of England; because, regularly, all noblemen were barons, though they had a higher title."

86

P. 139.

§ 18. In courfe of time, the right of fitting in par liament seems to have been confined to those, who held their lands per baroniam. But it does not clearly appear, what was the precife nature of this tenure. Spelman fays, that every tenure in capite was a tenure Gloff, vore per baroniam: Evo Henrici fecundi, quævis tenura

in capite habebatur pro tenura per baroniam. It

Baronia.

is, however, faid in a tract, intituled, "An inquiry P. 18, into the Manner of creating Peers," fuppofed to have

VOL. III.

N

been

7

Gloff. voce Honor.

2 Inft. 64.

I Inft. 108 a.

been written by Richard West Efq. afterwards Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that, although every barony was

a tenure in capite, yet every tenure in capite was not a barony; and that, fince the term tenant in capite was equally applicable to all fervices, what diftinguished a baron from all other tenants in capite, must have been the reservation of fome particular fervices, which were implied in the phrase, tenere per baroniam.

uti

$ 19. A barony was also called an honour, as appears from the following paffage in Spelman: Honor ab Anglo-Normannis dictum videtur uniufcujufque majoris baronis feodale patrimonium, feu baronia; mancrium plurimis gaudet (interdum feodis fed plerunque) tenementis confuetudinibus, fervitiis, &c. Ita honor plurima complectitur maneria, plurima feoda militaria, plurima regalia, &c. Dictus ctiam hic olim eft beneficium, feu feodum regale, tentufque femper a rege in capite.

§ 20. Mr. Madox, in his "Baronia Anglica," or history of land honours and baronies, fays: "In the ages next after the Conquest, when a great lord was "enfeoffed by the king of a large feignory, fuch feigt nory was called an honour; as the honour of Glou"cefter, the honour of Wallingford, &c. It might "alfo be called a barony."

§ 21. In the reign of Henry 8., an honour appcars to have been confidered only as an illustrious manor of lordship, or feveral manors united, having one capital feat. Thus, certain manors belonging to the crown

were

were then created honours by act of parliament; fuch as the manors of Hampton Court, Ampthill, and Grafton. But Mr. Madex obferves, that by those acts, honours Bar. Ang. 8. were created in name, and these places acquired fome of the properties of honours, but, in truth, became honours of a new fort: for the effential and distinguishing property of an honour, vefted in the king, was, to be a barony efcheated. Now, if Hampton Court was not an efcheat, or barony efcheated, before the making of the act, it could not become an escheat or barony efcheated by the act, which could not alter its nature. If a manor or estate, vested in the crown, was a part of the king's original inheritance; if it never was granted to an earl or baron, and did not come to the crown by escheat, it was not properly an honour. It might indeed be created an honour, or rather a nominal honour; but fuch creation could not alter the nature of it, or make it an honour in fact; that is, it would not make it a baronial eftate, if it never was one before.

§ 22. Every honour had a capital feat or manfion- Idem 17. house upon it; it; which was called caput honoris or baronia, and was commonly a castle. Mr. Madox has cited a record in the fecond year of king John; in which Elias Croc prayed he might have the judgment of the king's court, whether his father could alien that fee to his brother. Deficut feodum illud eft baronia, et caput illius bonoris. "Not that it was an entire "barony in itself, for one knight's fee could not " amount to a barony; but that it was a barony, to "wit, a baronial fee, not barely a knight's fee. As,