Page images

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

[merged small][ocr errors]

§ 10. Thus, in king John's Magna Charta, c. 14. it is stipulated, that parliaments shall be fummoned in this manner : Et ad habendum commune concilium regni de auxilio affidendo aliter quam in tribus cafibus prædiétis, vel de scutagio afidendo, summoneri faciemus archiepiscopos, episcopos, abbates, comites, et majores barones, Sigillatim per litteras noftras ; et præterea faciemus fummoneri in generali, per vice-comites et ballivos noftros, omnes illos qui de n:bis tenent in capite, ad certum diem, &c.

§ 11. About the end of the reign of Henry 3. a considerable 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 summoned, either by the king's writ, or by the sheriff, yet, about that period, some new maxim or law was introduced, by which it was declared that no person, though holding lands per integram baroniam, should come to parliament without being particularly summoned by the king.

S 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 barones regni Angliæ, quibus ipse rex dignatus eft brevia fummonitionis dirigere, venirent ad parliamentum, et non alii; nisi forte dominus rex alia illa brevia iis dirigere voluisset.

Tit. of Hon.

P. 2. c. 5. 1.21.

$ 13. Selden does not give much credit to this relation, and says, he never could discover 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 exclusion of all tenants in capite from parliament, except the antient and greater barons, and such others as the king thought proper to summon.

12 Rep. 75.

$ 14. Lord Coke has also cited this paffage from Camden, and says: “ Which act or statute continues « in force to this day ; so 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 seal at least.” And it has long been established that the king is the fountain of honour, and has the sole right of conferring dignities.

4 Inft. 363.

Names or
Titles of

S 15 With respect to the different orders and titles of dignity in England, one of the most antient, although the lowest, is that of baron; which was introduced here from France ; where it denoted a person, who held a feudum nobile, with the right of administering justice in criminal and civil cafes : for the Author of the Grand Coustumier de France, lib. 2. c. 27. says, “ tout homme, qui a haute justice en rejort, se pèut nimmer baron.And, in Normandy, the supe rior feuds, which were held immediately of the duke, were called “ Fiefs de Hautber;" which is supposed, by the best writers, to mean haut baron, in order to Hervé, tom.i.


P. 139 distinguish them from the inferior barons.

S 16. Upon the establishment of the Nornians in England, every person 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, seignory, or manor; and the court, in which he administered justice to his tenants, Vide Tit. i. was denominated his court-baron, an appellation by

f. 5. which it is still 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."

2 Inft. 6.
Seld. Id. f.17.

[ocr errors]

§ 18. In course of time, the right of sitting in parliament seems to have been confined to those, who held their lands per baroniam. But it does not clearly appear, what was the precise nature of this tenure. Spelman says, that every tenure in capite was a tenure Gloff. vort per baroniam: Ævo Henrici secundi, quævis tenura in capite habebatur pro tenura per baronian. It is, however, said in a tract, intituled, “ An inquiry P. 18, into the Manner of creating Peers," supposed to have VOL. III.




[ocr errors]

been written by Richard West Esq. 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, since the term tenant in capite was equally applicable to all services, what distinguished a baron from all other tenants in capite, must have been the reservation of some particular services, which were implied in the phrase, tenere per baroniam.

Gloff. voce Honor.

$ 19. A barony was also called an honour, as appears front the following paffage in Spelman : Honor ab Anglo-Normannis diétum videtur uniufcujusque majoris baronis feodale patrimonium, feu baronia ; uti manerium plurimis gaudet (interdum feodis fed plerunque) tcnementis confuetudinibus, servitiis, &c. Ita honor plurima complectitur maneria, plurima feoda militaria, plurima regalia, &c. Dictus etiam hic olim est beneficium, fere feodum rcgalc, tentufque femper a rege in capite.

2 Inst. 64.

S 20. Mr. Madox, in his “ Baronia Anglica," or history of land honours and baronies, says : “ In the

ages next after the Conquest, when a great lord was “ enfeoffed by the king of a large seignory, such seig“ nory was called an honour; as the honour of Gloucefter, the honour of Walling ford, &c. It might u also be called a barony.

$ 21. In the reign of Henry 8., an honour appears to have been considered only as an illustrious manor or lordship, or several manors united, having one capital seat. Thus, certain manors belonging to the crown 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 Dar. Ang. 8a were created in name, and these places acquired some of the properties of honours, but, in truth, became honours of a new sort: for the essential and dirtinguishing property of an honour, vested in the king, was, to be a barony escheated. Now, if Hampton Court was not an escheat, or barony escheated, before the making of the act, it could not become an escheat or barony escheated by the ad, which could not alter its nature. If a manor or estate, vested in the crown, was a part of the king's criginal 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 such creation could not alter the nature of it, or make it an honour in fact ; that is, it would not make it a baronial estate, if it never was one before.

Inft. 108 a.


$ 22. Every honour had a capital seat or mansion. Idem 17. house upon it ; which was called caput honoris or baronia, and was commonly a castle. Mr. Madox has cited a record in the second 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 baron nia, 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,

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »