Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/130

110 Fountain of Honours, (§c [Ch.VIII. males {a); yet it seems clear on principle, and has been ac- cordingly determined, that if no such restraint be made, the dignity created by the sitting in pursuance of the summons, descends to the lineal heirs male and female, of the person first summoned (i). Lord Coke, indeed, states that "if one be generally called by writ to the Parliament, he hath a fee-simple in the barony, without any words of inheritance (c)," but this is clearly a mistake; for the person summoned has not a fee-sim- ple, but an estate tail general, in the dignity. If he were tenant in fee-simple, the dignity would descend to the heirs general, lineal or collateral, of the person last seised, whereas a dig- nity of this kind is only inheritable by such of his heirs as are lineally descended from the person first summoned to Parlia- ment, and not to any other of his heirs (d)" Lord Coke him- self appears to have corrected his mistake in the same page by saying, " and thereby his blood is ennobled to him and his heirs lineal (^)." It is frequent to call up the eldest son of a Peer to the House of Lords by writ of summons, in the name of his father's barony: because in that case there is no danger of his children losing the nobility in case he never takes his seat, for they will succeed to their grandfather {f). It has been often determined that a writ of summons of this kind to the eldest son of a nobleman, creates a dignity in such son, and renders it hereditary in his blood {g). But it must be remembered that where the summons to Parliament is by the title of the father's barony, the son summoned has no other title in the barony than the father has; for the effect of the writ of summons in this case is merely to accelerate and anticipate the son's succession, and therefore in a modern case, where the father's barony was limited by patent to him and the heirs male of his body, and his eldest son was called up to the House of Lords by writ, with the title of this barony, it was held that the writ did not create a fee or a general estate tail, so as to make a female capable of inheriting the title, but (a) 1 Inst. 9, b. 7 Co. 33, b. 244, 254. (6) Lords' Journ. 12 vol. 629 j 15 vol. (e) And see 1 Wooddn. 37, note y. 442, 458, 552 J 17 vol. 81,91. 3 Cruise 1 Bla. Com. 400, note 6. Christian's Dig. 202. sect 64. Collins' Append. ed. No. 7. (/) 1 Bla. Com. 400. (c) Co. Lit. 16, b. (g) See Lords' Journ. 25 vol. 11, 39, (d) 1 Inst. 15, b. 3 Cruis. Dig. 223, 112, 130. 3 Cruise Dig. 207, &c. 7 that