Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/697

APPENDIX H 675 if the latter had the name of Earl of that tief, it was a natural and usual consequence that his successor should have the same designation. Two cases already referred to prove that women did inherit earldoms. The recognition by the King of Isabel as Countess of Devon, and of Margery as Countess of Warwick (see ante, p. 661), supported by the payment to both of them of the third penny, is surely conclusive. And we have no reason to suppose that the other heiresses of earldoms in the 1 2th and 13th centuries inherited less "dignity" than these two. The rule as to succession to an earldom in the case of coheirs has already been referred to. The recognition of the rights of the eldest daughter is shown repeatedly in the chart pedigrees, and is very fully illustrated in the descent of the Mandeville fief, which has here been printed at some length. Numerous other examples could be given, but we will content ourselves with one more, relating to the Earldom of Devon. In 1200 King John confirmed an agreement between WiUiam de Vernon, Earl of Devon, and Hubert de Burgh, wherein it is stated quod idem comes assignavit filie sue priori natu capud honoris sui in Devon' cum castello de Plinton' cum csneseya ct cum racionabili parte que earn contingit de hereditate sua . . .(*) This deed had no effect because an heir was born to William shortly before its execution, but had the Earl died without male issue the settle- ment of the castle of Plympton on the elder daughter must have carried the earldom with it. The point we have to keep in mind is that the rule of law regarding baronial tenure provided for all ordinary cases of inheritance by coheirs; that there were exceptions to its application we must be prepared to find in an age of despotic sovereigns; and that occasionally cases of unusual difficulty arose, resulting in exceptional treatment, is only natural. Perhaps the most important case, entailing far-reaching consequences, was the dispute relating to the succession to the estates of the Earldom of Chester. Bracton, the contemporary lawyer, who gives the earliest account we have of this dispute, extracted the proceedings direct from the Rolls, and cites them in four cases, numbered 1127, 1213, 1227, 1273. () "One of these entries," says F. W. Maitland, " and another record C) . . . are Coke's oldest authorities (he had them from Fitzherbert) for the law as to the abeyance of titles of honour."() The facts of the case may be summarised thus. John le Scot, Earl of Chester, died s.p. in 1237, leaving as his coheirs the two daughters of his eldest sister Margaret, and his two younger sisters. William de Forz, who {») Charter Roll, I John, 7,1. 6. {•>) Bracton i Note Book, edit, by F. W. MaitLind, vol. iii. (') The other record is that relating to the rights of the youngest coheir of a baron, which is referred to ante, p. 654. It should be observed that this case, Hke the Chester case, concerned land, not dignities. (^) Introduction to Bracton s Note Book, vol. i, p. I 28.