Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/700

678 APPENDIiX H Nor was there likely to be, for the King was the fountain of honour, and was a law unto himself. The change did not take place suddenly in a certain month or year, nor can we say that its beginning can be traced to any particular creation. For some time the limitation in the case of personal honours usually followed the precedent of the earlier creations, the inheritance being in fee; but the succession of the nominal heirs was uncertain. In 11 Edw. Ill six earldoms were created in fee simple — Derby, Gloucester, Huntingdon, Northampton, Salisbury, and Suffolk. In the case of Salisbury there was no failure of male issue till 1428, when the husband of the heiress was allowed the style, the earldom being confirmed to him in 1442. In the case of Derby the two coheirs appear to have divided their father's earldoms between them. The other four earldoms lapsed, although there were heirs general in the case of Gloucester, Northampton, and Suffolk; the grantee of Huntingdon died s.p., but not, of course, without heirs. The grantees of the Earldoms of Gloucester and Huntingdon, and the heir of the grantee of the Earldom of Northampton, all died in the reign of Edward III, who had bestowed the dignities. The heir of the Suffolk grantee died 5 Ric. II. This case deserves special attention. The earldom was granted to Robert d'UfFord, whose son William died s.p.m.s., 5 Ric. II, leaving a sister and the issue of other sisters as his coheirs. Richard II conferred the earldom four years later on Michael de la Pole, the grant reciting: Memorand', quod cum Willielmo nuper Comite Suff ' absque heredibus masculis, prout Altissimo placuit, ab hac luce subtracto, ^ maxima parte sui patrimonii ad Dnum Regem hac de causa legitime devoluta, eligens potius idem Dnus Rex Digni- tatem Isf Nomen tanti Comitatus honori Diadematis Regii continuando adicerc, quam ejus suppresso Nomine ipsius patrimonii commoda usibus fiscalibus applicare, ^ eo ptextu ad nobilem is" discrctum virum Michaelem de la Pole, Regni sui Anglie Cancellar', aciem sue considcrationis dirigens, ipsum Micfiem, ob ipsius pclara merita, ad Dei honorem, csf Corone Regie decorem, ac Regni sui corroborationem i^ presidium, in Comitem SufF' erexerit yc.(*) From the above facts we may infer that Edward III regarded the earldoms of his own creation as entirely at his disposal in the event of failure of male issue. And Richard II in his charter to Pole plainly asserts his right to suppress the Earldom of Suffolk because William d'UfFord left no "heirs male." It is not probable that Richard was unacquainted with (*) Rot. Pari., vol. iii, p. 206A. The personal nature of the grant to Michael de la Pole is made clear by the proceedings in Parliament on his impeachment in 1386. He was deprived of the estates which had been given to him with the earldom, but lie was allowed to keep his title of earl and the grant of ;^20 yearly from the issues of the county. " Mes n'est pas I'entention du Roy, ne des Seigiirs, q celle juggement s'estende de lui faire pdre le Non ts" le Title de Count, ne les xx livres annuels queux le Roi lui graunta a prendre des issues du Countee de Suff' pur le Noun ^ Title avant ditz." {Rot. Par!., vol. iii, p. 219*).