Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/710

688 APPENDIX H miles," though he was never summoned to Parliament and it is doubtful whether he was ever knighted.(*) In another Appendix C") will be presented a mass of evidence regarding the men who received writs of summons to Parliament and the effect of such writs. Here it will suffice to point out that the absurdity of the doctrine that a writ in the time of the three Edwards created a man a peer in the modern sense is demonstrated by facts such as the summoning to the same parliament of a father and his son, and two brothers,("=) and the repudiation of barony by a man who was summoned.('^) The earlier writs of summons up to 49 Edw. Ill were directed in the case of barons without any addition to the name — e.g. Rogero de Mowbray. In that year, however, two of those summoned had chivaler added to their names, and this description is attached occasionally — but apparently on no recognisable system — in summonses up to 3 Hen. VI. From this date the addition becomes permanent, or very nearly so, though varied now and then by the substitution, for the French word, of the Latin word miles. The following is an example of the various forms of address occurring in one list of writs (26 Oct. 1 1 Henry IV): Magistro Thome de la Warre. Johanni Oldcastel Chl'r. Radulpho Baroni de Greystok.(') Johanni Latymer. Johanni Talbot Domino de Furnyvall. When two or more men of the same name were summoned at the same time they were usually distinguished by the addition of the name of their chief seat; while In the case of a man who had married an heiress the name of his wife's chief seat (or sometimes her family name) was added for identification. Particular attention must be directed to this point, for this method of describing the husband of an heiress has constantly been adduced in peerage cases as proof of his having acquired a heritable dignity in consequence of his marriage. For example, the fact that a writ of sum- mons was directed to John Talbot as "Johanni Talbot Domino de Furnivall (1409) was claimed in the Furnivall case as proof that he was Lord (*) W. Paley Baildon points out to the writer, as an example of the use of Dominus for the Lord of a manor, that in 1394 Sir William FitzWilliam, Lord of the manors of Emly, Sprotborough, and other relatively important places, sues for debt as Dominus de Bayldon, a small place. The action had nothing to do with his Baildon property. C") Appendix A, vol. xii of this work. i^ Roger de la Warr and his son John were summoned i Edw. II as Rogero la IVarre and Johanni la Warre respectively, whereby, according to modern law, they both became Lord la Warre or Lord de la Warr. John and his brother William Clinton were summoned to the same Parliament 6 Edw. III. These are only two of numerous examples that could be given. (•*) Thomas de Furnivall, summoned to a Council in 1283 and to Parliament from 1295 to 1332, in 19 Edw. II denied that he was a baron. See post, section entitled "The Extension of the Doctrine of Abeyance in Modern Times." (') See preceding page, note "a."