Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/55

 1920 EARLDOM OF CHESTER 47 Bruce followed and argued that the kingdom was in the same position as an earldom (counte) or barony which had descended to three daughters or their issue, when each would have her pourparty, and that no advantage ought to accrue to the eldest except solely the name of the dignity and the capital messuage.^ He urged the king to judge by the common law ' de Countez e de Baronies de sa terre ', and alleged that many of the great lord- ships (seignuries) held of the crown of England were partible among sisters. From these arguments it seems almost certain that the decision in the Chester case must have been borne in mind and cited, but it was not followed. The decision (adopted by the king) was that a kingdom such as Scotland was not partible, nor was an earldom (comitattts) in that kingdom, though baronies were partible. Further, that while in Scotland an earldom {comi- tatus) falling to daughters goes wholly to the eldest, there was a claim de gratia non de iure by the others for some assignment ; as to a kingdom the council of commissioners ' never saw the like '. The Earldom of Huntingdon The only dignity held by Earl John which has not been dealt with is his earldom of Huntingdon. This was the subject of an interesting claim put forward immediately on the earl's death. The king of Scotland (Alexander II) at once sent Henry de Balliol, William de Lindsey, and ' Master Abel ' to the king's council to ask that the comitatus (not the title of earl) of Hunting- don should be given to the king of Scotland, on the grounds that John held it of him, and also because during the minority of John he had been in the custody of the king of Scotland by virtue thereof, which entitled the latter to claim seisin. The king's council summarily disposed of these arguments on the grounds that if John had ever been in such custody, it was in the time when Hubert de Burgh, a friend and familiar of the king of Scotland (he married a sister), had the kingdom of England in his hand, during the minority of Henry III. They pointed out that by the law and custom of England, if any man great or small held by miUtary service any tenement of which the king had enfeoffed him, the king during minority had the custody of aU his lands by whomsoever enfeoffed.^ As, however, all the earl's heirs were now of age, and for that reason alone (expressly ignoring the claim to seisin by custody), the king agreed to give the fee of Huntingdon to Alexander, with the exception of four manors held by the earl from the king in chief, viz. Brampton and Alconbury (Hampshire) and Nassington and Yarwell (Northamptonshire) .^ • Another reference to title by aesnecia. ' Bracton's Note Book, case 1221, on Coram Rege [Curia Regis] Roll, no. 45
 * This was not the custom in Cheshire.