Page:The Ancestor Number 1.djvu/312

 252 THE ANCESTOR tive ' (p. ccclxxx.). They certainly are so in the case of tests which the editor alleges he applied to identifications which would plunge at times the history of our counties into absolutely hopeless confusion.^ We have been dealing above with the partition of a great fief ; but the Close Rolls record with equal care the partition of the small possessions of a tenant by serjeanty. It had been found by inquisition that a certain John Goce held lands at Gillingham, county Dorset, 'in chief by the serjeanty of fee of being forester of Gillingham Forest and keeper of the park of the manor of Gillingham, and that Amice wife of William de Bogelegh, Elizabeth wife of John Cley, Alice wife of William Chonnesone, and Michaela wife of John de Rondes, daughters of the said John Goce, were his nearest heirs and of full age.' On July 20, 131 1, the king intimated that he had deferred to ' the next Parliament ' deciding the dispute between these co-heirs, who claimed to hold by grand serjeanty, and his step- mother Queen Margaret who alleged that the tenements were of ancient demesne and should be held of her as of the manor of Gillingham. At last, but not till the close of 13 12, the king lost patience with his stepmother, and ordered his escheator to divide the inheritance into four equal parts for the daughters and their husbands. This was done March 16, 13 13, and a lengthy document records every detail of the partition. It is important to note that the actual office went to the eldest daughter alone, while the house, land, etc., was equally divided between the other three. For this bears on the question that is being raised as I write whether the Lord Great Chamberlainship of England should have descended in its entirety to Lord Ancaster instead of being held jointly by the heirs of two sisters. It is, in fact, the question of that ' impartible inheritance ' on which some learning has been ex- pended. ' It is Bracton's opinion,' write the authors of the History of English Law ^ 'that a tenement held by serjeanty ought not to be divided.' But 'in 1221,' they add, 'Henry III. permits co-heiresses to hold a serjeanty' (vol. ii. ed. i, p. 273). On the other hand they cite a case in which ' the eldest of ^ I desire to observe that I only detected the above errors in identification on examining this return (January, 1902) for the purposes of the present paper.
 * Swell.' For the present, however, I will say no more on the