Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 1.djvu/26

 xvi COMPLETE PEERAGE part of the [Feudal] Baronial body, and though issued in the King's name, the King was himself a prisoner to the Earl of Leicester, the leader of the rebellious Barons, who [i.e. which Earl], it may fairly be inferred, summoned only those Barons who took part with him against the Royal cause. " The true date of these writs is, so far as laymen are concerned, 24 December, though owing to the fact that some of the clergy were summoned ten days earlier, Wz., 14 Decem- ber, to meet at the same time and place, that date is often wrongly substituted ; e.g., Courthope divides the laymen summoned on 24 December impartially between the two dates. The number of the laity summoned at this date was 23, of whom 5 were Earls. The full list is as follows : — Comiti Leyc' Radulfo Basset de Drayton' Comiti Glouc' Henrico de Hasting' Comiti Norf et Marescallo Angl' Galfrido de Lucy Comiti Oxon' Roberto de Ros Comiti Derb' Johanni de Eyvill' Radulfo de Cameys Ade de Novo Mercato Rogero de Sancto Johanne Waltero de Colevill' Hugoni le Despenser Justic' Angl' Willelmo Marmyun Johanni filio Johannis Rogero Bertram Willelmo de Munchenes' Radulfo Basset de Sapecot' Nicholao de Segrave Gilbert© de Gaunt Johanni de Vescy The first occasion on which a writ of this date was treated as being capable of founding an hereditary peerage was in 1604, when the Barony of Despenser was allowed to Dame Mary Fane, and confirmed to her with such pre-eminence as Hugh le Despenser, Justiciar of England (1264), enjoyed. The second occasion was shortly afterwards, in 1 6 1 6, when the Barony of Ros was recognised as originating in the said writ of 1264. The same view was again held on 5 Feb. 1666/7, ^"^^ again on 7 May 1806, when the question of the inheritance of that Barony was at issue. On none of these occasions does the point that these writs were bad, as having issued in rebellion, appear to have been taken ; and it was not until the Mowbray and Segrave Case in 1877 that this very reasonable view was definitely adopted, although it should be remembered that previously (in 1841) the writs of 1264 were ignored in the Hastings Case.