Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/720

 698 APPENDIX H The Committee also observe that the words " heredibus et assignatis suis'' in the clause of creation seem to imply that it was conceived that the Assigns of John Talbot, having the Manor, might enjoy the Dignity, as well as that his Heirs could only enjoy it whilst seised of the Manor; and consequently, that John Talbot, aliening the Manor, might alien the Dignity. (°) And further: The extraordinary Terms of the Patent, however, and the Falsehood by which it was attempted to be supported, seem to shew that the Reign of Henry the Sixth was not a Time in which Proceedings relating to the Peerage ought to be deemed of much Authority. (*) Having regard to the fact that eleven years earlier a similar false statement was made about an earldom by tenurCjC") we incline to believe that there was some method in the madness of peerage creations in this and the following reign. And this view is supported by the proceedings in the Dacre case, which we will now examine. Thomas Dacre, who was summoned to Parliament 141 2-1455 ^Y writs directed Tkome de Dacre (latterly Dacre) de GilleslanJ {ytxth. chivaler added in the later writs), died 1457/8, leaving his granddaughter Joan, daughter of his first son, Thomas, and his two other sons Randolf and Humphrey. Joan was then wife of Sir Richard Fiennes, who on 7 Nov. 1458 was by patent declared to be Lord Dacre. There were no words of inheritance, but the patent contained the statement that Thomas Dacre, Lord Dacre, had inherited statum et dignitatem sibi et heredibus suis.(') Such a claim could only have been made on one of two grounds. Either it was advanced on the score of tenure — and would doubtless, if questioned, have been supported by false assertions — or it was a very early attempt to secure for a lord of parliament recognition of hereditary succes- sion not only in male but also in female issue. Within 15 years the claim was strengthened by another statement which the King was induced to make in his award regarding the dispute between the heir general and the heir male as to the estates, most of which had been entailed on the latter. In this award of 8 Apr. 1473 Richard Fiennes is said to be Lord Dacre in right of Joan his wife and the heirs of her body.('*) Peerage lawyers naturally regard these two statements as furnishing a strong case for the theory of barony by writ; and yet at the very time that these claims were being put forward we have conclusive proof that a writ of summons did not have the effect of creating a barony descendible to anyone whatever. (*) Lords' Reports, Third Report, p. 210. (•>) The Earldom of Arundel. See antf, vol. i, p. 248 (text), and p. 231, note " b." (<^) The patent is printed in Lords' Reports, vol. v, p. 321. (^) See Collins, p. 25.