Journ. Dom. Proc. + Journ. Dom. Proc. Vol. XIII. p. 154. notion has been confirmed by so many subsequent decisions*, that it is not (probably) to be shaken. The case of Frescheville is, however, deserving particular attention. It arose just after a decision of the house of lords, as in the petition of the claimant is set forth. The petition was as follows; viz. "To the King's Most Excellent Majesty, &c. &c. "That, whereas your petitioner, as lineal heir male to Ralphe de Freschville of Stavely, who had summons to parliament among the barons of the realm in the 25th of king Edward the First, hath been (through your Majesty's special grace and favour) advanced to the title and dignity of a baron of this realm, by letters patent, bearing date the 16th of March, in the 16th year of your Majesty's reign: and whereas, upon a solemn debate in the house of peers, happening this present parliament, in the case of the lady Katherine O'Brien, lineal heir to Gervase lord Clifton, it was resolved, "That the said Gervase Clifton being summoned to parliament by a special writ, bearing date the 9th of July, in the 6th year of the reign of your royal grandfather king James, and sitting in parliament accordingly, was a peer and baron of this realm, and his blood thereby ennobled ;' your petitioner therefore conceiving, that, by the same reason, the blood of his lineal ancestor, by that summons and sitting in parliament in the time of king Edward the First, being then ennobled, and there never having since been any attainder in his family, which might legally intercept his claim to the honour of his said ancestor, so that he hath a just right and title thereunto, most humbly desires that he may be admitted to the same place and precedence in this present parliament, and in all other future parliaments, and other public convocations of the peers of this realm, as his said ancestor Ralphe de Frescheville anciently had enjoyed." This petition was referred by his majesty to the Attorney-general, who made the following report thereon; viz. "I have examined the contents of this petition, and do find by a copy of the record attested by the keeper of your Majesty's records within the Tower, that Ralphe de Freschville was among other barons summoned by writ to the parliament held in the 25th year of the reign of king Edward the First. It also appears unto me, by several pedigrees of credit and antiquity, that the now lord Freschville is lineally descended, as heir, both general and male, from the said Ralphe de Freschville; but it doth not appear, by any evidence, that the said Ralphe, or any of his descendants (till your Majesty's creation of the now lord Frescheville) were ever summoned, or sat in parliament after the said parliament of 25 Edw. I. And, therefore, my humble opinion to your Majesty is, that you would be graciously pleased to refer the consideration of this petition to the peers now in parliament assembled."-(Signed) Wil. Jones. Dated 14 Feb. 1677. The lords, on reference of this petition made to them by his Majesty, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, and the attorney-general for the king, resolved (without examining the truth of the pedigree asserted by the lord Frescheville) on the 6th of March, 1677*, that they did not find sufficient ground to advise his Majesty to allow the claim of the petitioner. It does not clearly appear what were the grounds of this decision. It may be suggested, that, though Ralphe de Frescheville was summoned to parliament 25 Edw. I., it had not been proved that he sate therein. Also, that neither Ralph being again summoned, nor any of his descendants after him, during so very great a length of time, it might be presumed, that, whether he ever sate in parliament or not, it was not conceived at that time that a writ of summons, and even sitting under it, would have the effect attributed to such writs in later times, as in the instance of Clifton. * Ibid. OF THE WRIT OF SUMMONS JURE UXORIS. While dignities were annexed to the possession of particular lands, the husband of a woman having such lands was bounden to perform the services for which they were holden, and, among others, to attend the High Court of Parliament, so that he was entitled to the dignity during the joint lives of himself and his wife, as in several instances among the ancient earldoms may be perceived. But the first person mentioned by Dugdale, as summoned to parliament jure uxoris is Ralph Monthermer, by reason, as that author relates, that he was seised in right of his wife (for term of her life,) of certain lands + Mandevill, earl of Albemarle. Plantaganet, earl Essex and Warren and cum aliis. Lists of Summ. p. 570. composing the earldoms of Gloucester and Hertford; but when her son, the earl of Gloucester, came of age, he took his seat in parliament as earl, and Monthermer was thereafter only summoned to parliament as a baron. In the reign of Henry VIII. Mr. Wymbush having married a lady entitled to the barony of Taylboys ("), who died before him without having had issue, a question arose, whether he ought to have the name of lord Taylboys in right of his wife, or not. On this occasion, after a solemn Collins's deliberation*, it was asserted that the husband who never had issue, had no interest in law in his wife's inheritance; and, accordingly, the king (Henry VIII.), who was present on the argument, for resolution, said, "That Mr. Wymbush nor any other, from thenceforth, should use the style of his wife's dignity, but such as by the curtesy of England had right to her possessions for term of life.” Parl. Prec. On comparing, however, the reason attributed to Monthermer's summons to parliament with that of Charles Somerset, as lord Herbert, there appears a great difference between the cause and the rule laid down for Monthermer was earl of Gloucester ratione possessionis uxoris suæ. But the lord Herbert could not be a baron ratione eâdem, because the barony of his wife's father was created by writ of personal summons, and as such could not be cast upon him in her right. Chief-justice Coke asserts, "That where no possession can be had, no curtesy can prevail," ergo, there can be no curtesy of a personal honour, as a barony by writ: for the custom applied solely to the ancient territorial barony. Mr. Hargrave has observed, that he could not learn that there had been any claims of dignities by curtesy since lord chief-justice Coke's time; and from the want of modern instances of such claims, as well as from late creations, whereby women were made peeresses, in order that the families of their husbands might have titles, and yet the husbands themselves (") This barony is one of those omitted by Dugdale in his Peerage History. It was created by writ of summons, and sitting under the same anno (21 Hen. VIII.), in the person of Gilbert Taylboys, of Kyme, in com. Linc., to the ancient feudal barony of which name he was the direct heir. remain commoners; it seemed as if the prevailing notion was against curtesy in titles. However, he had not yet discovered whether this great question had ever formally been settled by any judgment of the house of lords. Parl. Prec. Indeed, from after lord Herbert's time to the present, the practice of summoning to parliament jure uxoris has ceased, as the examples of Audley, Willoughby of Eresby, first in Bertie, (claimed and rejected* in Collins's 1580,) and last in Burrel, fully demonstrate. Indeed, it may be instanced in the cases of the late duke of Northumberland and the late Marquis of Townshend, that they respectively succeeded to the baronies of Percy and Ferrers of Chartley, upon the decease of their mothers, and in the life-time of their fathers; which would not have been allowed, if their said fathers had been entitled to an estate by the curtesy in those dignities. Having thus descanted upon the custom which in former times prevailed, of the husbands sitting in parliament by virtue of their wives' feudal possessions, it may not be irrelevant to notice what information antiquity affords us, with respect to the share which females originally took in the great councils of the nation. Plutarch says, that women had the prerogative to sit and deliberate in great councils, in cases relating to civil administration, and also in debates about peace and war. Tacitust, speaking of the Britons, says, Sexum in imperiis non discernent. And Cæsar says, the British women were made use of in court, in council, and in camp. + In vitâ Agricolæ. ↑ Comm. 117. 3 cap. 25. p. 135. Lib. cap. 23, 4. Sax. 48. 4 The ladies of birth and quality sat in council with the Saxon witas; the Bede Lib. abbess Hilda, as Bede§ writes, presided in an ecclesiastical synod. In Wightred's great council at Beconceld, A.D. 694 ||, the abbesses sat, and deliberated, and five of them signed the decrees of that council along with the king, bishops, and nobles. In Ethelwolf's parliament at Winchester, A.D. 855, wherein the tenth part of the kingdom was given to the church, the law passed, says Ingulphus, ¶ "Præsentibus et subscribentibus, archiepiscopis, et episcopis, Angliæ universis, nec non Benreddo rege Merciæ, et Edmundo EastAnglorum rege, abbatum et abbatissarum, ducum, comitum, procerumque || Chron. Savil.Edit. Ingulph. 862. * MS. pen. lord keeper Williams. + Tit. Hon. p. 729. ↑ Pat. 5 Edw. I. Dors. 11, et Rot. Scut. ejusd. Ann. m. 7. totius terræ, aliorumque fidelium infinita multitudine, qui omnes regium chiragraphum laudaverunt, dignitates vero sua nomina subscripserunt.' King Edgar's charter to the abbey of Crowland, A.D. 961, was, with the consent of the nobles and abbesses who subscribed the same*. In the time of Henry III.† and of Edward I. four abbesses had summons to parliament; viz. of Shaftsbury, Barking, St. Mary of Winchester, and of Wilton. But the most memorable summons is that of 35 Edw. III., whereby divers countesses and baronesses were required to give their attendance, or send their proxies. This writ being so singular, the following copy thereof may not be considered unanalogous to the general subject. Claus. 35 Edw. III. In Dors. m. 36. "Rex dilecto sibi Mariæ comitissa Norfolciæ Salm. Quia terra nostra Hiberniæ per invalescentes à diu Hibernicorum inimicorum nostrorum, incursus, propter impotentiam fidelium nostrorum habitantium in eâdem ; et pro eo quod magnates et alii de regno nostro Angliæ terras in eâ habentes, commodum dictarum terrarum suarum ab eâdem terrâ capiunt et defensionem aliquam non faciunt, jam cautè vastitâtis et destructionis miserie subjicitur; quod, nisi deus advertat et celerius succurrat eidem, ad totalem perditionem in proximo deducetur; per quod pro salvatione ejusdem ordinavimus; quod Leonellus comes Ultoniæ, filius noster charissimus, cum ingenti exercitu, ad terram prædictam, cum omni festinatione transmittetur : et quòd omnes magnates ac alii de dicto regno nostro terras in dictâ terrâ Hiberniæ habentes, quànto potentiùs potuerint, in comitivâ dicti filii nostri, proficiscentur, vel si debiles in corpore existant, loco suo alios sufficientes ibidem mittant pro repulsione dictorum inimicorum, et salvatione et defensione terrarum suarum, et succursu terræ supradictæ et pro dicto negotio accelerando volumus eum magnatibus et aliis de eodem regno terras in dictâ terrâ Hiberniæ habentibus, colloquim habere et tractatum; vobis in fide et ligentiâ, quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter injungendo mandamus; quòd omnibus aliis prætermissis, aliquem vel aliquos de quibus confiditis apud Westm". mittatis; ità quòd sint ibidem in tribus septimanis Paschæ proximo futuro, ad loquendum nobiscum |