294 BEDFORD. on S July 1433. On 24 Nov. 1414C) he was cr. EARL OF RICHMOND, "with a reversion of the Castle, Earldom, and Lordship of Richmond after tlx: death of the said Ralph [NevuTJ. Earl of Westmoreland [who d. 1428], to bold to him the said Duke and the heirs male of his body." On 12 Aug. 1415, when Henry V made his expedition to Franee, and again on 25 July 141 7 and 10 June 1421, lie was appointed Giaisdian, and on 5 Dec. 1 122 PROTECTOR OP the KINGDOM ok England. The feudal Viseountcy of Beaumont in Franee. forfeited (1415) by the Due d'AlenCoa, was granted to him by Henry V. In Sep. 1422 (after the death of Hen. V.) he was made Recent op Fhance, " using in his style these several titles, Regent of the Realm of France, Duke of Bedford, Anjnu and Alcncoii, Earl of Maycnne, Richmond and Kendal, and Constable of England. "('<) On 17 Aug. 1424 he commanded the English and Burgundians at the battle of Vemeuil, gaining a bloody victory wherein of the enemy " 7,000 French and 2,500 Scots were slain. "("} On 1 Feb. 1 (340-1 , the House, (on a question that came up incidentally in the claim of Mr. Lougueville to the Baronies of Urey de Ruthyn, &c.,) resulted (such resolutions being merely obiter dicta) : — I. That uo person that hath any Honour in him, and a l'eer of the Realm, may alien or transfer the honour to any other Person." II. That no Peer of this Realm can drown or extinguish his Honour, but that it descend to his descendants, neither by Surrender, Grant, Fine, nor any other conveyance to the King." 1660 BrcivixuHAJf, Eakj.do.ii, &c. ) Fine levied Michmas. 1080, whereby for i3,400 Pcubeck, Viseountcy, &e. I " Robert Villiers, otherwise Danvers, surrendered these dignities to the Crown. This Robert was the s. of Frances, Viscountess Purbeck, b. in the lifetime of her husband the Viscount, but alleged not to be his s. He d. in 1675 ; and, soon afterwards, in the claim of his s. and h. to the Viscqi'ntcy ok Ppbbeck, the House, on 18 June 1678, resolved " That uo fine now levied, or at any time hereafter to be levied to the King, can bar such title of Honour, or the right of any Person claiming such title under him that levied or shall levy such fine." In the case of Roger Stafford and Robert Villiers " the dignities surrendered were Titular honours and the surrenders., unlike all former surrenders, Were made by line ; and « fine, although a proper proceeding in the case of a Feudal or Territorial dignity, appears to have been inapplicable to a Titular dignity." Again— "The resolution of 1678 is expressly confined to surrenders by fines, and leaves wholly untouched the validity of surrenders made by deed, or otherwise than by fine." After the Union of 1707, when neither the Kingdom of England nor that of Scotland have any legal existence, " the power of the Crown to alter, to add to or to abrogate the limitations of dignities," in either Kingdom, "is completely lout" See (Mr. Fleming's) remarks on sur- renders in " Authorities, &c," as to the Barony of Berkeley, 1862, pp. 66-80, where translations of most of the above surrenders are given.— See, also, " Cruise," pp. 109-114. In the Peerage of Ireland, there was, in 1585, a surrender of the Bakont op CaHIB to the nephew and h. male of the grantee, by the heirs general, on whom by the spec, rem. in the patent (1543) it had devolved. | (») The patent of 1414 was afterwards enrolled in Pari. In the 3rd "Lords' Reports," p. 103, it is said that by this patent " the Duke of Bedford was cj: Earl of Richmond immediately, though he had the territorial property only in reversion," on which, it is remarked, in "Courthope," p. 397, that "The Patont granted to the Duke of Bedford ordained that he should have the name, honour, JBfl style of Eabl ok Richmond, with the anus annexed to the said Earldom ; and, as the territorial possessions of the said Earldom were then in the hands of the Earl of Westmoreland, this circumstance strongly justifies the conclusion arrived at in the said Report, and which the indefatigable Vincent had formerly adopted, that in the case of the Earl of Westmoreland, the grant of the Earldom did not give to him the title °» Earl of Richmond." But Sir N. H. Nicolas, in his note on this subject, says " It is evident from the same report that the patent to Ralph, Karl of Westmoreland, is considered to have cr. him Earl of Richmond, a fact denied by the indefatigable Vincent ; " suggesting as an alternative that the diauity, as well as the territory, was meant to be only a rcversionarq grant to the Duke.— See " Nicolas," p. 537. (-1) Sandford's " Genealogical History, &c," folio, 1707, p. 312, &c. (°) Vincent on Brooke.
