APPENDIX H 689 Furnivall in the modern sense. How little importance attaches to the description is shown in a later section of this paper, where we see that he was so described to distinguish him from Gilbert Talbot, and that after Gilbert's death he was summoned as tnHes or chivaler only. Although, as has been remarked, tenure became qualified by writ in Edward I's time, the question, Baron or no Baron, apparently was resolved not by the receipt of a writ, but by the nature of the man's tenure, and this was so even as late as 48 Edw. III. Ralph Everdon, Chivaler, appears to have brought a writ of the Chancery, and also a writ of privy seal, to the justices, rehearsing that he was a Baron, and com- manding that they should discharge him in juries of assizes, or recognitions whatso- ever, for that the Barons ought not to be sworn by any inquest or recognition with- out their consent. Belknap, the chief justice, inquired whether he and his ancestors had held of all times by barony, and if he had all his time come to Parliament as a Baron ought to come; and he said he held by a certain part of a barony, and that he and his ancestors had also held all time, dsfc. Afterwards he was, by good advice, discharged on other grounds (tout oustrement).(*) Neither Ralph de Everdon nor any of his ancestors appear to have been summoned to Parliament, and this case therefore shows that tenure of land by barony or part of a barony still carried with it some of the ancient privileges. But had Everdon claimed a seat in Parliament in virtue of his tenure, he would have failed; for at this time a man could not become a Lord of Parliament without the special writ of summons, the issue of which was the Sovereign's prerogative. And it would seem that the word " Baron " was still not fully descriptive of a man's status. Every man who was a Lord of Parliament by reason of his writ of summons was a Baron — of Parliament; but a man who only held land by barony might have the name of Baron locally. In the course of Edward Ill's reign the issue of summonses became more regular, the same men being summoned time after time, and the writs being continued to their descendants. This custom of summoning the members of the same families through succeeding generations gradually led to the idea of parliamentary privilege, though even as late as the reign of Henry VI we find legislation regarding the imposition of fines for non- attendance in Parliament. There is no evidence that there was any conception of a barony as a peerage dignity before the creation, 10 Oct. (1387) 1 1 Ric. II, of John dc Beauchamp as Lord de Beauchamp and Baron of Kidderminster, in tail male, whose patent of creation naturally governed the writ of summons subse- quently addressed to him. And hitherto " there appears nothing to show,' says Pike, " that the word Baron was known to the law as a term of individual dignity. . . ." There is, indeed, a very strong presumption to the contrary. Cases occur in the " Year Books " or old Law Reports in which writs are held to be bad because the "addition" of "Earl" has been omitted, but no cases have been found in which a (») Lords" Reports. 87
