692 APPENDIX H and 1295 in turn acquired a wholly fictitious importance as marking the exact period from which the existence of a barony by writ might be dated. Summonses to the so-called Parliaments held in the first two of these years have not in recent peerage cases been deemed capable of originating baronies by writ,(*) but there is no saying that the tribunal before which petitions are heard may not again assign a creative quality to summonses to these assemblies. For the 1290 meeting no writs have been found, the claims to peerages originating in that year resting on what is said to be a proof of sitting. While little has been heard in recent cases of Simon de Montfort's rebel Parliament in 1265 — to which only 23 laymen, in- cluding 5 earls, were summoned — the meeting at Shrewsbury in 1283 has figured in a large number of petitions, and has only fallen definitely into disfavour within the last two years. In petition after petition, counsel have fought hard to get this meeting accepted as valid for peerage purposes. It was worth fighting for, because 99 men were summoned in addition to the Earls. To the year 1265 '^ attributed the origin of the Baronies of Ros and Despenser;() to 1283 that of the Barony of Mowbray; to 1290 that of the Baronies of Hastings and Segrave. Prompted by the Attorney General, who in recent years has been advised by Dr. J. H. Round, the Committee has gradually come to regard the meeting of 23 Edw. I (1295) as the first which approximates nearly enough to the Parliament of our day to serve for peerage purposes. (■=) The decisions in peerage cases are evolved by applying modern law retrospectively and ancient conditions progressively. For example, the surrender of a peerage is now illegal, consequently it was illegal in the time of Edward 1 :(■*) an earl in Saxon days held an office, therefore all earls are now officials. Again, it is held that a writ of summons and a sitting under it in modern times has created a barony inheritable by heirs female as well as male, therefore in the time of Edward I a writ and sitting had the same effi^ct. It reads more like Alice in Wonderland than the proposition of the best legal minds of our day. And one is forcibly struck by the remarkable contrast afforded by the law regarding baronies by writ and that respecting earldoms. For female succession has not been recognised legally as applying to ancient earldoms; and yet we have seen that clear proof is forthcoming of their creation, and that they were to descend to heirs or to heirs general. On the other hand, of the creation of heritable baronies in the time of Edward I — and for long after — there is absolutely no evidence at all. (») See Preface to vol. i for some remarks on doubtful Parliaments, pp. xiii-xxv. See also article, " The Muddle of the Law," in J. H. Round's Peerage and Pedigree^ vol. i, pp. 103-283. C") Despenser is an anomalous case which was decided as long ago as 1605, and not by a Committee for Privileges. See poit, sub Peerage Cases. {') See article, " The House of Lords and the Model Parliament," by J. H. Round, in English Historical Review, July 191 5; and "The St. John Peerage Claim," by W. Paley Baildon, in The Law Quarterly Review, July 191 5. C) Decision in the Earldom of Norfolk case (1906).
