APPENDIX H 695 While wholly dissenting from the view that at this period writs of summons can have had the effect ascribed to them by law, the writer feels that it is greatly to be regretted that no heed was paid to this very sensible suggestion of the Committee. Limiting the retrospective action of the law as to baronies by writ to the date of this Act would at any rate have eliminated some of the more preposterous claims, such as that to the fantastic Barony of Strabolgi. The reign of Richard II is also suitable as a fixed point because in it the first peerage barony was created. As already mentioned, John de Beauchamp was created Lord de Beauchamp, Baron of Kidderminster, in tail male in 11 Ric. II (1387). This creation has caused much speculation among writers on the peerage, and it probably had not a little influence on the Redesdale Committee's estimation of the importance attaching to the statute of 5 Ric. II, which in itselt does not clearly mark any change in constitu- tional practice. The reason for this creation, in Lord Redesdale's opinion — given in the course of the hearing of the Lisle case — was that it was not then " considered as established law, at least, that the writ would create an hereditary succession." (') And he again expressed this view, which he extended to the reign of Henry VI, in his speech on the same occasion : Under this patent [Lisle] therefore no claim whatever can be made by the present claimant; but the patent itself affords, in my humble opinion, strong presump- tion that in the 22nd of Henry VI it was not considered as law, that the issuing of a writ to any person as a lord of parliament, simply the issuing of a writ and the sitting in parliament . . . created a right to an inheritable dignity descendible to his issue, i3'c.{^) It is significant that the upholders of the theory of barony by writ have never produced any contemporary description of a man in the 14th century which shows unmistakably that he was a baron holding an hereditary title — that he was a peer, as were the earls of that time. No man appears to have so described himself or to have been so described by others; but there is a description of a man by himself in 1383 which throws a most interesting and important light on the subject. Michael de la Pole was summoned to Parliament among the Barons from 20 Jan. (1365/6) 39 Edw. Ill to 28 Sep. (1384) 8 Ric. II. To the Parliament which opened 26 Oct. 1383 he was summoned as Michaeli de la Pole. As Chancellor he opened the meeting, and the following is the account in the Rolls of Parliament: Monsr Michel de la Pole, Chivaler, Chanceller d'Engleterre, par commandement fire Sr le Roi avoit les paroles de la pronunciation des Causes de la Somonce de ccst Peers, then in possession of the dignity, hereditary titles, qualified wherever the title had been qualified by its original and known creation, and in other cases descendible to all the heirs of the body of the then Peer, or of his ancestor first summoned, and under whom he claimed his dignity . . ." (First Report, p. 342). (*) Barony of U Isle, by N. H. Nicolas, 1829, p. 192. (•') Idem, p. 265.
