702 APPENDIX H confirmation. His great-great-grandson (the de jure peer) was an M.P. for several years, and the title was not revived till 1720, when his sister, Katherine Bokenham, became Baroness Berners by resolution of the House of Lords. Up to the year 1533, therefore, the right of succession as a Baroness of the sole heir of a man who had been summoned to Parliament cannot have been generally understood. [B] Gilbert Tailboys, who married Elizabeth Blount, the King's mistress, is said to have made his first ap- pearance in Parliament i Dec. 1 529. (") No evidence of a writ of summons to him is forthcoming, but from its ultimate destination it is inferred that his barony was inheritable by heirs general. He died 15 Apr. 1530, and his eventual heir in 1542 was his daughter Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Wymbish. Wymbish claimed to be Lord Tailboys in right of his wife, by whom, however, he had no issue. The King submitted the claim to the two chief justices, Dr. Gardiner, which was bishop of Winchester, and Garter, which then was otherwise called Barker. First, the King demanded of the two chief justices, whether by law Mr. Wymbish ought to have the name of lord Taylboys, in right of his wife or not. They answered, that the common law dealeth little with the titles, and customs of chivalry. But such questions have always been decided before the constables and marshals of England. Then the King moved the question to Dr. Gardiner, who answered, that by the law which he professeth, dignity was denied both to women and to Jews. I like not that law, quoth the King, that putteth Christian women and Jewes in one predicament. . . . Then the King asked Garter of the custom of England. Who answered, that it hath been always used so in England, as in France, that the husband of a baroness by birth should use the stile of her barony for so long as she liveth, and if he be tenant by courtesy, then that he might use it for the term of his life. . . . As it standeth with law, saith the King, that tenants by courtesy should have the dignity, so it standeth with reason, but I like not that a man, should be this day a lord, and to morrow none without crime committed, and it must so fall out in the husband of a baroness, if she die having never had by him any children. The chief justice confirmed, that in that point the common law dissented not much from the King's reason, for the husband that never had issue is thought to have no interest in law in his wives inheritance, more then in respect only that he is a husband, but having a child then he hath acquired a state in law, and is admitted to do homage, and not before. . . . The King for resolution said. That forasmuch as by their speeches he under- stood that there was no force of reason nor law to give the name to him that had no issue by his wife, that neither Mr. Wymbish, nor none other from thence forth should use the stile of his wives dignity, but such as by courtesy of England hath also right to her possessions for terme of his life.() Tailboys is one of seven baronies which came into existence simul- taneously, and we know nothing of the method of their creation. No patents have been found, and creation by writ has been presumed because (•) The statement rests on the evidence of MS. H.13 in the College of Arms, quoted by Dugdale, Summonses, p. 500, and is probably correct. C") Collins, Precedents, p. 1 1 .
