be granted that those Honours are within the Statute de donis, and then there can be no Reason they should not be within the Statutes of Fines, 4 Hen. 7. & 34 H. 8. which say that Tenant in Tail may levy a Fine of all Things that are intailable within the Statute de donis; whatever therefore is within the one is within both; and it is not sufficient to alledge that it is inconvenient that it should be within the Statute of Fines; for there is an Act of Parliament, and without an Act of Parliament to exempt it, it can't be exempted: It may be proved by great Variety of Precedents to have been the Practise in former Times, anciently nothing more frequent than to release Honours. See Selden's Titles of Honours 730. it was as frequent as to grant them: In later Times (Delaval's Case, 11 Rep. 1.) it hath been the Judgment of the Lords that Honours may be extinguished, which in 1668. was certified by all the King's Counsel Learned in the Law to be good Authority. But to go a little higher, Andrew Giffard Baron Pomfret in Fee, 4 Hen. 3. Rot. 100. surrendered to the King; so 23 Hen. 3. Simon Mountford, Esq.; Earl of Leicester, having a Mind to take an Honour from his eldest Son, and confer it upon his younger, and so it was surrendered and regranted [7] accordingly. Selden seems to construe this to be by way of Transmission, and not Surrender; yet others of later Authority (as Camden's Britan. Title Earl of Leicester) say expressly that he did Surrender it; and Selden himself says it was by Concurrence of the King: King Hen. 3. (Rot. Cr. 24. men. E. 1.) created one Earl of Richmond, and he surrendered to the King (Camden's Brit. Title Earl of Richmond.) Roger de Bigod surrendered not only the Office of Earl Marshal, but also the Earldom of Norfolk. William Duke of Juliers, whose Father came in with Edw. 3. was created Earl of Cambridge (40 Edw. 3. m. 21.) in Fee, his Son surrenders to the King, which Record we have here: So Edward the Third made his Son John of Gaunt (See Camden ubi supra) Earl of Richmond, who surrendered to the King. And lastly, in the Years 1639, 1679. Roger Stafford, whom the King intended to make a Viscount, by the Advice of the Learned Men levied a Fine thereof, by which 'tis now enjoyed. Lastly, he argued ab inconvenienti, for no Lord in the House will be in Safety if it should be otherways, there being many sitting in this House by Virtue of Surrenders from other Lords in former Days, and perhaps some of their Heirs are alive; and so if these Surrenders be adjudged invalid, it would shake their Lordships own Possessions, and make it dubitable, whether Foreigners and Persons unknown may not come and thrust them out; but if not so, it may cause Confusion amongst themselves, their former Honours having been surrendered to accept of others; and perhaps some, not thinking their Title secure, will stick to the former, and so occasion Dispute and Confusion about Precedency. And lastly, it will put a great Disgrace upon your Ancestors Proceedings, who deemed this Course legal; and those must shew very good Precedents that it hath been disavowed, if they will encounter such constant Practises.
Answer to Objections. 1. Whether Honour inherent in the Blood. 2. If Surrendering inconvenient. 3. Precedents of Surrenders supported. 4. Concerning the transferring of an Honour. Peerage conferr'd by the King only. Answer to Lord Stafford's Case. An Honour may descend to the half Blood; but not Transferrable.—In the next place it was answered to their Arguments and Objections; and as for that first Argument, That an Honour is inherent in the Blood, he answered, That this Inherency in the Blood is not essential to Honours, for an Honour may be created for Life, and then none of the Posterity or Blood of the Peer is thereby ennobled: It may be limited to the Heirs Male of the Body, so that an Honour may touch and enter far into the Blood, and yet not run with it; and farther, it may be limited to the Heirs by such a Wife, there the Issue by the second Venter shall never inherit the Dignity, and yet is as near to the Father, as those that are by the first, so that 'tis no true Ground that they go upon, that Nobility is inherent in the Blood. And for what was alledged as to the Inconveniency of Surrendering Dignities, he answered, That there may be necessary Reasons for the Extinguishment of an Honour, and it may be for the Benefit and Advantage of the Party and his Posterity; as if it do happen that the Family do fall into Poverty, and be not able to support the Honour of Peerage with Decency, and so this Honour would perhaps be a Disgrace to the rest of the Lords; and in a Child's Case, it may happen to a Noble Family to have those Afflictions, that to
5
