s not the fashion of that day to fill the House of Peers by patent.
The greater Barons held a local title from their Baronies; the possessor
of one of these, claimed a seat among the Lords.

I think, they are now all extinct, except Arundel, the property of the
Norfolk family, and whoever is proprietor of Arundel castle, is Earl
thereof by ancient prescription.

The lesser Barons were called up to the House by writ, which did not
confer an hereditary title. Of this class was the Lord of Birmingham.

Hugh Spencer, the favourite of the weak Edward the Second, had procured
the custody of Dudley-castle, with all its appendages, for his friend
William, Lord Birmingham.

Thus the family who had travelled from Birmingham to Dudley every three
weeks, to perform humble suit at the Lord's court, held that very court
by royal appointment, to receive the fealty of others.

By the patent which constituted William keeper of Dudley-castle, he was
obliged to account for the annual profits arising from that vast estate
into the King's exchequer. When, therefore, in 1334, he delivered in his
accounts, the Barons refused to admit them, because the money was
defective. But he had interest enough with the crown to cause a mandamus
to be issued, commanding the Barons to admit them.

SIR FOUK DE BIRMINGHAM,

1340.

This man advanced to Sir Baldwin Freville, Lord of Tamworth, forty eight
marks, upon mortgage of five mills. The ancient coat of the _bend
lozenge_, was now changed for the _partie per pale, indented, or,
and gules_.

In 1352, and 1362 he was returned a member for the county of Warwick;
also, in three or four succeeding Parliaments.

SIR JOHN DE BIRMINGHAM,

1376.

Served the office of Sheriff for the county of Warwick, in 1379, and was
successively returned to serve in Parliament for the counties of
Warwick, Bedford, and Buckingham. He married the daughter of William de
la Planch, by whom he had no issue. She afterwards married the Lord
Clinton, retained the manor of Birmingham as her dower, and lived to the
year 1424.

It does not appear in this illustrious family, that the regular line of
descent, from father to son, was ever broken, from the time of the
Saxons, 'till 1390. This Sir John left a brother, Sir Thomas de
Birmingham, heir at law, who enjoyed the bulk of his brother's fortune;
but was not to possess the manor of Birmingham 'till the widow's death,
which not happening 'till after his own, he ne