enied by no one that, at least under the first three
Edwards, there were some of this description in parliament. But after
all the labours of Dugdale and others in tracing the genealogies of our
ancient aristocracy, it is a problem of much difficulty to distinguish
these from the territorial barons. As the latter honours descended to
female heirs, they passed into new families and new names, so that we
can hardly decide of one summoned for the first time to parliament that
he did not inherit the possession of a feudal barony. Husbands of
baronial heiresses were frequently summoned in their wives' right, but
by their own names. They even sat after the death of their wives, as
tenants by the courtesy.[298] Again, as lands, though not the subject of
frequent transfer, were, especially before the statute de donis, not
inalienable, we cannot positively assume that all the right heirs of
original barons had preserved those estates upon which their barony had
depended.[299] If we judge, however, by the lists of those summoned,
according to the best means in our power, it will appear, according at
least to one of our most learned investigators of this subject, that the
regular barons by tenure were all along very far more numerous than
those called by writ; and that from the end of Edward III.'s reign no
spiritual persons, and few if any laymen, except peers created by
patent, were summoned to parliament who did not hold territorial
baronies.[300]

With respect to those who were indebted for their seats among the lords
to the king's writ, there are two material questions: whether they
acquired an hereditary nobility by virtue of the writ; and, if this be
determined against them, whether they had a decisive or merely a
deliberative voice in the house. Now, for the first question, it seems
that, if the writ of summons conferred an estate of inheritance, it must
have done so either by virtue of its terms or by established
construction and precedent. But the writ contains no words by which such
an estate can in law be limited; it summons the person addressed to
attend in parliament in order to give his advice on the public business,
but by no means implies that his advice will be required of his heirs,
or even of himself on any other occasion. The strongest expression is
"vobiscum et _caeteris_ praelatis, magnatibus et proceribus," which
appears to place the party on a sort of level with the peers. But the
words magnates and procer