re-written, as the earlier period certainly have been. It probably was his intention to have connected the whole, and completed them in the same strain of happy narrative that runs through the first half of them, a design which it is to be regretted that he did not live to execute.

66

'A striking feature in Baber's character is, his unlikeness to other Asiatic princes. Instead of the stately, systematic, artificial character, that seems to belong to the throne in Asia, we find him natural, lively, affectionate, simple, retaining on the throne all the best feelings and affections of common life. Change a few circumstances arising from his religion and country, and in reading the transactions of his life, we might imagine that we had got among the adventurous knights of Froissart. This, as well as the simplicity of his language, he owed to his being a Tûrk. That style which wraps up a worthless meaning in a mist of words, and the etiquette which annihilates the courtier in the presence of his prince, were still, fortunately for Baber, foreign to the Tûrki race, among whom he was born and educated.

Upon the whole, if we review with impartiality the history of Asia, we shall find few princes who are entitled to rank higher than Baber in genius and accomplishments. His grandson Akber may perhaps be placed above him for profound and benevolent policy. The crooked artifice of Aurengzîb is not entitled to the same distinction. The merit of Chengiz Khan, and of Tamerlane, terminates in their splendid conquests, which far excelled the achievements of Baber: but in activity of mind, in the gay equanimity and unbroken spirit with which he bore the extremes of good and bad fortune, in the possession of the manly and social virtues, so seldom the portion of princes, in his love of letters, and his success in the cultivation of them, we shall probably find no other Asiatic prince who can justly be placed beside him."

Historical and Antiquarian Magazine.

FOURTH PEERAGE REPORT.

SOME delicacy ought, it has been said, to be felt in subjecting the "Reports of the Lords' Committees appointed to search various documents for all matters touching the dignity of a Peer of the Realm," to critical remarks; but we are at a loss to understand upon what grounds their lordships' labours should be exempted from observation. Abounding as they do in statements connected with the interests, either inchoate or perfect, which numerous individuals possess in ancient peerages, it strikes us, that these Reports ought to have been made the sub`ject of examination, as they respectively appeared; that the public attention should have been directed to the learning and research which they occasionally display on points intimately connected with the constitutional history of this country; that the errors they contain should have been refuted; and that the validity of the novel doctrines which they inculcate should have been carefully investigated.

The Reports appeared in the following order:

FIRST REPORT. Presented to the House 12th July, 1819; ordered to be printed 25th May, 1820, and to be re-printed 17th February, 1823. Folio, pp. 489, with Appendixes.

SECOND REPORT. Ordered to be printed 26th July, 1820, pp. 6. These pages chiefly consist of corrections of the former Report. THIRD GENERAL REPORT. Ordered to be printed 29th July, 1822,

pp. 240.

FOURTH GENERAL REPORT. Ordered to be printed 2d July, 1825, pp. 100.

The first Appendix consists of copies of all writs of summons from the 6th John to the end of the reign of Edward the Fourth, pp. 988, and forms two highly valuable volumes. That part of the contents which relate to the reign of Edward the First

will also be found in the first volume of "Parliamentary Writs," recently printed by the Record Commission, and the subse-. quent part will be included in the other volumes of that work; so that ultimately the contents of the Appendix to the First Report will be wholly reprinted, with the exception, perhaps, of the writs from the reign of John to the accession of Edward the First. The second, third, and fourth Appendixes consist of a few pages only, and contain some of the documents referred to in the Reports.

It is not our intention to take any further notice of the first three Reports, than to remind those who peruse them that the statements which they contain respecting early titles are sometimes erroneous, and consequently that the conclusions drawn from those statements are fallacious; that a decided bias is every where apparent against the principles upon which peerages have been claimed; but that, after allowing for these blemishes, it is impossible that any one can peruse those documents without gaining valuable information on the early legislature of England.

The Fourth Report" is chiefly occupied with an inquiry into the law of forfeiture as regards dignities: on this subject, however, we shall not offer any observation, but confine our- 、 selves to the inquiry how far the opinions expressed in the fol-. lowing passages relative to baronies by writ are well founded.

"It is observable, that Michael de la Pole, the father, had been summoned to, and sate in Parliament as a baron, in the 39th and subsequent years of Edward the Third, and in the reign of Richard the Second, until he was created Earl of Suffolk; and he would, therefore, according to modern decisions, have gained a dignity descendible to his heirs-general. His son, however, was not restored to that dignity, but only to the dignity of earl limited to heirs-male; as Aubrey de Vere, uncle of the Duke of Ireland, was restored only to the dignity of earl, without mention of his title to the dignity of baron. These circumstances, combined with the fact, that the descendants of many persons summoned to Parliament by writ before the reign of Richard the Second, were not afterwards summoned to Parliament, seem to give colour to the suggestions of former committees, that summons and sitting in Parliament did not originally create a right in the descendants of persons so summoned to require a like writ of summons; and though the descendants of earls, created earls by the crown by patent, or by solemn investiture by girding with the sword, were probably always summoned on the deaths of their respective ancestors, it may be doubted whether anciently their writs of summons, though addressed to them as earls, were not really issued to them, according to the charter of John, as barons, having the name and dignity of earls; as the general assembly of all the lay-peers seems to have been in early times usually denominated an assembly of barons. Perhaps the creation of barons by Letters Patent, which seems to have originated in the reign of Richard the Second, may have been founded on

an apprehension, that the writ and sitting in Parliament did not secure an hereditary right to the descendants of the persons so summoned, and the practice appears to have warranted a doubt on that subject, though the decision on the claim of the dignity of Lord Clifton may be urged against that doubt." Pp. 26-7.

"Letters Patent state the extent of the grant which they create, but a writ of summons is in itself merely personal; and it seems to be only an inference of law derived from usage, which has extended the operation of such a writ beyond the person to whom it was directed. When usage is supposed to have first warranted this inference of law, and to have attributed to the mere issuing of a writ to an individual, even if accompanied by proof that that individual sat in Parliament under that writ, the effect of creating a title in that individual to an hereditary dignity, descendible to all the heirs of his body, is a question which it may be fit for the House deliberately to consider; and to fix a point of time, before which the evidence of issue of a writ, and of sitting in Parliament under that writ, shall not be deemed sufficient evidence of the creation of an hereditary dignity of peerage; otherwise claims may be made which have not been thought of for centuries. The determination in the case of the Lord Freschville may perhaps afford some guide, but it will not extend to all the cases in which the question may be agitated.

"As many persons have been summoned to Parliament, whose descendants have not been so summoned, it ought perhaps to be distinctly shown when the writ of summons followed by sitting in Parliament was first deemed to have created an hereditary dignity, especially if not followed by writs issued to the heirs of the person so summoned in hereditary succession. It has been contended, that anciently the writ and sitting in Parliament of the ancestor gave no right to the heir; but that writs issued to heirs in succession might create a right by prescription, and it may be reasonable to infer a right to an hereditary dignity by prescription, from such repeated writs of summons in hereditary succession. The creation of barons by patent, and the forms of such patents, may afford colour for this distinction; and such patents were probably first suggested under an apprehension, that the mere sitting in Parliament under a writ of summons might not create an hereditary dignity.

"The first decision on the subject seems to have been in 1673, on the claim of the dignity of Lord Clifton; and the House, by referring the question to the consideration of the judges, may be considered as having had doubts what ought then to be deemed the law on the subject, and as having treated the question as a question of difficulty. Before that decision the law cannot be deemed to have been clearly settled; but on what ground the judges gave their opinion, that the honour descended from Jervis Clifton to his daughter and heir, does not clearly appear, and if they had before them all the cases in which the heirs of a person summoned had not been afterwards summoned, they must have conceived that those heirs had been unjustly deprived of their right of inheritance, unless they fixed on some point of time when they conceived usage had created a new law on the subject. To such a point of time their opinion does not advert. The

committee, who made the report of 12th July, 18191, have supposed that the statute of 5th of Richard the Second might be considered as tending to fix that point of time; and the first creation of a baron by patent is attributed to that prince.

"The committee have endeavoured to form a list of the names of persons summoned to Parliament, whose descendants have not been summoned, or not continually summoned; and they intended to have annexed such list, by way of appendix, to this Report. But they have not been able to complete such list, partly in consequence of the difficulty which they have found in clearly ascertaining which of the persons so summoned had issue-male living at their respective deaths, and who might have been summoned, and which of the persons so summoned had no issue-male, or no issue-male who lived to attain twenty-one, or any sole heir-female through whom the dignity might be claimed. The collection, which has been attempted, has not, therefore, been made sufficiently perfect to warrant the offer of it to the consideration of the House.” P. 73, 74.

"Printed Copy, p. 342. See Report, 29th July, 1822, printed Copy, p. 214. Report, 12th July, 1819, printed Copy, p. 345." The only part of the statements referred to, which it is necessary to copy, is the following: "This grant [of the dignity of a baron by Letters Patent to John Beauchamp in the 11th Ric. II.] by patent, had the effect of insuring the succession to the dignity, according to the terms of the patent, and to confine the title to such heirs as were specified in the patent. From this time, however, it may have been considered, that the descendants of all those who were then peers, and not so created by Letters Patent, might claim the dignity by prescription, if summoned by a general writ; and the apprehension that such would be the effect of a general writ may have led in another case, that of the Baron Vesey, to a specification in the writ of summons of the special heirs to whom it was the King's intention the dignity should descend." Report, 12th July, 1819, p. 342. The opinion of the Committee that, until the 5th Ric. II. a writ to and sitting in Parliament did not create an hereditary dignity, will also be found in Cruise's Treatise on Dignities, ed. 1823, p. 74, and has been advanced on previous occasions. Mr. Cruise's reason, besides those given by their lordships, is, that in the 25th Hen. VI., James Fiennes was summoned to parliament by writ, tested on the third of March, and on the sixth was, according to Dugdale, "in open parliament by the assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, advanced to the degree and dignity of a baron of this realm, by the same title of Lord Say and Sele, and to the heirs of his body." No notice of such creation is to be found on the rolls of that Parliament. The fact is, that in a charter of inspeximus, tested on the 5th of March in that year, a memorandum is recited, which is said to be enrolled on the rolls of Parliament, stating that, with the assent of the peers, the king had created him Baron Say and Sele, but not a word occurs as to whom the dignity was to be limited; and, as the barony of Say, of which James Fiennes was one of the co-heirs, was then in abeyance, it may be inferred, that it was intended to terminate that abeyance by the instrument in question, especially as, two years afterwards, namely, on the 1st Nov. 27th Hen. VI., 1448, John Lord Clinton, the other co-heir of the barony of Say, by deed, under his seal, solemnly granted, confirnied, and ratified to Sir James Fiennes, Knight, Baron Say and Sele, and his heirs and assigns, the name and style of Lord Say, together with the arms of Say. The proceedings, relative to this dignity, cannot therefore be considered to favour the opinion which is adduced to support.

⚫ The Committees allude to the same intention in their Report of July, 1822, p. 98. Thus it is evident, the task was found to be too laborious to be performed in more than three years, even with the resources at the command of a Committee of the House of Lords. We presume the individuals, to whom the duty of compiling it was delegated, were not paid by the year? The expenses which have attended the inquiry, independent of the costs of printing and paper, would, we believe, form a curious statement.