The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy

Marriage.took, as we have seen, in 1429 or ~430~. It was anextremely costly process2, but it had its compensation inthe increased amount of practice which it brought. Thisseems to have held good in Fortescue's own case. It isonly after he became a sergeant that his name beginsto appear in the Year Books3. As a barrister he seemsto have gone the Western circuit, which would perhapsbe the natural one for a Devonshire man to choose. Atleast in the De Lnudibus4 he mentions having been presenton two occasions at the gaol delivery at Salisbury, onthe first of which a woman was condemned to be burntfor the murder of her husband, while on the second occasiona servant of the murdered man confessed that healone had been guilty of the crime. The judge, who wasthe same on both occasions, often declared to Fortescuethat he could never overcome the remorse which he felt forthe unjust condemnation of the woman. Fortescue characteristicallyuses the incident to prove that 'the law's delays'are not always prejudicial to the cause of justice.He married before September, 14365 Isabella or Elizabeth6,heiress of John Jamyss, Esquire, of Philip's Norton,near Bath, where in 1441 he acquired certain landsand messuages by grant of the prior and convent ofHinton-Charterhouse to him and his wife and the heirsThe former is the date givenby Mr. Foss, U. S. p. 309, the latterby Lord Clermont ; U. S. p. 52.The expense had perhapssomething to do with the unwillingnessof apprentices to take thedegree of sergeant. Cf. the oftquotedcase, Rot. Parl. iv. 107 b,where certain apprentices weresummoned before Parliament becausethey had not obeyed theKing's writ to that effect.S Foss, U. S.' c. 53:HIS wife is mentioned in adeed of 14 Hen. VI, cited in theBiogr. Brit. iii. 1986. This regnalyear extended from Sept. I, 1435,to Aug. 31, 1436.In the deed just mentioned,and also in that to be cited in thenext note, Fortescue's wife is calledIsabella. But she is called Elizabethin the letters of fraternityganted to her and her husbandby Christ Church, Canterbury, in1447 ; below, p. 48. The twonames were used as identical inthe Middle Ages. This may havehelped to cause the mistake (whichhtr. Foss has not escaped) of confoundingthe wife of the Chief Justicewith Elizabeth daughter ofSir Miles Stapleton, the secondwife of Sir John Fortescue ofPunsbourne; Family History, p.53.male of their bodies for ever, for a reserved rent ofone mark annually. As one of these tenements was Property.then occupied by his wife's mother, it may perhaps beconjectured that this was merely a re-grant to Fortescueand his wife of lands formerly held by the father of thelatter. The grant was confirmed by the crown in 1443'.He had previously acquired part of his father's propertyin Devonshire by grant of his elder brother Henry in1435-62. In October, 1452, he acquired the manor ofGeddynghalle and other lands in Suffolk3. In 1456 hepgchased the reversion of the manor of Ebrington, inGloucestershire, of Sir Robert Corbet for £151. He hadnot come into possession of this estate at the time of hisattainder in November, 1461 *. He had also before that datel This confirmation embodyingthe original grant is printed in fullby Lord Clennont, U. S., pp. 102-3.Ib. 50, note 3. Of theselands Fortescue divested hiinselfin favour of his son, soon after themarriage of the latter in 1454.Rot. Claus. 31 Hen. VI, memb.32,dorso. This purchase was madefrom the same person, Sir RobertCorbet, and vested in the samebody of feoffees as the reversionof the manor of Ebrington to bementioned next. This was probablythe saine Sir Robert Corbetwhose son married Fortescue'sdaughter Maud in 1455, but afterwardsdeserted her; Fam~ly History,P. 54.' In Rot. Claus. 35 Hen. VI.memb. g, dorso, there is a releasein Latin by Sir Robert Corbet ofthe reversion of the manor ofEbrington to John Fortescue andcertain CO-feoffees, dated the Feastof St. hlargaret, 34 Hen. VI, i.e.July, 20, 1456. This documentis evidently alluded to in one givenby Lord Clermont froin Campbell'sChancellors, i. 373, and dated Dec.5, 35 Hen. VI, i.e. 1456. The inquisitiontaken at Cirencester Nov.4, 1467 (Inq. p.m. 7 Edw. IV, No.SO), records the grant of the manorof Ebrington to John Grevill, Esq.,and his wife Jocosa for their lives,with remainder to Guy Corbet, ofthe county of Suffolk,and his heirs.John Grevill was dead, but his wifewas still alive. By the death ofGuy Corbet the right of reversiondescended to Sir Robert Corbet,his son and heir, who had bya fine levied before Prisot andother Justices on the morrow of thePurification, 34 Hen. VI, i.e. Feb.3, 1456, granted it to John Fortescue,Kt., and the CO-feoffeesmentioned above ; the grant being,as the jury affirmed, to theuse of the said John Fortescue.On June 28, 1468, Edward 1Vgranted to John Lord Wenlokcertain lands which had belongedto Fortescue in the counties ofMiddlesex, Hertford (not Hereford,as stated in Cal. Rot. Pat.p. 314 a), Somerset, and Wilts,and the reversion of the manor ofEbrington after the death of JocosaGrevill (not the manor itself, asstated in Cal. Rot. Pat. U. S.) ;Rot. Pat.8 Edw. IV. Pat. i. memb.4. I cannot therefore understandthe statement in Atkyns' Gloucestershire,p. 425 (copied by Rudder,p. 434, and Lord Clermont, p: 59),for which no authority is giren,