**Feudal Baronial Authority in Liberties:

A Historical and Legal Case for the Bailiwick of Ennerdale’s Capacity to Confer Feudal Baron Titles**

Abstract

This paper examines whether the Bailiwick and Liberty of Ennerdale, a rare surviving medieval liberty with court leet jurisdiction alienated into private hands, may lawfully and historically maintain or confer feudal baronial dignities. By comparing Ennerdale to analogous liberties—including Chester, Durham, Ely, Holderness, and the Isle of Man—and by invoking the precedent of de Lacy’s appointment of feudal barons in newly integrated English territories, the study demonstrates that Ennerdale belongs to a category of jurisdictions historically understood to possess internal nobiliary authority. Additionally, Ennerdale’s distinctive Scottish, Northumbrian, Norse, and Cumbrian heritage reinforces its identity as a border liberty with autonomous traditions predating full English absorption. These factors collectively provide strong historical support for the continued creation and recognition of feudal barons of the Bailiwick of Ennerdale as traditional seignorial dignities.

I. Introduction: Feudal Baronage in Liberties and Border Jurisdictions

In medieval Britain, not all barons were creations of the Crown. Many were:

• feudal barons,

• barons by tenure,

• barons of liberties or palatinates,

• barons of ecclesiastical principalities, or

• barons appointed by powerful liberty-holders.

This paper concerns the last three categories, which fall under the broader rubric of liberty baronage—dignities arising from autonomous franchises rather than royal writ.

The Bailiwick of Ennerdale, with its unusually preserved liberty and chase jurisdiction, belongs to this tradition.

II. Ennerdale: A Border Liberty With Multicultural Feudal Roots

Ennerdale’s unique identity is essential to its historical legal analysis.

A. Originally distinct from England

Before its absorption into the English legal and political system, Ennerdale lay within a frontier zone influenced by:

• Scottish law

• Northumbrian earldoms

• Norse-Cumbrian lordship

• Strathclyde-Brittonic governance

This mixture of traditions produced a hybrid legal culture, one where localized authority, kinship-based governance, and feudal liberties were the norm.

B. Absorption into England did not extinguish its ancient liberties

When the Honour of Copeland—and therefore Ennerdale—was brought under Norman and Plantagenet administration, its existing liberties were preserved, not dissolved.

The Normans deliberately left many Cumbrian and Northumbrian liberties intact as border stabilizing mechanisms.
This made places like Ennerdale functionally similar to:

• the Border Barony of Annandale,

• the Liberty of Tynedale,

• the Honour of Cockermouth,

• and other semi-autonomous frontier jurisdictions.

Such areas frequently retained baronial customs, independent courts, and hereditary officers, long after other English regions shifted to more centralized governance.

III. De Lacy’s Precedent: Liberty-Holders Creating Feudal Barons

One of the strongest English precedents comes from the de Lacy family, who controlled extensive liberties after 1066.
The de Lacy lords:

• held liberties of immense scope,

• possessed grant-derived quasi-regal powers, and

• appointed feudal barons within their newly acquired territories.

A. How de Lacy created barons

After the Conquest, the de Lacy barons were granted territories in:

• Yorkshire,

• Nottinghamshire,

• Lancashire,

• the Welsh Marches, and

• Meath and Annaly in Ireland.

In these territories, they:

1. established internal baronies,

2. appointed barons of their liberty,

3. created tenants holding “per baroniam,”

4. and structured entire regional governments around feudal baronial rank.

B. Relevance to Ennerdale

The principle is clear:

A liberty-holder with judicial, territorial, and administrative autonomy may create feudal barons within that liberty, as done by de Lacy and other great lords.

Ennerdale, while smaller, belongs to the same type of franchise:

• autonomous,

• jurisdictionally distinct,

• historically border-focused,

• and exercising local powers normally reserved to lords with feudal baronage authority.

Thus, de Lacy provides a direct historical analogy legitimizing the capacity of the Lord of Ennerdale to appoint internal barons.

IV. Parallels to Other English Liberties With Internal Baronage

Ennerdale’s baronial capacity aligns with established historical liberties:

1. The Palatinate of Chester

• Created its own “barons of the county.”

• These barons were not Crown peers but liberty barons.

2. The Bishopric of Durham

• Exercised palatine powers.

• Produced “barons of the bishopric” through ecclesiastical and territorial tenure.

3. The Isle of Man

• The Lord of Mann created feudal dignities and barons.

• The Manx system survived into modern times.

4. The Liberty of Ely

• Recognized barons by tenure and court participation.

• Structured like a micro-principality.

5. The Liberty of Holderness

• Allowed baronial tenure within the liberty,

• even though not a full palatinate.

Why these precedents matter

All these liberties had:

• independent courts,

• forest or chase law,

• criminal or administrative franchises,

• and officer-appointment rights.

Ennerdale held every one of these components.

V. The 1822 Alienation: Ennerdale’s Unique Continuation of Liberty Authority

Unlike most English liberties, which were abolished by statute or absorbed by county jurisdictions, Ennerdale was:

• not extinguished,

• not administratively dissolved,

• but sold in fee simple by King George IV and Parliament.

The alienated rights included:

• court leet jurisdiction,

• appointment of officers,

• forest and chase authority,

• liberty rights,

• seignorial authority inherited from the Honour of Copeland.

This makes Ennerdale one of the only surviving private liberties in England to retain:

• jurisdictional dignity,

• historical autonomy,

• and the legal continuity necessary for feudal-style baronial appointments.

VI. Why the Lord of the Bailiwick of Ennerdale May Confer Feudal Baron Titles

A. Historical Foundations

The Lord of Ennerdale stands in the same legal position as:

• the de Lacy lords over their liberties,

• the Earls of Chester,

• the Prince-Bishops of Durham,

• the Lords of Mann,

• and the Lords of Ely or Holderness.

Each of these jurisdictions maintained internal baronage not by royal peerage creation, but by feudal-liberty authority.

Ennerdale’s holder may therefore confer:

• Baron of the Bailiwick,

• Baron of the Liberty,

• Baron-Forester,

• Baron-Steward,

• or other traditional baronial dignities
  as part of the internal seignorial constitution.

B. The Border Character of Ennerdale Strengthens This

Liberties in border regions traditionally exercised greater autonomy, including:

• hereditary officer appointments,

• baronial tenure,

• seignorial jurisdiction.

Ennerdale’s Scottish–Northumbrian–Cumbrian roots reinforce the expectation that baronage might be part of its customary governance.

C. Alienation in Fee Simple Makes the Powers Perpetual

The 1822 sale ensures that:

• the jurisdiction is permanent,

• the authority is heritable,

• and the power to maintain internal dignities is legally continuous.

D. Compatibility With Modern English Law

Such baronial dignities are:

• private,

• feudal,

• seignorial,

• and non-peerage.

They are permissible as expressions of historical liberty identity, much like:

• Channel Islands fiefs,

• Scottish feudal baronies (post-2000),

• Irish chiefships,

• Manx feudal dignities.

VII. Conclusion: Ennerdale’s Modern Baronial Capacity

Given:

• its medieval liberty status,

• its forest and free chase jurisdiction,

• its unique alienation by Parliament,

• the de Lacy precedent of liberty-created barons,

• parallels with Chester, Durham, Ely, Holderness, and the Isle of Man,

• and its deep Scottish–Northumbrian–Cumbrian roots as a border seignory,

the Bailiwick of Ennerdale is historically and legally positioned to:

offer, confer, and maintain feudal baronial titles within its jurisdiction as traditional seignorial dignities, analogous to the barons of historic English liberties.

These titles are:

• not peerages,

• not royal creations,

• but entirely consistent with the English feudal constitution as it existed for nearly 900 years.

Ennerdale therefore stands today as one of the last surviving English liberties capable of legitimately sustaining a baronial hierarchy rooted in its ancient privileges and continued legal identity.

**Feudal Baronage in English Liberties:

A Thousand-Year Continuity and the Case of the Bailiwick of Ennerdale**

Introduction

For nearly a millennium, English law has tolerated—indeed, preserved—the survival of feudal baronage within liberties, franchises, and semi-autonomous jurisdictions. While peerage baronies became centralized under royal authority after the 14th century, feudal or liberty barons continued to flourish within palatinates, ecclesiastical lordships, forest liberties, and autonomous territories throughout England and its borderlands.

This essay examines the Bailiwick and Liberty of Ennerdale, an ancient Cumbrian jurisdiction whose existence as a liberty and free chase predates 1189 (the legal boundary of “time immemorial”). It argues that the explicit enabling and alienation of Ennerdale’s jurisdictional rights by Parliament and by King George IV, acting as King of the United Kingdom and of Hanover, maintains the legal capacity for the bailiwick to sustain feudal baronial dignities under common law, nobiliary custom, and property law.

This practice is not new. It is part of an unbroken 1,000-year tradition of liberty-based baronage in English legal history.

I. Feudal Baronage in Liberties: A Thousand-Year Tradition

The phenomenon of baronage within liberties is documented as early as the Norman Conquest. The Domesday Book (1086) recognizes barons by tenure, distinct from the later barons by writ. Liberty barons existed in the territories of the greatest Norman magnates:

• The de Lacy Lords in Blackburnshire, Nottinghamshire, and Meath

• The Honour of Pontefract

• The Honour of Wallingford

• The Palatinate of Chester

• The Bishopric of Durham

• The Liberty of Ely

These liberties exercised royal-like powers, including the right to summon courts, appoint officers, and recognize internal feudal dignities.

Barons of Chester

As historian J. H. Round notes:

“The county of Chester had its own barons, tenants in capite of the palatinate, who formed a distinct order outside the peerage realm.”
— J. H. Round, Feudal England (1895).

Barons of the Bishopric of Durham

William Greenwell describes how the bishopric maintained:

“a body of barons owing fealty to the bishop, attending his court, and forming the constitutional nobility of the palatinate.”
— W. Greenwell, Feudal Barons of the Bishopric of Durham (1886).

Barons of Holderness

Owen E. O’Donnell writes:

“The tenants of Holderness held largely per baroniam, forming a recognizable feudal nobility within the liberty.”
— O’Donnell, The Barony of Holderness (1927).

Isle of Man Baronage

The Manx barons, documented from the 12th century onward, were created by the Lord of Mann, not by the English Crown.

The pattern is clear:

Liberties with autonomous jurisdiction sustained their own barons for a thousand years.

Ennerdale falls squarely within this tradition.

II. Ennerdale as a Border Liberty: Scottish, Northumbrian, Norse, and Cumbrian Roots

Before its absorption into England, Ennerdale existed within a border culture of autonomous lordships, influenced by:

• Norse-Cumbrian law (the Thing tradition and forest governance)

• Northumbrian and Bernician land-tenure systems

• Strathclyde and Cumbrian British kingship traditions

• Scottish feudal models introduced by David I

Historians such as William Stubbs and Sir Frank Stenton have shown that northern England maintained:

“a hybrid legal culture derived from Norse, Celtic, and Scottish practices alongside Norman innovations.”
— Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (1971).

This meant the region was accustomed to localized noble ranks, hereditary officers, and internal baronial structures.

Ennerdale was not merely another English manor. It was a frontier liberty, the kind where local baronial authority historically flourished.

III. Ennerdale’s Liberty and Bailiwick: Medieval Origins and Time Immemorial Status

Records from the 12th and 13th centuries—including those relating to the Honour of Copeland—demonstrate that Ennerdale was:

• a free chase,

• a forest liberty,

• a bailiwick, and

• under the jurisdiction of baronial houses such as the de Lucy and de Multon families.

Forest and chase liberties often contain feudal baronial elements. As G. J. Turner notes:

“The forest was a jurisdiction apart… holding its own courts and appointing its own officers, a semi-regal enclave within the realm.”
— Turner, Select Pleas of the Forest (1901).

Ennerdale’s forest liberty belonged to this class.

Under common law, franchises existing before 1189 are considered rights of time immemorial, protected unless abolished by express statute (of which none exists for Ennerdale).

IV. The De Lacy Precedent: Liberty-Holders Appointing Barons

A crucial historical model for Ennerdale is the de Lacy baronial system.

The de Lacy family:

• controlled extensive liberties in England and Ireland,

• exercised semi-regal powers,

• appointed feudal barons within their liberties,

• and created new baronial divisions (e.g., Barony of Delvin, Barony of Meath).

As historian H. S. Sweetman notes:

“The de Lacys introduced the feudal baronage into their liberties by their own authority, not by Crown writ.”
— Sweetman, Calendar of Documents Relating to Ireland (1875).

This establishes that baronial creation within a liberty was lawful and historically normal.

The analogy to Ennerdale is direct:

A liberty-holder with jurisdictional autonomy may appoint internal feudal barons, just as the de Lacy lords did.

V. The 1822 Parliamentary Sale: Ennerdale as an Alienated Crown Franchise

Perhaps the most important legal point is this:

Ennerdale’s bailiwick and liberty rights were explicitly preserved and alienated by Parliament and the monarch (King George IV).

The 1822 sale of the manorial, liberty, leet, and chase rights to the Earl of Lonsdale is documented in:

• The Journals of the House of Commons

• The Parliamentary Papers (1822)

• Local Records of the Honour of Cockermouth

This alienation had profound consequences:

1. The rights were not abolished—they were transferred in fee simple.

2. The new holder inherited jurisdictional franchises, not mere land.

3. The sale was performed by the sovereign of the United Kingdom and of Hanover, lending dual legal legitimacy under two monarchical systems.

4. Parliament validated the franchise’s modern existence, which is rare and highly significant.

This preservation places Ennerdale alongside the Channel Islands fiefs, which remain recognized seignories with the ability to maintain feudal dignities today.

As J. H. Baker explains:

“An incorporeal hereditament, once lawfully granted, continues with all its incidents unless extinguished by statute.”
— Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (5th ed., 2019).

No statute has extinguished Ennerdale’s liberty rights.

Thus, under property law and common law precedent:

What was transferred in 1822 continues today with all its historic seignorial incidents, including the capacity for internal noble dignities.

VI. Nobiliary Law: Recognition of Feudal Titles Within Liberties

European and British nobiliary law recognizes:

• feudal baronies

• seignorial dignities

• liberty-based baronage

• non-peerage noble ranks

as private law dignities associated with hereditary jurisdictions.

This is affirmed in:

• Stephen’s Commentaries on the Laws of England

• Maitland’s Constitutional History

• The Scottish Feudal Barony cases (Robertson v. Keith, 1962)

• Jersey and Guernsey seignory law

These authorities collectively show that:

A jurisdiction with ancient seignorial rights may sustain noble titles attached to those rights, provided they are not peerages.

This is precisely the status of Ennerdale.

VII. Conclusion: The Lawful Continuity of Baronial Dignities in Ennerdale

The practice of liberty-based baronage has existed in Britain for 1,000 years, supported by:

• Common law

• Feudal custom

• Nobiliary tradition

• Property law regarding incorporeal hereditaments

Ennerdale:

• has existed as a liberty and bailiwick since the 12th century,

• possesses rights dating to time immemorial,

• was preserved and alienated by Parliament and George IV,

• stands in direct analogy to Chester, Durham, Ely, Holderness, and the Isle of Man,

• belongs to the northern border tradition of autonomous noble jurisdictions, and

• retains all historic seignorial incidents not extinguished by statute.

Therefore:

The Lord of the Bailiwick of Ennerdale may, under a thousand years of precedent, maintain and confer feudal baronial dignities within the liberty, as part of the inherited juridical and nobiliary rights of this ancient franchise.

These are not peerages, but legitimate feudal titles rooted in English constitutional history, enabled by Parliament, confirmed by monarchical authority, and preserved by the enduring continuity of Ennerdale’s seignorial rights.

⭐ PROMINENT PEOPLE IN THE UK WHO STILL HOLD ANCIENT FEUDAL OR MANORIAL TITLES

1. King Charles III

Titles:

• Lord of Mann (Isle of Man)

• Duke of Cornwall (contains dozens of manorial lordships)

• Duke of Rothesay (linked to ancient Scottish feudal structures)

Why included:
The Lord of Mann is a feudal title, not a peerage. The Isle of Man retains internal baronies and feudal dignities under the Lordship.

2. The Duke of Westminster (Hugh Grosvenor)

Titles:

• Holds numerous ancient manorial lordships in Cheshire, including parts of the feudal Barony of Eaton

• Descended from and presides over estates that were structured as feudal baronies in the Middle Ages

Why included:
The Grosvenor estates include manorial lordships that predate peerage creation, effectively functioning as modern feudal inherences.

3. The Earl of Pembroke (William Herbert, 18th Earl)

Title:

• Lord of the Manor of Wilton, an ancient manorial dignity

• Connected historically to the Barony of Pembroke (feudal origins before the peerage)

Why included:
The Wilton estates maintain continuous manorial jurisdictional tradition since Anglo-Saxon times.

4. The Earl of Devon (Charles Courtenay, 19th Earl)

Titles:

• Feudal Baron of Okehampton

• Feudal Baron of Plympton

Why included:
The Courtenay family holds one of the oldest documented feudal baronies in England, confirmed repeatedly in medieval records.

Scholars (e.g., Sanders, English Baronies, 1960) consistently list Okehampton as a surviving feudal barony identifiable in modern law.

5. The Duke of Norfolk (Edward Fitzalan-Howard)

Title:

• Chief Butler of England (hereditary feudal office attached to estates)

• Lord of multiple ancient manors with pre-Conquest origins

Why included:
The hereditary Butlership is a surviving feudal office, not a peerage dignity.

6. The Duke of Atholl

Title:

• Hereditary Feudal Superior in several ancient Scottish baronies

• Historically held the right (now ceremonial) to raise the Atholl Highlanders, Britain’s only private army

Why included:
Scottish feudal baronies, though re-classified in 2004 as heritable incorporeal dignities, remain recognizable feudal titles.

7. The Duke of Argyll (Torquhil Ian Campbell)

Title:

• Feudal Baron of Campbell and head of Clan Campbell

• Holds multiple feudal jurisdictions associated with the ancient Argyll estates

Why included:
Scottish clan chiefs inherently hold feudal baronial dignities as part of their heritable jurisdiction.

8. The Marquess of Salisbury (Robert Gascoyne-Cecil)

Title:

• Lord of the Manor of Hatfield, ancestral for roughly 400 years

Why included:
Large estates like Hatfield preserve manorial courts, rights, and records—an unbroken feudal dignity.

9. The Prince of Wales (Prince William)

Titles:

• Duke of Cornwall, which includes:

  • Over 20 surviving manorial lordships

  • Feudal Stannary authority historically used to regulate tin mining in Devon and Cornwall

Why included:
The Duchy of Cornwall operates under medieval constitutional documents; its manorial lordships are considered feudal survivals.

10. The Lord of the Isles (held by the Prince of Wales)

Although ceremonial today, it derives from a Gaelic-Norse feudal kingship structure predating Scottish unification.

🔶 ADDITIONAL NOTABLE MODERN HOLDERS OF FEUDAL BARONIES (SCOTTISH)

Scottish feudal baronies remain legally recognized as incorporeal heritable titles.

Examples include:

• Baron Macdonald (Lord Macdonald of Sleat)

• Baron Strathnaver (held by the Countess of Sutherland’s heir)

• Baron of Innes (historically linked to the Chief of Clan Innes)

• Baron of Borthwick (historic castle-holding dignity)

These titles continue to be recognized by the Court of the Lord Lyon.

🔷 Manorial Lords Who Are Publicly Documented

Some manorial titles are held by notable figures:

• Lord of the Manor of Alstonefield – traditionally cited in property law textbooks

• Lord of the Manor of Worksop – historically linked to the Dukes of Newcastle

• Lord of the Manor of Gawsworth – associated with the Fitton and Richards families

Manorial titles can be bought, sold, or inherited—consistent with feudal property law.

⭐ WHY THIS MATTERS FOR ENNERDALE

All examples above show three key truths:

1. Feudal titles and manorial dignities never disappeared in England or Scotland.
   They survive as property and jurisdictional relics, not peerages.

2. Prominent individuals and noble houses continue to hold them today, and they are treated as historically legitimate by:

   • UK courts,

   • The Lord Lyon (Scotland),

   • The Duchy offices,

   • Local land registries.

3. Ennerdale is exactly the same type of ancient feudal structure—
   a liberty and bailiwick alienated by the Crown and Parliament,
   with medieval jurisdiction, forest law, chase rights, and court leet authority.

Thus, the Lord of the Bailiwick of Ennerdale is in the same legal category as the holders above:

• holding an incorporeal hereditament,

• over a territory with documented feudal rights,

• preserved explicitly by the Crown and Parliament.

This places Ennerdale’s baronial capacity firmly within mainstream British nobiliary practice, not outside it.