THERE were four petitioners claiming to be coheirs of this barony, which had been in abeyance for above four hundred years. There were three other coheirs, who did not petition or interfere.

The petition of Thomas Stonor, esq., of Stonor, in the county of Oxford, presented to the Queen in September 1837, praying Her Majesty to revive in his person the dignity of his ancestor, by summoning him to Parliament under the style and title of Lord Camoys,--stated that Sir Thomas Camoys, of Broad water, in the county of Sussex, knight, was summoned to Parliament in the 7th year of King Richard 2, and to succeeding Parliaments until his death, and that he sat in Parliament in pursuance of the said writs of summons, whereby he acquired the dignity of Baron Camoys to him and the heirs of his body; that he was succeeded by his grandson, Hugh Lord Camoys, who died under age, and without issue, in the 5th of Henry 6 (1427), whereupon the barony fell into abeyance between his two sisters, Margaret and Alianora, as grand-daughters and coheirs of Thomas Lord Camoys.

That Alianora married Sir Roger Lewknor, knight, by whom she had a son and heir, Sir Thomas Lewknor, of Trotton, the father of Sir Roger Lewknor, who died in 1543 without male issue, leaving three (a) daughters, Katherine (b), Mabel, and Constance, whose respective representatives were his coheirs.

That Margaret married Ralph Radmylde, esq., by whom she had a son Robert, who had an only son Sir William Radmylde, who died without issue, and two daughters, Margaret and Elizabeth Radmylde, who became coheirs to their said brother, and, as such, coheirs of their grandmother (c) Margaret Camoys.

That Elizabeth married Nicholas Lewknor, esq., by whom she had a son and heir, Edward Lewknor, of Kingston Bowsey, who died in 1528, leaving a son Edward Lewknor, whose son and heir, Edward Lewknor, was attainted of high treason in the reign of Queen Mary; and petitioner was advised, that the subsequent restitution in blood of his son, Sir Edward Lewknor, did not enable him or his descend ants to sustain the character of coheirs to the barony of Camoys. That Sir Edward Lewknor, the grandson of the attainted Edward Lewknor, died in 1618, leaving a son, whose only child (d) died without issue, and two daughters, Anne and Katherine, whose representatives are now the coheirs of the said Edward Lewknor (e).

That the said Margaret, the elder sister (aunt) and coheir of Sir William Radmylde, married John Goring, of Burton, in the county of Sussex, esq., and had by him a son, John Goring, the great grandfather of Sir Henry Goring, knt., who died in 1594, leaving a son, Sir William Goring, whose grand son, Sir William Goring, was created a baronet in 1622, and died in 1652, leaving a son, Sir Henry Goring, bart., the father of Sir William Goring, bart., who died without issue in 1723, and a daughter Anne, who intermarried with Richard Biddulph, of Biddulph, in the county of Stafford, esq.; that John Biddulph, her son and heir, died in 1720, in the lifetime of his uncle, Sir William Goring, leaving two sons and two daughters; that Richard Biddulph, the elder son, became sole heir of Sir William Goring, and died unmarried in 1769, leaving his brother's son, John Biddulph, his heir, and that this John died without issue in 1835, when the representatives of his two aunts became his coheirs; that Anne, the younger aunt, married Anthony Wright, of Wealside, in the county of Essex, esq., whose re presentative is now a coheir (e) of the barony of Camoys; that Mary, the elder aunt, married Thomas Stonor, of Stonor, in the county of Oxford, esq., by whom she had Charles Stonor, whose son and successor, Thomas Stonor, petitioner's father, died in 1831; that upon the death of John Biddulph in 1835, this petitioner became the senior representative of his ancestor Thomas Lord Camoys, and, as such, the eldest coheir to the dignity of Lord Camoys.

Her Majesty referred the petition, first, to the Attorney-general, and afterwards, with his report thereto annexed, to the House of Lords, who referred the same to the Committee for Privileges.

In February 1838, before that Committee sat, Henry Le Strange Styleman, of Hunstanton, in the county of Norfolk, esq,, and Sir Jacob Astley, of Melton Constable, in the same county, bart., presented petitions to the House, each stating that he was one of the coheirs of the said barony, and, as such, had been served with notice of Mr. Stonor's claim; and further stating that petitioner presented a petition to the Queen to determine the abeyance of the barony in his own favour, and that such petition, he believed, would be soon referred to the House. The petitioners respectively prayed to be allowed, in the meantime, to attend by counsel to protect their respective interests in the event of any proceedings taking place on Mr. Stonor's petition.

Those petitions also were referred to the Committee for Privileges, and it was ordered that the petitioners might be at liberty to appear by counsel, as prayed by them.

Note A. the first sitting of the Committee, on the 27th of March, Sir William Follett and Mr. Fleming appeared as counsel for Mr. Stonor; and Sir N. Harris Nicolas and Mr. Charles Beavan, for Sir Jacob Astley and Mr. Le Strange Styleman.

The Solicitor-general, in the absence of the Attorney-general, on behalf of the Crown, took a preliminary objection to the claimant's proceeding, for that there was a coheiress to the barony, known to the claimant to have existed, but not mentioned in his pedigree, in which Sir Roger Lewknor (the grand son of Alianora Camoys) was represented as having three daughters, Katherine, Mabel, and Constance, by his wife Elizabeth Mesant. But he had another daughter by a former wife, whose name did not appear in the pedigree, nor were her descendants served with notice, as required by the rules of the House, that all coheirs known to exist should be served. It appeared from certain proceedings in the Ex chequer, in the 1st of Phil. and Mary, that Sir Roger Lewknor's daughter by his first wife was named Jane, that she married Sir Arthur Pole, and after his death became the wife of Sir William Barentyne.

Mr. Fleming:-There is great doubt whether that Jane was legitimate, or left legitimate issue; means have been taken to ascertain the fact. In the meantime, it is but reasonable that the petitioner may be permitted to proceed to prove the principal line of descent.

The Earl of Shaftesbury, Chairman of the Committee, said, that if there was reason to suppose that there were coheirs representing any line, they must be served with notice, so as to afford them an opportunity of appearing to oppose the claim or support their own. The claimant having exhibited a pedigree, showing Lord Howard de Walden and Lord Clinton to be representatives of Jane Lewknor, was bound to serve notice of the proceedings on them before he could be permitted to proceed.

Mr. Fleming:-Notice has been given to Lord Clinton by letter through the post-office.

The Earl of Shaftesbury:-Notice by post is not sufficient.

Sir William Follett said he trusted that his right to proceed would not be affected by anything that appeared in the pedigree just referred to, as it had not been laid before the Committee. The objection taken by the Solicitor-general ought not to prevail, unless he was prepared to produce the original document from which he inferred that there was this daughter Jane.

The Solicitor-general said he was not then prepared with that proof.

The Earl of Shaftesbury:-As the claimant stood upon the pedigree originally produced, in which this daughter of Sir Roger Lewknor, by his first marriage, was not named; and as the Solicitor-general was not prepared to give evidence of her existence, the petitioner might proceed with his case, but their Lordships would stop the proceedings as soon as it should appear that there were other parties who might be claimants but were not served with notice.

The Solicitor-general said he was instructed that notice had not been served on Madame De la Cainea, a coheir.

Proof of notice to her having then been given, Sir William Follett opened the allegations of the petition, and witnesses were examined in support of them, beginning with the production of the close rolls, containing writs of summons to Parliament in the 7th, 8th, and subsequent years of the reign of Richard 2, and the two succeeding reigns, in which appeared the name of Thomas Lord Camoys among other peers. It appeared from the rolls of Parliament of the 21st of Richard 2, and of subsequent years, that he sat frequently in Parliament as a peer of the realm.

On a subsequent day, before the whole of Mr. Stonor's evidence was given in, Mr. Tennant appeared before the Committee as counsel for Madame De la Cainea,-in pursuance of an order on a petition from her to the House, similar to the petitions of Sir Jacob Astley and Mr. Le Strange Styleman,-- and asked that the proceedings might be stayed until her solicitors could communicate with her, (she was then residing in Naples,) to ascertain whether she wished to adduce any evidence.

The Committee expressed to him a clear opinion that there was no ground for stopping the proceedings: the learned counsel might watch the evidence.

The Solicitor-general produced a witness from the Queen's Remembrancer's-office, with the record of the Exchequer of the 1st of Phil. and Mary, before referred to, reciting a deed, dated in the 24th year of Henry 8, whereby Sir Roger Lewknor, in consideration of the marriage of Sir William Barentyne with Jane Pole, widow, daughter and heir of Sir Roger Lewknor, granted unto them the reversion of certain manors.

Sir William Follett said that, in consequence of the investigations made by Mr. Stonor since he laid his printed case on the table, he was now able to show that the Baroness De la Zouche, and her sister, the Honourable Katherine Annabella, wife of Captain Pechell, were the representatives of the said Jane (f), and consequently coheirs of the barony in the same line with Madame De la Cainea. He then proved that notice of these proceedings was given to both those ladies, but they declined to interfere.

The evidence-nearly all documentary-given in for Mr. Stonor was very voluminous: first showing the creation of the barony in Sir Thomas Camoys, in the reign of Richard 2; the death of Sir Richard Camoys, his son and heir apparent, in his own life time, leaving a son Hugh - who succeeded to the barony on the death of his grandfather, and died with out issue-and two daughters before named, between whom, on their said brother's death, the barony fell into abeyance. The evidence then showed the continued abeyance of the barony, tracing the descent of Madame De la Cainea, and of Lady De la Zouche and Mrs. Pechell, from the younger sister, and of Mr. Stonor and Mr. Anthony George Wright Biddulph, and Sir Jacob Astley and Mr. Styleman, from the elder sister. The chief links in those long chains of evidence, and the points that arose on them, will be stated in the speech of counsel summing up the case for Mr. Stonor.

Note A. a subsequent sitting of the Committee, Mr. Fleming, on behalf of Mr. Stonor, proposed to give further evidence, with a view of carrying the creation of the barony up to the 49th of Henry 3, he having previously laid on the table, by leave of the House, an amended pedigree and an additional printed case.

Accordingly, his witnesses produced from the close rolls of that year, an enrolment of general writs of summons to Parliament, in which the name of Ralph Camoys appeared as summoned among other lords. His grandson Ralph Lord Camoys appeared from later enrolments of like writs to have been summoned to Parliament regularly from the 7th of Edward 2 to the 9th of Edward 3. By a fines roll of the 49th Edward 3, and by other documents, it would appear that Thomas Lord Camoys, whose summons to and sitting in Parliament in the 7th Richard 2 had been before proved, was the grandson - consanguineus et hæres - of the last-mentioned Ralph Lord Camoys; and in further proof that the said Thomas and the said Ralphs, his predecessors, were peers of Parliament, a writ was produced from the close rolls of the 7th of Richard 2, from which it appeared that this Thomas was elected a knight of the shire to that Parliament, for Surrey, that he petitioned the King to be dis charged from so serving, stating that he was a "Bannerett," and that his ancestors were "Banneretts," and that the King accordingly commanded the sheriff to discharge him, and to make a new election of a knight (g) for the said county.

Mr. Fleming having completed his evidence on this new head, and further proved the pedigrees, not only of his client but of all the coheirs, as well of those who claimed the barony as of those who did not, asked for leave to sum up the case.

The Committee, on the suggestion of the Attorney general, said it would be more convenient to hear the summing up when the whole of the evidence would be in print.

Note a. This was an error, vide infra, pp. 793 796.

Note b. Katherine married John Mill, esq. of Grentham, in the county of Hants, and bad by him a son, from whom is descended in a direct line, Sophia, the widow of the Chevalier Ferdinand de la Cainen, and one of the four coheirs claiming the barony.

Note c. This also was an error, vide infra, p. 811. The evidence showed that Margaret and Elizaleth Radmylle were the daughters of Margaret Camoys.

Note d. Mary, the wife of Horatio Townshend, created Lord Townshend.

Note e. Anne married Sir Nicholas le Strange, of Hunstanton, in the county of Norfolk, and had by him a son, from whose grand daughters, Armine, married to Nicholas Styleman, esq., and Lucy, married to Sir Jacob Astley, bart., the two claimants, Mr. Le Strange Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley, are respectively descended, in the third generation; Katherine married James Calthorpe, esq., but of her descendants there was no account.

Note f. From an amended pedigree given in by Mr. Stonor, and from his proofs, it appeared that this Jane was thrice married; first, to Sir Christopher Pickering, by whom she had a daughter, an only child, who, by her first husband, Sir Francis Weston, had a son, Sir Henry Weston, whose daughter married Sir Thomas Bisshopp, and had by him a son, from whom Lady de la Zouche and Mrs. Pechell are lineally descended.

Note g. A copy of this writ, with a translation, was printed with the minutes; it was to this effect: "The King to the sheriff of Surrey greeting: Because, as we have heard, you have elected Thomas Camoys, knight, who is a bannerett, as many of his ancestors have been, to be one of the knights, & c. of the said county, we, considering that banneretis of this kind have never been heretofore accustomed to be elected as knights for the county, we will that he be exonerated from the office of knight about to come to the said Parliament for the Commons of the county aforesaid," &c.

The petitions presented by Mr. Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley to the Queen, were on the 11th of May 1838 referred to the House of Lords, with the Attorney generals reports on them, and by the House to the Committee for Privileges. They stated the origin of the barony, and the continued abeyance of it through coheirs, as the same had been stated by Mr. Stonor's petition, except that they alleged that the coheir from whom they were descended was the elder sister of the coheir from whom Mr. Stonor derived his descent; and with respect to the attainder of Edward Lewknor, who stood in the direct line of their descent, they stated that he "had issue Sir Edward Lewknor, of &c., who together with his brothers and sisters were restored and enabled in blood and lineage as heirs to their father, in the same manner, & c. to all intents, &c. as they or any of them, their heirs, or the heirs of any of them, might or should have been if their said father had not been attainted, and were enabled to make their pedigree and conveyance in blood, lineage, and degree, as heir or heirs to and from their said father, as also to and from any other per greeting: Because, as we have heard, you have elected Thomas son or persons, by Act of Parliament, i Elizabeth." The petitiorers then deduced their descent from the two grand-daughters of Anne Lewknor (h), one of the daughters of the said Sir Edward Lewknor, and they prayed Her Majesty to determine the abeyance of the said barony in their favour respectively.

The petition of Madame de la Cainea to the Queen, praying Her Majesty to revive the said dignity in her person or to abstain from determining the abeyance in favour of any of the other petitioners, was soon afterwards in like manner referred to the Committee.

The Solicitor-general, on a subsequent day said, he was counsel for Mr. Styleman, whose printed case had been just presented, and he should be ready to proceed on it within the fourteen days allowed by the rules of the House.

Sir H. Nicolas said, it was the wish of the claimant for whom he attended (Sir Jacob Astley), that no time should be lost. His printed case was also on the table.

Mr. Thesiger, who was now of counsel, with Mr. Tennant, for Madame de la Cainea, observed, that her petition to the Queen was not yet, but, no doubt, would soon be referred to the House (i); and as she was residing abroad, he had not yet received full instructions for her case.

Sir William Follett:-Her pedigree has been fully proved by Mr. Stonor: no further delay ought to be interposed to the summing up of his evidence. The Committee informed counsel that those claimants whose cases had been put on the table, would be expected to proceed at their next sitting; and the most convenient course would be to take the whole of each claimant's evidence and have it printed, and then, on day to be appointed, to hear each claimant's counsel to sum up seriatim.

The Solicitor-general stated Mr. Styleman's case on a subsequent day, and, taking the benefit of the proofs given in for Mr. Stonor, he afterwards supplied some new pieces of evidence. He did not attempt to carry the creation of the barony beyond the 7th Richard 2, when Sir Thomas Camoys was summoned. He observed that Margaret Camoys, the elder sister and coheir of Hugh last Lord Camoys, and coheir of her said grand father, married Ralph Radmylde, and by him had two daughters; from Margaret, one of the two, and wife of John Goring, were descended Mr. Stonor and Mr. Wright Biddulph; and Mr. Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley were descended from the other, Isabella, who married Nicholas Lewknor, of Parham; but as she was in some documents called Elizabeth, he pro duced evidence to show that the two names were synonimous in ancient times (h2). Her great grand son and heir, Edward Lewknor, of Kingston Bowsey, was attainted of treason in the reign of Queen Mary, but his children were restored in blood by statute 1 Elizabeth. In the course of the descent from the restored heir of the attainted person, Mary Lewknor became the sole heir and representative of that family. She married Horatio, the first Lord Townshend, and died without issue: all which, he said, would appear from pedigrees and other pieces of evidence which would be produced from amongst the muniments at Raynham Hall, the seat of the Townshend family.

Mr. Styleman's solicitor, Mr. Gilman, was about to give in a MS. book containing old pedigrees. He said he received it from Lord Charles Townshend, at Raynham Hall.

The Attorney-general objected that, without better evidence of the history and custody of these pedigrees, they could not be received to prove the pedigree of the Camoys family.

The Solicitor-general:-The manuscript was found among the muniments of the Townshend family, kept at the family mansion, and the head of that family had been connected by marriage with the family whose pedigree was the subject of inquiry. A narrative or document of this sort had been under like circumstances received in the Troutbeck case.

Sir H. Nicolas:-In the Braye peerage case, similar evidence was received, viz. the Lovett pedigree and the Vernon pedigree, without objection. The Committee said, that as there was a person who could give a better account of the history and custody of these documents, he ought to be called.

Note h. Vide ante, note (e), p. 791.

Note i. It was referred a few days after, in the usual form.

Note h2. The witness, Mr. Hardy, clerk in the Tower Record-office, said the names were used indifferently in inquisitiones post morten, in the reigns of Edward 2 and Edward 3. From Camden's Remains, from old documents in the British Museum, and from Moreri, he produced numerous instances in which the names Elizabeth and Isabella, or Isabeau, were applied to the same person. (Printed Minutes of Evidence, p. 351.)

The same witness was about giving in an inscription on a picture which he saw at Raynham Hall. It was the picture of a youth, placed in a fixed panel over the fireplace, in the billiard-room; and the in scription was," Lewknor, brother to Mary, the first wife of Horatio Lord Townshend."

The Attorney-general objected to the reception of this inscription as evidence, distinguishing it from inscriptions in a church or other public building.

The Committee held that it was receivable; and it was received accordingly. At a subsequent sitting of the Committee, Lord Charles Townshend attended as a witness, to give a better account of the manuscript before mentioned. He said: "I am the son of the late Marquis Townshend, and under his will I am in possession of the family seat, Raynham Hall. This book (MS. No. 1) I purchased at the sale of my father's library, in 1812-sold under the directions in his will together with other works on heraldry. My father was esteemed a great herald. The book has been again added to the library at Raynham Hall, and has been kept there ever since, until I gave it to Mr. Gilman to produce here. I saw it while my father lived: it has some notes of his writing."

The Attorney-general, considering the connexion of the Townshend family with a branch of the family claiming the barony, and that it was probable the pedigrees were brought to the Townshend family by Mary Lady Townshend, the representative of the eldest branch of the descendants of Elizabeth Radmylde, and also considering the satisfactory account just now given of the custody of those documents, admitted that they were receivable in evidence.

The manuscript book then given in contained the pedigrees of several families, traced down to their respective connexions with the Townshend family; and among others, of the family of Lewknor, beginning with Sir Thomas Lewknor, of Goring, in 1446, and tracing down the descendants of his sons, who left issue, to the year 1613.

The evidence for Mr. Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley having been closed, Mr. Thesiger said it was not the intention of Madame De la Cainea to offer any evidence; resting on the proofs already given. He wished to be informed whether it was necessary for her to print a case.

The Committee informed him that the standing order required every person claiming a peerage to print a case. -A day was named for laying her case on the table.

Mr. Fleming summed up the case of Mr. Stonor on the 13th of July 1838. He said that since his evidence was closed, or nearly closed, the petitions of three other claimants were referred to their Lordships' consideration, and some further evidence was adduced by two of them; but the pedigree as proved by Mr. Stonor stood without any material addition, except the old pedigrees in the MS. produced from Lord Townshend's muniments. On the part of the third counter-claimant, Madame De la Cainea, no evidence was given; she relied on the proofs given by Mr. Stonor. From his first printed case it would appear that Madame De la Cainea was the only heir of Alianora Camoys, the second daughter of Sir Richard Camoys, and younger coheir of Hugh, the last Lord Camoys. When that case was put on their Lordships' table, Mr. Stonor was under the impression that Sir Roger Lewknor, the grandson and heir of Alianora, had only three daughters, but subsequent investigations led him to the knowledge of another daughter, Jane, by a prior marriage, and she was now clearly shown to be represented by Lady Zouche and Mrs. Pechell; so that Sir Roger Lewknor is represented by them as well as by Madame de la Cainea, who is, in fact, the junior of the three coheirs of the junior coheir of the last Lord Camoys. Of Madame De la Cainea's claim, it would not be necessary to say more, were it not for the peculiar part of her petition to the Queen, praying Her Majesty "either to revive in her own person the said dignity, or to abstain from determining the abeyance in favour of any of the petitioners." Among all the precedents that have been looked into on this subject, not one could be found for such a prayer; and it certainly appeared to be an extraordinary attempt by the youngest of all the coheirs to influence the prerogative of the Crown.

Note B. the evidence given on Mr. Stonor's additional case, his pedigree was deduced from Sir Ralph de Camoys, who died in 43 Henry 3, and whose son, Ralph Lord Camoys, was summoned to Parliament in the 49th of that King's reign. The most ancient writs of summons extant are those for that Parliament. The pedigree should not have commenced earlier than Ralph Lord Camoys, were it not necessary to prove that the barony which he acquired by the summons to that Parliament could only have been a personal dignity. It was not the custom in this country till long after the reign of Henry 3, to create baronies in any other way than by tenure or by writ of summons to Parliament; and to show that the barony of Camoys could not be created by tenure, a witness was examined, who said he had gone through the inquisitions taken upon the death of Sir Ralph de Camoys, father of the first person of his family proved to have been summoned to Parliament, and did not find in any of them that he held any lands by barony. In fact, all the lands, with a trifling exception, held by Sir Ralph de Camoys, were held of subjects, and not of the Crown in capite. It was, therefore, impossible that he could have been a baron by tenure.

Ralph Lord Camoys is proved to have been summoned to Parliament in 49 Henry 3. There are no enrolments of writs of summons to Parliament extant from the 49th Henry 3 till the 23d of Edward 1, and Ralph Lord Camoys died in 5 Edward 1, as appeared by an inquisition post mortem, which finds that John de Camoys was his son and heir. It is uncertain when John died; from proceedings before Parliament, it is clear he died before 26 Edward 1. He might have been living in 23 Edward 1, but his name does not appear on the enrolments of writs of summons to Parliament in that year. The second Ralph Lord Camoys, who is proved to have been John's son, was summoned to twenty different Parliaments held between the 7th of Edward 2 and the 9th of Edward 3. He was succeeded by his son Thomas Lord Camoys, who died in 46 Edward 3, without leaving issue surviving. It does not appear that that Thomas was summoned to Parliament. At that period the Crown frequently omitted to summon the sons and grandsons of persons who were undoubted peers of the realm, without in any manner prejudicing the rights of their descendants to the peerages vested in their ancestors. We find in the descent of the barony of Fitz walter, that Robert, the second lord, was never summoned; in the descent of the barony of Grey de Wilton, Richard, the sixth lord, was never summoned; in the descent of the barony of Poynings, Thomas, the third lord, was never summoned; in the barony of Scrope, Richard, the third lord, was not summoned; in the barony of West, two successive peers were not summoned; and in the baronies of Dudley, Ferrers, and Fitzwarine, three successive peers, in each, were never summoned to any Parliament.

In the same manner that the Crown omitted to summon the son of a person who undoubtedly was a peer, it also exercised the power of not summoning a peer immediately upon his becoming of age. Many noblemen of full age were not summoned till many years after the death of their ancestors. John, the second Lord Butetourt, who was of age in 1340, was not summoned to Parliament till 1365; Henry, the second Lord Ferrers, who was of full age when he succeeded in 1325, was not summoned till 1331; Thomas, the fifth Lord Morley, who was thirty years old upon his succession in 1417, was not summoned till 1427; Thomas, the fifth Lord Scales, who succeeded in 1418, being then of full age, was not summoned till 1445; and Robert Lord Ogle, who succeeded in 1469, was not summoned till 1482, although of full age long before his succession.

There is no legal evidence of the sitting in Parliament of the first peers named in Mr. Stonor's substituted pedigree. It would be impossible to show that Ralph, the first Lord Camoys, sat in Parliament, as the rolls of Parliament do not extend to his time; and this House has not hitherto received other evidence of sitting in Parliament; nor is there evidence of the sitting of his grandson Ralph, who was constantly summoned in the reigns of the Edwards 2 and 3. In three or four cases, which have been before the House, no evidence was given to show that the first or second peer, under whom the peerages were claimed, sat in Parliament. In the case of Lord Le Despencer, summoned by writ in 49 Henry 3, the first evidence of sitting was in the 33d of Edward 1, in the person of the second lord. In the case of the of De Roos, which was also claimed under a writ of the 49th Henry 3, no evidence was given of sitting in Parliament till 37 Edward 3; it was in the person of the fifth lord that the first evidence of sitting was adduced. In the case of the barony of Botetourt, which was claimed under a writ of the 33d of Edward 1, the only evidence of sitting relied upon was in the 50th of Edward 3; and in the barony of Zouch, created by writ of summons in the 7th of Edward 2, the first evidence adduced of sitting in Parliament was in the 47th of Edward 3. It therefore seems to be immaterial to show that Ralph, the first Lord, or Ralph, the third Lord Camoys, sat in this House.

Thomas Lord Camoys, who was the undoubted heir of Ralph Lord Camoys, who was summoned to Parliament in 49 Henry 3, and of Ralph Lord Camoys, who was summoned in the reigns of Edward 2 and Edward 3, was improperly elected a knight of the shire for Surrey, in the 7th of Richard 2. He refused to sit as knight of the shire, declaring him self to be a "banneret." The matter was brought before the King, and the King issued a writ to the sheriff of Surrey, declaring that it was not the custom to elect for the commons of a county a person of such a dignity as that of "banneret," and commanding the sheriff to exonerate him from the office of knight (i). When that writ was put in evidence, the Attorney-general dissented from the position that the word "banneret," although commonly applied to knights of a particular order, was also used in ancient times to designate members of this House; it there fore became necessary to show that the term was so used.

The dignity of banneret, as meaning the honour of knighthood, was very peculiar; it could only be conferred under the royal standard displayed in the field, and it has been much questioned whether it could be conferred unless the King himself was present.

One of the privileges of that honour was, that to form the banner which the knight was to bear in the army, his former pennon was cut into a square. Selden (k) so states it, and gives instances of the creation of Sir Gilbert Talbot, Sir John Cheyney, and Sir William Stonor, an ancestor of the present claimant, as knights bannerets previous to the battle of Newark, when King Henry the 7th was present. In the first part of the evidence is printed the copy of a monument erected to the memory of Thomas Lord Camoys, and his arms are not represented in the square form, although in the inscription all the dignities which could be attributed to Lord Camoys are very carefully mentioned. There is sufficient evidence that Thomas Lord Camoys was not a knight banneret, and there fore the term "banneret," when applied to him, means some other dignity than that of knight; and consequently, at that time, it could only have meant a lord of Parliament. In the rolls of Parliament, the roll for the 18th of Edward 3 (1), mentioning the members present in full Parliament, after going through the earls, proceeds thus: "And the Lords De Wake, Percy, Berkele, Mons. Hugh le Despenser, Mons. Raufde Nevill, and other barons and bannerets.

That passage clearly refers to members of this House, and designates some of them as barons and bannerets. Again, in the roll of 46 Edward 3 (m), it is said," the Commons left the House, but the King, the Prince, the prelates, the dukes, the earls, the barons and bannerets remained." In the rolls of the 1st of Richard 2 (n), it is said that on Saturday the 28th of November, certain persons came into Parliament, and "the same day, at the command of the Lords afore said, a response was made in the said Parliament how the thing had been said, and the lords of the Parliament, that is to say, the King of Castill and Leon, the Duke of Lancaster, Richard Earl of Cambridge, the Earl of March, and various other earls, together with John Nevill, Roger Lord Clifford, and many other lords, barons, and bannerets." In the rolls of the 5th of Richard 2 (o), an Act of Parliament of that year, which directed every person who received a summons to this House to attend, is in these words: "Also the King wills and commands, and it is agreed to in Parliament, &c. that all persons who shall in future be summoned shall come to Parliament, &c., and every person who shall receive the said summons in future, be he archbishop, bishop, abbot, prior, duke, earl, baron, banneret, knight of a county, citizen of a city, burgess of a borough." There is a clear distinction drawn between the knights of the county and bannerets. And again in the same Parliament rolls (p), the Commons, it is said, prayed the King to appoint certain prelates and lords to treat with them. The King granted their prayer, and the names of the prelates and lords so appointed are set forth in the roll; three archbishops, the Duke of Lancaster, King of Castill and Leon, five earls, and "the Lords Nevill, Clifford, Fitzwalter, Zouch of Harringworth, Willoughby, Cobham, Scrope, and Bryan, bannerets;" and the record adds that the lords named should be granted to confer with the Commons. Thus was the term "banneret" applied to persons whose peerages are unquestionable, and in virtue of some of which, at least three peers now sit in this House. But the most important entry in the rolls of Parliament regarding the dignity of banneret is in the roll of the 1st of Henry 4 (9): certain persons were appointed by this House to carry to Richard 2 the notification of his deposition and the acknowledgment, by Parliament, of Henry 4 as his successor; and the names of these persons are set out, some of them having been appointed for the archbishops and bishops; some for the abbots and priors, some for the dukes and earls, and "the Lord Berkeley for the barons and bannerets." That entry proves that barons and bannerets were of the same degree and equally members of this House; and on these authorities it is submitted that when King Richard 2 directed the sheriff to exonerate Thomas Lord Camoys from the office of knight of the shire as being "a banneret, as many of his ancesters were, he meant thereby a lord of Parliament, and that in that sense only could the term be used. That is the opinion of Selden (r), no mean authority on such a subject; and what is an extraordinary coincidence, he cites this writ for exonerating Thomas Camoys, to show that banneret meant a lord of Parliament. It is therefore submitted that King Richard, by applying the expression banneret to Thomas Camoys, recognized his succession to the peerage of his ancestors, and that not only he but various of his ancestors were lords of Parliament. The same Thomas Lord Camoys was summoned to Parliament from 7th Richard 2 till his death in 9th Henry 5, and he was succeeded by his grandson and heir Hugh Lord Camoys; his son, the father of Hugh, having predeceased him. The evidence has shown that Hugh Lord Camoys died under age,-and there fore never summoned to Parliament,-and without issue; whereupon the barony became in abeyance between his two sisters, and has continued in abeyance ever since: that Alianora, the younger sister, left a son, who was the grandfather of Jane and Katherine Lewknor, from the former of whom, through the families, first of Weston, then of Bisshopp, Lady Zouch and Mrs. Pechell derive their descent, and from the other, through the family of Mill, Madame De la Cainea directly derives her descent. The succession of these three coheirs of Alianora Camoys has been carried down by evidence as satisfactory as could possibly be produced in a case involving such a number of persons whose extinction it was necessary to prove. No doubt can now exist that Jane was a daughter of Sir Roger Lewknor by his first marriage, or that she left issue by her first husband, Sir Christopher Pickering; although, in the early part of Mr. Stonor's case, her parentage was not so satisfactorily ascertained as to warrant him in inserting her name in his first pedigree.

Margaret, the elder daughter of Richard Camoys, and elder coheir of Hugh Lord Camoys, married Ralph Radmylde, by whom she had a son, Robert, and two daughters, Margaret and Isabella: the son left issue Sir William Radmylde, who died without legitimate issue in the 14th year of Henry 7. Sir William, in his will, mentions several children, and Ann Herbert, who no doubt was their mother; she is styled, after his death," Ann Herbert, spinster, executrix of the will of Sir William Radmylde, deceased." To her was given, by the will, the guardian ship of the children therein mentioned; from which it must be inferred that they were her children, and therefore illegitimate. Upon his death there cannot be a doubt that the right to his estate devolved upon the persons who were his heirs at law; that is, who were of the line of the Gorings and of the line of the Lewknors (s), with whom respectively Sir William's aunts intermarried; for those families assumed the arms of Sir William Radmylde, and quartered them, and also the arms of Camoys, on their tombstones, as appeared from the heralds' visitations and other instruments of authority that were put in evidence: all which would be sufficient to show that Sir William died without legitimate issue. But another document, given in evidence, left no doubt upon the point. This was a deed dated in 1492, by which estates in Oxfordshire were conveyed by him to one Thomas Danvers, and which contained this guarantee against any claim by his wife, Dame Jane, for "dower on the manors aforesaid; because he ordained his said wife manors in the county of Sussex to the value of a hundred marks, in recompense of her title of dower; and over that the said Sir William granteth, if it happen him hereinafterward to have any issue by his wife in lawful marriage, that then he shall, within a year next following the said issue had, cause the good lady his wife for the time being, mother to such issue, to release by fine with warranty, before the King's Justices in the Common Pleas, to the said Thomas and his feeoffees, at his nomination, in fee, her right in the manor of Baldingdon aforesaid, with the appurtenances." Upon the most diligent search no fine was found levied by the said Dame Jane; and it appears from the deed, that at the time of its date Sir William Radmylde had no issue; because, of course, if he had, the purchaser would have taken care to have bound the issue: in fact it was part of the deed that he had then no issue, and he died in 1499, and the title of the persons holding under that purchase has never been questioned. Sir William Radmylde suffered a recovery, and levied fines of the rest of his property, which were subsequently followed up by a fine levied by those per sons, who, supposing Sir William to have died without issue, would have been his heirs at law, Edward Lewknor and his wife, and John Goring and his wife. But what appears extraordinary is, that the warranty in this fine is not made for the heirs of Lewknor and Goring, but for the heirs of their wives. No satisfactory explanation of that could be found in the works of Lord Coke, or subsequent writers. However, by looking into the Year-books, it appeared that such form was the common course of barring an estate tail at that time. It has been generally, but erroneously, supposed that Taltarum's case settled the question of a common recovery barring an estate tail.-(The learned counsel having stated Taltarum's case from the Year book (12 Ed. 4), said) That case did not of itself decide the validity of a common recovery; but Littleton, and the other Judges who decided it, laid down a proposition from which the doctrine of common recoveries was subsequently deduced. There are instances of common recoveries in the reigns of Henry 7 and Henry 8, but no decided case till the reign of Queen Mary. Lord Coke, who was willing to assign remote antiquity to every point of the law, endeavoured to show that the doctrine of common recoveries was ancient; but he was unable to find any authority between Taltarum's case and a case in 2 Elizabeth. It is clear that a fine at common law did not bar an estate tail, because by the statute De Donis the operation of a fine is particularly excepted. Under the Act of 4 Henry 7, a fine with proclamation was made a bar to all parties and privies, but great doubts were entertained whether that Act extended to bar an estate tail. Counsel, however, took advantage of the clause in that Act, by which all parties and privies should be bound; and their ingenuity led to the practice of making the wives of parties warrant the estates. The condition which Sir William Radmylde made was, not that in case he should have issue he would levy a fine or suffer a recovery to bar that issue, but that he would cause, in case of any issue born to him, his wife, the mother of such issue, to release by fine. The object of the covenant was by means of a fine, to be levied by his wife for the time being, in case she had issue by him, to bar the estate tail vested in such issue. Upon the principle that the doctrine of barring estates tail by common recoveries had not obtained sufficient force the fine levied by the coheirs of Sir William Radmylde after his death was made in obedience to the practice introduced as above stated, and Lewknor and Goring, in the fine levied of his estates, as the persons to whom they had passed, did not themselves warrant, but their wives warranted for them. It was material to call atten tion to this point, both as proving that Sir William Rad mylde had no legitimate issue, and explaining the fine, which proves that John Goring and Edward Lewknor were held to be his coheirs, and thus establishing the correctness of the heralds visitation of 1570, which says that John Goring, the grandfather of the party to the fine, married the sister (it ought to have been aunt) and heir of Sir William Radmylde; and also the correctness of the Lewknor pedigree, which says that Nicholas Lewknor, the father of the party to the fine, married the daughter and coheir of Ralph Radmylde.

The next point to which it is necessary to advert is the descent of the persons, who are now the representatives and coheirs of Margaret Camoys, through her two daughters. In the will of their father, Ralph Radmylde, dated in 1442, he says "Also, I leave to Margaret, my daughter, 1001., and to Isabella, my daughter, 1007." He leaves his leases and other things to his son Robert, and then he goes on to say that the residue of all his goods not given by his will shall remain to Margaret and Isabella, his daughters. This will satisfactorily shows that Margaret Radmylde, under whom Mr. Stonor derives, was the elder daughter: no case can be found in which the order, in which daughters are named in their father's will, has been disputed, or in which it has been supposed that he was ignorant of the seniority of his children, or that he could have misrepresented it. In the Vaux case (t), where Mr. Lynch relied upon the order in which, in the grandmother's will, the two ladies, from whom the coheirs there sprang, were named, as proving the seniority of his client, Sir Harris Nicolas, counsel for the other coheir, denied the inference, but only upon the principle that the legacies left to the two grand-daughters were different in amount; and the Attorney-general, in summing up that case, expressed himself unable to advise the House as to the seniority of the daughters, solely upon the ground that, the legacies being unequal, it did appear to him doubtful which was the senior (u). But it appears to have been throughout admitted that if the legacies had been equal, the mention made in the grandmother's will of the daughters by name would have been received as satisfactory evidence that the one named first was the elder daughter; and that principle has been so constantly admitted, that it would be unnecessary further to remark upon it, were it not that in the printed cases of Mr. Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley the fine is referred to as affording evidence that the person from whom they derive was elder than the sister from whom Mr. Stonor is descended. Edward Lewknor is certainly placed in the fine before John Goring, but it is common in the placing of parties in a fine not to regard seniority, and it should be remembered that Lewknor was one generation higher up than Goring, Goring being the grandson of one daughter of Ralph Radmylde, Lewk nor being the son of the other; and besides, a fine is not like a will, the deed of the ancestor; it is prepared by the clerks in the Common Pleas, whilst the will is the solemn act of the ancestor.

The evidence of the death of Sir William Radmylde without issue appeared so strong, that it seemed not essential to refer to the will of his widow, Jane, by which she left what property she had for religious and charitable purposes, but took no notice of Sir William or of any child. It is also remarkable, that in the in scription upon her tombstone, in denoting the connexion between her and Sir William, the word sponsa, and not uxor, is used. Sponsa undoubtedly means, to this day, in Catholic countries, a person betrothed, not a person who has been actually married; and this leads to the supposition that betrothing and not marriage took place between Sir William and this Jane.

The pedigree from John Goring, party to the fine is clearly proved, link by link, down to Mr. Stonor. Ralph Radmylde mentions his daughters Margaret and Isabella. The proceedings in a suit in which John Goring and Margaret his wife were parties, have been put in evidence; the heralds' visitations, showing John to have had a son and heir by the heiress of Sir William Radmylde; the will of John Goring, in which he speaks of his son John; the will of his grandson, John Goring, in which he speaks of his father John and his grandfather John Goring; the fine levied by this John Goring as one of the coheirs of Sir William Radmylde; a proceeding against this John as the grandson (consanguineus) and heir of John the husband of Margaret Radmylde; a copy of the monument which was erected to this John Goring, the grandson of Margaret Radmylde, in which the arms of Camoys are quartered, such grandson having become entitled to quarter the arms of Camoys upon the death of Sir William Radmylde, being then the undoubted senior coheir of Margaret, the elder coheir of the last Lord Camoys. All these instruments have been given in evidence. The pedigree runs so very clearly from John Goring to Sir William Goring, who died in 1723, by a succession of inquisitions and by wills and deeds from the Goring muniments, that it is unnecessary to occupy time in going through them. Sir William Goring left a daughter Anne, who married Richard Biddulph, and her son John Biddulph had two daughters, Mary and Anne,-from whom respectively Mr. Stonor and Mr. Wright Biddulph are descended,--and two sons, the issue of whom failed in 1835; whereupon Mr. Stonor succeeded to the representation of the family, and became the senior coheir to the barony of Camoys. It is certain that Anne Biddulph, from whom Mr. Anthony Wright Biddulph derives, was the younger sister of Mary, from whom Mr. Stonor derives, because, in the will of their brother, Richard Biddulph, Mary is mentioned as his elder and Anne as his younger sister.

The next point to which attention is required, is a link in the line of Mr. Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley. The evidence adduced by Mr. Stonor would have been satisfactory to prove that line, without their additional evidence; because the only point upon which Mr. Stonor could not give legal proof was as to the fact of Edward Lewknor, party to the fine of 18th Henry 7, being son of Elizabeth, or Isabella, Radmylde by Nicholas Lewknor; but as John Goring was proved to be descended from one of the daughters of Ralph Radmylde, it is certain that Edward Lewknor, who was the coheir with him of Ralph Radmylde's grandson, Sir William, must have come from another daughter, because in no other capacity would he have been the coheir of Sir William Radmylde. Again, in the arms as quartered upon the tombstone of Sir Edward Lewknor, and as entered in the funeral certificate taken by the heralds, upon his death, the arms of Camoys are quartered. The additional evidence from the papers of Lord Charles Townshend, containing the pedigree of the Lewknor line, clearly establishes the marriage of Nicholas Lewknor with Elizabeth Radmylde, and the line of descent of the Lewknor family from them to Mary Lewknor, who married Horatio, Lord Townshend. That the names Elizabeth and Isabella are synonymous, it is unnecessary to argue; no person who has looked into the instances referred to in the evidence, can entertain any doubt upon the question. Upon the death of Mary, Lady Townshend, to whom this pedigree comes down, the representation became divided between the heirs of her aunts Anne and Katherine. From Anne, Mr. Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley are descended, an there is no doubt that the line of Katherine, who married one of the Calthorpe family, is totally extinct.

The point, on which probably the Attorney-general will principally rely, is the length of time during which this barony has been in abeyance, and upon that subject it is necessary to offer some explanation." It is an undoubted maxim," as stated on high authority," with regard to honours, that they cannot be extinguished otherwise than by forfeiture or by Acts of Parliament. Claims to baronies which have been long dormant are difficult to be made out, but when ever the right happens to be clearly proved, the safety and dignity of the peerage are both concerned that no length of time should bar or even prejudice the title" (u).- [ The Attorney-general: It is unnecessary for my learned friend to argue that point: as the law now stands, there is no limitation whatever as to time. ]-Then it is only necessary to show why no claim had been preferred by Mr. Stonor's ancestors. They adhered to the Catholic religion, and there were laws which put it out of the power of any Catholic, not only to hold a seat in this House, but to hold any position which would bring him prominently before the public. Some of these laws existed from the reign of Henry 8, soon after John Goring succeeded to Sir William Radmylde. With respect to Sir William Radmylde, his situation and mode of life could not lead to his attaining the favour of the Crown; for at most the claim is to the grace and favour of the Crown. John Goring was but a few years a coheir. In the time of his son, Sir William Goring, the first laws against Catholics were passed. It has been commonly supposed that those laws principally arose at the Revolution, but the most severe of them were enacted between the reigns of Henry 8 and William 3, and William and his Parliaments only continued, or rather modified, them. Mr. Butler, in his notes on Coke on Littleton (v), has, with his usual accuracy and conciseness, summed up the effect of them. These laws, it is true, affected equally peers and commoners, but peers being in a more prominent position were more readily brought to suffer the penalties they inflicted. In the evidence given in the Vaux case, there was an inquisition, which was taken in the reign of James 1,-soon after Edward Lord Vaux attained his majority,-in pursuance of a statute of James, which made a peer, who refused to take the oath of supremacy under Elizabeth's Act, if tendered by five Privy Councillors, liable to forfeit the rent of his estates during his life, and all his goods and chattels absolutely. Lord Vaux having come to town, for the first time after coming of age, was met in the lobby of this House by five Privy Councillors, who tendered to him this oath. His lordship refused to take it, and this inquisition was held in consequence to find the forfeitures. His rents and goods were declared to be forfeited; amongst the latter, his plate and his Parliament robes. Two or three years anterior to that circumstance, the Lords Stourton and Mordaunt did not attend on a particular day, and their lordships being called upon to answer why they did not attend, gave what was deemed an unsatisfactory reason, and they were fined each in the sum of 2,000 marks, -the ordinary fine imposed upon a member for not at tending Parliament being 100 marks; and this small sum was, in consequence of their religious opinions, increased to 2,000 marks. It is no necessary to cite further instances of the dangers which attended the members of this House who professed the Catholic religion. Enough has been said to show that the persons who from time to time stood in the line now represented by Mr. Stonor were not in a situation to ask the Crown to determine the abeyance in their favour: and if that favour could not be safely asked by the elder coheir of Lord Camoys, much less could it be claimed; and it should be remembered that the Weston line, as well as that of Goring, adhered to the ancient faith.

Note i. Vide ante, note (g), p. 797.

Note k. Tit. of Hon. 2d part, c. 5, s. 39.

Note l. Vol. 2, p. 147

Note m. Id. p. 309.

Note n. Vol. 3, p. 11.

Note o. Id. p. 124.

Note p. P. 140.

Note q. Vol. 3, p. 424.

Note r. Sed vide Tit. of Hon. 2d part, c. 5, s. 25.

Note s. This line of Lewknor, distinguished as of Kingston Bowsey, ancestor of Mr. Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley, appeared on the pedigree to be different from Lewknor of Trotton, the ancestor of the Baroness Zouch, Mrs. Pechell, and Madame de la Cainea,

Note t. Ante, Vol. V. p. 540.

Note u. Id. 595.

Mr. Tennant was heard for Madame de la Cainea.

The Attorney-general, for the Crown, on a sub sequent day, observed that, whatever decision the House may come to on some of the evidence, it was certainly impossible to admit the very ancient dignity claimed by the additional printed case, and by counsel at the bar, for Mr. Stonor. No such claim was advanced in his petition to Her Majesty: that petition merely made title under the summons issued in 7 Richard 2, and yet their Lordships were now called upon to admit a title under a summons of 49 Henry 3. There was evidence showing that Ralph Camoys was summoned in 49 Henry 3; that he died in 5 Edward 1; that John was his son, and that Ralph, the son of John, was summoned from 7 Edward 2 to 9 Edward 3. There was no evidence that either Ralph the grandfather, or Ralph the grandson, sat in this House. There was no evidence that Thomas Comoys, who died in 47 Edward 3, was the son, nor that Thomas Camoys, the ancestor from whom the petitioner, Mr. Stonor, claimed, was the grandson of the last-mentioned Ralph; for although it was proved that the Crown acknowledged that Thomas was the heir of Ralph, yet the links of the pedigree by which that heirship was established were not set forth, nor in any manner proved; and without such evidence the petitioner's title to the more ancient dignity was not proved, and could not be admitted, even if the other defects in that title could be cured.

But was the petitioner's title established to a barony under the writ of 7 Richard 2? Upon that question it was impossible not to entertain doubts. The evidence adduced, and the arguments on behalf of the petitioners in this case, involved a point which had hitherto been vexata questio. It would be remembered that one of the points which strongly struck the minds of the noble Lords who prepared the Reports on the Dignity of the Peerage, was the fact of some persons being frequently summoned to Parliament, but whose descendants were never summoned,--persons who were members of this House during their lives, but who did not transmit any dignity to their children. It is perfectly clear that there were, in very ancient times, persons who sat in this House, who were neither earls nor barons, but who were called "bannerets." These must have been the persons who were summoned during their lives; they were summoned in virtue of their high dignity of knighthood, as a kind of honour incident to their position; but that position being merely one which attached to themselves, could confer no title of peerage on their successors. It was, however, argued that several persons who were undoubtedly peers by descent, were called "bannerets.' What did that prove, if admitted? really nothing. To them the dignity of "banneret" could not give a seat in this House, because they had it by descent; nor did it prove that the dignity of banneret did not entitle--perhaps by special favour of the Crown a person not born to a peerage, to a seat in this House during his lifetime. The King's writ to the sheriff produced in evidence proved, not that Thomas Camoys was a peer, but that he was merely a banneret. If that inference was correct, then it was obvious that he was summoned to this House in reference to his dignity of banneret; and that, as that honour was personal to himself, and not transmissible, he could not confer a title on his heirs. In the inquisition on his death he was merely styled Thomas Camoys, Chevalier, but not lord nor baron.

One of the principal difficulties in the pedigree is, whether Sir William Radmylde died without legitimate issue; and to the evidence on that point, and the pedigrees from the Heralds' College, and from Lord George Townshend's muniments, the attention of the Committee was particularly directed, to consider how far that evidence was sufficient to establish the descent of the petitioners from the sisters of Robert Radmylde, in case Sir William died without issue. If the difficulty on these points should appear to the Committee to be removed, then the pedigree of the three first petitioners might be said to be established.

With regard to the line of the other petitioners, and particularly of Lady Zouch and Mrs. Pechell, the evidence was far more defective; for although their pedigree also might be held to be proved, the extinctions of numerous persons in their line of descent were not satisfactorily proved; and in order to enable the House to report that Lady Zouch and Mrs. Pechell are coheirs of the barony, much further inquiry and proof will be necessary.

But supposing an heritable dignity to have been created in Thomas Camoys, and the petitioners to have satisfactorily proved their pedigrees, still the question remains, whether the attainder of one coheir did not drown and extinguish the barony. [ The Attorney-general proceeded to discuss that question; and on the 9th of August, Sir W. Follett, for Mr. Stonor, and the counsel for the other three petitioners, were heard by the Committee to observe on the authorities referred to by the Attorney-general, who was again heard in reply to them on the 14th of August; but as these arguments, on both sides, were again urged on a subsequent day, and they are hereinafter stated, we abstain from here noticing them. ]

The Lord Chancellor:-Your Lordships have had the benefit of a very able discussion of this case, in volving a point of considerable difficulty, and of very great importance, inasmuch as it not only affects the claims now pending before your Lordships, but, when we look back to the period of our history through which these claims run, in all probability it may affect many other claims, which may be intended to be presented.

The difficulty I feel arises not so much from the question of law itself, as from what has taken place in other cases; and I confess that I cannot reconcile that which is laid down by Lord Chief Justice Eyre, in the first Beaumont case, with the resolution which the House came to in the second Beaumont case (x). It does appear rather singular that the House, having in the first of those cases found the question to be of so much difficulty that they required the opinion of the learned Judges, and having had that opinion communicated by Lord Chief Justice Eyre--which opinion was of a nature which I should have thought would have made it very difficult for the House to come to a decision upon the second Beaumout case in favour of the claim,--did come to a decision upon that second case without again referring to the opinion of the Judges. Inasmuch as that decision was inconsistent with the doctrine laid down by Lord Chief Justice Eyre in communicating that opinion, I should certainly have expected that the House would, at all events, have had the case again submit ted to the learned Judges. It will be for your Lord ships to consider whether it be possible to come to a conclusion upon this question without having that assistance. The question has reference not only to the Camoys, but also to the Braye peerage: it was not brought so directly under your Lordships' consideration in the latter case; but having had the benefit of an argument upon this Camoys case, when I came to look over the papers in the Braye case, in the hope of being able to ask your Lordships to come to a resolution upon it, in the present session, the fact immediately presented itself to me, that the same question occurred in the Braye case as in that which your Lordships are now considering; and of necessity, therefore, before your Lordships can dispose of either of these cases you must be prepared to lay down the rule, either that the attainder of one of several coheirs has no effect upon the other coheirs, or that it has so much effect upon those others as to deprive them of all grounds to have the abeyance terminated in favour of any of them. In either way, undoubtedly, this is a question of very great importance to parties claimants; and it is also important as it affects the prerogative of the Crown, and also as it affects your Lordships' privileges; because it is a very different thing to have a member introduced by the prerogative of the Crown, and who takes his place as a junior peer, from having a member take his seat by virtue of an ancient peerage, in right of which he is placed above many others of the same rank

Looking at the importance of this question in all these views, I think your Lordships will concur with me in the opinion, that it requires your most grave consideration before you can come to a decision upon it; and my present impression is, that your Lord ships will not come to any safe conclusion upon it without having it argued before the learned Judges, and being furnished with all the helps upon it, which I should have thought, from what had taken place in the first Beaumont case, the House would have felt to be requisite on the hearing of the second case. The course then pursued renders it the more necessary to consider well, before your Lordships decide this case, what then took place, being apparently inconsistent with the resolution of the Committee of Privileges in the first case. Under these circumstances this question cannot, in my opinion, be satisfactorily disposed of, without having the opinion of the learned Judges. Unfortunately, the period of the session is such as to render it impossible to have their assistance now, but I am sure your Lordships will think we ought to take it at the earliest possible period of the next session.

The case was accordingly adjourned sine die.

Note x. Vide post, p. 833, and at the end of this case.

27 Jun 1839. The Lords Committees for Privileges sat to hear the question of the effect of the attainder further argued, the Judges being present (y). The arguments were directed as well to that question in the Braye as in the Camoys peerage.

The Attorney-general, for the Crown:-This is the case of a claim of peerage where the dignity is said to have been created by writ of summons and by sitting, and therefore descendible to heirs-general of the body. The second peer left no male heirs, but there were female coheirs, his sisters. The descendants of one of them was attainted for treason, but his son and heir was restored by Act of Parliament in blood, but not in honours. The question is, what is the effect of this attainder and restoration in blood, not only on the descendants of the coheir so attainted, but also on the other coheirs, who were not attainted? The doctrine of the effect of restoration is discussed in Lord Hale's Pleas of the Crown (z), and the subject of abeyance is fully treated in Coke upon Littleton (a).-[ He read passages from each of them.]-Suppose there are several coheirs in blood, and all are attainted, it is clear that those who claim under and through the attainted persons can derive from them no legal rights whatever. Then is not a similar result produced on the non-attainted coheirs to a barony by the attainder of one of them? In principle, if the attainted line is cut out, the barony is gone. Why? Because there was something of the inheritance in the person who was attainted. For the barony is one and indivisible; and when a part is forfeited, the whole is extinguished. Such was the opinion of Chief Justice Eyre, in the Beaumont peerage. His Lordship in communicating to the House the opinion of the Judges, observed," A peerage is a most transcendent honour and dignity, but it is still in the eye of the law an inheritance, and it will descend to coheirs in the same manner as other hereditaments do descend (b)." That opinion of the learned Judge has never been over ruled by this House. Now in the Acts for the restoration of the blood of the attainted coheirs in these two cases, there were express exceptions of all hereditaments. The peerage, the highest hereditament, though dormant, was vested in all the coheirs. No single coheir could claim it as of right, as he only participated in the inheritance, which was equally vested in all. It is not bean advowson, to which each may present by trust. In a dignity no one coheir has a separate or especial right; all are equally interested, and all must have an equal capacity to take. The want of capacity in one destroys a title, which to vest at all must vest in all. The whole barony vests in all the coheirs. If that whole be destroyed, where is that indivisible incorporeal inheritance which vested in all? It is most clearly gone. It is not capable of division; that is admitted: then if that which alone ensured its existence, the legal capacity of all in whom it was vested, be gone, the title of those still of capacity cannot survive, for that to which they had title has ceased by the want of capacity in their coheirs to sustain it. This was the ancient law as to homage ancestral, and the case of a peerage is much stronger, as the land held by homage ancestral could be partitioned, but a peerage cannot.

Note y. Lord Chief Justice Tindal, Justices Vaughan, Bosanquet, Patteson, Williams, Coleridge, and Erskine; and Barons Parke, Gurney, and Maule.

Note z. Hale, 358.

Note a. Co. Litt. 342.

Note b. Cruise on Dig. 218.

Mr. Fleming, for Mr. Stonor:-There has been no attainder in the younger line of coheirs descending from Alionora Camoys, nor in the elder branch of coheirs descending from Margaret, and represented by Mr. Stonor and Mr. Wright Biddulph. The argument of the Attorney-general would, if successful, lead to enormous injustice; for by his doctrine, if there were fifty coheirs to a barony, and one committed treason and was attainted, the remaining forty-nine would be punished for his act, although they might have served their Sovereign faithfully. The Sovereign also would be punished for the rebellion of the subject, by being thereby made incapable of preferring any of the co heirs to the barony. The objection of the Attorney general is, that the attainder of Edward Lewknor not only incapacitated his descendants from sustaining a claim to the dignity, but that it also extinguished the prerogative of the Crown to call any of the coheirs of Lord Camoys to the seat of their ancestor, as well as the rights of the unattainted coheirs, although they did not derive title through Edward Lewknor. The corruption of blood is out of the question here; for the Act of Parliament, which restored in blood the son and heir, through whom Mr. Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley derive, enabled him and the other children of the attainted to make their pedigree and conveyance in blood and lineage as heir, as well to and from their attainted father, as to any other person, in the same manner as if he had not been attainted (c).

But whatever was the effect of the Act of Parliament on Edward Lewknor's descendants, it is submitted that he being only a coheir could not forfeit the barony. The forfeiture of part of an inheritance that is indivisible, is impossible. Edward Lewknor was not seised of the barony, nor entitled to it, nor could he claim any privilege of the peerage; he had only a possibility, which is not forfeitable. The Lords Committees, in their Third Report on the Dignity of the Peerage, observed (d), that "John Dudley, son, &c., and one of the coheirs of the body of John Talbot, Viscount Lisle, was, in 34 Henry 8, created Viscount Lisle, without any reference to Kingston Lisle; and being afterwards created Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland, was attainted and executed in the 1st of Queen Mary. This attainder could not affect the dignity of Baron De Lisle, as that dignity was never vested in John Dudley." That observation, great authority in itself, is sustained by several decided cases, all showing that the attainder of a coheir to a barony in abeyance did not affect the right of an unattainted coheir to the grace and favour of the Crown to determine the abeyance in his favour.

In 9 Henry 5, on the death of Edward Charleton, fifth Lord Powys, that barony fell into abeyance be tween his two daughters (e); the younger married Lord Tiptoft, and their son and heir, created Earl of Worcester, was attainted and executed, yet the great grandson of the elder daughter, who married Sir John Grey, was summoned to Parliament as Lord Powys, in 22 Edward 4, and he and his descendants enjoyed the seat and precedence of the Charletons Lords Powys (f). Another case, equally in point to show that the attainder of one coheir did not extinguish the barony, nor affect the right of the Crown to revive the dignity in an unattainted coheir, is that of the barony of Le Despencer. Isabella Le Despencer, on whom that barony descended on the death of her brother without issue, had a son, Henry, Duke of Warwick (whose only child died without issue), and two daughters, Elizabeth and Anne. Anne married Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, and had two daughters, Anne, who died without surviving issue, and Isabella, who married George Duke of Clarence, by whom she had Edward Earl of Warwick, who was attainted of treason in 1499, and Margaret Countess of Salisbury, also attainted of high treason, and executed in 1541. Edward died without issue, but Margaret had by her husband, Sir Richard Pole, an eldest son, Henry Pole, Lord Montagu, who was also executed for high treason, leaving two daughters, both of whom left issue. Elizabeth, the eldest daughter and coheir of Isabella, Baroness Le Despencer, married Edward Neville, Lord Abergavenny; and in favour of her great-grand daughter and heir, Lady Mary Fane, James 1, in the year 1604, terminated the abeyance of the barony of Le Despencer, by letters patent, by the advice of this House, and after the fullest consideration.

To these cases may be added that of the baronies which the ancient Earls of Oxford held to them and their heirs. John Vere, the fifteenth earl, died with out issue in the reign of Henry 8, seised of the ancient baronies of Bolbeck, SANFORD and Badlesmere. He left three sisters, his coheirs, one of whom died with out surviving issue. Elizabeth, another of them, married Sir Anthony Wingfield, and from her descendants still exist. Dorothy Vere, the eldest sister, married John Neville, Lord Latimer, and their son Richard Lord Latimer died without male issue, leaving four daughters his coheirs, and consequently coheirs to the said baronies. Elizabeth, one of these daughters, married Sir John Danvers; and Sir Charles Danvers, her eldest son and her successor as coheir to Dorothy Vere, was attainted of high treason in 43 Elizabeth. Divers claims to the honours of the Vere family were referred by King Charles 1 to this House in 1625; and in answer to certain questions put by the House to the Judges, the Lord Chief Justice Crew, in delivering their opinion, said," And as touching the said baronies of Bolbeck, SANFORD, and Badlesmere, their opinion is that the same de scended to the general heirs of John the fourteenth earl of Oxford, who had issue John the fifteenth earl, and three daughters, one of them married to the Lord Latimer, another to Wing field, and another to Knightly; which John dying without issue, these baronies descended upon the daughters as his sisters and heirs; but these dignities being entire and not dividable, they became incapable of the same, otherwise than by gift from the Crown, and they in strictness of law reverted to and were in the disposition of King Henry 8 (g)." And this House certified to His Majesty in April 1625," that, for the baronies, they are wholly in your Majesty's hands to dispose at your own pleasure (h)."

The last case in which the attainder of one coheir was held not to prejudice the right of the unattainted coheirs, is that of the barony of Beaumont (i), which fell into abeyance in 1507, on the death of William Viscount and Baron Beaumont, without issue. His nieces, Joan and Frideswide, daughters of his sister, were his coheirs: Frideswide married Sir Edward Norreys, by whom she had two sons, Sir John, who died without issue, and Sir Henry, who was attainted of high treason, and executed, leaving a son, Henry, who was created Lord Norreys by writ of summons and was restored in blood by Act of Parliament (k), in 18 Elizabeth. The Earl of Abingdon is now his heir. Joan, the elder niece, married Sir Brian Stapleton, and her heir and representative, Thomas Stapleton, claimed the barony in 1789, on the ground that the attainder of Sir Henry Norreys was equivalent to a natural extinction of his issue, and consequently that the claimant, as the sole heir of the unattainted coheir, was entitled as of right to the barony. Sir A. Mac donald, then Attorney-general, in his report to the Crown on that claim, said," An important question arises, whether by the attainder of Henry Norreys the abeyance is determined, and the heirs of the elder sister exclusively entitled by descent to the barony of Beaumont, by reason of the incapacity of Henry Norreys' heirs, thereby created, to claim through him." Upon the Attorney-general's recommendation, the Crown referred the claim to this House, and the Lords Committees of Privileges de sired that the following question might be put to the Judges," Whether, supposing the claimant to have proved himself to be one of the coheirs of the body of Henry de Beaumont, and supposing a barony to have been created in the said Henry and the heirs of his body, the claimant is entitled as of right to such barony." In 1795, Lord Chief Justice Eyre reported the answer of the Judges to be that," Supposing the claimant to have proved himself to be one of the coheirs of the barony, he was not entitled to it of right." And the House, on the advice of the Lords Committees, resolved," That it does not appear that the petitioner is now entitled to the title, honour and dignity of Baron Beaumont." In 1796, Mr. Stapleton presented another petition to the Crown, stating that the barony was in abeyance, and that he was one of the coheirs, and praying the King to confirm the barony to him and his heirs. This petition was referred to the then Attorney-general (Sir John Scott), who in his report to the Crown, said," He conceived that this ancient barony does exist and is in abeyance, and that the petitioner is a coheir of the first baron. This second petition having been re ferred to the Lords Committees for Privileges in 1798, the evidence produced before them on the former petition was given in (1), and the pedigree of Lord Abingdon as the heir of the only son of the attainted Henry Norreys was proved. The Committee, after hearing counsel for the petitioner, and the Attorney general for the Crown, and after several days' consideration of the whole case, and particularly of the effect of the attainder of one coheir, resolved," That the barony remains in abeyance between the coheirs of William Viscount and Baron Beaumont, descended from his sister Joan; and that the petitioner is one of these coheirs." That resolution was adopted by the House; and therefore it amounts to a solemn adjudication and authority that the attainder of one coheir neither forfeited nor extinguished the dormant barony, nor barred the claim of the unattainted coheir.

The detail of these proceedings shows the extreme caution with which the Lords Committees and this House considered every point of the Beaumont case, as well on the second as on the first reference. It is impossible to suppose that in that case the objection raised to the claim in the present case, was not discussed by the counsel and fully considered by the Committee: nevertheless it was solemnly decided that the attainder of one coheir neither forfeited nor extinguished the dormant barony, nor barred the claim of the unattainted coheir. The resolution of the House in 1795, was in full conformity with the opinion of the Judges, and had the concurrence of Lord Loughborough, then Lord Chancellor, as well as of Lord Eldon, who was Attorney-general during the proceedings. It was also in unison with an opinion Peerage. given upon Mr. Stapleton's case by Mr. Grant, after wards Master of the Rolls; and with the opinion of the Lords Committees, in their fourth Report on the Dignity of the Peerage (m); where, after detailing the proceedings on both petitions of Mr. Stapleton, they observe," That the attainder of Henry Norreys could not at the time of the attainder operate to forfeit the dignity to which he had then no right; nor could the dignity be considered as then merged and extinguished by that attainder, nor afterwards by reason of the incapacityof his son to claim as a coheir upon the death of Sir John Norreys without issue; for during his life the attainder had no effect to bar the claim of the two coheirs as such. And before, as well as after, the death of Sir John Norreys without issue, the heir of the body of Joan Stapleton remained capable of taking the dignity as one of the two coheirs," &c." Neither the attainder of Henry Norreys nor the in capacity of his son could destroy the right then vested in the heir of the body of Joan Stapleton, which her heir had together with Sir John Norreys as coheirs of Henry de Beaumont. During the life of Sir John Norreys, the heir of the body of Joan Stapleton and Sir J. Norreys remained coheirs; and after the death of Sir J. Norreys, the heir of the body of Joan Stapleton remained, as he was before that event, only one of the coheirs."

Against the decision in the Beaumont case and the authorities just referred to, there is no decisive prece dent or dictum, except the doubt suggested by Chief Justice Eyre, in his speech (n) to the House communicating the opinion of the Judges in the first Beaumont case, where that learned Judge says," Your Lord ships might possibly entertain a doubt with regard to these questions (before mentioned), as well as to another question, namely, whether the title to a barony can survive when it is become impossible that all the component parts of it can vest in one," &c. (0).

And again: "Supposing this barony not to be extinct, &c., and the present claimant to be a coheir, let the situation of the other coheir be whatever the counsel for the claimant would wish it to be (except that there is no failure of issue naturaliter), the effect of which might be that the title of that coheir would run upwards to the common ancestor, and from thence fall down in the course of the descent of the Stapleton line, and unite with their title in the person of the claimant, I conceive that one of the cases mentioned by Sir Edward Coke, and upon which the claimant's counsel relied for another purpose, proves that the claimant cannot make title to the whole inheritance."

These observations of Chief Justice Eyre, which are mere obiter dicta and immaterial to the question, to which he was communicating the Judges' answer, form the sole ground on which an objection has been raised to the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown to terminate an abeyance in favour of an unattainted coheir; but those observations are overruled by the decision of this House in the second Beaumont case, resolving that the barony remained in abeyance.

The crime of one coheir has never been held to affect the interests of the others, in the descent of any inheritance divisible or indivisible (p). But the practice of the Crown in terminating abeyances of dignities is decisive of this question. The Crown has frequently preferred one of several coheirs, without regard to the capacity of the others. In 1677, Sir R. Shirley, a coheir of the barony of Ferrers, was admitted to the seat of the Lords Ferrers in this House without any examination of his title, the Lord Chancellor merely stating to the House that he came in on descent (q). In 1721, Hugh Fortescue, a coheir to the barony of Clinton, was admitted to the seat of the Lords Clinton, although the Lord Chancellor informed the House that he was only one of the coheirs (r). In 1763, on Mr. Berkeley's claim to the barony of Bottetourt, the House decided that he was one of the coheirs, some of whom were known, and some not mentioned, although there was no evidence in regard to any of them. And in 1806, Sir Cecil Bisshopp was held to be a coheir of the barony of Zouch, without tracing the descendants of the younger daughter and coheir of the last Lord Zouch. In fact, until the Braye case (s), this House never required petitioner for an abeyant barony to prove more than his own descent and the continued abeyance of the barony.

It is impossible to support the Attorney-general's proposition without endangering the seat of every peer who sits in this House as one of the coheirs of a former peer; for whether the dignity be considered in its abeyance or as revived by the Crown, it is still the same dignity, and its existence under all circumstances depends upon the same principle. Whilst, therefore, we endeavour to argue one member into the House, the Attorney-general tries to argue several out of it.

Note c. See extract from the Act, pust, p. 844.

Note d. P. 227.

Note e. Collins, App. 398.

Note f. Lords' Journals, 33 Hen. 8, p. 167; i Edw. 6, p. 29+; 5 Edw. 6, p. 394.

Note g. Collins, 175.

Note h. Id. 194.

Note i. Cruise, 214.

Note k. An Act not differing materially from the Act 1 Eliz., by which the heir of Edw. Lewknor was restored in blood.

Note l. Not the printed minutes, but the original proofs.

Note m. Pp. 320-21-22.

Note n. See the speech in Cruise, 216.

Note o. Cruise, 221.

Note p. Fieta, b. 5, c. 6, § 18.

Note q. Lords' Journals, 1667, 20th January.

Note r. Id. 1721, 18th March.

Note s. Ante, p. 776.

Sir Harris Nicolas, though counsel for Sir Jacob Astley, was heard for Mrs. Otway Cave on this point: He said it was only necessary for him to show that the attainder of Lord Cobham, one of the coheirs of the barony of Braye (supposing that his interests in the barony were affected by his conviction, and that they were not restored to his descendants), did not affect Mrs. Cave as the heir of another of the coheirs; but it was impossible to argue the question without in quiring into the precise nature of the interest which a coheir has in a barony, and how far it is capable of forfeiture. By the statutes 25 Edward 3, 26 Henry 8, c. 13, 5 & 6 Edward 6, and 1 & 2 Philip g. Mary, only lands, hereditaments, &c. in use or possession at the time when the treason is committed are forfeitable (3 Rep. 10). But the term "hereditaments" does not include conditions (Winchester's case, 3 Rep. 1), rights of action, a right to a writ of error, nor any right which rests in privity, nor founderships, because they are annexed to the blood (Braybrooke's case, Leon. 271; Englefield's case, 7 Rep. 12; Yorke on Torfeiture, 82), nor contingent legacies (Stoke v. Holden, 1 Keen, 145). That a right in abeyance cannot be forfeited, is shown by Ratclyffe's case (Hobart, 334), and by Walsingham's case (Plowden, Com.547), wherein it was decided that a naked right, or a right in posse, and not clothed with possession, is not lost by attainder, and that nothing would revert to the Crown that was not in the party at the time of the attainder. The principle of the law of forfeiture is, that all which the criminal has in actual use or possession, or in which he has such an interest as he may alien ate it, shall be forfeited; and penal statutes must be construed strictly against the Crown and in favour of the subject (Jones, 76; Yorke on Forfeiture, 35).

A dignity in abeyance is vested in no one; no rights can be exercised over it; and no one is capable by himself of calling it into existence. All coheirs form but one heir to a dignity, of which, being impartible, there can be neither division, enjoyment, nor possession. Unlike other inheritances, there can be no writ of partition, and no enjoyment by turn, as of an advowson. A coheir therefore not having even a portion of the dignity, because it is in its nature impartible, has nothing therein to forfeit. The very idea of an abeyance is inconsistent with forfeiture. It is not in the party, but, to use the definition of Lord Coke (1 Inst. 342 b), non est in homine adtunc superstite, sed tantummodo est, et consistit in consideratione et intelligentia legis. The interest of a coheir in a barony is only a potentiality-an eligibility-a possibility-dependent for its completion on circumstances over which he has no control; viz. the extinction of all the other coheirs, or the prerogative of the Crown. If a dignity in abeyance vests any where, it is in the Crown, because the Crown only has power over it; and this was clearly shown by the Oxford case (Collins, 175), and by the preamble of the patent of the barony of Lucas, which was confirmed by Act of Parliament, 15 Car. 2, which declared, that when a barony was in abeyance the King might "give it to which of the coheirs he pleased, or might hold the same in suspense, or extinguish the same at his pleasure." (Cruise, 198-201.)

The learned counsel, after commenting on Chief Justice Eyre's opinion in the Beaumont case, and showing that it was not conclusive, and that there has never been any decision that a coheir forfeits his interest in a dignity, observed that the Lumley case (3 Rep. 10), which was cited by the Attorney general, merely decided that a restoration in blood did not revive a dignity lost by attainder, because the heir having been attainted in his father's lifetime, was incapable of taking for his own benefit, so that the dignity became extinct, or reverted to the Crown, in consequence of his incapacity. A restoration in blood restores nothing, but merely creates a power of inheriting such lands, honours, or hereditaments as were not forfeited by attainder. A right of succession to a dignity cannot be established by a coheir deducing his pedigree from an attainted ancestor, unless his blood has been restored by Act of Parliament. But supposing that the interest of a coheir were lost by his attainder, it would be inconsistent with sound policy or real justice that the rights of the other coheirs should be destroyed; and in all attainders by Act of Parliament, the rights of innocent parties are specially saved. Such a principle would involve in one common fate the innocent and the guilty. But if the interest of a convicted coheir vests in the Crown, it must rather impart more power to the Crown, quoad the dignity, than lessen the power it possessed before his conviction. Whereas the argument that the attainder of one coheir renders the Crown unable to terminate the abeyance in favour of another coheir, implies that after the right or interest of one coheir became vested in the Crown, it had less power over the dignity than when such interest was in the individual.-He therefore submitted that the attainder of a coheir did not in any way affect the dignity or the interests of his heirs, if there had been a restoration in blood; but that even supposing such was the case with respect to the heirs of the criminal, yet that his attainder could not affect the rights or interests of the other coheirs, or of their descendants; nor did it interfere with the prerogative of the Crown to terminate the abeyance in favour of any existing coheir.

The Attorney-general replied:--The admission that a peerage is an inheritance destroys the argument on the other side. No inheritance can be claimed through a person who either had no title to inherit, or who forfeited that title by crime. The restoration in blood did not restore the title to the honours. Then as it is clear that the whole peerage was an inheritance, to which all the coheirs had by birth an equal right, it is equally clear that the loss of the right to claim by any one must deprive all of the right; for the right to the peerage is indivisible, and all the coheirs are in the eye of the law, with regard to title, but one person. As to the argument that forfeiture affects only things in use and enjoyment, it is possible that that may be so as to chattels or other things which may only be enjoyed by one person at a time; but it is not so as to the title to honours, the right to which may exist in many persons at the same time, though the enjoyment of the honour itself can only be conferred by the act of the Crown. All the existing coheirs to an honour are in the enjoyment of the title to the honour, and only wait the pleasure of the Crown to decide which of them shall enjoy the honour. All these persons, for such a purpose, form but one individual, and the forfeiture of one must affect the rights of all the rest. [ Other points made by the Attorney-general are stated and considered by Chief Justice Tindal, in communicating the opinion of the Judges, infra.]

The following questions were proposed to the Judges: During the abeyance of a barony descendible to heirs of the body, one of the coheirs was attainted for treason. An Act of Parliament afterwards passed, in the following terms: * An Act to restore in Blood the Sons and Daughters of Edward Lewknor, esq.; anno primo Elizabeth, No. 32.' (The Act, which was set forth in full after the recitals, was to this effect: ' and by the authority of the same, that your said subjects (the four sons and six daughters of Edward Lewknor), and the heirs of every of them, from henceforth may and shall be, by the authority of this Act, restored and enabled only in blood and lineage, as heir and heirs to the said Edward Lewknor, their father, in such, the same and like manner, &c. to all intents, & c. as they or any of them, their heirs, &c. might or should have been, if the said E. L., their father, had not been attainted: and also that your said subjects (the said sons and daughters) and every of them, and their heirs and the heirs of every of them, from henceforth may and shall be enabled to demand, as to have, hold, and enjoy all such lands, tenements and hereditaments, with their appurtenances, which at any time here after shall descend, come, remain or revert from any of their collateral or lineal ancestors of the part of the said E. L., their late father, other than such castles, manors, lands, tenements, rents, reversions, remainders, services, possessions and other heredita ments, which were the said late Edward Lewknor's, their said father, in use, possession, reversion or otherwise, the day of the attainder of the said E. L., or the day of the said treason by him committed, and other than such castles, honours, manors, lands, tenements, and other hereditaments as your Highness' sister, Queen Mary, or your Highness, was or is entitled to have, or might or ought to have, by force of the said attainder, or by reason of any office found or to be found after the said attainder, in such and like manner, &c. to all intents, &c. as if the said E. L., late father, &c. had never been attainted, &c.: and that your said subjects (the said sons and daughters), and every of them, and their heirs, &c., may hereafter use and have any action or suit, and make his or their pedigrees and conveyance in blood, lineage, and degree as heirs, or heirs, only, as well to and from the said E. L., their father, as also to and from any other person and persons, in like manner, &c. to all intents, &c. as if the said E. L., their said late father, had never been attainted, and as if no such attainder were or had been had, &c.: Provided always, and be it enacted, &c., that this present Act, or anything therein contained, shall not extend to enable, restore or entitle your said subjects, or any of them, or any of their heirs, to any honours, castles, manors, lordships, lands, tenements and other hereditaments which your Highness now hath or had, or is, might, or ought to be entitled to have, by reason of any attainder or attainders of the same E. L. or otherwise, nor to any castles, honours, manors, lordships, lands, tenements, rents, reversions, services and other hereditaments, late of the said E. L., which your Majesty's sister, the late Queen Mary, was entitled to have, by reason of the said attainder or otherwise; saving to your Highness, your heirs and successors, and to all and every other person and persons, &c. all such estate, possession, &c. as your Highness, or any of them, have in or to any honours, castles, &c. and hereditaments, in such manner, &c. to all intents, &c. as though this Act had never been had or made, ' &c.)

"A. claims through the coheir who was so at tainted; B. claims through another coheir: First, is it competent for the Crown to determine the abeyance in favour of A.? Secondly, is it competent for the Crown to deter mine the abeyance in favour of B.? "The Judges requested time to consider these questions.

15 Jul 1839. Lord Chief Justice Tindal this day delivered the opinion of the Judges: My Lords, in the questions proposed by your Lord ships' House to Her Majesty's Judges, it is first supposed that during the abeyance of a barony descendible to the heirs of the body, one of the coheirs is attainted for treason; and after reference made to a certain Act of Parliament, passed in the first year of Queen Eliza beth, intituled," An Act to restore in Blood the Sons and Daughters of Edward Lewknor, esquire," it is further supposed that A. claims through the coheir who was so attainted, and B. through another coheir; and your Lordships then require the opinion of the Judges on these two points, viz.: first, is it competent for the Crown to determine the abeyance in favour of A.? and, secondly, is it competent for the Crown to determine the abeyance in favour of B.? And although the consideration of the questions submitted to us involves some matters of curious learning, upon which no direct authority is to be found in the books; yet, looking at the principle by which we conceive the subject-matter of those questions is to be governed, and reasoning by the analogy to be derived from the decisions of our Courts of Law, so far as they can be held to apply to inheritances of so peculiar a nature as those under consideration; and still further bearing in mind the decisions of this House on cases which have been brought before it; the Judges, who have heard the argument at your Lordships' bar, have arrived at the unanimous opinion that both the questions proposed to us are to be answered in the affirmative.

My Lords, the general rule by which the abeyance of a dignity or title of honour is governed, was not disputed at your Lordships' bar; it has been indeed the established and undoubted law upon this subject from a very early period of our history, that in a case of a barony descendible either to the heirs general or to the heirs of the body, if the baron die leaving only daughters or sisters, or other coheirs, the dignity is in abeyance, so long as more than one of such coheirs is in existence; but so nevertheless that the Crown, the sovereign of honour and dignity, may at any time during such abeyance determine it by conferring the dignity on whichever of the coheirs it pleases; but if the Crown do not exercise such prerogative, and the lines of all the coheirs but one become extinct, then the abeyance is at an end; and such only surviving coheir is entitled as a matter of right to the enjoyment of the dignity. Lord Coke indeed, in his First Institute, seems to think that such has been the law from the time of the Conquest (z), but it has at all events been acted upon, at the least as early as the reign of Henry the Sixth; who, in the case of the Lord Cromwell dying without issue male, and leaving several daughters, preferred the youngest (a); and in more modern times this exercise of the Royal prerogative has been repeatedly put in force; as, amongst many others, in the case of the earldom of Oxford, in 1625, and in that of the barony of Grey of Ruthin (b). But the great contention at your Lordships' bar has turned not upon the fact but upon the nature and qualities of this abeyancy, and upon the legal consequences of the attainder of one of the coheirs pending such abeyance; it being contended on the one part that the attainder of one coheir operated as a forfeiture and extinguishment of the dignity as to all, and con sequently as a restraint of the exercise of the Royal prerogative in giving a preference to any of the unattainted coheirs; whereas it is argued on the part of the claimants that it can have no effect whatever on the unattainted line, but, at the utmost, restrains the Crown from conferring the dignity on any descendant in the attainted line, so long as the corruption of blood by means of the attainder continues.

Now the argument upon which the forfeiture or total extinguishment of the dignity rests for its support is this; that the abeyance of a dignity means no more than that the person who shall enjoy it is at the time in uncertainty and expectation; not that the inheritance itself is in suspense, but that such inheritance in the meantime descends to and vests in all the coheirs equally; and that the dignity being so vested jointly and equally in all the coheirs, and being at the same time in its own nature indivisible and impartible, the attainder of one coheir works the forfeiture of his share; and all the parts or shares in the barony being essential to the constitution of the dignity of baron, and one of them being forfeited, the whole becomes necessarily extinguished: and the authority which has been principally relied upon in support of these positions is the very learned speech of Lord Chief Justice Eyre, when called upon to deliver the opinions of the Judges, in answer to the questions proposed to them by this House in the year 1795, on occasion of a claim to the barony of Beaumont; in one part of which speech that learned person has expressed himself," that the title of the coheirs of a barony is that of unus hæres, and unus corpus: it is unitas juris: they must take it, and it must vest in them as the heir of the ancestors."

Now, before entering upon any discussion of the points submitted to us, it is to be observed that this dictum of Lord Chief Justice Eyre, upon which so great reliance has been placed, was not in any way necessary for the determination of the question put upon that occasion by your Lordships' House to the Judges. The question submitted to them was, whether, supposing the claimant to have proved himself one of the coheirs of the barony of Beaumont, he was then entitled, of right, to the barony; or, in other words, whether one of two coheirs was a complete heir to the ancestor? -a question which the Judges necessarily answered in the negative. But this answer must equally have been given by them whether the dignity had vested in the coheirs, or whether it had, by means of its being in abeyance, become vested in the Crown; in either case, the answer to the question must have been that the one coheir was not the complete heir, so as to claim the barony as a matter of right. The observation, therefore, to whatever weight it may be entitled as coming from so able a Judge, is not to be considered as bearing the same stamp of authority as the opinion of the Judges expressed on the very point on which they were called to advise.

Now it is obvious that the whole strength of the position advanced by the Attorney-general must depend on these two data: first, that when a barony is in abeyance, the share of each coheir in such barony descends to, and vests in, such coheir; and, secondly that the attainder of any one coheir operates as a forfeiture of the part so vested in him: for if either of these data fail, if on the other hand such be the nature of the abeyance of a dignity that it causes the dignity to revert to, or be in the Crown; or, in the language of the old books, to exist in contemplation of law only, instead of vesting in the coheirs, as is the case with lands and other descendible hereditaments,-it is manifest there can be no forfeiture by the coheir, of that which was not in him at the time of the attainder: and again, even admitting that the share of this impartible dignity did, upon the abeyance taking place, descend to and vest in the coheir, still if his interest is not a right of such a nature or description as can be the subject of forfeiture: in either case the consequence which has been deduced from the premises, that the whole dignity is extinguished or gone, becomes altogether untenable.

In order, therefore, to arrive at a just conclusion on the questions put to us, it may be advisable to consider, in the first place, the properties of the abeyance of a dignity, and the legal consequences which flow from such abeyance; and, in the next place, how far any right or interest which can by possibility vest in the coheir pending the abeyancy, is capable by law of being the subject matter of forfeiture. My Lords, all the instances found in the books of the inheritance in land or other tenements being in abeyance, have this common property; that there is no person in existence who is capable of taking. If tenant for term of another life dies, the freehold is said to be in abeyance until the occupant enters; if a man make lease for life, remainder to the right heirs of J. S., the fee simple is in abeyance till J. S. dies (c).

If the parson of a church dies, the freehold of the glebe is in none during the time the parsonage is void; but in abeyance, viz., in consideration and in the understanding of the law, until another be made parson of the same church; and immediately when another is made parson, the freehold in deed is in him as successor (d). And it is an admitted consequence that, where the right to the fee simple is in such abeyance, by possibility it may every hour come in esse; and there the fee simple cannot be charged, granted, or forfeited until it come in esse. If lease for life be made, remainder to the right heirs of J. S., the fee simple cannot be charged till J. S. be dead (e); or (as it is stated in Termes de la Ley, title Abeyance), after one comes in existence to take, it is no longer in abey ance, but in such sort that the right heir may grant, forfeit, or otherwise dispose of the same.

Further, the peculiar nature of the inheritance in a dignity or title of honour, has an important bearing on the question, whether it is capable of vesting in coheirs. That lands and tenements of inheritance vest in coheirs is undeniable; the law of parcenary is too well known to make it necessary to advert to it, but in all the instances in which inheritances are stated in our books to vest in coheirs, that is, in several persons making together one heir, it will be found the hereditament is always capable of being actually enjoyed by the coheirs. Land may be either held and enjoyed by all the coheirs jointly, or after partition made by each coheir in severalty. Where the tenements are in their nature entire and indivisible, as in the case of advowsons, the coheirs may enjoy by appointing to the living in turn, according to their seniority. If under the ancient law a villein had descended to the coheirs, either the profits were divided, or one coheir had the services of the villein for one week, the other for the next. In the case of common without number, or piscary, estovers, and the like, the eldest coheir shall take, and the rest shall have contribution, or if the eldest cannot make contribution, there shall be an allotment made to the one for so long time, and afterwards to the others; and so as to a mill or a toll. But in all these cases the subject-matter is capable of actual pernancy and enjoyment, and it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of having such enjoyment that it should descend to and vest in the coheirs; the inheritance therefore descends upon them, and they settle and arrange the mode of enjoyment amongst themselves. But far different is the case of a dignity; it is an inheritance which is peculiarly sui generis; it is not only in its nature impartible amongst the coheirs, but in its undivided state utterly incapable of being enjoyed by any one coheir. They cannot all take the barony; no one can take it by law in preference to another, nor is there any mode by mutual arrangement, concession, or otherwise, by which all can enable any individual coheir to wear the dignity. The reason therefore fails, for holding that they take the inheritance of the barony, when they cannot take it for any available purpose. And this consideration at the same time fortifies and confirms the doctrine of abeyance as understood in ancient times, which places the inheritance anywhere rather than in the coheirs.

And this mode of reasoning agrees with the law laid down by Lord Coke (f), viz." that the King, who is the Sovereign of honour and dignity, may, for the uncertainty, confer the dignity upon which of the daughters he pleases; "and again, with that of Whitlocke, who says," The King may revive the honour in the issue of either, or suffer it to lie in abeyance or unrevived: "language which, of itself, seems to import that the dignity has not vested in any of the coheirs; for he that has the power to confer must already have the dignity in himself before and at the time of his so conferring it; whereas, if the dignity was already vested in others, it must first be divested out of those coheirs, before, in strictness of language, the Sovereign would be in a condition to confer it. The writ of summons, or the patent, according as the coheir is a male or female, must, on that supposition, have a double operation, one of which is very foreign to their nature, namely, that of divesting the inherit ance in the dignity out of the several coheirs, except as to the one who is favoured and preferred, and unit ing the different shares in him.

Looking, therefore, at the peculiar description and properties of a dignity or name of nobility, there appears nothing in the nature of the inheritance or in reason, that should, a priori, cause it to descend to and vest in coheirs who are altogether incapable of taking in the only way in which the subject matter can be enjoyed, that is, by wearing the dignity; and, on the contrary, it would seem much more suitable to its nature, and more consonant to reason, that when it has arrived in the stream of descent at a point beyond which it can no longer proceed in its regular course, when it is confessedly by all in a state of abeyance, that it should revert to, and so long as such abeyance con tinues, remain in the Crown, that fountain of honour from which it originally proceeded.

But there is an authority on this subject, entitled to the greatest weight, and proving that this doctrine does not rest upon speculation and argument alone: I allude to the judgment in the case of the claims of the Lord Willoughby of Eresby, and the Earl of Oxford, to the great office of Lord Chamberlain, and the baronies of Bolbeck, SANFORD, and Badlesmere. In that case the Judges certify to your Lordships' House," That John, the fifth Earl of Oxford, dying without issue, those baronies descended upon his sisters and heirs; but these dignities being entire and not di vidable, they became incapable of the same, otherwise than by gift from the Crown, and they, in strictness of law, reverted unto and were in the disposition of King Henry 8 (g)." And again, ' in a further opinion, the language employed by the same eminent Judges is this: "That by the death of Earl John, in 18 Henry 8, without issue, having three sisters, those honours re turned to the Crown in strict construction of law (h):" and thereupon this House agreed," That the three baronies are in His Majesty's disposition." And in the formal certificate, delivered to the King, of the opinion of this House, they say, That, for the baronies, they are wholly in your Majesty's hands to dispose at your own pleasure (i)." Now, although it must be admitted that the generality of this certificate, which perhaps exceeded in its application what was intended by the learned Judges themselves, has been in subsequent cases qualified and limited by restraining the power of the Crown to that of selecting one amongst the coheirs; and again, in another particular, viz. that the coheirs being reduced to one, such surviving coheir has the right: still the main ground of the decision, viz. that the dignity had reverted to the Crown, remains altogether unshaken, and the inference to be drawn from that judgment is, that where all have equal pretence, and no one can claim ex debito, the dignity is to be considered as in the Crown. And as to the objection urged by Mr. Attorney-general, that there must of necessity be an actual descent and vesting in the coheirs, for on no other supposition could the only surviving coheir claim a writ of sum mons as a matter of right, -the answer may well be, that when the number is reduced to one, the only reason and cause of any suspension or abeyance is at an end, and that, the reason ceasing, the consequence also ceases, and the whole entire and impartible dignity may then be well supposed to fall upon the complete heir, as in the usual course of descent.

Now if it be the law that the barony does not descend to the coheirs, and vest in each, in separate parts and shares, there is at once an answer to the question, whether, whilst the dignity is in abeyance, the attainder of one of the coheirs shall operate as a forfeiture or extinguishment of such dignity: for upon that supposition there was nothing in the person attainted which could become the subject of forfeiture; the whole had reverted to the Crown for the preservation of the title until the coheirs were reduced to one, or until the Crown in the meantime declared a preference, privatio præsupponit habitum; and on the supposition above made, the party who was attainted had nothing in the dignity to forfeit.

But, my Lords, conceding for the sake of argument, and for that purpose only, that pending the abeyance the inheritance in the dignity had descended to and amongst the several coheirs in the same manner as any other inheritance, still no authority has been cited in support of the position, that the attainder of one coheir would operate as a forfeiture of the whole dignity. It is evident from the old authorities, that in the case of land a coheir attainted of felony or treason forfeits the share descended to him, and that share only. If the other coheirs sue, and there is a plea in abatement that one of the coheirs is not joined as a co-demandant, those who are demandants may reply that "he need not be joined, for that he has committed felony, so that he is not a parcener (j). If, therefore, the inheritance had descended, and had been considered as partible, the attainder of one coheir could not have operated as a forfeiture of the title to the shares vested in the other coheirs. And if such be the law in case of partible inheritances, it would surely be a strange conclusion that because, from the peculiar nature of a dignity, it is impartible, therefore the whole should be forfeited by the attainder of one. Forfeiture is always odious in the eye of the law; and the inference, at once more just and more consistent with the genius of our law, would be that where the inheritance is impartible, on that very account there should be no forfeiture at all; inasmuch as the opposite determination would confound in one common punishment the innocent with the guilty.

But, my Lords, it should be further considered whether the interest which devolves upon each coheir pending the abeyancy, supposing the dignity not to revert to the Crown, is of such nature and description as to be the subject of forfeiture either by common law or statute. That all dignities or titles of honour, whatever be the estate in them, are forfeited and lost by the attainder of the possessor for high treason, is undoubted law." Is it not," as has been justly asked by Mr. Charles Yorke, in his Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture (k)," both natural and politic that a distinction bestowed only for the praise of them who do well, should be forfeitable on the commission of crimes, for a terror to evil-doers?" But neither by common law or statute did the law of forfeiture comprehend within its limits any such right as that which is supposed to exist in the attainted coheir, or any right bearing any analogyto it. At common law, the only real estate which was forfeited by attainder for treason were all the lands of inheritance whereof the offender was seised in his own right, and all rights of entry to lands in the hands of a wrong-doer; and under the statutes 26 Henry 8, c. 13, and 33 Henry 8, c. 20, such forfeiture was made to extend to estates tail vested in possession; but it has always been held that neither by common law or statute was a mere right of action to lands in the hands of a stranger, as, for instance, in the hands of a discontinuee, or of the heir of the disseisor, forfeitable by attainder for treason. But how far does the interest which is in the attainted coheir at the time of the attainder fall short of a right of action? It is a part or portion only of the title of coheir to the dignity, giving the possessor of it, at the utmost, a jus precarium, a mere power of asking from the grace and favour of the Sovereign that the abeyant dignity may be conferred upon him, with the distant chance that, in case all the other lines should fail, the attainted coheir may, in case the corruption of blood be removed, wear the dignity himself.

Other considerations, of a nature perfectly distinct, range themselves on the same side of the question, and strengthen the inference that no forfeiture of the dignity can, under the circumstances assumed, take place. To hold that the dignity is extinguished or forfeited, whilst it remains with the Crown by an exercise of its prerogative to revive it and confer that dignity on one of the innocent coheirs, what is it in effect but to abridge and limit such prerogative of the Crown, and to operate more as a penalty upon the innocent coheirs than on the guilty offender? And I must confess I feel strongly the weight of the observation which has been made at your Lordships' bar, that if the attainder of one of the coheirs of a barony, whilst it is in abeyance, causes the extinguishment or forfeiture of the abeyant barony, it must be matter of very considerable doubt whether such an attainder, after the abeyance has been determined and the barony revived by the Crown, must not be attended with a similar consequence: for it is one and the same dignity, whether it is in abeyance or in possession; and upon all just principles of reasoning, the continued existence of such dignity must be held to depend equally in both cases upon the same title and the same connexion with the deceased ancestor.

But I forbear to pursue the consideration of these additional arguments, because, as it appears to me, the very principle now under discussion, viz. that the attainder of one of the coheirs shall not operate as a bar to one claiming through another of the coheirs to the dignity, has been virtually adopted and acted upon by your Lordships' House in several cases. I refer to the case of Powys barony (m), where John Gray, the descendant of one of the coheirs of Edward Charleton Lord Powys, was summoned to Parliament in the 22d Edward 4, after the attainder and before the restoration in blood of John Lord Tiptoft, the other coheir, enjoying upon that writ of summons the seat and precedence of his ancestor. I refer again to that of the barony of Beaumont (in), in the first petition of the claimant, to which barony he made title of sole heir, upon the ground that the attainder of the other coheir had extinguished that line; and which petition gave occasion to the learned discussion of Lord Chief Justice Eyre before referred to. Upon the occasion of the claimant's second petition, he stated his title as one of the coheirs of Henry the first Baron Beaumont, by his descent through Joan Lady Stapleton; Sir Henry Norreys, the son of Frideswide, the other coheir of the barony, having been attainted and executed in the 28th year of Henry 8. Upon this second petition the report of the very learned Attorney-general of the day, Sir John Scott, raises no difficulty as to the extinguishment or for feiture of the barony, but simply states it to be in abeyance; and the Committee of this House, after argument before Lord Loughborough, the then Lord Chancellor, came to the resolution which was after wards reported to the House, "That it appears to this Committee that the said barony remains in abeyance between the coheirs of the said William, descended from his sister Joan;" which resolution was received and adopted by this House.

My Lords, such being the grounds upon which the rights of the coheir in the unattainted line depend, it remains only to make an observation upon the legal operation and effect of the Act i Elizabeth, No. 32, to which your Lordships' question makes reference, with regard to the rights that may be claimed by the coheir in the attainted line. And, my Lords, it appears by this statute that nothing that had been lost by the attainder has been restored to the descendants of the attainted person, but that the corruption of blood is so completely removed thereby, that the heir may claim through his attainted ancestor, as if no attainder had taken place. That the previous attainder of the coheir effected no forfeiture of the abeyant barony has been already so fully discussed as to make it unnecessary to state more than that the descendant of such attainted cobeir may claim the right of petitioning Her Majesty that she would terminate the abeyance of the barony, by giving the preference to the line of such petitioner, in the same manner as if his ancestor had never been attainted.

Upon the whole, although I should not be justified in making my learned brethren responsible for the precise grounds upon which I have endeavoured to support their opinion and my own, yet I have their full authority to declare our unanimous answer to the questions proposed to us, as follows: 1st, that it is competent to the Crown to determine the abeyance in favour of A.; 2d, that it is competent for the Crown to determine the abeyance in favour of B.

27 Aug 1839. The Lord Chancellor:-My Lords, in this case your Lordships have had to inquire into various claims which are made to a peerage, the origin of which peerage cannot be traced, excepting that the individual from whom the claimants derive their descent is proved to have sat as a peer in this House; this House having held, under those circumstances, where no patent can be found, but where there is proof of the ancestor having sat in this House, that the presumption is that he was summoned by writ; and if summoned by writ he sat under the writ, then that the peerage is descendible to heirs general of the body.

My Lords, in this case there is no doubt that Thomas Lord Camoys sat in this House. Some question had been raised owing to an expression having been used in a writ to the sheriff in the 7th of Richard 2, in which Sir Thomas Camoys is described as a "banneret," and much investigation has been had for the purpose, on the one side, of showing to your Lordships that a banneret might have sat in this House at that period of our history, who was not a baron; and, on the other side, for the purpose of showing that the words "baron" and "banneret" are synonymous, and have the same. meaning; that "banneret" was an order of knighthood, but descriptive of a baron, according to the language of those times. Certainly the history of the term "banneret" is not very satisfactory. There is great uncertainty as to its original meaning; but when your Lordships find the fact of this Thomas Lord Camoys having sat in several Parliaments, and that other individuals, who are ancestors of noblemen now sitting in this House and who were undoubted peers, were bannerets, I think the circumstance of the appellation of "banneret" having been added to his name in that writ, is not such as ought to prevent your Lordships from coming to the conclusion, to which you have come in other cases, of the barony having been a barony by writ, descendible to the heirs general of that Thomas Lord Camoys.

My Lords, another question arose in this case, which also arose in a case in which your Lordships have made a report, namely, the case of the Braye peerage, in consequence of one in the line of the coheirs having been attainted. I do not again advert to that point further than to observe that it was the subject for consideration and of arguments before the learned Judges; and your Lordships have had the unanimous opinion of all the Judges that were present at that discussion, entirely agreeing with the opinion, which I myself formed from the arguments at your Lordships' bar, that that is no impediment to the claim either of the collateral branches, or even of those who claim through the attainted line; the corruption of blood having been removed by Act of Parliament.

My Lords, this case really therefore resolves itself into a question of pedigree; and in all questions of this sort there always must be, from the nature of the case, a considerable degree of doubt as to whether what appears to be evidence of pedigree be or be not satisfactorily made out. If it appears to be satisfactorily made out according to the evidence as it stands, your Lordships' minds may be satisfied that the pedigree is proved; but in all cases of pedigree so much depends not only upon the evidence which is produced, but upon that which is lost by the lapse of time, that the result is always attended with a great degree of uncertainty; and all which your Lordships can do is to come to the best conclusion which you can, always feeling that there may be something behind, which, if produced, would alter the proof. Having looked into the proof of this pedigree with the attention which the importance of the subject requires, and which, from the difficulty of tracing the descent from so early a period, necessarily becomes incumbent upon those whose duty it is to investigate the title of a claimant; it does appear to me that the pedigree has been proved; that is to say, that on the evidence as it now stands your Lordships cannot come to any other conclusion than that the claimant, Mr. Stonor, has made out his claim which he places under your Lordships' consideration, and has established his descent from that Thomas Lord Camoys.

My Lords, another coheir is Anthony George Wright Biddulph, who is not a claimant, but whose title and pedigree it becomes your Lordships' duty to investigate, for the purpose of ascertaining and reporting to the Crown between whom the abeyance now exists. That pedigree, which is also a branch from the same family as Mr. Stornor's, is, I think, also satisfactorily made out. These two parties derive their title from Margaret Radmylde, who was the eldest daughter of the elder grand-daughter of Thomas Lord Camoys.

There is another branch of the family who derive their title from the younger sister of that Margaret, namely, Henry Le Strange Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley; and I think that their line of pedigree is also proved. Mr. Styleman, however, appears to derive his descent from an elder sister in the descent; therefore, as between themselves, Mr. Styleman claims through a senior branch. The case so far appears to me to be not open to any objection, according to the evidence as it stands. There are other parties, one of whom is a claimant, namely, Madame Sophiu de la Cainea. That descent is derived from another sister of the grand-daughter of Thomas Lord Camoys, Alia nora; and as far as that pedigree is necessary to be investigated for the purpose of tracing the descent to the claimant Sophia de la Cainea, it appears to me that that is also satisfactorily made out. There is evidence, and I think, satisfactory evidence, that there are other descendants of that Alianora. These parties are not claimants; and that is the most difficult part of the pedigree, and that upon which the evidence has been the least satisfactory. My Lords, it is not important to inquire farther into that line, because they are not claimants, and all that your Lordships have to do, is to be enabled to report to the Crown whether the title is in abeyance between the parties who have made out their pedigree, and whether there is reason to suppose that there are other persons who may stand in an equal degree with themselves.

Upon that subject I should recommend your Lord ships to adopt the course, which you adopted a few days since in the Braye peerage, of not passing any judgment or expressing any opinion as to the title of the other lines, respecting which there is no claim made; that your Lordships should report the pedigree proved as far as the claimants are concerned, and state also that there are other persons who appear to be coheirs: and, my Lords, that is indispensably necessary for the purpose of enabling the Crown to exercise the discretion which belongs to it, after your Lordships have reported: at the same time not to express any opinion upon evidence which does not appear so satis factory as your Lordships would require, if it were necessary to come to any certain conclusion as to the title of those branches.

My Lords, the result of the consideration I have given to this case would be to submit to your Lordships certain resolutions, which would constitute your Lordships' report upon the reference made by the Crown. First, that Thomas Lord Camoys sat in Parliament in 7 Richard 2; that his barony was created by writ, and was descendible to heirs general; that he had an only son Richard, who died in his father's lifetime, and who had an only son, who died a minor; that Margaret and Alianora, the two daughters of Richard the son of the said Thomas Lord Camoys, were his coheirs; that Thomas Stonor has proved his descent from Margaret, the eldest of these coheirs; and it also appears that Anthony George Wright Biddulph is descended from the same Margaret, Mr. Stonor being descended from Mary the eldest daughter of John Biddulph, who died in 1720, and A. G. W. Biddulph being descended from Anne the youngest daughter of the same J. Biddulph; that it has also been proved that Henry Le Strange Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley are descended from the same Mar garet, the grand-daughter of the said Thomas Lord Camoys, through Isabella, her younger daughter and coheir; that H. Le Strange Styleman derives his descent through Armine, the eldest daughter of Sir Nicholas Le Strange, the common ancestor of H. Le Strange Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley; and Sir Jacob Astley derives his descent through Lucy, the youngest daughter of the said Sir Nicholas Le Strange; that it appears that Sophia De la Cainea is descended from Alianora, the youngest grand-daughter of Thomas Lord Camoys, and that there are other coheirs of the said Alianora now livivg. That, I believe, exhausts the subject which has been referred to your Lordships, and puts the Crown in possession of all the information necessary to be given.

The Earl of Shaftesbury reported the same day to the House a resolution of the Committee in the terms thus moved by the Lord Chancellor.

That resolution was agreed to by the House. It was accordingly resolved and adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, that Thomas Lord Camoys sat in Parliament in the reign of King Richard 2, and that his barony was created by writ and was descendible to his heirs general, and that he had an only son, Richard, who died in his father's life-time, who had an only son, Hugh, the last Lord Camoys, who died a minor; and that Margaret and Alianora, the two daughters of Richard, the son of the said Thomas Lord Camoys, were the coheirs of the said Hugh Lord Camoys, and that the petitioner Thomas Stonor has proved his descent as one of the heirs of the body of the said Margaret, the eldest of those coheirs; and that it also appears that Anthony George Wright Biddulph is also descended as another coheir from the same Margaret; Thomas Stonor being descended from Mary, the eldest daughter of John Biddulph, who died in the year 1720, and the said Anthony George Wright Biddulph being descended from Anne, the youngest daughter of the said John Biddulph; and that it has also been proved that the petitioner Henry Le Strange Styleman, and the petitioner Sir Jacob Astley, bart., are also descended from and are coheirs of the body of the said Mar garet, the grand-daughter of the said Thomas, Lord Camoys, through a younger daughter and coheir of the said Margaret; the said Thomas Stonor and Anthony George Wright Biddulph deriving their descent through Margaret, the elder daughter of the said Margaret; and that the said Henry Le Strange Styleman derives his descent through Armine, the eldest daughter of Sir Nicholas Le Strange, the common ancestor of the said Henry Le Strange Styleman and Sir Jacob Astley; and that Sir Jacob Astley derives his descent through Lucy, the youngest daughter of the said Sir Nicholas Le Strange; and that it appears that the petitioner Sophia de la Cainea is descended, as coheir of the body from Alianora the youngest grand-daughter of the said Thomas Lord Camoys, and that there are other coheirs of the body of the said Alianora now living; and that the said barony is in abeyance between the said petitioner Thomas Stonor, the said Anthony George Wright Biddulph, and the petitioner Henry Le Strange Styleman, and the petitioner Sir Jacob Astley, and the petitioner Sophia de la Cainea, and other coheirs of the body of the said Alianora.

It was further ordered, that this resolution and judgment be laid before the Queen.

Her Majesty afterwards directed Her warrant to the Lord Chancellor to make out a writ of summons to Thomas Stonor de Camoys, chevalier; and he took his seat accordingly, next to Lord Clinton.