« PreviousContinue »
more daughters, who all die, one of them only “ leaving issue, such issue has a right to demand a “ fummons to parliament?”—It was resolved in the affirmative.
The principal objection touching the extinguish
ment of the barony of Broke, by reason of its deLords' Jour. scending to co-leirs, being removed ; Sir Richard
Verney claimed the barony of Willoughby de Broke, as 634-643
the sole heir of Sir Robert Willoughby de Broke.
vol. 15. P:
Sir Thomas Powis, as his counsel, read a list of those peers, who had baronies by writ in them, included under higher titles, and also a list of those lords, who then fat in the house by virtue only of original writs of summons, and by descent from baronies in fee ; and a list of several noble ladies, who had then such baronies in them, some of whom had been declared baronesses in parliament: and insinuated to the Lords, that, while he was arguing one peer into the house, the king's counsel were arguing several noble dukes and earls out of their baronies, and several sitting barons out of the house. For, if a summons by writ was not an estate in fee, and descendible, then might the king choose, whether he would summon those barons any more to parliament, after the conclusion of the present parliament; and so by that means would subject the .peerage to great uncertainties, and destroy all their relolutions and judgments, touching the descent of such baronies.
The king's counsel urged several instances of ancient times against the descent of such baronies, and argued
against the operation of the writ; and that in this case it did not appear, but that the first foundation of the honour might have been by patent, or for life, or in tail male; and vouched Bromflete's case, and Lord Vesey's writ of summons. He farther insisted, that the descent of the barony to co-heirs did merge or extinguish it, or make it revert to the crown ; and that it was in abeyance, by which means it was left to the clutches of the law, so as not to be taken out from thence, by any person whatsoever, otherwise than by a new creation.
The petitioner's counsel replied, that the honour could not be by patent, nor by writ, with a limitation to the heirs male : for that there was issue male from each of the two Sir Robert Willoughbys, who yet were not barons; insisting upon the right of the
peerage in general, and that, upon the true construction, the title was Willoughby of Broke.
After long debate, it was resolved that Sir Richard Verney had a right to a writ of summons to parliament, by the title of Lord Willoughby of Broke.
A writ of summons was accordingly issued to him ; Lords Journ. and he was seated in the House of Peers by descent, vol. 15.668. without ceremony, in the ancient place of his ancestor Sir Robert Willoughby, next above Lord Eure.
$ 170. The same point was again determined in the following case.
In 1720, Catherine Bokenham claimed the barony of Berners, which had fallen into abeyance ; as sole heir of Sir John Bourchier Lord Berners; the abeyance being then terminated. This petition was referred by his Majesty to the House of Lords; and Lord Clarendon reported from the committee of privileges, that search had been made so far back as the reign of 3., whether
any patent had been granted for creating Sir John Bourchier a baron; but none could be found.
That there was produced a writ of summons to parliament, 33 Hen. 6., directed Johanni Bourchier de Berners, along with several other writs directed to him; and also several writs directed to his grandson and heir. That the committee had inspected the Journals of the House in the reign of Henry 8., and found the name of Lord Berners entered therein as present several days.
That it appeared to the committee, that the petitioner was (by the death of her brothers and fifters without issue) become sole heir of Sir John Bourchier, Knt., first Lord Berners; and was lineally descended from him.
The house resoved, that the said Catherine Boken. ham had a right to the faid barony of Berners.
Attainder of § 171. It has been held by the House of Lords in one of two
a recent case, that, where a barony was in abeyance Co-heirs does not determine between two persons, the attainder of one of them the abeyance.
for high treason did not terminate the abeyance, and give to the other a right to the barony.
$ 172. Thomas Stapleton, of Carleton in the county Printed Cases,
Dom. Proc, York, Esq. claimed the barony of Beaumont; and
1794-5 stated, that Henry de Beaumont was summoned to par, liament in the second, third, fourth, and several other years of the reign of Edward 2. and sat in parlia,
That the barony of Beaumont descended to William Lord Beaumont, who died 24 Hen. 7. without children, leaving an only filter, Joan. That the said Joan married John Lord Lovell, and had issue a son, who died without issue, and two daughters ; Joan, who married Sir Brian Stapleton, to whom the claim. ant was heir at law, and Frideswide, who married Sir Edward Norris. That Frideswide had two sons, Sir John Norris, who died without issue; and Henry Norris, who was attainted of high treason in 27 Hen. 8. and from whom the Earl of Abingdon was lineally defcended.
That, upon the death of Sir John Norris, without issue, the abeyance in the barony of Beaumont ceased; and the whole right and claim to the same vested in the heirs of Joan the eldest sister. That the petitioner was the heir general of Henry de Beaumont, who was first fummoned to parliament ; and therefore apprehended, and was advised, that he had a legal claim to the faid barony.
This petition was referred to the Attorney General (Sir John Scott), who reported,
" That an impore S3
“ tant question arose, whether, by the attainder of “ Henry Norris, the abeyance was determined, and “ the heirs of the eldest sister exclusively entitled by “ descent to the barony of Beaumont, by reason of “ the incapacity of Henry Norris's heirs thereby “ created, to claim through him? Upon this point “ point he humbly certified to his Majesty, that he “ had not been able to find any satisfactory determi“ nation; and, inasınuch as this point materially “ affected his Majesty's royal prerogative, and the
principles of law, with respect to the descent of “ honours and dignities; he humbly presumed to “ submit to his Majesty, that, before any act was done “ pursuant to the prayer of the petition, it might be “ fitting to refer the whole matter of the petition to c the House of Peers."
The petition having been referred to the House of Peers, it was contended by Mr. Stapleton's counsel, that the coheirship was determined by the attainder; and that the case of Charleton Lord Powis was in point.
In that case, Lord Pcwis died seised of the barony of Powis, which was created by writ, leaving two daughters, Joan married to Sir John Grey, and Joyce, married to Lord Tiptoft. Joyce left issue a son, John Lord Tiptoft, who was created Earl of Worcester, and was attainted of high treason, and executed 10 Ed. 4. Joan had issue a son, who left issue a son Richard, who left issue a son, John. Neither Henry nor Richard were 'ever summoned to parliament; but John, who was