The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-23 00:00:00

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 22.
Their lordships sat this morning at 11 o'clock, as
a Committee for Privileges; Lord Redesdale in the
chair.

THE WILTES PEERAGE.
This was the claim of Simon Thomas Scrope, of
Danby-on-Yore, in the county of York, Esq., to the
honour and dignity of Earl of Wiltes.
Mr. Fleming and Mr. Cayley appeared for the
claimant ; and the Attorney-General and Mr. C.
Clarke watched the case on the part of the Crown.
Mr. Fleming, in opening the case, said that he
( had the honour of appearing before their lordships
on behalf of the claimant. The peerage was created
by King Richard 11., in the 21st year of his reign,
in the person of Sir William Scrope. One pecu-
liarity of the creation was that the title and dignity
was limited to Sir William Scrope, " to hold to him
and his heirs male for ever." Tne claimant did not
claim as a descendant of the first earl, but as a
descendant of a collateral branch of his family; it

having been decided by the House in the Devon
Peerage that a grant of a peerage to a person, " to
him and his heirs male," did not limit the descent
of the title to the heirs of his body, but embraced
his collateral heirs male. William, the first Earl of

Wiltes, was put to death in July, 1399, at the time
of the invasion of the kingdom by Henry of Lan-
caster, and before the abdication of Richard 11.,
leaving no issue. Richard Lord Scrope, the father
of the first earl, was one of the most distinguished
members of their lordship' house, being eminent as
a statesman, as a warrior, as holding the Great
Seal, and as being the first layman whose coat-of-
arms appeared in that house as having held the
office of Lord Chancellor. Richard Lord Scrope
died in May, 1403, and his son, the next brother
and heir male of William Earl of Wiltes, in Decem-
ber of the same year, leaving a son, Richard, only
ten years of age. The latter died in August, 1421,
leaving an infant son, Henry, who did not come
of age until 1439. When Henry Lord Scrope came
of age it was probable that everything connected
with the creation of the earldom of Wiltes had
been lost sight of, as the charter granting the
dignity most likely fell into the hands of HenrylV.,
and its provisions were wholly unknown until a
short time ago, when the proceedings in the Devon
Peerage brought it to light. No claim to the title
had ever been made since the death of tne first earl
until the present time.
The Lord Chancellor said they observed that in
the Parliament of the Ist of King Henry IV., after
the act had passed which made void all the proceed-
ings of the Parliament of the 21st Richard 11., the
Commons prayed that the pursuit, arrest, and the
judgments, and whatever else was done against Sir
William Le Scrope, Sir Henry Greene, and Sir
John Bussey might be affirmed in the then Parlia-
ment and held good, and that an act for that pur-
pose was accordingly passed. The course that the
Committee would desire should be followed was
that Mr. Fleming should proceed with his case and
the evidence in support of it up to that point, and
then they would require the question to be con-
sidered whether, having regard to the fact that there
had been no claimant to this dignity since 1399,
and to the proceedings that then took place, it must
not be held that the earldom of Wiltes was not in
effect extinguished, and the title absolutely abro-
gated and lost from that period.
Tvlr. Fleming, in obedience to their lordship's
suggestion, proceeded to cite the case of the dispute
for precedence in Parliament between John Earl-
Marshal and Earl of Norfolk and Nottingham. the
second, but then only surviving son and heir of
Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham, created
Duke of Norfolk in the 21st of Richard 11., and
Richard Earl of Warwick. The controversy was
carried on with great violence, and interrupted the
ordinary business of Parliament. In the 3d of
Henry VI. the House of Commons presented a peti
tion to the King in Parliament, stating the evils
which it was supposed might arise from the quar-
rel, and suggesting that the Earl Marshal was in
truth Duke of Norfolk under King Richard's grant,
and that therefore the examination into the question
of precedency was unnecessary. Shortly afterwards
the Earl-Martial presented his petition to the
King, setting forth his claim for precedency, the
interference of the House of Commons, the crea-
tion and the dignity of Duke of Norfolk, and his
own title to that honour, which petition was re-
ferred to Parliament. In the record of Parliament
relating to the claim his claim was upheld, not-
withstanding the revocation of title by the Ist
Henry IV_, on the ground that "the creation of
dukes or earls or other dignities doth pertain only
to the King and not to the Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor inquired whether Mr.
Fleming could produce any other authority upon
the point.

Mr. Fleming had not any other authority to cite
on the subject, but considered that one case to be
quite sufficient to establish his proposition that
Parliament could not abrogate a title when once
granted by the act of the Sovereign, unless the
person deprived of it had been attainted of treason.

- The Lord Chancellor said the title of Earl of
Wiltes was created by Richard 11. in full Parlia-
ment, and de facto all the proceedings of that Par-
liament were abrogated by the Ist Henry IV-, and,
therefore, the Committee would require that Mr.
Fleming should show that the titles created in that
parliament were not abrogated with all its other
Azte•

„intattet..-yeletmling said the Act did not specially abro-
Earl
a Loq
Chelmsford
of the Earl of Wiltes.
a e observed that perhaps, as the
Henry Iv., itt`,%,
and had. Cete_a had left no heirs male of his body,
beheaded before the accession of
theeir not thought necessary specifically
Lord Redesdaltie %id
to abrogate
was well aware of Wiltes in the Aet
o.he was not called the Earl
William de Scrope. '.. 1-st Henry IV., but merely
to death
those facts. The
lewmiinitges
was
put
July, in the 23d of Richard
11. (1393
on the 29th of
Eal‘rilr.oFf
no legal record of his trial or exee.e34r), there being
of the two other gentlemen -whe"Z32 or of those
with him at Bristol. At that time i7e taurdered
who had left the kingdom in the vrillefi!lichard,
was tho lawful Sovereign of the connt„u7 j‘ilY,
left his uncle Edmund, Puke of York, "iie"stavig
Regent ; the Earl of Wiltes,
Lord treasurer ” " . _er ; sir
,
Greene, and Sir William
John Btrsey, Sir Henry
Bagot, Keepers of the Castle el Wallingford, where
Isabella, the Queen, kept her Court during the
King's absence. While he Was away Henry of
Lancaster, the eldest son of the Duke of Lancaster,
landed in the north of England in consider-
able force, not at that time claiming the crown of
England, but merely professing to be endeavouring
to recover the possessions of his father. Until the
29th of September Richard was acknowledged on
01 hands to be the lawful Sovereign of the country,
hut at that time a great number of discontented
nobles having joined Henry of Lancaster, and King
Richard, who was then in his hands, having abdi-
cated, he assumed the title of King. It was there-
fore impossible, under any pretence, that until the