New-York tribune., 1911-11-30
No Lonner a Baronet.

About year or SO ago King George. on
the recommendation OF the government
and i'm Difference to a petition presented TO
the crown by the bOna-fide members Of the
order of Baronets, created a special tri-
hunal for the purpose OF determining
claims 10 baronetcies and to advise him
thereof Until that time there had been no
tribunal competent TO deal with the mat
ter. such as the peerage has, in the So
called Committee Of Privileges Of the House
Of Lords The consequence was that any
one who wished to do so was free to adopt
the title Of baronet.
The new tribunal for the baronetage is
composed Of a committee Of members OF
the Prlvy Council OF the King, specially Sc
lected BY him for the purpose. Under their
direction and supervision list OF bona
nde baronets was drawn up-that is to say,
OF baronets whose rights were beyond all
Cavil-roceived his approval and was Of
fcialIy gazetted as the only list recognized
by crown and government. or course sew
cral persons who had been using the title Of
baronet and who had been omitted from
the list applied for "A place thereon and
submitted their claims TO the committee
IN three instances their rights were rec
ognized. while in another case. that OF Sir
Herbert Perrott the sovereign was recon-
mended 10 confirm the title. which had
ueen borne. in consequence Of very nat
ural error. for nearly two hundred years.
without the original patent being duly reg
istered by the College of Arms.
The committee Of the Privy Council on
the baronetage has now. for the first time.
turned down "a claim, which has been IN
consequence thereof rejected by King
George. The unsuccessful petitioner is Ed
mund Charles Cox. who has been flourish
ing as "a baronet for d number Of years,
and has his name recorded as the fifteenth
holder OF the baronetcy of Cox of Dunman-
way. i'm Ireland in most Of the works OF
reference devoted 10 the enumeration OF
the possessors of English titles.
Some years ago. indeed, Sir Edmund
Cox's name and title appeared in the Lon
Gon Nineteenth Century Review as the
author Of particularly foolish article.
promuIsating a plan for England's sum
mary arrest OF the naval preparations OF
Germany 10y forthwith destroying every
0attIeship and cruiser possessed by the
latter. without warning or declaration OF
war.
Tho Hsronetcy Of Cox Dunmanway was
originally created by letters patent dated
November q. l705. in favor Of Sir Richard
cox. Lord Chancellor Of ireland. SIT
Richard had nine sons. one Of whom be-
came Archbishop OF Casfrel Sir Edmund
Cox. tine claimant. urged his rights 10 the
baronctcy a. the nearest male heir oi
william COX. the eighth son Of the hrst
baronct. The claimant had no documentary
evidence proving this descent-nothlng
save mere family tradition. Nor was ne
able 10 show that all the descendants IN
Tho male lire direct OF the seven elder sons
Of the first baronet and all OF whose rights
would enjoy priority 20 his own. had be-
come extinct An that he was able TO put
forward was the fact that the title had
been borne for tventy-One years by MS
father. the Rev George Cox, assistant
master AT Cheltenham College and rcauer
NJ the London publishing house or Long
man * co. until his death in 1902 when the
baronetcy was assumed 10y his son h'o-
munI. at that time an inspector OF ponce
i'm Bombay The only official recognition
which Sir" Edmund was able 20 produce
Of ms pretensions was the fact that ne hau
drawn his pay until his retirement ias'
year and since then his pension. under the
name of Sir Edmund Cox.
The committee OF the Privy Council III
consequence Of this condition OF anairs'
''humbly advised his majesty that the
name OF Edmund Charles Cox be not en-
tered on .he official roll OF baroncts. IN re-
,pect 10 the baronetcy OF Cox Of Dunman-
way" and the King, on the strength OF
This recommendation by bis priyy couh-
cillois rejected the petition Of the claim
unt
owing 20 the publicity which the case mas
received il is doubtful whether the thus de-
featod petitioner will have the impudence
o. continue 20 assume title which mas
been denied 10 him by the Crown. ana
which has been judicially proved not 10
belong 20 him ON the other hand. there Is
no legal penalty provided by English Ia"
Tor the usurpation OF any nObliary utle'
unless II be for purposes OF fraud IN
which event the man may be criminally
prosecuted for obtaining money or goods
under false pretences
How wise has been the decision OF the
committee OF the Privy Council Is demon
slrated by the fact that, thanks to the pub
ncty Of the proceedings, no fewer than four
other bearers of the name OF Cox have
birncd up who declare that they are able
a. prove that they are descended from one
nr another OF the elder sons of the first
hsronet. one. lndeed-Captain John Haw-
trey Cox, formerly Of the 1nniskiiling
Dragons and a veteran OF the Zulu ana