At the same time and in the same Sitting of Parliament the King elevated six Earls to the rank of Dukes, created John Beaufort Earl of Somerset, Marquess of Dorset, and raised three Barons to the rank of Earls, and limited all those Honours to the Heirs Male of the bodies of the Grantees, making a most marked distinction between the limitation of the Dignity granted to Sir William Scrope and the limitations of the Honours conferred upon the other Noblemen. The King on the same day created his Cousin Margaret Countess of Norfolk, the Grandmother of Thomas Mowbray Earl of Nottingham previously raised to the Dignity of Duke of Norfolk, Duchess of Norfolk, to hold during the whole of her life, a further destination of the Honour being unnecessary, as her Grandson and Heir Apparent had been previously created Duke of Norfolk.

A Grant with a limitation to the Heirs Male of the Grantee, not limiting the descent to the Heirs Male of his body, but extending it to all his Heirs Male, had been previously made by King Richard in the sixteenth year of His Reign.

After the attainder and forfeiture of Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland and Earl of Oxford, the King conferred the Dignity of Earl of Oxford, by a Charter granted and made with the assent of Parliament, upon Aubrey de Vere, the Uncle of the attainted Duke, AND HIS HEIRS MALE FOR EVER. The Charter was dated on the 12th of February in the 16th of Richard II, The Dignities of Earl of Oxford and Earl of Wiltes were the only Peerages conferred by Richard the Second with a limitation to the Heirs Male of the Grantees.-It does not appear that any prior Grant with such a limitation had been made.

On the 2nd of June in the twenty-sixth year of His Reign, King Henry the Sixth created Sir Thomas Hoo, Lord Hoo and Hastings, to hold to him and HIS HEIRS MALE FOR EVER, and on the 28th of November in the twenty-eighth year of His Reign, he created Sir Thomas Percy, a younger Son of the Earl of Northumberland, Lord Egremont, TO HOLD TO him and HIS HEIRS MALE FOR EVER; and on the 25th of June following, he created Sir Thomas Grey, the Brother of Edmund Lord Grey of Ruthyn, the First Earl of Kent, Lord Richmont Grey, WITH A LIMITATION TO HIS HEIRS MALE. No subsequent Grant of a Dignity with a destination to THE HEIRS MALE GENERAL of the Grantee was made until the first year of Queen Mary's Reign. On the 3rd of September in that year the Queen created Sir Edward Courtenay Earl of Devon, TO HOLD TO HIM AND HIS HEIRS MALE FOR EVER. A Title of Honour with a similar limitation has not since been conferred in England, and the six Dignities mentioned appear to have been the only Peerages of England ever granted with a limitation to the Heirs Male of the Grantees.* (Note A.) King Charles the First in the third year of His Reign granted the Dignities of Viscount Kynalmeaky and Baron of Bandon Bridge in Ireland to Lewis Boyle, a Younger Son of the Earl of Cork, with remainder, in default of issue male to him, to the heirs male of the body of the Earl, his Father, and, in default of such issue, TO THE right Heirs Male of the said Earl for EVER, and in the same year the King conferred

* Translations of the Letters Patent granting these Dignities are printed in the First Appendix to this Case.

NOTE (A.)—It has been said that the Letters Patent granting the Dignities of Lord Lucas of Shenfield and Lord Cobham, dated respectively on the 3rd of January in the 20th of Charles I., contained a limitation to the Heirs Male of the Grantees, but upon an examination of the Records it has been ascertained that the limitations are to the Heirs Male of the bodies of the persons named in the Letters Patent.

the Dignity of Baron of Broghill upon Roger Boyle, another Younger Son of the Earl of Cork, with a limitation to the heirs male of his body, and, on failure of such issue, to the heirs male of the body of his Father, and in default thereof, TO THE RIGHT HEIRS MALE OF THE SAID EARL FOR EVER. No subsequent instance of a limitation to the Heirs Male General of the Grantee has been found in Grants of Peerages of Ireland. A destination to the Heirs Male General of the Grantee was very common in Grants of Dignities in Scotland, and appears to have been universally admitted as a valid limitation, and to have been at all times acted upon without dispute or question; and many Peerages in Scotland are now held and enjoyed under such a destination, and by Noblemen not descended from the Grantees.

There was no succession under either of the three Dignities conferred by Henry the Sixth. Thomas Lord Hoo and Hastings had no male issue. He names a brother, Thomas Hoo, in his Will, but no one has claimed to be the Heir Male of Lord Hoo and Hastings at any time since his decease, and the family has been long considered as extinct. Lord Egremont was killed at the Battle of Northampton in 1460, and died without legitimate issue. He left his Nephew, the then Earl of Northumberland, his Heir Male. The Earl was slain at Towton in 1461, and was attainted by Act of Parliament. Lord Richmont Grey was never married. He was attainted, with other Adherents of Henry the Sixth, by Act of Parliament in the 1st Edward IV., and his Dignity and the Dignities of the other Attainted Noblemen were extinguished by a special provision in the Statute. So far as can be traced the Earl of Stamford appears to be now the Heir Male of Lord Richmont Grey.

The Dignity of Earl of Oxford was originally granted by Henry the Second to Alberic de Vere and his Heirs. It descended in a direct line of descent to Robert de Vere the Ninth Earl, who was created by Richard the Second Marquess of Dublin and Duke of Ireland. By a Judgment for High Treason pronounced against the Duke by his Peers in Parliament in the 11th of Richard the Second, the Earldom of Oxford and the other Honours of the Duke were forfeited. The Charter of the 16th of Richard II., was granted to Aubrey de Vere in consequence of that Forfeiture. All the proceedings of the Parliament of the 11th Richard II., were abrogated by an Act passed in the 21st of Richard II., and the forfeiture of the Duke of Ireland was thereby annulled, but the Act of the 21st of Richard II., was repealed in the 1st of Henry IV. The Act of the 1st of Henry IV., so far as it affected the Duke of Ireland Earl of Oxford, was however repealed by a Statute of the 4th of Edward IV., and the forfeiture of the Duke of Ireland was thereby finally set aside. The Dignity of Earl of Oxford descended in a regular course of descent from Aubrey de Vere the Grantee in the 16th of Richard II., to John de Vere the Fourteenth Earl of Oxford, who was the Heir Male as well as the Heir-at-Law of all the prior Earls of Oxford. Earl John died without issue in the 18th of Henry VIII., leaving his two Surviving Sisters and the Son of his Eldest, but deceased, Sister, his Coheirs. If the original Earldom of Oxford were vested in him in consequence of the abrogation of the forfeiture of the Duke of Ireland it fell into Abeyance upon his decease, but the Earldom of Oxford granted in the 16th of Richard II., to Aubrey de Vere and HIS HEIRS MALE, devolved upon Earl John's Cousin and Heir Male, John de Vere, who sat in Parliament as Earl of Oxford without question or dispute. Henry Earl of Oxford, the Great-grandson and Heir Male of John Earl of Oxford, who succeeded in the 18th of Henry VIII., died without issue in 1625. He left his Cousin Robert Lord Willoughby, the Son of his Aunt, his Heir-at-Law, but he had three Sisters of the half blood, the issue of his Father by his first Wife, and they were the Coheirs of Edward Earl of Oxford, the Father of Earl Henry, and also of John who succeeded to

the Earldom in the 18th of Henry VIII.* Robert de Vere, the Heir Male of Henry Earl of Oxford, Lord Willoughby of Eresby, and the Countess of Derby, the Eldest Daughter of Edward Earl of Oxford, respectively claimed the Dignity, and King Charles the First referred their claims to the consideration of the House of Lords. The Judges were consulted by the House, and they certified their opinion that the Grant of the 16th of Richard II., was in effect an Act of Parliament, and that it validly limited the descent of the Dignity to the Heirs Male General of Aubrey de Vere the Grantee, but they intimated an opinion that such a limitation could have been effectually made solely by Act of Parliament. (Note B.) The House of Lords on the 22nd of March 1625-26, decided in favour of Robert de Vere the Heir Male, but no note of the grounds on which the House decided has been preserved.t

From the period of the decision in the Oxford Case no claim was made to a Peerage of England limited to the Heirs Male of the Grantee until the recent claim of the late Viscount Courtenay to the Earldom of Devon, but the Grants of the Irish Dignities of Viscount Kynalmeaky and Baron of Bandon Bridge were made by Charles the First on the 28th of February 1627-28, within less than two years after the decision in the Oxford Case. Those Grants afford a strong proof that the Advisers of King Charles did not concur in the opinion given by the Judges-that a limitation to the Heirs Male of the Grantee could be validly created solely by the authority of Parliament.

The original Earldom of Devon, a Dignity in Fee tail and descendible to Heirs general, was allowed to Hugh Lord Courtenay, as the Heir, by descent from his Greatgrandmother, of the Prior Earls, in the 9th of Edward III. It was forfeited upon the Attainder of Thomas the Fourteenth Earl and the Sixth Earl of the Courtenay Family in the 1st of Edward IV., and the original Earldom was never restored. The right to it, if it had been restored, would have vested in the Heir of Lady Joan Clifford, the only Sister of the Attainted Earl who left issue, and from whom there are descendants now in existence. Charles Clifford, her Son, was restored in blood as her Heir by Act of Parliament in the 19th of Henry VII. In the Act she is described as Sister and Heir of Thomas Courtenay late Earl of Devonshire.

Three

Hugh the second Earl of Devon of the Courtenay Family had five Sons. younger Sons died without issue, and Sir Philip Courtenay of Powderham, the Fifth Son, who died in 1406, was the Ancestor of Viscount Courtenay. Edward Lord Courtenay, the Eldest Son of Earl Hugh, died in his Father's lifetime leaving issue two Sons. Edward

* The Pedigree of Robert de Vere Earl of Oxford is printed at the end of the First Appendix.

NOTE (B).—It is singular that in the Opinion of the Judges as delivered by Chief Justice Crew, and also in the written Certificate made by them, they should state that at the time the proceedings of the 16th of Richard II., took place, Aubrey de Vere was seized of the Original Earldom of Oxford, and that they should ground their Opinion upon that statement—the fact being that the proceedings in favour of Aubrey de Vere and the Charter granted to him were founded solely upon the finding of Parliament to the effect that Alberic was not seized of the Earldom, and that by reason of the Dignity having been an Honour in Fee and Unentailed, he could not make any lawful claim or show any title to it; and consequently that the King's Grant was purely an act of Grace and Favour.

The Coheirs of John the Fourteenth Earl of Oxford did not appear upon or take any part in the proceedings before the House of Lords in 1625-26.

the Eldest succeeded his Grandfather as Earl of Devon, and Thomas Courtenay, the Attainted Earl, was the third in descent from him. Sir Hugh Courtenay was the Second Son of Edward Lord Courtenay and the only brother of Edward the Third Earl of Devon of the Courtenay Family. Sir Edward Courtenay, the fifth in descent from Sir Hugh Courtenay, was created Earl of Devon, TO HOLD TO HIM AND HIS HEIRS MALE, BY QUEEN MARY IN 1553. Edward Earl of Devon died in Italy in 1556, and on his decease the Dignity of Earl of Devon became dormant. Sir William Courtenay of Powderham, the descendant of Sir Philip Courtenay the Fifth Son of the Second Earl of the Courtenay Family, was his Collateral Heir Male, and the issue of his Great-great-aunts were his Heirs-at-Law. Sir William Courtenay of Powderham died in 1557, and no claim was ever made by him, nor was any claim made by his Successors to the Dignity of Earl of Devon until 1830.*

In 1830 William Viscount Courtenay, the Grandson of Sir William Courtenay, who had been created Viscount Courtenay by Letters Patent of King George the Third in 1762, claimed the Dignity of Earl of Devon under the Grant of Queen Mary, as the COLLATERAL HEIR MALE OF EDWARD COURTENAY, THE GRANTEE. The Viscount, by his Petition to the King, presented in June 1830, prayed that his right to the Earldom of Devon might be recognized by His Majesty, and that he might be summoned to Parliament as Earl of Devon, The Petition was referred to His Majesty's then Attorney-General, who on the 15th of November 1830 made his Report thereon to His Majesty. The Report, after setting forth the statements made in the Petition and the Evidence adduced in support of them, concluded in the following words :

Upon consideration of the Evidence produced, I humbly offer it as my opinion, that "the Claimant William Viscount Courtenay has proved himself to be the male descendant "of Hugh Second Earl of Devon, and therefore, according to the Pedigree, proved the nearest "Heir Male of Sir Edward Courtenay, who was created Earl of Devon by Letters Patent of the "First of Mary to hold sibi et heredibus suis masculis imperpetuum' as set forth in this Report. Whether under that Patent the Claimant can establish a title to the Dignity of Earl of "Devon, is a question of very grave consideration, and, as far as I am informed, has not received any precise determination; on which account I humbly submit to Your Majesty, that the "claim ought to be referred to the consideration and report of the House of Peers, if Your Majesty in Your wisdom should think fit so to do."

66

In accordance with the Attorney General's advice the King referred the Petition to the consideration of the House of Lords, and the case was heard before the Lords Committees for Privileges on the 17th and 24th of February and on the 3rd and 10th of March 1831.

On the 14th of March 1831, the Lords Committees resolved" that William Viscount "Courtenay hath made out his claim to the Title, Honour and Dignity of Earl of Devon,❞— and ordered the Resolution to be reported to the House of Lords. The Resolution was on the same day reported as directed, and the House of Lords "RESOLVED AND ADJudged "THAT WILLIAM VISCOUNT COURTENAY HATH MADE OUT HIS CLAIM TO THE Title, "HONOUR AND DIGNITY OF EARL OF DEVON."†

* The Pedigree of Viscount Courtenay is printed at the end of the First Appendix. + The Devon Case is reported in the Second Volume of Dow and Clark's Reports, P. 200, and in a separate work, "The Earldom of Devon," by Sir Harris Nicolas.

It was thus, after all the doubts which had been entertained and expressed upon the subject during so many ages, finally determined that the Grant of a Dignity to the Grantee and his Heirs Male was valid, and that it lawfully and effectually limited the succession to the Honour to the Collateral Heirs Male of the Grantee.

The decision in the Devon Case consequently establishes the right of the Heirs Male of Sir William Scrope to the Dignity of Earl of Wiltes under the limitations contained in the Charter.

The circumstances attending the two Cases are also very similar.-Sir William Scrope, like Sir Edward Courtenay, was a man without children, and to add honour and illustration to the Family appears in both instances to have been the ruling desire of the Sovereign. If the services of the House of Courtenay to the Lancastrian and Tudor Princes had been great, the services of Richard Lord Scrope and his Eldest and other Sons and of his Cousins to the Plantagenet Sovereigns had been equally marked, and had been fully recognized by them. Richard Lord Scrope, the Earl's Father, had held the highest Offices in the State, and had been Lord Treasurer and twice Lord Chancellor. He was as eminent a Warrior as a Statesman, and his sons Sir William and Sir Stephen were amongst the most celebrated Captains in the service of Edward the Third and of the Black Prince. Edward Earl of Devon lived but three years after his elevation to the Peerage. William Earl of Wiltes in like manner survived but a short time. The Collateral Heirs Male of both were persons of wealth and consideration, but in neither case did they insist upon their rights under the Grants. The next heir male of Sir Edward Courtenay died within three years after Sir Edward, and the next heir male of Sir William Scrope died in less than five years after Sir William. It is however most probable that in both cases the actual limitations made by the Charters were unknown to the persons who were entitled to claim the Earldoms. By an Order issued in the name of the King, but actually by the Duke of Lancaster, who then held the King as his Prisoner, the Officers of the Crown were directed to seize and keep possession of all the goods and property of the Earl of Wiltes within a few days after his decease, and neither the Wiltes Charter nor any copy of it appears ever to have been placed among the Muniments of the Scrope family. In like manner, neither the Devon Charter nor any copy of it appears to have been at any time preserved amongst the Muniments at Powderham Castle. (Note C.)

Non-claim never did, and according to the Law of Parliament never could, bar or impede a right to a Dignity. It is the Prerogative of the Sovereign to validly vest the Honour conferred, not only upon the individual actually ennobled, but upon every person entitled under the destination made by the Royal Charter or Letters Patent, and no act of the Grantee or his Successors, save the crime of High Treason, can bar or prejudice the title which the Crown has created. The Peerage, although vested in the Grantee, is not held by him merely as a personal right, but for the benefit of the Crown and the people, as stated by

NOTE (C.) Dugdale does not give, nor did any other Author prior to the proceedings in the Devon Case mention, the peculiar limitations made in the Grants of the Earldoms of Wiltes and Devon. Previously to the present century no copy of either Grant was published, or appears to have been commented upon or known. The Records until comparatively modern times were all but a sealed book to the public.