Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/741

APPENDIX H 719 the fourteenth year of Henry VI, and by the other evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioners, that the Barony of Fauconberg was, in the reign of King Henry VI, vested in Wilh'am Nevill, in right of his wife Joan, £s'c.(*) On this J. H. Round observes : The Resolution, as it stands, stultifies itself. For it carefully abstains from recognising either writ or sitting in any of the Fauconberg family (which is what their Lordships were expressly asked to recognise), and consequently docs not recognise them as peers. {^) Moreover, the House has "ascertained" the law in its Resolution on the Fauconberg case, and the law so ascertained is applicable to modern as well as to ancient times . . . Consequently it is the law now that the husband of a peeress in her own right can sit in the House " in right of his wife." f^) It is not a little remarkable that in the judgment on the Fitzwaryn case (1914) delivered by Lord Dunedin, and unanimously acquiesced in by the other members of the Committee, the Fauconberg case was never referred to. The precedent created by that case was not followed, for the Barony was dated from 1455. With regard to other recent cases, that of Darcy was chiefly remark- able for the interpretation of the acts of the Crown in 1641, which obscured the actual facts (see Peerage Cases, post). The cases of Burgh, Strabolgi, and Cobham are dealt with in the section on Peerage Cases. The barony which masquerades under the Latinised Scottish name of Strabolgi — and is alleged to have been in abeyance for 547 years — of course never existed; and the reversal of the attainder in the Barony of Cobham will ever remain notorious as an example of war-time legislation. The Dudley case was reasonable, for the petitioner was in possession of the estates held by his ancestors when the Barony fell into abeyance in 1757. And it may be conceded that the Wharton petition was justified on the supposition that it really was a barony by writ; but there is strong reason for believing that the Barony was created by patent. ('^) (*) Lordi Journals, 1903, p. 279. C") Peerage and Pedigree, vol. i, p. 271. {■=) Idem, pp. 2I0-I I. {^) Sir Thomas Wharton was summoned to Parliament 30 Jan. 1544/5, but this writ apparently issued in consequence of his creation by patent in the previous year. The Earl of Hertford, Lieut, of Scotland, wrote to the King, 20 Mar. 1543/4: "On Tuesday morning last [18 Mar.] I delivered to Lords Eure and Wharton your Majesty's letters patents by the which it hath pleased your Highness to create and make them Barons." No patent is enrolled, but neither is there any writ corresponding to this date. The original letter, the authenticity of which is not doubted, is in the Hamilton Collection in the British Museum. As not being in "Proper Custody" it was held to be inadmissible as evidence, and the Committee resolved that the Barony was created by writ.