which Claims. the Court ' has no jurisdiction. The Court of him under their canopy from the said hall to Westminster Abbey, and in the Abbey through the nave as far as the entrance to the choir, where the said Barons remained until the conclusion of the service in the choir; and that when the King came forth of the choir the said Barons conducted him under the said canopy down the nave •and back to the hall, where they quitted his Majesty at the foot of the steps leading to the raised platform upon which the royal tables were set. The Barons of the Cinque Ports, though successful in proving their right to carry a canopy at the Coronation, did not achieve their purpose, for the Court decided that their claim depended upon whether a canopy was carried over the Sovereign in the procession or not, and that if there was no canopy to be carried they had no right to be present. Whether a canopy will be carried is dependent upon the plea sure of the Sovereign, and the application of the Barons of the Cinque Ports belonged, therefore, to the numerous category of claims with which the Court has no jurisdiction to deal, the duty of the Commissioners being to determine only questions of right. Want of jurisdiction was the ground on which the Court declined to allow the claim of Mr. Frank Dymoke to be Champion of England, the hereditary office in respect of which his family hold the manor of Scrivelsby in Lincolnshire. The Champion's challenge has never been made at the Coro nation ceremony, but at the subsequent feast in Westminster Hall, generally between the first and second course. Hence the Court, which, as we have said, is concerned only with services at the actual ceremony, could do no more than record his claim. The claim to perform the office of herbstrewer put forward by Miss Beatrice Fellowes, who is the great-granddaughter and senior family representative of Mr. William Fellowes, who discharged the duties at the Coronation of the late Queen, was dismissed because it related to the procession, as to
Not 81
more successful was the petition of the gov erning body of Westminster School that "the King's scholars may be present in the Abbey and acclaim their Majesties, and that the Town Boys may be present," although it was represented by the headmaster that "in every Coronation of all the Kings and Queens of England the King's scholars have been present; that such immemorial usage was ratified by James II and admitted at every subsequent Coronation; and that the Town Boys have also been wont to attend, and that the custom was recognized by George IV. and all his successors." Sir A. H. Seton-Steuart, of Touch, claimed to ex ercise the office of Hereditary Armor-bearer to the King and Esquires of the Royal body, an office said to have existed before 1448. No such duty, it appeared, was discharged in 1838, and the claim was refused. A similar fate awaited Sir Harry Paul Burrard's appli cation for the office of Bow=-bearer. A claim by the Earl of Shrewsbury "to be present in respect of the office of Lord High Steward of Ireland and carry a white staff as such" met with only a qualified measure of success. The office was created in 1446, but permis sion to carry the white staff was granted only in 1871. The Court was not prepared to affirm the right as prayed, but merely de cided that if Lord Shrewsbury were sum moned he might carry the white staff. Many other applications were excluded by the inability of the Court to entertain claims not resting on right, among them the claim of Mr. G. T. J. Sotheron-Estcourt, as owner of the manor of Shipton Moyne, to perform the duties of Chief Larderer; the claims of the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and Mr. Frederic Oddin Taylor to act as Chief Butler of England; the claim of the mayor, alderman, and citizens of Ox ford to attend as Assistants to the Chief Butler; the claim of Miss E. S. M. Wilshere "to serve the King on the day of the Corona tion with the first cup, being a silver cup,
