BARONIES IN ABEYANCE. (Hansard, 30 July 1858)

§ LORD REDESDALE

, in calling the attention of the House to the return of Baronies called out of abeyance presented on the 19th instant, said, he considered this subject one well deserving of the consideration of their Lordships. There were, he believed, considerably more than 100 Baronies now in abeyance. Of late years it had been the practice for persons claiming Baronies that were in abeyance to present petitions praying that their claim might be investigated, in the hope that if they made out a clear case of their descent from the female co-heir, the Crown would exercise its prerogative by determining the abeyance in their favour. The question was one of great importance in relation to the judicial business of that House. The investigations extended over a long period, an immense amount of evidence was produced, and a large portion of time was occupied to the prejudice of suitors. The practice of calling peerages out of abeyance was far from being an ancient one, and no precedent is to be found for it under any of the Plantagenet or Tudor Sovereigns. The first case occurred in the reign of James I., being that of the Barony De Spenser, in 1604, when this prerogative was exercised in furtherance of a gross job. In that instance, the proceedings were of a very singular character. The Lord Abergavenny died, leaving an only daughter, and the question arose whether the title descended to this lady or to the heir male. The opinion of the Judges was certainly in favour of the descent to heirs general. The House of Lords, unwilling to separate the title from the estates, and from the family of Neville which had long held it, addressed the Crown, stating that they considered both worthy of the Peerage and suggesting that the Barony of De Spenser might be called out of abeyance in favour of one. The King acceded to the proposition, and, by vote of the House, the Barony of Abergavenny was assigned to the heir male, and the Barony of De Spenser to the heir general; but so little was any principle of law attended to in this case, that the House might have arranged the other way, had it been pleased so to vote. In the reign of Charles the First one Barony was called out of abeyance; in that of Charles the Second, two; in that of George the Second, two; in that of George the Third, eight; in that of George the Fourth, one; in that of William the Fourth, two—Berners and 2287 Clifford. In the present reign seven Baronies had been already called out of abeyance—only one less than the number called out during the whole of the long reign of George the Third. The number from the commencement of the practice down to the present day was only twenty-four. No one could be more sensible than he was of the advantage of ancient names to the peerage, and he believed all their Lordships rejoiced when the title of Earl of Shrewsbury was restored to a great historical name. Little objection can be urged to the practice when exercised in favour of Baronies which have for centuries been represented in the House, and which have only been in abeyance for a limited period. But the case assumed a different aspect when they had under consideration Baronies of very ancient date, which had for a long time been without any representative in that House, and the very names of which were unknown except to antiquaries and persons who took a special interest in such matters. The result was, perhaps, that the person in whose favour the abeyance was terminated was placed in a position in relation to the old Baronies which appeared hardly fair, their Lordships being, of course, aware that in the reign of Henry VIII. the long contest on the subject of precedence was decided by an Act of Parliament, declaring that precedence should be determined by the order of creation. The Grandison peerage, the claim to which had recently been decided, was in abeyance for 482 years. Only two of these Lord Grandisons ever sat in Parliament—the last in the reign of Edward the Third. The Lord Grandison who is known historically in the time of Charles I., and of whom such an interesting character is given by Clarendon, was an Irish Viscount of the Villiers family, whose title still exists in his collateral relative, the Earl of Jersey. If this abeyance should be terminated, the effect would be that the Lord Grandison entering the House as the third Peer ever summoned in right of that Barony, would sit before the 18th Lord Stourton, the 19th Lord Clinton, the 21st Lord Grey de Ruthyn, and the 22nd Lord Dacre. He would not detain their Lordships with any further remarks. At that period of the Session he would not ask their Lordships to take any positive step. It was, indeed, matter for consideration whether any step should be taken, and whether they should not look to the effect which discussion might produce on claimants.

2288 The noble Lord, having moved that the Return of all Baronies called out of abeyance to the present time, stating the number of years the abeyance had continued in each case, and the date of the termination of the same, delivered on the 19th instant, be printed (which was agreed to), gave notice of his intention to move next Session the following Address to Her Majesty relative to Peerages that have been in abeyance for a long period of years, in order that it might appear on the Minutes, and the House have an opportunity of considering the subject, without pledging himself to bring it forward:— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, showing, That within the last century several Petitions have been presented to the Crown by Persons claiming to be Co-heirs of Peerages for many hundred years in abeyance; which Petitions have, according to ancient custom, been referred to the House of Lords to report thereon: That the laborious investigations consequent on such reference necessarily occupy much of the time which would otherwise be devoted to the Judicial Business of the House, which is thereby interrupted to the inconvenience of the Lords and with injury to the Suitors: That until the period referred to the Peerages called out of abeyance were few in number, and only in favour of Persons inheriting through immediate and well-known descent from the former holders of the said Peerages; whereas, in many cases of later date, that inheritance, from the long duration of the abeyance, has become remote, indirect, and generally unknown, until proved by the evidence brought before the House: That the earliest precedent to be found for calling a Peerage out of abeyance is neither very ancient nor altogether free from the objection which necessarily attaches to any act done for the first time to meet a particular case, being that of the Barony of De Spencer, the abeyance of which was terminated by King James the First in 1604, in order to carry out the amicable arrangement suggested by the House of Lords for the purpose of relieving themselves from the duty of deciding in favour of One of the Two Claimants of the Barony of Abergavenny: That an undue precedence appears to be given to the person in whose favour an abeyance for many generations is terminated over other barons of ancient descent inheriting their titles through a long series of ancestors; thus, in the first case referred to, when in 1764 an abeyance of 358 years was terminated, The Lord Botetourt then summoned sat as Third Lord only of that name, and yet took precedence before the Seventeenth Lord Audley and the Fifteenth Lord Stourton: And humbly praying Her Majesty, that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to consider whether it is expedient to adhere to the established custom of referring all Petitions of Persons claiming Peerages to the House of Lords in any case in which it shall appear from such Petitions, or any Report of the Attorney General thereon, that the Peerage claimed is in abeyance, and has 2289 been so for more than Years; and that Her Majesty may be further graciously pleased to act in relation to such Peerages in such manner as may appear expedient to Her Majesty: