§ Committee for Privileges met: Petitions of James Marquess of Salisbury and Earl of Salisbury, Viscount Cranborne and Baron Cecil, and of Francis, Earl Brooke of Warwick Castle, Earl of Warwick and Baron Brooke of Beauchamp's Court (presented on Friday last) considered, and Counsel heard thereon: Then the Committee resolved that the said James Marquess of Salisbury, and the said Francis, Earl Brooke of Warwick Castle should be allowed to appear jointly and be heard before the Committee for Privileges by their Counsel and Agents, in opposition to the claim of Edith Maud, Countess of Loudoun, and Elizabeth Frances, Viscountess St. Davids, and that they should be at liberty to cross-examine such witnesses as the said claimants may produce and to lodge jointly a printed case, and to produce such evidence in contradiction of any evidence that may be produced by the said claimants, and also such evidence as will support their right and title to the said Earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury as they may be advised to be material for the protection of their rights and interests; and that the said Marquess of Salisbury, and the said Earl of Warwick should be allowed to refer in their joint case to the documentary proofs produced in evidence by the Duke of Norfolk, in opposition to the claim of Charles Botolph Joseph, Lord Mowbray, to the dignity of Earl of Norfolk, and to the documentary proofs offered by the Duke of Atholl in his claim to the Earldom of Oxford; and the Committee further resolved that the said Marquess of Salisbury should not be required to prove that he is the rightful bolder of the title 460 of Earl of Salisbury, granted in 1605, and that the said Earl Brooke of Warwick should not be required to prove that he is the rightful holder of the title of Earl of Warwick, granted in 1759; and Report of the said Resolution to be made to the House: Committee adjourned sine die.