REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES. (Hansard, 10 May 1869)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that the circumstances of this case were very peculiar. The Earldom of Wiltes was created by Richard II. in 1397, in favour of Sir William Le Scrope, who held the office of Lord Treasurer, with remainder "to his heirs male." On the landing of Henry of Bolingbroke, afterwards Henry IV., Le Scrope with two others of Richard II.'s adherents. Sir John Bussy and Sir Henry Green, were seized, and, without any or much form of a trial, wove beheaded at. Bristol. In the first Parliament of Henry IV. the Commons prayed the King that the pursuit, arrests, and judgments against Lescrope and others should be declared valid and good, and for the profit of the realm, and the opinion of the Lords Temporal having been given in favour of this Prayer, it was affirmed by the King. Now the Report stated that in the proceedings at Bristol he was styled Sir William Lescrope and that after his death his widow, describing herself as widow of Sir William Le Scrope, petitioned the King for a pension, which was granted to her. Moreover, no one had since sat in Parliament as Earl of Wiltes; so that the claim stood in a different position from that of the Earldom of Devon. Not having heard the argument, he did not intend to pronounce any opinion on the judgment of the Committee; but would simply remark on the grounds on which the reception of the Report was opposed. The noble Duke called upon their Lordships to re-hear the ease, not simply on the ground that the decision differed from that given in the Earl of Devon's case, for that case stood in a different position, but on the ground that certain Peers who heard the case were prevented by death or otherwise from concurring in the judgment. Now, he had made inquiry into the matter and he understood 428 that the late Lord Wensleydale did not hear any part of the argument, and that Lord Westbury heard only just the commencement of it. Lord Cranworth, who heard the whole argument, was deceased. Three Peers were still living out of the four who heard the argument, and they were unanimous in their decision; while there was no certainty that Lord Cranworth, had he survived, would have taken a different view. Under these circumstances, it would be taking a very unusual and very inconvenient course to refer the case back to the Committee for re-hearing.

LORD HOUGHTON
said, he did not think a re-hearing would be required if the claim of the petitioner was the only matter which was affected; the fact was that the judgment seriously affected a noble Earl, whose claim was founded upon the same grounds, and whose collateral descendants, in case of the failure of the direct line, would thereby be prevented from attaining that dignity which they would otherwise be able to claim.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, that the case had been decided before the full Committee, and that all Peers were at liberty to be present at the inquiry, though no doubt when it came to a judicial decision it was left to the Law Lords. If this judgment were to be set aside because the case had not been decided in a way gratifying to the claimant, the same course would be pursued in every case of the kind. For his own part, he had given no opinion on legal points, but solely on questions of fact, and on evidence which had been in no way contradicted or explained by the counsel for the claimant, though his attention was repeatedly called to it.