THE CASE OF JAMES PERCY, claimant To The Earldom of Northumberland. WITH An Impartial Account of the Proceed he hath made in the several Courts of Justice in order to the Proving and obtaining his Right and Title to the said Earldom. Humbly Addressed to the KING'S Most Excellent Majesty, and the Right Honourable the LORDS Spiritual and Temporal in PARLIAMNET Assembled. Prov 8. 15. By me Kings Reign, and Princes Decree Justice. LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1685. HENRY PERCY, Fifth Earl of Northumberland, Married; and had Issue Three Sons, viz. I. Henry Percy, 6th. Earl of Northumberland, Married, and died without Issue. II. Thomas Percy, Married and had Issue; But when Josceline Percy the 11th. Earl died; the Heirs Males of this Line were Extinct also. III. Sir Ingelram Percy, Married and had Issue 2 Sons, (viz.) Henry, and Robert. Henry Percy, Eldest Son, Married, and had Issue 3 Sons (viz.) James, William, and Henry; But the 2 elder Brothers died without Issue-Male. Henry Percy, (Third Son,) Married, and had Issue 3 Sons (viz.) Henry, James, and Henry: But the two Henry's died young. James Percy, (the now claimant) Married, and hath 3 Sons, (viz.) Anthony, Henry and John. Anthony Percy, is Married, and hath Issue, Henry Percy, Grandson of James Percy the now claimant. The following Account makes out this Pedigree fully, from Henry Percy 5th. Earl of Northumberland, to the claimant James Percy. A True Pedigree to prove the claimant, James Percy, to be the second Son of Henry Percy of Horton in the County of Northampton, who was third Son of Henry Percy of Pavenham in the County of Bedford, who was the Eldest Son of Sir Ingelram Percy, Knt. who was the third Son of Henry Lord Percy, 5 th'. Earl of Northumberland, By which Descent the claimant is Cousin and next Heir-Male to Joscelin Percy the late and 11 th'. Earl of Northumberland Deceased. HENRY Lord PERCY, Fifth Earl of Northumberland, Lord of the Honours of Cockermouth and Petworth, Lord Percy, Lucy, Poynings, Fitzpayne and Bryan, and Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter, Who Married ●●●herine, one of the Daughters and Coheirs of Sir Robert Spencer Knight; by whom he had Issue, 1st. Henry Lord Percy. 6th. Earl of Northumberland; who Died without Issue. 2. Thomas Percy Knight, who was Executed; had to Wife, Eleanor, one of the Daughters and Coheirs of Sir Gwichard Harbottle Knight; by whom he had Issue, Thomas the 7th. Earl of Northumberland, who was beheaded at York, and died without Issue-Male; And Henry the 8th. Earl of Northumberland, whose Issue is inserted hereafter. 3d. Sir Ingelram Percy Knight, who was Married, as by the Oath of Mr. Henry Champion, who kept the Books and Records of the Percies. Henry Lord Percy 6th. Earl of Northumberland, Lord of the Honours of Cockermouth and Petworth, Lord Percy, Lucy, Poynings, Fitzpayne and Bryan, Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter, who Died at Hackney near London the day before the Calends of July, 1537. leaving no Children behind him, The Dignity of the Earl of Northumberland was vacant till the time of Edward the VI John Dudley Earl of Warwick, Viscount Lisle, Lord Basset and Ties was Entitled Duke of Northumberland the 5th. year of King Edward the VI But when he was Dead, Thomas Percy Nephew to this Henry by Thomas his Brother, who was Executed; In the Reign of Queen Mary, was restored to all the Honours of that Family. Thomas Percy, Nephew to Henry the 6th. Earl of Northumberland by his Brother Thomas, when the stock of the Percies were fading; to their Relief was invested in the Earldom of Northumberland, which the Earl of Warwick held before; and thereby was ●he 7th. Earl of Northumberland of that Family, Lord of the Honours of Cockermouth, Petworth, Lord Percy, Lucy, Poynings, Fitzpayne and Bryan; Queen Mary bestowing those Honours upon him, and his Heirs Male; (and for want of such Issue, Then to Henry his Brother, and his Heirs Male,) by her Letters Patents, dated the first day of May, 1557. and whatsoever else of the Ancient Patrimonies of the Earls remained, Seized, or Forfeited: But if He should die without Issue Male, Then it should go to his Brother Henry, and his Issue Male. And although (to Honour him the more,) Queen Elizabeth made him Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter; Yet He, (unmindful of all these Benefits,) Conspired with Charles Earl of Westmoreland, to Depose, by Force, Queen Elizabeth; So by Authority of Parliament he was Condemned for High Treason, and as Chief in the Conspiracy, was beheaded at York, 14th. Year of Queen Elizabeth. That he Married Anne the Daughter of Henry Somerset Earl of Worcester, and had Issue Male, Thomas, who died young, and four Daughters; Heirs Males Extinct. And Henry Percy 8th. Earl of Northumberland, Lord of the Honours of Cockermouth, Petworth, Lord Percy, Lucy, Poynings, Fitzpayne and Bryan; all enjoyed those Honours by virtue of the Letters Patents given by Queen Mary to his Brother Thomas, and was Created Earl of Northumberland, Anno 1574. and after accused of Treason; and being in the Tower of London, slew himself with a Dag charged with Two Bullets, (before his Cause was heard, or that he was Arraigned,) in the Month of July, 1585. ARMS Quartered as before. Who Married Katherine one of the Daughters and Coheirs of John Nevel Lord Latimer, by whom he had Issue, 1. Henry the 9th. Earl. 2. Thomas, who died young. 3. William. 4. Sir Charles Percy Knight. 5. Sir Richard Percy Knight. 6. Sir Alan Percy Knight. 7. Sir Josceline Percy Knight. 8. George Percy Esq Henry Lord Percy 9th. Earl of Northumberland, Lord of the Honours of Cockermouth and Petworth, Lord Percy, Lucy, Poynings, 〈◊〉, Bryan, and (in his Mother's right) Lord Latimer; He was Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter, by Queen Elizabeth, in the Year of our Lord, 1593. Who Married Dorothy, Daughter of Walter 〈◊〉, Earl of 〈◊〉; by whom he had Issue, 1. Algernoon, the 10th. Earl. 2. Lord 〈◊〉, who died without Issue. Algernoon, the 10th. Earl of Northumberland, Lord of the Honours of Cockermouth and Petworth, Lord Percy, Lucy, Poynings, Fitzpayne, Bryan and Latimer, Knight of the most Noble Order of the Garter, Lord Admiral of England, and General over His Majesty's Forces for his Expedition in Anno 1640. and one of his Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council: He Married Two Wives: by the former he had four Daughters; and by the latter Wife, 1 Son, (viz.) Josceline. Josceline, the 11th. Earl of Northumberland, Lord of the Honours of Cockermouth and Petworth, Lord Percy, Lucy, Poyning, Fitzpayne, Bryan and Latimer, Deceased; Who Married Elizabeth, Daughter to the Earl of Southampton, by whom he had Issue, 1. Henry, who died young; before his Father. 2. Elizabeth, who Married the Lord Ogle. (Heirs Males Extinct.) The Collateral Line. Sir Ingelram Percy the 3d. and youngest Son of Henry Percy the 5th. Earl of Northumberland; was married, and had Sons and Daughters, (as by the Oath of Mr. Henry Champion, who kept the Percies Books and Records; where he found what h● testified upon Oath, at the Trial between Vtting Plaintiff, and Coppleston Defendant) He had Issue, viz. 1. Henry Percy, 2. Robert Percy, and two Daughters. About 1559. these four Children were (in the time of Troubles in Queen Elizabeth's Days) sent out of the North in Hampers, to old Dame Vaux at Haraden in Northamptonshire, and there were brought up, preserved, and provided for. Therefore it is concluded by all, that Sir Ingelrams Lady (the Mother of those Children,) must be related to Dame Vauxes Family. Henry, the eldest Son of Sir Ingelram, Married the Daughter of one Tibbott, by whom he had Issue, 1. James Percy, who died about the year 1654. in Ireland, without Issue-male. 2. William, who died young. 3. Henry. And three Daughters. Henry Percy Married Lydia the Daughter of Mr. Robert Cope of Horton in Northamptonshire, by whom he had Issue. 1. Henry, who died young. 2. James. 3. Henry, who died young. One Daughter, named Elizabeth. James, the now claimant, born 1619. of Henry and Lydia his Wife, who was 3d. Son of Henry, who was first Son of Sir Ingelram, who was 3d. Son of Henry, 5th. Earl of Northumberland, who was great great Grandfather of the claimant James Percy, who married Sarah the Daughter of John Sawyer of Norwich, Gent. by whom he hath Issue, 1. Anthony Percy, Married and hath a Son (viz.) Henry. 2. Henry. 3. John. In May 1670. Joscelin Percy, late Earl of Northumberland departed this Life in parts beyond the Seas; after whose death, the Honours descended to the now claimant ut per the Pedigree aforesaid. October the 11th. 1670. The claimant Arrived in England to prosecute his Claim to the Earldom of Northumberland; at which time it being given out, that the Countess Dowager of the said 〈…〉 with Child; the claimant desisted until the contrary was evident. February the 3d. 1670. The claimant entered in His Late Majesty's Signet-Office at White-Hall hi● Claim to the said Earldom, as Cousin and next Heir-Male to Josceline, and to the Title, Stil●, Honour and Dignity of Baron Percy, and Earl of Northumberland Cum pertinently, and to the Annual Rent or Fee of 20ll. with which the said Honour and Dignity is endowed payable by the Sheriff of Northumberland out of the same County; And at the same time entered there also his Caveat, that no Grant might be made thereof to any Person. In the same Year 1670. The claimant, in Order to the Recovery of his Right, applied himself to Sir Heneage Finch then Attorney General to His Late Majesty, and desired him to sign the claimants Quo Warranto. In the same Year 1670. the claimant humbly addressed himself by Petition to His 〈◊〉 Majesty for redress in that matter, who was graciously pleased to send Sir John Birkenhead to the said Attorney General, to demand of him from his Majesty why he did not sign the claimants Quo Warranto; who returned for answer, That he could n●t do it, as he was of Council with the Defendant, ●he Countess Dowager of Northumberland. This Answer of the Attorney General's being signified to His Majesty, he was pleased expressly to refer the Clymant to Sir Edward Walker and Sir John Birkenhead, to inquire and search into the claimants Pedigree; for which purpose the claimant attended them with his Council Mr. Sergeant Brampston, where the matter was debated; and there then appearing some difficulty to find with certainty, who was the claimants Great Grandfather: It was the joint advise of Sir Edward Walker, Sir John Birkenhead, and Sergeant Brampston, That the claimant should at adventure Claim under some one of the Family of the Percies, and not delay his prosecution any longer; they all then declaring to the claimant, that in case he pitched upon a wrong Person to Claim from, yet it could not prejudice the claimant; for that on the contrary would be a means 〈◊〉 out the Right Person. Pursuant to this Advice, the claimant took his descent from Sir Richard Percy as his Great Grandfather; and the matter thereon coming to be heard before the Lords in Parliament, Sir Richard Percy appeared to be too young to be the claimants Great Grandfather; Sergeant Pemberton then of Counsel with the claimant, Informed their Lordships of the Reason and Advice aforesaid of the claimants fixing upon Sir Richard Percy as his Great Grandfather; and that notwithstanding the mistake, yet the same could not, nor ought really to prejudice the claimant, as to any definitive Sentence to be passed thereon by their Lordships, against the claimant; For that the matter of the claimants Right and Claim ought first to be Tried in the Inferior Courts; and in case the Truth of the matter could not be found out and determined at Law, than (and not before) it was proper for their Lordship's Judgement and Determination; with which their Lordships were satisfied. Upon this the claimants Adversaries procured to be Published in the Gazettes, That the claimant was an Impostor; and at their Courts, declared to the Tenants, That his Name was not Percy, but that he was a Bastard, and that they could prove, that Henry Percy, who he declared was his Father, was never married: the Consequence of which evil, and unheard of practices, Was 1st. Rendering the claimant Odious to the World. And 2ly. Through the foul practice of the claimants Solicitor, there was a misinformation given unto His Late Gracious Majesty of ever Blessed Memory, who thereupon gave the Title and Land away, which multiplied not only Enemies, but Power against the claimants Just demands: In Order to the removing these Obstacles, convincing the World of the Malice of his Adversaries, and clear himself of these vile Imputations, to assert his undoubted Right to the Honours and Earldom of Northumberland, the claimant brought his Action of Scandal against Mr. John Clerk one of the Adversaries principal Agents. In 1674. The Cause came to Trial (Clerk having for a long time before sheltered himself under Privileges of Parliament) where notwithstanding the claimant proved himself Legitimate by Father, Mother, Grandfather and Grandmother; yet the claimants Attorney, with colusion, and without the claimants consent, suffered a Nonsuite; upon which the Lord Chief Justice Hale, stood up and declared his dissatisfaction thereat; saying in open Court, That the claimant had fully proved himself a true Percy, by Father, Mother, Grandfather and Grandmother, and of the Blood and Family of the Percyes of Northumberland, and that he did verily believe the claimant was Cousin, and next Heir Male to Josceline Percy late Earl of Northumberland? only he was afraid, he had taken his Descent a little too low. Nay, the Jury (then Impanneld, and sworn upon the Trial; after the Trial, had a Treat given them by the Adversaries) declared thus to Clerk the Defendant in the Suit: Sir, You are beholding to the claimant James Percy, for suffering a Nonsuit; for truly, otherwise we must have given a Verdict against you for him▪ his Pedigree was proved so clear. Note, The Damages in this Action was laid at 10000ll. Note, Immediately after this Trial was over, the Court of Kings-Bench risen, and the Judge going to his Coach, the late Earl of Shaftsbury meeting him at his Coach, said thus to the Judge, My Lord, I hear Mr. Percyes' Trial was to day; I pray, What do you think of him? To which the Lord Chief Justice Hales, (with much earnestness) replied, I verily believe he hath as much right to the Earldom of Northumberland, as I have to this Coach and Horses which I have bought and paid for; ☞ Note, The Earl of Shaftsbury when he was Lord Chancellor of England was by Agreement with some of the Adversaries to have had Lands of the Percies to the value of 30000ll. for what purpose let the prudent and unprejudiced judge. After this, the claimant (pursuant to Judge Hale's Intimation) endeavoured to search higher for his Pedigree, and for that purpose repaired to the Right Honourable, and truly Noble and Virtuous the than Countess of Dorset, Pembroke and Montgomery at Appleby-Castle, at such time as Judge Wild and Judge Ellis (in their Circuit) Dined there; when and where (after a long discourse had between the said Countess and the claimant touching his claim to the Earldom of Northumberland, and inquiry after his great Grandfather) the Countess in the presence of Sir Thomas Stringer, and Sir John Otway, said thus to the claimant: If you be of Kin to me, you must be Descended from those Children that were sent into the South in Hampers, in the Troublesome times, in Queen Flizabeth's Days; which proved a happy intimation to the claimant, for thereby he at last arrived to the knowledge of his Great Grand Father, as in the Pedigree. Some short time after this, the claimant brought an Action in Ejectment, in the Court of Kings-Bench, for Cannington, and Rodway in Somersetsh●re, against Sir John Coppleston, Trustee for the Lady Clifford; against which Sir John sheltered himself, under Privilege, for a considerable time; but at length, to wit, In the Term (as the Records will make appear) this Trial came on, where the claimant fully proved his Pedigree; and that he was Cousin, and next Heir-Male to Jocelin Percy, late Earl of Northumberland; and it is especially to be Noted, That, whereas at the first Hearing in Parliament, the Adversaries produced one Sir John Hanmer, who deposed, That Sir Richard Percy died in France, Anno 1648. and was never Married, but was Buried with Ribbons and Gloves, as a Bachelor. Now (at this Trial with Sir John Coppleston) the claimant proved by Mr. Henry Champion (who kept the Books and Records for Algernoon Tenth, and Jocelin Eleventh Earls of Northumberland) that he found in those Books and Records, that Sir Ingelram Percy was Married, and had Sons and Daughters: And the Court then Declared, That the claimant had fully proved his Pedigree, and Right of Claim, and willed him to proceed to the Title of the Lands in question; unto which, the claimants Council replied, They had proved his Pedigree and Right; and conceived the Lands must attend that, and that they relying therein, were not prepared nor Instructed to proceed further, than to prove the claimants Legal Lineal Descent. Whereupon, for want of certain Evidences and Records touching the same Lands, then in the Defendants Custody; a Nonsuit was had against the claimant, and Seventy Pound Costs Awarded. ☞ Note, Upon payment of these Costs, Sir John Coppleston Offered to the claimant, That if he would relinquish his Right to those Lands in Sommersetshire, he should have some consideration for the same; and further, That he the said Sir John Coppleston, would furnish the claimant with such Writings as should enable him to recover above 5000. Per Annum, good Lands. The claimant brought another Action of Scandal against one Mr. Wright, another of the Adversaries Agents, for the like Scandalous words with those spoken by Clark. This Cause was tried before the Lord Chief Justice Rainsford, where the claimant proved his Legitimacy and Pedigree by several witness; so fully and clearly; and to that fullness and Satisfaction, that before he had Examined half his Witnesses, the Lord Chief Justice Rainsford stood up, and said, You Gentlemen of the Jury, We need not trouble the Court further in Examining any more of the Plaintiffs Witnesses, by reason his Pedigree hath been fully pooved before, at a former Trial, at the Bar of this Court So a verdict passed for the claimant: But when the Jury brought in but Three Hundred Pounds Damages, the Lord Chief Justice was angry with them, for not giing the Plaintiff greater Damages. Note, This Verdict, and the Judgement there upon, is Exemplified. In June 1676. The claimant brought another Action of Scandal in the Guild-Hall London, against John Blackstone Esquire, Agent for the Lady Elizabeth Percy; who kept her Courts, and had spoke the like scandalous words against the claimant, in delivering his Charge to the Juryes and Tenants, That Blackston Removed the Cause into the Court of King's Bench. May 7. 1677. Appointed by the Court for Trial, and the Master of the Office attended by both sides, & a Jury struck, & the claimant prepared for Trial, & brought up Sixty-Five Witnesses; several of which came from the most remote parts of the Kingdom; the Travel in Summoning, and bringing them to London, above Four Thousand Miles: The Charges thereof, and in retaining, and seeing fourteen Counsels for the Trial, amounting to above Four Hundred Pounds. At the day appointed, the claimant attended with his Counsel and Witnesses, prepared for Trial; when the Defendants Counsel Insisted, the Defendant was privileged, as Agent of the Countess-Dowager of Northumberland, that he was Steward of her Courts, and Receiver of her Rents; and therefore if the claimants Council proceeded to the Trial, it should be at their Perils; which so awed them, that they refused to Plead; declaring, they had no mind to go to the Tower: Some of them having been there upon the like occasion before. And so the Trial was put off; at which the Court seemed much dissatisfied; and particularly, Mr. Justice Wild stood up in open Court, declaring his resentment of the Adversaries practices in these words, viz. Fie, fie, Gentlemen; Is this a time to insist upon Privileges; when you forced the Plaintiff to this Trial, and have put him to so great Expense, Travel, and Labour? You do but cast cold Water upon your Cause. It is not the first time this Cause hath been before this Court. After this, Blackeston sheltering himself under the late Earl of Essex's privilege, (the Countess Dowagers being taken off by Order of the House of Lords upon another occasion) the Clayment Petitioned the House of Lords to discharge Blakestons' privilege, under the Earl; whereupon an Agreement was made between the Earl, and the Clayments Council; that the Clayment paying Ninety Pound Costs into Court (than unpaid upon the Nonsuit against Clerk) Blakeston should not stand upon Privilege, but go forthwith to Trial; whereupon the claimant paid the Ninety Pound Costs into Court, there to remain, until a fair Trial had; and the 11th. of November, 1678. the Trial came on, and after opening of the Cause, the Defendants Council took Exceptions to some Point in the Declaration, which, after a debate, was waved; the Action judged to be well laid, and the scandalous Words proved. Then the claimants Council proceeded to call Witnesses, to pove his Pedigree upwards, as being the better way to satisfy the Court, and inform the Jury; and that the claimant could not possibly Arrive at, any present better way to prove his Pedigree, than by his Action of Slander; For that the claimant had before that delivered Declarations in Ejectment in several Counties, but the Lands being all in the hands of great Personages, stopped his Proceed, on such Ejectments by Privilege, which Candidness of the claimants Council was unreasonably made use of to the claimants great Damage. For hereupon Draughts of the claimants Pedigree being delivered to the Judges, the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs said, What need you trouble the Court to Examine all these Witnesses, if there be no Lands, therefore let us see first, what Lands there are. Then the claimant produced divers Records out of the Tower, and elsewhere; which evidenced, that the Lands (late the Lady Lucy's in Cumberland, and other Counties, in the Records especially named) were Settled upon the Heirs-Males of the Percyes for ever, tendering three Hundred Pounds to the King, etc. and quartering the said Lucyes' Coat of Arms next their own, and before the Percyes. Here the Defendants Council started up an Attainder of Sir Thomas Percy in King Henry the Eighth's time, also his Son in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, which being new to the claimant, and therefore his Council not prepared presently to answer, time was given to the Clayment, to Inform and prepare himself to answer that matter; and a further day appointed for Trial, and the Jury then Sworn, with-drawn; and after that, two several days appointed for Trial, and also a third day, to wit, the 27th. of January, 1678. But The first day of Hillary Term, 1678. the Defendants Council moved the Court, for a new Jury, and also for a further day for Trial; both which the Court granted. Yet after all this, the Defendant moved again for a longer day, which was granted, until Thursday the 6th. of February. Notwithstanding all which, and that the claimant had (at a vast Expense) kept his Witnesses in Town, all this time, yet would not the Court Award him any Costs. ☞ Note, In the Lord Chief Justice Hails time, it was otherwise; for, in the Suit brought as aforesaid against Clerk, the Defendant moving to put off that Trial for seven days, on pretence he was not prepared; the Court Awarded the Defendant to pay the Clayman● Thirty Five Pound Costs, in respect of the Charge of keeping his Witnesses in Town, before any further time given for Trial; and which was paid accordingly. Sixth of February, 1678. The New ●ury appeared, and the Trial came on again; the Cause opened, ●nd one of the Witnesses called to prove the Words; who appearing, the Court declared he had sufficiently proved them before. So no Exception being made thereunto, or to any matter in the Declaration, by the Defendants Council: It was Agreed to proceed, and take up the Case, where they left at the former Trial, the 11th. of November. Hereupon Copies of the Records of the Patents in Queen mary's time (viz.) One for the Barony, and th● other for the Earldom, were produced. Upon this, the Defendants Council Objected the Attainder of Thomas Percy. Against which, the claimants Council insisted, and Evidenced, That the claimants Descent and Claim was Paramount the Attainder, and that the same could not, in any sort, affect the claimant, and which was admitted by the Court. This Point being thus Cleared, the claimant descended to Examine his Witnesses to prove his Pedigree, but the Defendants Council declared, They admitted and owned the claimants Pedigree and Title, but that could not Affect the Lands, for that by an Act of Parliament touching Exchange of Lands between King Henry the Eighth, and Henry Percy the Sixth Earl of Northumberland, and others, the Limitations in the Settlement, under whom the claimant Claimed, were destroyed. But this Point being also answered, as well by several Save in that Act, as otherwise; and the claimant Pressing, That he might be permitted to Examine his Witnesses, to prove his Pedigree, and proceed in the Cause: The Defendant then resorted to their first piece of Craft, and Insisted upon a pretended Insufficiency in the Declaration, and which had been debated, and waved as aforesaid; but the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs now falling in with them, would not suffer the claimants Witnesses to be Examined, as to his Pedigree; but on the contrary, Cried out The Declaration is nought, the Declaration is nought; whereupon, the claimant was driven to suffer a Nonsuit. After this, the claimant brought an Ejectment, for recovery of that part of the Estate belonging to the Earldom, called the Lady Lucyes' Lands▪ and in 1681. brought the same to Trial at the Kings-Bench-Bar, where the claimant fully proved his Pedigree; and so was Declared by the Court; But by the evil Practices of the Adversaries, with the Person that managed the Cause for the claimant; and his not producing, at the Trial, the Copy of the Grants, made by Richard the Second, to the Earls of Northumberland; for want thereof, and some other Records the said Agent was entrusted with, by the claimant, the said Trial passed against the claimant. The then Lord Chief Justice Pemberton standing up in Court, and saying to the claimant, Mr. Percy, Your Cause is ill managed, suffer a Nonsuit. Note, Through the like Practices, and evil Deal of another of the claimants Agents, one Mr. James Hooton, the claimant lost the benefit of two Writs of Error brought in the House of Lords. By these Methods the claimant proceeded in the Courts of Law singly. Now for Equity and Law together: The Earldom of Northumberland, being heretofore endowed by his Majesty's Ancestors, with an Annual Rent or Fee of Twenty Pounds per Annum, payable by the Sheriff of Northumberland, out of the County. In order to the Recovery thereof, and Affirmance of the claimants Title, he exbibited his Bill in his Majesty's Court of Exchequer, against Edmond Craister Esq the then Sheriff of Northumberland, for Recovery of the said Twenty Pounds per Annum; not in the least doubting, but to bring the Merits of that Cause to a speedy Issue; but on the contrary, notwithstanding, the Sheriff was otherwise an uninterressed Party then, only as the hand to pay the Twenty pounds per Annum to the claimant, and have it again allowed in his Accounts. Yet the Spirit and Practices that had hitherto opposed the claimant, in his Prosecuting his just Right in the Courts of Law, appears in this also▪ and that the World may see it plainly, take this following Account of those Proceed, viz. In Trinity-Term, 1682. The Bill was filed against Mr. Craister, who appears, but sits in Contempt for not answering; whereupon four several Attachments issued against him, directed to the Coroner of the County of Northumberland; but before any Obedience would be given thereunto, or Execution procured thereon, the claimant (Plaintiff in the Cause) was necessitated to be at the extraordinary Expense of sending Persons on purpose, from London into Northumberland, to procure the same to be Executed. Note, These Delays spent all Trinity, Michaelmas, and Hillary-Terms, 1682. and Easter-Term, 1683. Trinity-Term, 1683. The Coroner returns Cepi Corpus, but neither brings in the Body, nor Assigns the Bail-Bond, and is therefore amerced Five pounds. Michaelmas-Term, 13 November 1683. The Plaintiff moves, and obtains an Order for a further Americiament of Ten pounds against the Coroner, and liberty for the Plaintiff to Examine his Witness, de bene esse. November the 20. 1683. Upon another Motion a further Amerciament of Twenty pounds. November the 27. 1683. Upon another Motion, a further Amerciament of Forty pounds. Hillary-Term, 1683. January 25. Upon another Motion, a further Amerciament of One Hundred pounds; and then Ordered, that the former Amerciaments should be forthwith Estreated and Levied. February 12. 1683. Upon another Motion, a further Amerciament of Fifty pounds, and to be forthwith Estreated. Easter-Term, 1684. April 16. Upon another Motion, and Information o● these Matters; and that no Obedience was given by the Coroner: It was Ordered, That the Comptrollor of the Pipe, should forthwith Issue special process to the Sheriff of Northumberland, for Levying those Amerciaments; and that the Process should be returnable the first day of the next Term, and that Mr. Craister should not have his quietus, until he had answered the Plaintiffs Bill, and cleared his Contempts; yet no Obedience yielded. 10 of May 1684. Upon another Motion, a further Amerciament of One Hundred and Fifty pounds. 30 of May 1684. Mr. Craister put in his Answer, and upon the Plaintiffs Motion, it was referred to the Remembrancer, to Tax the Plaintiff his Costs for these Abuses and Delays, which amounted to One Hundred Sixty Four pounds, Twelve shillings, Six pence; and yet Taxed but at Twenty one pounds, Sixteen shillings, and Six pence. Now any reasonable Man would have Imagined, That after all 〈…〉 and Contempt, this small Pittance of 21 ll. 16 s. 6 d. Costs, should have been readily paid: But observe the contrary. 20 June 1684. Upon the Plaintiffs Motion, Ordered, That unless Mr. 〈◊〉 (by Monday then next) pay to the Plaintiff the Costs 〈◊〉, the Amerciaments should forthwith be levied. 27. June 1684. The Plaintiff Moves further, and informs th● 〈…〉 were not paid; whereupon ordered, the Costs be paid that day, 〈…〉 Motion; but not a Penny paid. Michaelmas-Term 1684. Nou. 4. The Plaintiff Moves the 〈…〉 forms, That no Costs is paid, nor any Obedien●● given to the 〈…〉 whereupon an Attachment was ●warded against 〈◊〉, unless he 〈…〉 21 ll. 16 s. 6 d. and 1● s. and 4 s. more for 〈◊〉 of Costs 〈…〉 but no Obedience given. Hereupon the Plaintiff (b● Petition to the B●ron● of the 〈…〉 the whole progress the Cause had had; and that to put the Plaintiff to 〈…〉 Craister, de nov●, with the ordinary Process, was to run the old 〈…〉, in Infinitum; and that the Plaintiff having taken all the Method that 〈◊〉 could advise, and to no purpose; prayed the Consideration 〈◊〉 by the 〈◊〉, and such course to be taken 〈◊〉 the Defendant, as might enforce Obedience 〈◊〉 these or the like Reasons, incert●● in his Petition. First, The notorious and out-daring Practices of the 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 flying in the Face of the Court, by their unpresidented Disobedience to Authority, and rendering the same Contemptuous to all, and ineffectual in it● Justice to the prosecutor. Secondly, The Ruin hereby following the Suitor, not only by the 〈◊〉 Charge, but Delay. Thirdly, For that it's dishonourable, and reflects upon the Justice, as well as 〈◊〉 of the Court, That any person should be suffered to dare and tri●●e with 〈◊〉, and Ruin the Prosecutor immediately under the protection thereof; if after ●uch Delay, he must yet further suffer in his real Expense, ●●casioned 〈◊〉 by this unparallelled Contempt of Justice; The loss of near ●● s. 6 d. in the pound, the Costs taxed being little more than 2 s. 6 d. in the pound: And Lastly, For that nothing deters any Person from Contemning Justice, but making the Delinquent Exemplar. Upon this Petition, the Court ordered, That if Craister did not pay the Costs by a day certain in Michaelmas-Term, 1684. then all the former Amerciaments to be forthwith Levied, and a further Amerciament set. Notwithstanding all which, the Plaintiff was put to the Charge of several other Motions for the Costs; and they not paid until the beginning of Hillary-Term last. 9 January 1684. The claimant, by Petition, humbly Addressed himself to his late Sacred Majesty, and the Lords of his Privy-Council, briefly setting forth the said Matters in the Suit against Craister; and that the proceed of Craister (and the Coroner) were in notorious Contempt of His Majesty's Dignity and Authority; and tended not only to the bringing His Majesty's Courts of Justice into Contempt, but to the Obstruction of Justice in general, and utter Ruin of the claimant in particular. Upon this Petition the claimant received a Gracious verbal Answer, That the whole Matter of the Petitioners 'Cause should be heard and determined in the next ensuing Parliament. That it being necessary to make his said late Majesty, by his Attorney General, a Desendant to the claimant's said Bill, in the Court of Exchequer, he made humble Application to the said Attorney General, to put in an Answer thereunto; but hath not hitherto been so happy, as to obtain the same; whereby the claimants further proceed in that Cause, are at a full stop. Now it remains, that the claimant answer some Objections much insisted on by his Adversary: As, Object. I. That the claimant, at first, derived his Pedigree from Sir Richard Percy, as his Great Grandfather, and afterwards from Sir Ingleram Percy. Answ. This is admitted to be true in Fact; but the occasion of deriving from Richard Percy, was: 1. The Matches of the Percies were rend out of the Herald's Book, and Sir Ingleram Percy's was quite lest out of the First Pedigree. 2. The Misfortunes of the Family of the Percies in Queen Elizabeth's Time; and thereby, those of them under whom the claimant is immediately Descended, driven out of their Native Country, and from their Father's House, in a most obscure manner, merely for Preservation of their Lives in their tender Years. 3. The taking away the Court of Wards and Inquisitions, post mortem. 4. The Interruption in the Executing the Office of Heralds, in ●he Times of the late Rebellion. 5. The Adversaries having the Advantage o● possessing themselves of all the Memorandums and Records of the late Earls of Northumberland, Algernoon and joscelin, and the Pedigrees and Descents of that Family. 6. The Advice abovesaid, given to the claimant by Sir Edward Walker, Sir John Berkenhead, and the claimant's Council, to fix upon a Wrong Party, as the only way to find out the Right; and which, in truth, had the hoped-for Effect. Nor is this an Objection with any knowing, intelligent, unbyass'd Person; it being a thing frequently in practice in the Courts of Law. Object. II. The Obscureness of the claimant, and Meanness of his Profession, having been a Trunk-maker. Answ. The Obscureness was, as before is said, from the Misfortunes and Difficulties of the Family of the Percies, in the troublesome Times of Queen Elizabeth. Nor is it any real Disreputation upon any Noble Family; the supporting Families by Lawful Callings, though never so mean, being esteemed a Virtue by all virtuous Persons: And it's most frequent in the Noblest Families in Germany▪ To Train up their Sons in the learning Handicraft-Trades. Nor can any thing but Vice, disparage True Nobility. Besides, the Matter in Controversy, is not, Whether the claimant was of this, or that Trade? but, Whether he be Cousin, and next Heir Male to Joscelin Percy, late Earl of Northumberland; which he hath at several Trials, and in several Courts, proved to full Satisfaction of the said Courts, by all the Methods and Ways imaginable? As by Proof of his Lineal Descent, and the Owning and Declarations of the late Earls of Northumberland, Algernoon and joscelin; That the claimant (by the Appellation of James Percy, the Trunk-maker at Dublin) was of the Blood and Family of the Percies, and next Heir Male, after the said joscelin, to the Earldom; and by divers other unanswerable Proofs. This being the True State of the claimant's Right and Title to the said Earldom, and of the Means by which he has endeavoured to Recover his said Right; wherein he hath been obstructed by the Powerfulness of his Adversaries, and the Corruption of his Agents: He humbly submits to the Great Wisdom, Honour, and Justice of the King's most Sacred Majesty, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament Assembled, (and where it's not possible, there can be any Failer of Justice) for Relief and Redress in the Premises. To the KING's Most Excellent Charles R. MAJESTY, The Humble Petition of Charles Longeville Esq Cousin and next Heir of Henry late Earl of Kent, Lord Hastings, Longeville and Ruthin, deceased. Humbly Showing, THat Reginald Grey Your Petitioners Successor, whose Heir he is, was Seized to him and his Heirs, as of Fee and Right of the Dignities of Lord Hastings and Ruthin; That is to say, of the Title of Lord Ruthin, by descent from Roger Lord Grey of Ruthin his Father; and being so seized, was divers ●imes, in the Reign of Your Majesty's Royal Predecessors, King Edward the III. Summoned into the Court of Parliament, by the Name of Reginald Grey of Ruthin, and accordingly sat therein; and of the said Titles and Dignities died Seized, and by divers mean descents, the same Dignity descended unto Edmond Grey, Knight, who, by reason thereof, was seized of the Dignities thereof, as of Fee to him and his Heirs; and being so seized, the said Edmond, by the Name of Edmond Lord Hastings and Ruthin, was by the Letters Patents of Your Majesty's Predecessors, King Edward the iv Created Earl of Kent to him, and to the Heirs Males of his body begotten; and shortly after, of the Dignities aforesaid, died seized; after whose decease, the said Title of Earl of Kent, and of Lord Hastings and Ruthin, by divers Mesne Descents, did descend and come to Sir Henry Grey Knight, Cousin and Heir of the said Edmond: By reason whereof, he became of the said Dignities seized; That is to say, of the said Title of the Earl of Kent to him, and to the Heirs Males of the Body of the said Edmond: And of the said Title of Lord Hasting and Ruthin to him and his Heirs, and thereof died seized; by means whereof, as the said Title and Earl of Kent, is descended, and come to the Right Honourable Anthony now Earl of Kent, as Heir-Male of the Body to the said Edmond; so that the said Dignities of the Lord Hastings and Ruthin, are of right ●●●cended to Your Petitioner, as Rightful Cousin and Heir of the said Reginald and Nephew, and next Heir of the said Henry Earl of Kent; That is to say, Son and Heir of Susan, late Wife of Sir Michael Longeville Knight, Sister and Heir of the said Henry. May it therefore please Your Excellent Majesty, Graciously to give Command for Your Petitioners Summons to this present Parliament, there to sit and enjoy the Place and Preeminences to the said Dignities to him descended, and of Right belonging; And Your Petitioner shall daily pray, etc. His Majesty's Reference. At Our Court at Whitehall, the 25th. of November 1640. WE are Graciously pleased to refer the Petition, and the Consideration thereof, and of the Petitioners Claim and Title to the Peers o● Our Parliament; and Our Will and Pleasure, That Justice and Right be done hereupon. Order hereupon, it was referred to the Committee of Privileges, and the Lord Ruthin to have notice of it, and a Copy of the Petition. House of Lords. The Opinion of the JUDGES of England in the Case of Charles Longeville Es Lunae 1st. February, 1640. THE Judges this day delivered their Opinion in the Case of the Lord Grey, and Charles Longeville, Esq concerning the Titles of the Baronies of Hastings and Ruthin. 1. Whether a Possessio Fratris can be upon a Baronage by Writ. And it was the Unanimous Opinions of the Judges, That there can be no Possessio Fratris in Point of Honour; And upon somewhat, which was spoken of in the Argument concerning Power, in Conveying away of Honour, It was Resolved upon the question Nemene Contradicente. That no Person that hath any Honour in him, and a Peer, may Alien or Transfer the Honour to any other person. Resolved upon the Question. That no Peer of this Realm can drown and extinguish his Honour (but that it descends to his Descendants) Neither by Surrender, Grant, Fine, nor any other Conveyance to the King. Upon which the said House, Confirmed the said Opinion, and did accordingly Order the Dignities to Charles Longeville Esq Veneris 5. die Febr. Sequentis. Vera Copia Examinat' per Original' J. P. Die Martis 18. Junij, 1678. FOrasmuch as upon the Debate of the Petitioners Case, who Claims the Title of Viscount Purbeck: A Question at Law did Arise, Whether a Fine Levied to the King by a Peer of the Realm of his Title and Honour, can bar and extinguish the Title. The Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled, upon a very long Debate: And having heard His Majesty's Attorney General, are unanimously of Opinion, and do Resolve and Adjudge, That no Fine Levied, or a● any time hereafter to be Levied to the King, can bar such Title of Honour, or the Right of any Person, Claiming such Title under him that Levied or shall Levy such Fine. Vera Copia Johannis Brown. Clerk Parl ' On the 9th. day of January last 1685. KING Charles the Second of Ever Blessed Memory, did then in Council direct, That the Petitioners 'Cause should be fully determined in PARLIAMENT. Therefore the Petitioner presented to His Most Excellent Majesty KING JAMES the Second, the claimants Petition, with Precedents annexed; wherein the Descent, Property and Right, by the Assent of His now Majesty; He is become the next Heir-Male, and Earl of Northumberland: which Petition was presented into His Sacred Majesty's hands the 26th. of May, 1685. By James Percy. Who further Prays, That Your Lordships will be pleased to Intercede with the KING, for a speedy Determination of this matter, which hath been in Contest about Fifteen Years.