without issue, leaving (second) Armine Styleman, Clerk, his brother and heir, who died in 1803, leaving Henry Styleman, Esq. his son and heir, who died in 1819, leaving this petitioner his son and heir; who was one of the coheirs of the said Barony, as coheir of the before-mentioned Elizabeth Le Strange; and as such coheir he prayed Her Majesty to determine the abeyance of the Barony in his favour. Both the petitions were referred by the House, with the Attorney-general's reports respectively annexed, to the Lords Committees for Privileges. At the first sitting of the Committee, on the 16th of July 1840, Sir Harris Nicolas appeared as counsel for Sir Jacob Astley; Sir William Follett appeared for Mr. Styleman Le Strange; and the Attorney-general (Sir John Campbell), for the Crown. No counsel or agent appearing for Mrs. Browne, proof was given (as required) that she had been served with notice of the petitioners' claims, and of the reference thereof to the Committee. Sir Harris Nicolas having opened the allegations of Sir Jacob Astley's petition, and stated generally the evidence which he had to support them, proceeded to examine his witnesses. Having proved, by the production of the inrolments of writs of summons to Parliament, dated in December in the 49th year of King Henry 3-which are the earliest writs of summons to Peers now extant, on record that Henry de Hastings was summoned to that Parliament, the learned counsel observed to the Committee, that as the rolls of Parliament did not commence until the reign of Edward 1, he could not give the usual or any direct proof that the said 1840. HASTINGS PEERAGE. 1840. HASTINGS Henry Lord Hastings, or any other Peer, sat in that Parliament; but to show that he was then a Baron PEERAGE. of the realm, he proposed to put in an instrument, dated at London the 13th of December 1263 (the 48th of Hen. 3), by which the persons therein styled "Barones,” of whom Henry de Hastings was one, agreed to submit to the award of Louis King of France the disputes between Henry 3 and his discontented Barons, respecting the Provisions of Oxford and other matters (a). The Attorney-general objected to the admissibility of that instrument for the purpose, for which it was offered and submitted that, as it was not an act done or purporting to be done in Parliament, or by appointment of Parliament, it could not be taken as evidence that the persons named in it were Lords of Parliament. Sir H. Nicolas did not press for the reception of the instrument. 66 That Henry de Hastings died in the 52d of Hen. 3 was proved by production of an inquisition taken after his death; and that his son John was one of the Magnates and Proceres" present in the Parliament held in the 18th of Edw. 1 (1290), was shown by the Parliament roll of that year (b); but there was no evidence of his having been summoned to that Parliament, no writs of summons being extant on record (a) Fœdera, New Ed. t. 1. p. 433; 1 Lords' Rep. on the Dig. of the Peerage, p. 135. (b) A memorandum of a grant to the King, "in pleno Parliamento," entered in that roll, after mentioning the names of several persons, Johannes de Hastings being among them, added, "et cæteri magnates et proceres tunc in Parliamento existentes pro se et communitate totius regni quantum in ipsis est concessimus domino regi ad filiam primogenitum maritandum," &c. It of from the 49th of Hen. 3 to the 23d of Edw. 1. appeared, however, from the inrolments of writs summons to Parliament in that year, and to the several Parliaments in the 27th, 28th, and 34th years of Edw. 1 and the 1st and 6th of Edw. 2, that this John de Hastings was summoned as a Baron to the Parliaments held in those years; and to show that he sat in the Parliament held at London the 28th of Edw. 1, it was proposed to put in the charter roll of that year, in which his name appeared as a witness to the confirmation of the great charter, &c. The Attorney-general submitted that the appearance of the name of a person as a witness to that charter could not be evidence of his sitting as a Peer in Parliament; because he might be a witness to the charter of confirmation without being a Peer, and he was not described as a Peer. Sir Harris Nicolas replied, that he could show that all the persons whose names appeared as witnesses to the act of confirmation were summoned to Parliament as Peers. His object in producing this document was to show that the proceeding took place in Parliament, and that John de Hastings was present. The evidence was received for that purpose. In further proof that John de Hastings sat in the Parliament held at Lincoln the 28th of Edw. 1, a copy of a letter was tendered, purporting to have been written by the Earls and Barons there assembled, the name of John de Hastings being among them, to Pope Boniface the 8th, denying his right to the kingdom of Scotland.-(Two copies of this letter, appearing to be originals, are preserved in the Chapterhouse, Westminster.) 1840. HASTINGS 1840. HASTINGS The Attorney-general objected to the admission of this document, as it did not appear that the letter was an act done in the Parliament, or that the names affixed to it were necessarily the names of Peers. He objected to its being received even de bene esse (as was proposed by Sir H. Nicolas), lest its admission might create doubts as to the rules of evidence on this subject. Sir Harris Nicolas submitted that it was admissible, if not of itself, at least in connexion with the other evidence which he had produced. The Lords Committees on the Dignity of a Peer, at the conclusion of their Fourth Report, considered that this letter might be sufficient evidence of a sitting in Parliament by those whose names were signed to it, if there was no other sufficient evidence of their being summoned; as there is in this case. At present, as the Committee seemed inclined against the reception of the document, he withdrew it, reserving the right of tendering it again, should he find it material. The document was not again tendered. After proving by an inquisition that John de Hastings died in the 6th of Edw. 2, and that John, his son and heir, was summoned to several successive Parliaments, and that Lawrence, his grandson, was summoned, and was created Earl of Pembroke, and that that line, and also the Earldom of Pembroke, became extinct on the death of John, the sixth Baron, without issue, in the 13th of Rich. 2,Sir H. Nicolas-in order to show that the title of Hastings then devolved on the male issue of the firstnamed John, second Baron Hastings, by his second wife Isabel le Despenser (the line through which the petitioners claimed), instead of the descendants of his only daughter Elizabeth, by his first marriage with Isabel de Valence, the ancestors of Lady Grey de Ruthyn-put in evidence numerous inquisitions taken after the death of John the sixth and last Baron Hastings. By some of these it was found that Hugh Hastings, who was the lineal heir male descended in the fourth generation from the said second marriage of the second Baron Hastings, was the last Baron's heir to several manors. By some it was found that Lord Grey de Ruthyn, grandson of the said Elizabeth Hastings, was heir to various other lands; while it was found by others of them that other persons were heirs to other lands of the said last Baron; but that the said Hugh's brother and heir was heir to the lands held by the last Baron's widow, he being, on the widow's death, found heir to the last Baron. From said Hugh and Edward the descent of the title was traced down to Edward's great-grandson, Sir George Hastings, between whose grand-daughters, Anne and Elizabeth, it fell into abeyance in 1540. There was no attempt to prove that any of their ancestors, from the death of the sixth Baron in 1389, was summoned to, or sat in, Parliament; and the reason given for their not claiming the dignity was, that until 1641 the law was not declared that the rule of possessio fratris was not applicable to the descent of dignities, as it was to lands; and therefore the family of the Greys de Ruthyn, descended from Elizabeth Hastings, who had assumed the title, were supposed during the whole interval to have a better right to it than the descendants from her brother of the half blood (c). (c) The law was so declared on the claim of Mr. Longueville to the Hastings Barony, as the right heir of Elizabeth Hastings.See the Lords Journals, Vol. 4, 1640-41; Collins's Baronies by Writ, pp. 195, 196; and the Lords' Committees on the Dignity of a Peer, 1st Report, 442, and 3d Report, 26. 47. 1840. HASTINGS PEERAGE. |