At Parliamentary Elections.]-Peers of parliament have no right to vote at elections of members of the house of commons, and are, therefore, not entitled to be placed on the register of voters. Beauchamp (Earl) v. Madresfield Overseers, 42 L. J., C. P. 32; L. R. 8 C. P. 245 ; 27 L. T. 606; 21 W. R. 124; 2 Hopw. & C. 41. An Irish peer, who is not one of the representative peers of Ireland, nor the representative of any constituency in Great Britain, is not entitled to be placed on the register of voters. Rendlesham (Lord) v. Haward, 43 L. J., C. P. 33; L. R. 9 C. P. 252; 29 L. T. 679; 22 W. R. 157; 2 Hopw. & C. 175.

Right to Reside Abroad.] - Although the status of a peer requires him to attend the house of lords ad consulendum et defendendum reginam, whenever summoned for that purpose, and may subject him to a fine for non-attendance, he is not thereby precluded from exercising the right, which every free man possesses, of changing his place of residence, and going abroad and acquiring a foreign domicil. Hamilton v. Dallas, 45 L. J., Ch. 15; 1 Ch. D. 257; 33 L. T. 495; 24 W. R. 264.

Contempt.]-Process of contempt cannot issue against a peer. Pheasant v. Pheasant, 2 Vent.

342.

Receiver.]-Peer not to be a receiver. Att. Gen. v. Gee, 5 V. & B. 208.

2. PROCEEDINGS BY AND AGAINST. Actions by.]-A peer of Ireland cannot sue or prosecute by his name of dignity, unless he is a lord of parliament; he should be described by his proper name, with the addition of his degree and title, but without any addition of "commonly called." Rex v. Graham, 2 Leach, C. C. 547.

A plaintiff declared as Earl of S.; the defendant pleaded in abatement that the plaintiff was not Earl of S. :-Held, that the replication must show how he claimed the dignity. Stirling (Earl) v. Clayton, 1 C. & M. 241; 3 Tyr. 154; 2 L. J., Ex. 43.

Security for Costs.]—A plaintiff, who is a peer, and out of the jurisdiction, must give the usual security for costs. Aldborough (Lord) v. Burton, 2 Myl. & K. 401.

Actions Against.]-Judgment of respondeat ouster having been given on a plea of peerage. and a verdict afterwards having been obtained for the plaintiff, the court refused to set aside, upon an affidavit of peerage, a ca. sa. issued against the defendant. Digby v. Alexander, 9 Bing. 412; 2 M. & Scott, 581; 1 D. P. C. 713; 1 L. J., C. P. 42, 122.

It is no ground for a plea in abatement that a defendant, sued as a Scotch peer, is also described as having privilege of parliament; the words in the declaration, "having privilege of parliament," being immaterial and unnecessary, may be rejected as surplusage. Cantwell v. Stirling (Earl), 1 M. & Scott, 297; 8 Bing. 174; 1 L. J., C. P. 77.

It was no ground for setting aside a writ of summons, that it was framed as a pluries writ,

When Peer Abroad.]-Service of a summons on a peer, at his residence, when he is absent in France, is sufficient. Anon., 1 D. P. C. 81.

Service of a subpoena to appear, and of an order for a sequestration nisi, upon a peer, at a time when he was beyond the jurisdiction, by leaving them at the peer's town residence :-Held, under the circumstances, to be good service. Thomas v. Jersey, 2 Myl. & K. 398.

Before the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, a distringas might be issued to compel the appearance of a peer who was known to be abroad. Houlditch v. Lichfield (Earl), 4 Man. & G. 770 ; 5 Scott (N.R.) 190; 12 L. J., C. P. 80. S. P., Snape v. Waldegrave (Earl), 2 D. (N.S.) 401; 12 L. J., Q. B. 99; Taylor v. Stuart de Rothesay (Lord), 4 Man. & G. 388; 5 Scott (N.R.) 183 ; Davis v. Lichfield (Earl), 1 D. (N.S.) 363; 11 L. J., Ex. 260.

Liability to Bankruptcy.] - A non-trader having privilege of parliament was liable to be made a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, s. 69. Morris, Ex parte, Newcastle (Duke), In re, L. R. 5 Ch. 172; 21 L. T. 380; 18 W. R. 79. Se 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 124.

3. PEERAGES.

a. Incidents of Dignity.

Descent. In the absence of contrary limitation, the invariable presumption of law is, that a peerage descends to heirs male, and not to heirs general. Herries Peerage, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 258. S. P., Perth Earldom, 2 H. L. Cas. 865.

The legal presumption in favour of heirs male may be rebutted by authoritative evidence, but not by inferential deduction. Ib.

The crown cannot give to the grant of a dignity or honour a quality of descent unknown to the law. Wiltes Peerage, L. R. 4 H. L. 126.

A limitation to heirs in the grant of a peerage may be incapable of taking effect, and yet the patent, so far as the grantee himself is concerned, may not be void. Ib.

66

In the reign of Richard II. an earldom was created habendum et tenendum, “ A. et hæredibus suis masculis imperpetuum." The grantee sat in parliament as earl under this creation :Held, that it did not create a dignity descendible to his heirs male general. Ib.

A peerage limited to a man and his heirs male is one entire estate, and no substitution of heirs takes place. Perth Earldom, 2 H. L. Cas. 865. A peerage limited to a man and his heirs male whomsoever is forfeitable under 26 Hen. 8, c. 13. Ib.

The grandchild and heir of a person summoned to and sitting in parliament as a baron and a peer of the realm by writ, in his father's (a peer's) lifetime, is not entitled to the barony for which his grandfather was so summoned. Perry, Ex parte, 5 Bro. P. C. 509.

In the grant of an earldom by letters patent, a limitation to the grantee, and his heirs male, is not void; but the honour, in default of heirs male of the body of the grantee, will descend to his heirs male collateral. Decon Peerage Claim, 5 Bligh (N.S.) 220.

Quære, whether the crown has any power to make a conditional limitation of a peerage. Cope v. De la Warr (Earl), infra.

Rights by Tenure.]-B. claimed the right to be summoned to sit as a baron, by reason of his being, under a will of the Earl of B., tenant for life of the castle, manor, &c., constituting the barony of B. The claim was disallowed. Berkeley Peerage, 8 H. L. Cas. 21; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 21; 4 L. T. 686.

The right to sit in the house of peers by reason of the tenure of particular lands, if it ever existed, has long been discontinued, and does not exist. Ib.

The law of the peerage depends entirely on usage, both as to the power of the crown and as to any claim that may be made by a subject. Ib.

Creations, general Principles.]—There can be no use or trust in the case of a peerage. Buckhurst Peerage, 2 App. Cas. 1-H. L.

Therefore when, in a patent of peerage, there were successive limitations of the peerage in the ordinary form of descent, and then a clause was introduced which, on the happening of a collateral event, would transfer the enjoyment of the peerage from the existing peer and his heirs to a new holder, such clause was held to be invalid. Ib.

One clause in a patent may be invalid without affecting the validity of the patent itself. Ib. Semble, that the crown has not an unlimited power of limiting dignities in any way that it pleases, and that it cannot create a mode of succession to a title totally unknown to the law. Cope v. De la Warr (Earl), 42 L. J., Ch. 870; L. R. 8 Ch. 982; 29 L. T. 565; 22 W. R. 8.

Sovereign has no Reversion.]-If one be created a baron, viscount, &c., by patent, and after, in the same patent, the honour is granted to another in remainder, it operates as a new grant; for the king has no reversion of the honour in him, though he has the power of appointing the succession. Rex v. Purbeck (Lord), Shower, P. C. 5, 11.

Sovereign cannot hold Peerage.]-The sovereign cannot hold a peerage; accordingly, where a member of the royal family, who was a peer of Ireland, succeeded to the crown, the peerage became extinct, Oranmore's (Lord) Claim, 2 H. L. Cas. 910.

Refusal of.]-Quære, whether a subject can refuse a peerage created either by patent or by writ. Egerton v. Brownlow (Earl), 4 H. L. Cas. 1; 18 Jur. 71.

Shifting of Estates.]-A patent conferring a barony contained a clause that, if any person taking under the patent should succeed to a certain earldom, then, and so often as the same should happen, the succession to the dignity should devolve upon the son of the grantee, or the heir who would be next entitled to succeed to the dignity if the person succeeding to the earldom was dead without issue male. In pursuance of executory trusts in the grantee's will, an estate was settled to follow the dignity with a clause following the above clause in the patent. The earldom having devolved on the second son of the grantee (who succeeded her in the dignity):

-Held, that, whether the clause in the patent was valid or not, the clause in the settlement took effect, and took effect so as to shift the estate immediately. Cope v. De la Warr (Earl), 42 L. J., Ch. 870; L. R.8 Ch. 982; 29 L. T. 565; 22 W. R. 8.

Limitations as to Property-When Contrary to Public Policy.]-The Earl of Bridgewater devised extensive real estates to trustees, to make a settlement according to the limitations mentioned in his will. One of these limitations was, "to Lord Alford, for and during the term of ninety-nine years, if he shall so long live"; remainder to trustees during his life, to preserve contingent remainders; "remainder to the use of the heirs male of his body, with remainder, in default of such issue, to the use of C. for the term of ninety-nine years, if he shall so long live"; remainder to trustees, to preserve contingent remainders; "remainder to the use of the heirs male of the body of C., subject nevertheless, as to the several uses and estates so to be limited to Lord Alford and C., and to the trustees during their respective lives, and to the heirs male of their respective bodies, to the several provisoes for the determination thereof hereinafter contained." The testator then declared, "that in the settlement to be made pursuant to my will, my estates are not to be limited successively to the use of the first and other sons of Lord Alford or of C., in tail male, but to the heirs male of their respective bodies, in the words of this my will, it being my intention that the vesting of my estates in the heirs male of their respective bodies shall be suspended during the lives of the Lord Alford and C. respectively." The testator then provided, "that if Lord Alford shall die without having acquired the title of Duke or Marquis of Bridgewater to him and the heirs male of his body, then, and in such case, the use and estate herein before directed to be limited to the heirs male of his body, shall cease and be absolutely void." There was a similar proviso as to Lord Alford acquiring such title within five years after he should succeed to be Earl Brownlow, and unless he did so, the testator directed that the estate limited "shall thenceforth cease and be absolutely void, and my real estates shall thereupon go over and be enjoyed according to the subsequent uses and limitations declared and directed by my will, as if Lord Alford were actually dead without issue male." Lord Alford entered into possession of the estates, but died without acquiring either of the titles, leaving an heir male-Held, that the estate thus created in favour of Lord Alford's heirs male was not affected by the proviso, which was a condition subsequent, and which was void as being against public policy, and therefore that the eldest son of Lord Alford was entitled to the estates as heir male, under the limitation. Egerton v. Brownlow (Earl), supra.

Forfeiture.]-See post, col. 316, 317.

b. Scotch.

An ancient Scotch dignity might, before the union, be conveyed by the possessor, together with the territory thereto annexed, to another branch of the family, or even to a stranger, with the king's authority; or it might be resigned to the king, to be re-granted by a new patent, with different destinations and with its old precedency.

On a claim by co-heirs to the dignity of a baron, created in the reign of Hen. 8, and in abeyance from the reign of Car. 2, they proved that their ancestor sat among the peers in parliament in the 25th Hen. 8; that he was duly summoned to and sat in the parliament of the 28th Hen. 8; and that he and his heirs male, who were also his heirs general, were summoned to and sat in several succeeding parliaments by the style and title of Lord Vaux. To account for the want of evidence of a writ of summons prior to the sitting in the 25th Hen. 8, they showed that there were no lords journals extant from the 7th to the 25th Hen. 8; that the inrolments of writs during that period were very imperfect, and that although the patent rolls were complete, no patent or charter of creation of a barony of Vaux, nor any record or trace of such patent, was discovered after the most diligent searches in all the offices for records :-Held, that the barony of Vaux was created by writ of summons and sitting in parliament, and was therefore descendible to heirs general. Vaux Peerage, 5 Cl. & F. 526.

Writ of, not Produced.]-On the consideration of a claim to an ancient barony which has been long in abeyance, if the claimant proves that his ancestor sat as a peer, and no patent or charter of creation can be discovered, it is the established rule to hold that the barony was created by writ of summons and sitting, although the original writ of summons or inrolment of it is not produced. Braye Peerage, 6 Cl. & F. 757; 1 West, 1.

Through whom Descent traced.]-B., claiming of right to be Lord Baron of Slane, in the peerage of Ireland, as heir general of Lord Slane, and alleging that the same was a barony in fee, showed, by his statement and proofs, that from the first creation of a peerage in his ancestors, to 1597, four such peers, dying at various periods without issue male, but leaving daughters or sisters, were severally succeeded in the dignity by the heirs male, uncles or cousins, who were in possession of the family estates. The claimant further showed, that a Lord Baron of Slane whom he alleged to be the last peer of the family, and of whom he stated himself to be sole heir general, left a daughter, an only child, who long survived him, but did not claim the peerage, and also two sisters, the elder of whom he stated to have died without issue, and from the younger the claimant derived his descent, as her sole heir-Held, that the claimant, though he might be heir general, had failed to make out his claim to the dignity, as it appeared by his own statement to have gone uniformly to the heirs male, in exclusion of the heirs female, who had never made claim to it. Slane Peerage, 5 Cl. & F. 23; 10 Bligh, 1.

e. Other Evidence. Generally.]-When the legislature has directed that a particular rule as to evidence shall be adopted in every court of civil judicature, though these words do not include a committee of privi leges, such committee will, if the rule itself is convenient, adopt and act upon it. The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 27, which permits in all courts of civil jurisdiction comparison of handwriting, as a means of evidence, was therefore adopted by the committee. Shrewsbury Peerage, H. L. Cas. 1.

A claimant, after his case was referred and evidence taken on it, presented an original case, alleging an inscription on a tombstone in a churchyard in Ireland, which, if proved, would sustain his claim. The tombstone could not be produced. Several witnesses from the neighbour. hood swore positively that they saw the tombstone and inscription about twenty years before. There was no material discrepancy in their statements, nor were any witnesses called to contradict them:-Held, that the evidence of the existence of the tombstone or of the inscription was not sufficient; and that the neglect of the claimant to produce this material part of his case earlier induced a suspicion of fraud, which could not be removed without the production of the tombstone, or of other witnesses of greater credit from the neighbourhood. Tracey Peerage, 10 Cl. & F. 154.

Documentary.]-A statement in a claim of peerage made by the claimant's father, who at the moment of making it was himself a claimant, and an affidavit made in support of the claim, were admitted, as representations made by the claimant, and as coming through him before the committee, to be read in answer to his claim. Ib. Any document laid by a claimant before the attorney-general, and with his report referred to the house, becomes evidence. Ib. 137.

An admission by the attorney-general is not binding on a subsequent committee. Crawford and Lindsay Peerages, infra.

On a claim to a Scotch peerage, there being no patent or charter of creation or inrolment thereof discovered, a copy of an inrolment of a commis sion under the great seal and king's sign manual, dated in February, 1605, directing the commissioners to create James Lord Drummond Earl of Perth, was received and held, in conjunction with subsequent entries in the parlia ment records, to be sufficient proof of the creation of the earldom. Perth Earldom, 2 H. L. Cas. 865.

In a claim of peerage, where there is no patent of creation, nor inrolment of such patent, and the contemporaneous lords' journals are not in existence, an old MS. book, purporting to be copied from the journals by an officer whose duty it was to prepare lists of peers present and absent, will be received as evidence of a peer's sitting in parliament. Slane Peerage, 10 Bligh, 1 ; 5 Cl. & F. 23.

Upon a claim to a Scotch peerage, where no patent of creation could be found, but it appeared from the records of parliament that the ancestor, through whom the claim was made, had sat in parliament by the title alleged to have been vested in him, an original instrument, purporting

to be a grant under the great seal of the dignity in question, which was extracted from the repositories of the family, was admitted in evidence. Huntley Peerage, 5 Cl. & F. 349. Same doctrine held as in last case, and also that the use of the term banneret, as applied to the ancestor in the writ, did not take the case out of the rule, the term banneret, if not synonymous with baron, being at any rate not inconsistent with it. Camoys (Barony), West, 34; 6 Cl. & F. 789.

An entry in the journals of the committee of privileges was, upon trial of a claim to vote at the election of representative peers for Ireland, good evidence of the limitations in a patent of peerage, without producing the patent. Dufferin and Clandeboye (Lord), In re, 4 Cl. & F. 568.

Ancient documents of a public character, brought from the proper repository, are, in the absence of patents of parliamentary records, admissible as evidence of the creation and existence of peerages. Crawford and Lindsay Peerages, 2 H. L. Cas. 534.

An ancient patent without the seal, or any ecord of it, but with the attestation thereof duly verified, is admissible. Ib.

The minutes of evidence and proceedings before the committee of privileges in one case are not necessarily receivable as evidence in another. Braye Peerage, infra.

The right to the same dignity having been the subject of investigation in the Irish house of lords, the minutes of proceedings and of evidence, including depositions taken by commissioners under an order of that house, are admissible here (the witness being dead), not only against the crown and other parties to that investigation, but also against a person who was not a party to the proceedings, but was cognizant of them. Roscommon's (Earl) Case, infra. Copy of the record of a patent of peerage admitted. Lanesborough's (Earl) Claim, 1 H. L. Cas. 510, n.

Printed copies of records rejected, the original being accessible. Crawford and Lindsay Peerages, supra.

Though the rule in peerage cases is, that the original will must itself be produced to the committee, a copy of a will brought by the officer from the prerogative court was admitted, such will having been made at the time, when the course of the officers of that court was to take copies of wills, and to return the originals to the executors, and the persons now opposing the admission of the copy being the representatives of those executors. Shrewsbury Peerage, infra.

Proved by Minutes of Proceedings taken on previous Occasion.]-Semble, that on a claim to an ancient barony, minutes of proceedings on a former claim before the king in council are admissible in evidence in the house of lords. Fitzwalter Peerage, 10 Cl. & F. 946.

The committee of privileges will in its discretion permit documents to be proved by printed minutes of proceedings before a former committee on the same peerage, but, as a rule, will require the production of the original documents. Berkeley Peerage, 8 H. L. Cas. 21; 8 Jur. (N.S.) 21; 4 L. T. 686. S. P., Beaumont Peerage, 6 Cl. & F. 868.

Where the nature of the peerage, and not the pedigree of a claimant, is in question, a plate erected in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, on the

installation of a particular person as knight of the garter, is not admissible to prove the description given to him. Ib.

A report of the proceedings on another and different claim of peerage can only be referred to for the purpose of argument, but cannot be received. Ib.

Plate of Arms-By Copy.]-A copy of a plate of the arms of knights of the garter existing in the Chapel Royal at Windsor, was received in evidence, the plate itself not being removable, except by authority of the queen, and no such plate having been removed since first put up in the reign of Henry 5. Shrewsbury Peerage, 7 H. L. Cas. 1.

And also give primâ facie proofs of the pedigree of such of them as decline to claim the barony, to enable the house to make a satisfactory report to the crown. Braye Peerage, 6 Cl. & F. 757; 1 West, 1.

The proper course for a co-heir claiming a peerage in abeyance, is to petition the crown to terminate the abeyance in his favour; but if he does not claim the dignity, and it appears from the case of a claimant that he has an interest, the house will, on his petition, allow him to appear before the committee of privileges, and present a case to protect his interest in the peerage. Ib.

If a claimant omits to give evidence of the creation and limitation of one of several dignities, to which he states, in his petition, that he is of right entitled, the committee will not report that he has made good his claim to that dignity, on the presumption that it descended from the same ancestor with the other dignities to which the claimant has proved his right. Huntley Peerage, 5 Cl. & F. 349.

It is not sufficient in a petition to the crown, to state that the claimant is of right entitled to the dignity, but the petition should pray that the claimant may be declared so entitled; and the committee, or the house of lords, has no power to supply the defect of the prayer, but it will be necessary for the claimant to present an amended petition to the crown. Ib.

A petitioner, claiming as an Irish peer to be admitted to vote at the election of representative peers of Ireland, was required in consequence of a doubt of his right, and also of an adverse claim, to give in a printed case containing his pedigree, and references to his proofs. Roscommon's (Earl) Case, 6 Cl. & F. 97.

A person claimed a peerage. An estate was alleged to be annexed to the title. Persons who, in the event of the peerage being extinct, would be entitled to the estate, but who alleged that their title would be defeated if the claim to the peerage should be established, were allowed to appear and be heard in opposition to the claim. Shrewsbury Peerage, 7 H. L. Cas. 1.

In consequence of his right being doubtful, and of an adverse claim, the petitioner was required to give in a printed case, containing his pedigree and reference to proofs. Roscommon's (Earl) Case, 6 Cl. & F. 97.

A claimant to a peerage having made out a