Claimable Baronies in abeyance

[colinp]

Henry W's recent post about the Lord Great Chamberlain's co-heirs led me to wonder how many baronies in abeyance could be claimed by one of the known co-heirs.  As is probably well known the Crown will not call a barony out of abeyance where the abeyance has lasted more than 100 years.  My list of these is as follows:-

Audley (1313) abeyant since 1997

Botetourt (1305) abeyant since 1984

Botreaux (1368) Stanley (1456) and Hastings (1461) abeyant since 1960

Cobham (1312/13) abeyant since 1981

Fauconberg (1283) and Conyers (1509) abeyant since 2013

Furnivall (1295) abeyant since 1968

Grey de Ruthyn (1324) abeyant since 1963

North (1554) abeyant since 1941

I will post separately for each of the baronies with a list of the known co-heirs and their shares.  Each post will look at the shares each co-heir holds as the Crown will not consider a claim where the petitioner holds less than a one-third share of the barony unless the petitioner is a child of the last holder or a descendant of the parent of the last holder.  The posts are based largely on the information contained in the last Debretts Peerage and Baronetage so any more up to date information would be welcomed

I then started to wonder how the process for calling a barony out of abeyance has changed since the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999.  I think I am right in saying that only one barony has been called out of abeyance since that Act was passed and that was the Barony of Herbert (abeyant since 1984 and called out in 2002).

The House of Lords Journal (it's not mentioned in Hansard or at least not in the online version) records the following for 14 February 2002:-

"Barony of Herbert—The Lord Chancellor reported that Her Majesty had been pleased to determine the abeyance in the Barony of Herbert, created by Writ in the year 1461, in favour of David John Seyfried; and that the provisions of Standing Order 10A had been complied with. The Clerk of the Parliaments was accordingly directed to enter Lord Herbert on the register of hereditary peers maintained under Standing Order 10 (5)."

Though interesting this obviously did not indicate the procedure in any detail and in particular whether there had been a report from or consideration by the Committee for Privileges (now the Committee for Privileges and Conduct".  It might indicate that the process was external to the House and may have been determined on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.

It would be useful to set out the pre-1999 procedure.  This is taken from the article “Baronies by Writ and the Barony of Grey of Codnor, Its History and the Investigations involved in having it Called out of Abeyance” by Thomas Woodcock, Somerset Herald contained in Debretts Peerage and Baronetage 1995:-

1.  Petition to Crown through the Home Secretary

2. Garter King of Arms consulted as to whether there is a prima facie case

3. If so, Home Secretary refers the Petition to the Attorney-General

4. A-G submits a report to Crown as to whether the Petition should be referred to the House of Lords

5. Findings of the Committee for Privileges are confirmed by resolution of the House and this is referred by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Lord Chamberlain who lays it before the Sovereign who then forwards it to the Prime Minister for advice

6. If the Committee’s report is favourable to the Petitioner the Prime Minister therefore has the final say as to whether the abeyance is terminated in favour of the Petitioner

7. If the Prime Minister agrees, he informs the Home Secretary and with Garter’s assistance drafts the Warrant directing the issue of a Writ of Summons and when signed by the Sovereign it is forwarded to the Lord Chancellor

Obviously 7 would no longer apply and in 1 the petition would probably (by virtue of changes in Government functions) be presented through the Secretary of State for Justice (formerly for Constitutional Affairs).  I was curious as to the continuing role of the Committee for Privileges.  In fact I had great difficulty finding anything online apart from a section on the Debretts website under "Claims for Peerages" which covers abeyant peerage claims briefly.  In the end I checked Atkins Court Forms Volume 29 (3) which deals with Peerages and Dignities and also includes useful forms relating to the Court of Chivalry.  This sets out the post-1999 procedure for petitioning for a peerage to be called out of abeyance which is briefly as follows:-

1. A claim to a non-Irish peerage is made by petitioning the Crown that the petitioner be declared a co-heir and that the abeyance may be terminated in his/her favour.  [A claim to an Irish peerage in abeyance must be notified to the Crown and then the claimant must petition the House of Lords and the claim will be referred to the Committee for Privileges]

2.  The petition is presented through the Ministry of Justice which refers it to the Attorney-General to report on the claim. (It's possible but not stated that the Attorney-General/Lord Advocate would consult with Garter King of Arms/Lord Lyon).  In the case of pre-Union Scottish peerages the petition is presented through the Scotland Office and referred to the Lord Advocate. For post-Union peerages with "a strong Scottish connection" the petition is presented through the MoJ but assigned to the Scotland Office for the Lord Advocate to report on.

3.  If there are no questions of law or pedigree at issue the Attorney-General (or Lord Advocate) usually advises the Crown to exercise its discretion to grant or refuse the petition without reference to the House  - not stated but I assume the discretion would be exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister

4.  If the Attorney General (Lord Advocate) is of the opinion that there may be grounds for doubting the propriety of any arrangements between the co-heirs he must recommend a reference to the House since it is for the House and not the Attorney-General to decide whether any impropriety exists

5.  When a petition is referred to the Attorney-General he requires the petitioner to attend before him with written and oral evidence in order to establish a prima facie case.

6.  If the petition is referred to the House it is referred to the Committee for Privileges who will then consider the petitioner's detailed case and that of any opponents, all parties being represented by counsel and the Attorney-General will represent the Crown

7.  The Committee's decision is referred to the House and if the House agrees the House's resolution and determination of the claim is submitted to the Crown.  In cases where a peerage in abeyance is the subject of a claim and the petitioner has successfully made out his claim to be a co-heir it does not necessarily follow that the Crown will call the peerage out of abeyance in his favour.

It will be seen that under the "new" procedure claims are not necessarily referred to the Committee for Privileges

[bx...@yahoo.com]

colinp, thanks for posting all of this information.

Hats off to a job well done!

Brooke

[Henry W]

Thanks for all this information Colin. I have to say that I find it increasingly unlikely that the Crown will terminate an abeyance in the future, and in fact I am surprised that it did so at all post-1999 HoL Act, but maybe the 2002 termination had been set in train at an earlier date? The only possible change, and I think it is an outside chance, is that peerage law reform might allow wider inheritance by women, and in so doing it would make sense to prevent any title falling into abeyance in the future (and simultaneously call out all currently abeyant titles).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newprogressive/Peerage_titles_with_no_heirs#Titles_likely_to_become_abeyant

I also note that my Wikipedia user page now tracks titles that are likely to fall into abeyance and the two that are likely to come out of abeyance "naturally".

[Henry W]

Does anybody have a list of times when peerages have come out of abeyance "naturally" without the Crown intervening (or perhaps would have done if the Crown had not terminated the abeyance earlier).

I am aware of:

Fauconberg & Conyers - abeyant in 1948, terminated as sole heir in 2012 (shortly before falling into abeyance again!)

Furnivall - abeyant in 1616, terminated as sole heir in 1651

[Richard R]

Brilliant piece of work thanks Colin and I don't underestimate how much time and effort was involved in producing it - and all the posts you've done on individual titles. It's prompted me to look again at Atkins Court Forms which I haven't looked at since before 1999.

[colinp]

When the Viscountcy St Davids becomes extinct as seems likely to happen when the present 4th Viscount (b 1966) and his brother Hon Roland Philipps (b 1970) die - the baronies of Hungerford, Strange of Knockin and de Moleyns will go into abeyance between the two daughters of Hon Roland Philipps - Amber Augusta b 1998 and Charlotte Isabella b 2000

On Thursday, 16 August 2018 21:42:26 UTC+1, colinp wrote:

[bx...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:42:26 PM UTC-4, colinp wrote:

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Are all of these titles old English titles? 

 Why were future title creations not created like this?  

If they had been, there probably would have been more titles in existence today.

Thanks.

Brooke

On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 4:42:26 PM UTC-4, colinp wrote:

[marquess]

I can't quite answer your question, but a better example of how peerages should have been created, is the barony of Lucas of Crudwell, to heirs male and female without division. Hence inheritable by females but with no abeyance, it is a pity that the creation of the modern earldom of Cromartie didn't follow this example. Then like the Spanish one would virtually need dynamite to make the peerage extinct.