accuser) to convey to him my intelligence, who very well knowes that he and I did often agree that wee would never have a hand in any man's blood. And that this is reallye true may appeare by these two instances: I was taken prisoner by an order from Colonel Goffe, (he not knowing what security I had) and itt happened at the same time that Charles Davison (who was then newly escaped from Whitehall and in reall danger) was in bed with me, yett I found means to procure his escape, and conveyed also foure score pounds in gold from Mr. Berwicke afterwards to him to helpe him away. Soe alsoe some two nights before Dr. Hewitt's triall, Thurloe sent for me to know what particular testimonie I could give against him. I answered, I had no great acquaintance with him, neither did I heare any thing of him, more than his general affection to the Kinge's interest; that I had not beene above twice or thrice in his companie, and not at all above sixe monthes before; whereupon he turned from me in a furye, and told me he would hereafter look upon mee as one that still retayned my old principles. I believe Mr. Moreland can speake to both of these.

I never betrayed above five persons, (whereas I might have betrayed five hundredth all this tyme), three of which were rather by accident than will; and a fourth I got off again myselfe, pretending that if he were at libertie I could gain much intelligence by him, and this I did also for some other eminent persons, whose faces I never saw, nor ever desired to see, for I purposely waved my acquaintance with the Cavalier partye, that, hearinge little, I could not be tempted to reveale much. Several sums of money were conveyed through my hands for the King's business, as also foure several commissions sent by me into Shropshire, none of which I ever betrayed or revealed. I heare I am accused for a conference with Mr. Stapeley; the truth is, I could not saye much, for our discourse was not much. I told Thurloe I believed the King would not trust him, for which I gave him two reasons, both which I hinted to Mr. Stapeley at our conference; and Mr. Stapeley may very well remember, that after that he came clearly off, and soe no doubt would have continued, if there had not beene some stronger information from other hands, for I never saw him after that tyme.

God Almighty knows, and Mr. Moreland can partly testifie, with what remorse and regret I acted my part in this sadd tragedie. I after desired of Mr. Moreland often to be dismissed, and suffered to live quietly in any corner; but he always told me that it was very dangerous to incense those that were in soe great power. I confess, sometimes I had strange and desperate thoughts, devising with myself which way I might redeem my great guilt; and when I heard of Mr. Gardiner's plot against Cromwell's person, I was soe far from revealing it that I wished rather to join with him; and notwithstanding the best art I could use, I never could be once admitted to see the Protector's face. I received not much money, part whereof I freely gave and lent to those cavaliers who were in distresse and captivitie. This is my true and sad case, and itt is much the sadder, because I have none to pitye me; those of the King's enemies, against whom I have acted so violentlye at first, are glad of my ruine; and all his

friends, whom I have so unworthily injured, cannott but justly desire itt; soe that I have noe hope but in the mercye of his Majestie, that as he may looke with an eye of justice upon his father's enemies, so he will looke with an eye of compassion upon his faithful servants; of which number I was, dureing his whole life, as I can make it appeare by many particulars and signall expressions. But, if Almighty God have disposed otherwise, then I have nothinge left mee to doe, but to wash away my guilt with my tears and blood. All which I doe most humbly make bold to tender unto your Honor, beseeching you would be pleased to take notice hereof, and impart the same unto his most sacred Majestie, praying daily for his most happy reigne and future prosperitie; and also for your Honor, being always ready to submit to what shall be further inflicted upon and enjoined me, remaining

Your Honor's most afflicted and

From the Tower, 10th June, 1660.

disconsolate Beadsman,

FRANCIS CORKER.

BARONIES BY WRIT.

THE interest which many persons possess in Baronies that originated in a Writ of Summons to Parliament, renders it probable that notices of the existing state of those dignities will be acceptable to most of our readers.

With this hope, a series of articles will be given, showing among whom such titles as are vested in the heirs general of the first peer are now in abeyance; or, if the abeyance has terminated by the extinction of the other coheirs, on whom the right to the honour has devolved. For the account of these coheirs, we shall be indebted to Francis Townsend, Esq., Rouge Dragon Pursuivant. To the general, and indeed to almost all besides the professional reader, a few preliminary remarks are necessary, in explanation of the law which regulates the descent of " Baronies by Writ," or, as they are also called, "Baronies in Fee;" and as claims to dignities of that nature are often alluded to in the newspapers, and occasionally form the subject of conversation in private society, the statements which will be submitted may perhaps afford information that will be deemed worthy of the regard of those who, though they would never seek it in dry treatises, may derive amusement from it when it is laid before them in language stripped of technical expressions.

The cause to which the origin of BARONIES BY WRIT may be imputed, has been differently stated by the most distinguished writers on the subject; but as it is foreign to the object of these observations

to enter into the inquiry, it is only necessary to remark, that though Writs of Summons to Parliament were probably issued at a much earlier period, the first Writ of that nature on record was dated on the 14th December, 49 of Henry the Third, 1264; and that after that year no similar Writ is extant until the 22d Edw. I., 1294, when about sixty persons were commanded to attend the King, wherever he might be, to advise on the affairs of the kingdom. It has been doubted, however, whether that Writ can be deemed a regular Writ of Summons to Parliament, notwithstanding that in one instance it was admitted as such by the House of Lords; and therefore, perhaps, the earliest Writ of Summons to Parliament, after the 49th of Henry the Third, is that tested on the 24th June, 23d Edw. I. 1295. Whatever may have been the principle relative to the descent of a dignity created by these Writs, it is certain that the effect of them was always to render the persons to whom they were addressed Barons of the realm; and although some writers have expressed a different opinion, there are strong grounds for considering that the dignity thus created was always of an hereditary nature.

The following is a translation of the usual Writs of Summons to Parliament:

Whereas,

"The King, &c. to our beloved and faithful . . . . upon certain arduous matters concerning us and our realm, and other nobles and magnates of the same realm, which without you and their presence we will not have despatched, we desire to hold our Parliament, and to have with you a conference and treaty hereupon. We command you in the faith and homage wherein you are bound to us, strictly enjoining you to be with us at Westminster on the day of the month of next coming, or at least, before the end of the day following, at furthest, to treat with us upon the said matters, and to afford your counsel: and this you are in no wise to neglect. Witness, myself," &c.

The dignity created by the receipt of this Writ, and an attendance in Parliament accordingly, descends to the heirs general of the body of the individual to whom it is addressed: thus on his death without male issue, the Barony becomes vested in his daughter or daughters. If he has only one daughter, she succeeds to it; but if there be more than one the title falls into ABEYANCE among them, and continues in that state either until all but one of the daughters, or the sole heir of only one daughter survives; in which case the Barony devolves on the surviving daughter, or on the heir of her body. If, however, the representation of such daughter be in her coheirs, the dignity falls into abeyance among them, unless the Crown exercises its prerogative of allowing the Barony to either of them. It must be remembered that the representation of a Barony by Writ is always vested in the heirs of the body of the person first created: thus, on the death of a Baron who inherited the dignity, without issue, the title, if he has no brother living, or there be no issue of such brother, will become vested in his sister or sisters, or their heirs in default of which, it will revert to his eldest uncle of the side from which he inherited the dignity, or his issue; failing which, to his aunts and their issue--the females of each generation being preferred to the males of the preceding ge

neration. On the failure of the issue of a Baron who inherited a dignity from his mother, and also of the other issue of his mother, the dignity, of course, devolves on his maternal ancestors or their descendants.

The earliest instance of the Crown having terminated an abeyance of a dignity is presumed to have taken place in the reign of Henry VI.; though the right to do so has been considered as one of the royal prerogatives from a much earlier period. But perhaps the Writ of Summons to James Tuchet, as Lord Audley, in the 8th Henry V., may be cited as the first example of the exercise of it. Though allowed to dispose of a Barony in abeyance to either of the coheirs, the Crown cannot bestow it on any other person than one of the representatives of the first Baron. The manner of terminating the abeyance of a dignity in favour of a person who is not a peer, is by the issuing of a Writ of Summons by the style and title of the Barony in abeyance.

Ás, however, it is a well-known principle in the Law of Dignities, that a Writ of Summons to Parliament does not give an estate of inheritance to the person summoned, and his heirs, unless it be followed by an actual sitting in Parliament; and that the fact of such sitting shall not be presumed, even from an unbroken series of Writs, to the same person, or to several persons in lineal succession from father to son; but that the sitting must be proved, from the records of Parliament, by the person claiming an inheritance in the dignity conferred by such Writ or Writs; the only dignities of which the coheirs will be here traced are of those in which proof of such sitting in Parliament exists. The extent to which this principle operates to the virtual extinction of Baronies which have originated in Writs of Summons only, is not so generally known. Previous to the first year of King Henry VIII., 1509, when the Journals commence, the Rolls of Parliament are the only records of the proceedings in that assembly: but those Rolls contain no regular lists of the peers who attended, nor any mention of their names, except of such as happened to be appointed triers of petitions, or to act in some other particular capacity. So few are the persons thus incidentally recorded as attending and sitting in Parliament, in comparison with the number summoned, that at least one half of the Baronies which originated in Writs of Summons, are virtually extinguished by the impossibility of proving sittings 1.

It may with much reason be insisted, that the issuing of a consecutive series of Writs, not only to one individual, but to his son, and even in many cases to his grandson, though no notice of either of them having ever sat in Parliament can be found, must at least be deemed presumptive evidence that the Crown considered they were entitled to such Writs; and as in early periods of our history it appears to have been an imperative duty in those who were summoned to attend Parliament to obey such summons, it can scarcely be supposed, that persons who were repeatedly commanded to do so should for any time presume to disobey the King's Writs. If it be admitted, that even in one instance a person so summoned obeyed the King's command by attending Parliament, such obedience was a sitting under a Writ: hence it is barely possible for any one at all acquainted with the manners and customs of the times to believe, that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a series of Writs for even ten years should have been issued without the person to whom they were addressed having obeyed them, much less that two or more

Those Baronies by Writ for which no proof of sitting can be found will also be briefly mentioned, but no account will be given of the coheirs. Such Baronies in fee as have been allowed to one of the coheirs will likewise be noticed; and as a strictly alphabetical arrangement will be adopted, a slight history of every dignity of that nature which has existed in this country will ultimately be formed.

It must be remembered, that an attainder for high treason, or for felony, extinguishes all titles of dignity which originated in a writ of summons to parliament, as well as all claim to them which may be derived from a person whose blood has been thus corrupted, the honour being thereby forfeited to the Crown: hence the right which either of the heirs is supposed to possess to the Baronies treated of, is subject to any attainder which their ancestors may have experienced,

ABERGAVENNY. It is wholly impossible to reconcile the descent of this Barony with any established principle; and the proceedings on the subject in the reign of James the First, when it was allowed to the heir male of Edward Neville (the husband of the daughter and heiress of the second Lord Abergavenny, by Writ), who was summoned to Parliament by the title of "Lord of Abergavenny" in 1450, instead of to his heir general, appear to have been grounded on the idea that it was a dignity by the tenure of Abergavenny Castle, though Edward Neville, the individual in whose favour that opinion was allowed to operate, was not seised of that place. The space to which these notices must be confined prevents any discussion on the subject; for the arguments of which it admits would fill several sheets, and which, if stated, would be little more than a repetition, as it has been recently fully noticed in the Lords' Peerage Reports, and elsewhere. Since the opinion, for it cannot be called a decision, of the House of Lords, in 1604, the Barony of Abergavenny, with the precedency of the first Baron of the realm, has been uninterruptedly enjoyed by the heir male of Edward Neville, to whom it was then allowed; and is now possessed by the present Earl of Abergavenny.

ALDEBURGH. In the 44th Edw. III. 1371, William de Aldeburgh was summoned to Parliament, and he continued to be so summoned until the 10th of Richard the Second, in which year he died 1; but no proof can be found of his having ever sat in Parliament. His son and

generations should have been regularly summoned, and yet that neither of them should ever have sat in Parliament, because no notice of such sitting is to be found on the Rolls, when, as is just remarked, their presence in Parliament would not have been recorded, unless they happened to have been parties to certain transactions, or were selected for particular duties. This argument derives very considerable weight from the fact, that numerous records exist in which a special licence was granted to a peer to absent himself from Parliament, in most cases because he was otherwise engaged in the King's service (See Palgrave's Parliamentary Writs, passim), thus proving that the fact of his being so employed was not a sufficient excuse, unless an express licence was given him for that purpose. It was in all probability considerations of this nature that induced Sir William Jones (in the Frescheville case) to observe," that it was one thing where Writs of Summons had been often repeated, and another where they were never issued but once." 1 Esch. 11 Rich. II. No. 3.