Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/728

 7o6 APPENDIX H inseparably knit to the said earldom," and ought to descend therewith, he failed to deprive William Cecil of it, and this in spite of the fact that his claim was strengthened by the possession of the estate in which the title of the ancient Barony of Ros was said to have its origin. We observe also that doctrine of the half-blood was discussed in the Grey of Ruthyn and Fitzwalter cases, and the law thereon settled, and that the doctrine that an earldom attracted a barony was negatived in the Fitzwalter case.('') This brings us to the year 1674, when a clear decision ot the right of the heir general to succeed to a barony by writ was given in favour of Catherine, wife of Henry, styled Lord O'Brien, who claimed as heir general of Gervase Clifton, who had been summoned to Parliament by writ directed Jervasii) Clifton de Laighton Brumswold Chivakr, from 9 July 1 608 to 5 Apr. 1 6 14, whereby he became Lord Clifton (of Leighton Bromswold). The law as to baronies by writ,('') as we have remarked, is held to have been ascertained by this decision, but, as J. H. Round has pointed out, "in several then recent precedents no question had been raised" as to the rights of the heir general, as, indeed, appears from the above list. " In what then," he asks, "did the Clifton case differ from those which pre- ceded it.?" He finds the answer in the fact — which seems to have raised questions in the Judges' minds — that the husband of Gervase Clifton's daughter and heir, Esme Stuart (Duke of Lennox in 1624), had been created by patent in tail male Baron Stuart of Leighton Bromswold in 16 19. There seems to have been some doubt at the time whether the barony in fee of Gervase and the barony by patent of his son-in-law could descend side by side. The extinction of the Barony of Stuart of Leighton Bromswold in 1672 by failure of male issue, just before Lady Catherine O'Brien's claim was made, probably helped the Judges to arrive at the decision which marks so important a step in peerage law. The unanimous opinion of the Judges was: 1. That the said Jervas, by virtue of the said writ of summons, and his sitting in parliament accordingly, was a peer and baron of this kingdom, and his blood thereby ennobled. 2. That his honor descended from him to Catharine his sole daughter and heir; and successively after several descents, to the petitioner as lineal heir of the said lord Clifton. 3. That therefore the petitioner was well entitled to the said dignity. (=) The House of Lords thereupon resolved That the said Lady O'Brian hath Right to the Barony of Clifton. (^) (*) In order to avoid burdening the text with too many details, accounts of most of these cases are relegated to a section headed " Peerage Cases." (*") See for this law, ante, p. 691. (') Lords' yournals, vol. xii, p. (^T^Oa. In their report, as printed in the Lordi' yournali, in reciting the creation of Esme Stuart by patent, the Judges give his title ns Baron Leighton of Leighton Bromswold. The patent is not enrolled. {^) Lords' Journals, vol. xii, p. 630a.