« PreviousContinue »
In tbe Honse of Lords.
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
REGINALD WINDSOR SACKVILLEEARL
DE LA WARR
AND (AS HE CONTENDS)
BARON BUCKHURST OF BUCKHURST IN THE COUNTY
HEREINAFTER FOR CONVENIENCE OF STATEMENT
DESIGNATED “THE CLAIMANT.”
B 1. The question submitted to your lordships in this case is of
the highest importance, not merely to the Claimant, as a member of your lordships' House, but to all the members of your lordships' House, as affecting their ancient rights and privileges; and indeed to the country generally.
0 2. The broad question raised is, whether, on the creation of an
English Barony by Letters Patent under Her Most Gracious Majesty's sign manual, duly made, enrolled and sealed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
conferring on the mother of the Claimant the dignity and honour D of a Barony during the term of her natural life with remainder on
her decease to the Claimant (who then was her second surviving son) and to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten, a clause purporting to provide that in a certain and
defined event the Barony so created should shift and pass away E from the Claimant and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten
and to be begotten, and should devolve upon and become vested in some other person and the heirs male of such other person begotten or to be begotten, can be of any force and validity in the events which happened, namely, that the Claimant, on the decease of his said mother, succeeded to the said dignity and honour, took his
of claimant and birth of his two BODS.
7. On the 7th day of February, 1867, the Claimant interTo prove marriage married with Constance Mary Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Alex
ander Dundas Ross Wisheart Baillie-Cochrane, Esquire, M.P., and Appendix, p. 18.
there has been issue of the said marriage' two sons, namely, the Honourable Lionel Charles Cranfeild, commonly called Viscount A Cantelupe, who was born on the 1st day of January, 1868, and is still living; and the Honourable Gilbert George Reginald Sackville, who was born on the 23rd day of March, 1869, and is still living; and two daughters.
sion of summons to
8. The said George John Earl De La Warr died on the 23rd B To prove death of day of February, 1869, and thereupon the said Charles Richard Warr, and succes- Sackville-West succeeded to the dignity and honour of Earl De La and sitting of his Warr, as the eldest surviving son and heir of his father, the said son, C. R., lato Earl
. George John Earl De La Warr deceased, and he, the said Charles
Richard Earl De La Warr, took his seat in your Lordship’s House C as such Earl on the 22nd day of April, 1869.
9. The said Elizabeth Baroness Buckhurst and widow of George To prove death of John Earl De La Warr died on the 9th of January, 1870, and thereElizabeth Baroness Buckhurst. upon the Claimant succeeded to the dignity and honour of Baron Appendix, p. 20.
Buckhurst of Buckhurst aforesaid, by virtue of the said Letters Proposition V. Patent, and shortly after the death of his said mother the Claimant, D To prove summons in accordance with the said Letters Patent, claimed to take his seat in and sitting of Parliament as Baron Buckhurst of Buckhurst aforesaid. Accordingly, Claimant as Buckhurst.
on the 8th of February, 1870, he was summoned to Parliament as Appendix, p. 21.
Baron Buckhurst of Buckhurst aforesaid, and on the same 8th of
February, 1870, he took his seat in the House of Lords as Baron Buck- E Proposition VI.
hurst in due course of precedence, and in the years 1870, 1871, To prove subsequent sittings
1872, and 1873 he sat in Parliament as Baron Buckhurst and voted and votes
as a Peer of Parliament by virtue of the said Barony. Appendix, p. 22.
Proposition VII. 10. The said Charles Richard Earl De La Warr died on the 22nd
Claimant succeeded to the dignity and honour of Earl De La Warr.
11. By a writ dated the 19th of May, 1873, the Claimant was To prove summons summoned to Parliament as Earl De La Warr, and on the 15th of to and sitting of Claimant as Earl July, 1873, he took his seat in Parliament as such Earl. In the de La Warr. Appendix, p. 25.
meantime, however, between the said 22nd of April, 1873, and the G
Parliament as Baron Buckhurst of Buckhurst aforesaid. Since the said 15th of July, 1873, however, he has voted as Earl De La Warr.
12. It is submitted and contended on the part of the claimant that, although after the decease of the said Charles Richard Earl De La Warr, he took his seat in the House of Lords as Earl De La Warr and has voted as such Earl, and although the said Letters Patent contain the condition or shifting clause hereinbefore set forth, yet that the said Barony of Buckhurst still remains vested in him and his heirs male lawfully begotten and to be begotten, inasmuch as he duly succeeded to the said Barony of Buckhurst by virtue of the said Letters Patent, and was summoned to Parliament and took his seat and voted as a Peer of Parliament in right of the said Barony.
13. A question has, however, arisen between the Claimant and his next brother, the Honourable Mortimer Sackville West (who is the third surviving son of the said Elizabeth Countess De La Warr, by her said husband George John Earl De La Warr, who was living at the date of the said Letters Patent, and who would be next entitled to succeed to the said dignity of Baron Buckhurst if the Claimant were dead without issue male), as to the effect of the said shifting clause in the said Letters Patent, and as to who is now entitled to the said dignity and honour of Baron Buckhurst of Buckhurst, and to the privileges and pre-eminences to such dignity and honour belonging.
14. The said Mortimer Sackville West (who is hereinafter, for convenience of statement, called the Counter-claimant), contends and insists that, on the succession of the Claimant to the dignity and honour of Earl De La Warr in manner aforesaid, and by force and virtue of the said condition or shifting clause contained in the said Letters Patent, the Claimant ceased to be capable of holding andenjoying the dignity and honour of Baron Buckhurst of Buckhurst, and the privileges and pre-eminences to such dignity and honour belonging; and the Counter-claimant further contends that by virtue of the said condition or shifting clause, on the death of the said Charles Richard Earl De La Warr, and on the accession of the Claimant to the said Earldom of De La Warr, he, the said Counter-claimant, immediately became and now is entitled to the said digrity and honour of Baron Buckhurst aforesaid, and to the privileges and pre-eminences to such dignity and honour belonging; and the said Counter-claimant, in divers deeds and other documents, has caused himself to be described as “Mortimer Sackville West, claiming to be Baron Buckhurst,” and he, in fact, claims to be entitled to the said Barony, and to be sum