SLANE. 1GI He, however, petitioned(°) the Irish House of Lords in 1709 for his writ as having been " restored to his blood and title of honour." No order, however, was made thereon, owing, probably, to the jealousy between the two Kingdom*, and he was advised to change the style of his petition. Meantime he obtained, in 1713, a lioval warrant to a: him VISCOUNT LONGKOKI) [I ] but no patent of such creation ever passed. He hi. 19 Sep. 1684, Ann, da. of Sir Patrick TbaNT, Bart. [[.], who also was uttainted. He d. abroad s.p Ln.(, 1 '; 11 July 1720 and was bur. (a) In this petition lie "distinctly calls Lord William, who was attainted, his 'uncle.' ami too' it is difficult to presume an error in such a document, consider- ing the near atliuity of the parties, yet a settlement produced to the Court by Sir Gregory Byrne and wife, and some important proceedings had by the Attorney Gel), afterwards, leave no doubt of the identity of this Lord Christopher as the son of Randal, and as the forfeitur of 1691." '["£;/«.■/,," p. 207.] ( b ) Helen, his only da. ami h., it num. at Paris, 7 Aug. 1718, aged about 50, and was bur. at St. Snlpice in that city. In her any Barony in fee possessed by her father would have vested, and. according to Mr. Bryan's claim, did vest, so far lis to what he styles THE FOURTH AN I) FIFTH PEERAGE OF SLANE. He considers the 5 th Peerage to have been cr. by writ, 1613, and the 1th Peerage (cr., as he holds, by the writ of 15S5), to have been thereby terminated in favour of one who in 1616 (three years later , became a coheir (riz., the Lord Slane sum. in 1613) and consequently to have become united therewith. This right, on the death of Helen Fleming (who </. iinui. Aug. 1718), devolved on her father's only surv. sister, Dame Alice Byrne, widow, second wife of Sir Gregory Byrne, Bart. [I.] She d. 1753. and was, after 1 777, represented by her grandchild, Catharine Xaveria Bryan, widow, only da. and h. of Henry Byrne, of Oporto. Her son, George Bryan, was in 1829, the claimant to this peerage on the ground of it being a Barony in fee. His case (briefly stated) is that six [ !] separate Baronies in fee were created by various writs, viz., in 1309 (or some other date temp. Edward III.) 1 162,1472,1585,1613 and 1611 That the four earlier of these creations fell into abeyance and still so continue, but that he is h. gen. of the creations of 1613 and 1631 and a coheir of the creation of 1585. He acknowledges, however, that the persons so sum. were the heirs male of the first Baron and were allowed the precedency of a Barony cr. by Ed. II. or Ed. 111. and that no claim was ever made by the various coheirs, but these matters he considers accidental. Under these circumstances one can hardly be surprised tliat, on 1 Sep, 1885, the House of Lords, after an investigation which had lasted more than five years, resolved that Mr. Bryan had net made out his claim to the Barony of Slane. * The additional case (1831) of Mr. Bryan is chiefly directed against the claim of James Fleming to the Barony as heir male. In it he deduces that geutlemau's descent from 15S0 ami upwards, so as*to disprove the pedigree therein set forth. This report was signed by the Attorney Gen. (Scarlett) and the well-known Sir N. Harris Nicolas. In It they ipiote several cases in the English Peerage, which they consider applicable, and sum up by stating that the laws of both Kingdoms are similar [!] as to Peerage law ; that a Peerage can only be cr. by patent or by writ in either [!] Kingdom ; that a writ and sitting (where there is no patent) creates a Barony in fee in either [ !] Kingdom, ami that consequently Mr. Bryan is entitled, as h. gen., to the Barony of Slane [I.J, as being [tho* an Irish peerage] a Barony in fee cr. by writ and sitting 1613. They refer to the decision (1767) as to the Barony of La Poer [I.] [vis. that it was a Barony in fee), and to the opinion of the Law Officers as to Athenry [I.] (1800), as to Delvin [I.] (1800 and 1814), and as to Killeen [I.] (!S13), VU. that they also were Baronies in fee. It should, however, be remarked that the decision as to La Poer was unique aud, even at that uncritical time, generally supposed to be an error, and that consequently no attention 1ms ever been paid to the not over learned reports on Athenry, Delvin and Killeen, which were mainly based on that anomalous decision. An appendix is added to this case of Mr. Bryan treating of the ancient Baronies [I.], stating as to Ringside [I.] " that tho descent of the Barony to heirs male was the Wet of error," and as to Howth [I.], that in 1549 the dignity had " fallen into abeyance between daughters and coheirs, and the Crown, instead of terminating the abeyance, cr. a new dignity in the heir male." It is needless to say no proofs are ottered of either of these startling statements. M
