404 COMPLETE PEERAGE banbury but) to the House of Lords, stating " that he had the honour to be a Peer of this Realm," and praying his writ accordingly. No proceedings thereon took place, and within four years thereof the Earl died. He 7;;., istly, Isabella, da. of Montjoy (Blount), ist Earl of Newport, by Anne, yst. da. and coh. of John (Boteler), Lord Boteler. She d. s.p.m., and was bur. 2 Mar. 1654/5, at St. Martin's-in-the-fields. He m., 2ndly, 4 Oct. 1655, at Stapleford, co. Leicester, Anne, da. of William (Sherard), Lord Sherard [I.], by Abigail, da. and coh. of Cecil Cave. He k. 14 Mar. 1673/4, ^t Boughton, Northants, and was bur. there, aged 43. Admon. 28 Jan. 1674/5 to his widow, again 21 June 168 i, and again 4 July 1683. His widow d. at Harrowden Magna, 6, and was bur. 10 Mar. 1679/80, at Boughton. Admon. 21 June 1681 and 4 July 1683. IV. 1674. 4. Charles (Knollys), Earl of Banbury, tfc, s. and h. by 2nd wife, bap. 3 June 1662, at Boughton afsd., as " Viscount JVallingforJ, s. and h. ap. of the Rt. Hon. Nicholas, Earl of Banbury. " About a year after attaining his majority, he, on 10 June 1685, petitioned the House for his writ of summons, which was reported on by the Lords' Committee, and a day fixed for hearing counsel thereon, but no further proceedings were taken. The Earl, however, having killed in a duel his br.-in-law, Capt. Philip Lawson, was indicted 7 Dec. 1 692 as " Charles Knollys^ Esq., " on which, on the 13th, he presented his petition to the House, praying, as a Peer, to be tried by his Peers. This being a legal question, it was moved that the Judges be heard as "to the points ot law in this case, " which equitable motion, however, was rejected by a majority of 38 Peers to 29 ; after which it was carried, 17 Jan. 1692/3, that the Petitioner had no right to the Earldom of Banbury, and his petition was dismissed accordingly. Against this resolution no less than 20 Peers " protested, " the majority being (probably) only eight. (") The indictment had been removed, from Midx., by certiorari, in Hilary term 1692/3, to the King's Bench, where the prisoner pleaded a misnomer, which plea (after about a year's delay, caused by the Attorney Gen. insisting that the resolution of the House was a proof of the non-existence of the Peerage, and by " demurrers " and " counter demurrers " on either side) was confirmed in Trin. term 1 694 by the unanimous judgment of Lord Chief Justice Holt and the three other Judges ot the King's Bench, who adjuciged " the replication [of the Attorney Gen. against the peerage] bad, and the Resolution of the Lords invalid. " () Four years afterwards the Earl again petitioned for his writ, which on 18 Jan. 1698 was again referred to the Lords, who (") See Nicolas' Treatise, ^c, p. 411, note I. See also ante, under " Aylesford, " p. 367, note " b, " for later instances in which the House of Lords have overruled the /fgal doctrine of " Pater est quern nuptiie demonstrant. " C") See State Trials, vol. xii, p. 1 167.
