BANBURY COMPLETE PEERAGE 407 error to the House of Lords and there reversed, " but that, though the birth during marriage is proved, " the legitimacy of Nicholas is left in a considerable degree of doubt. " The petition was referred to the House. After five years' discussion, the Committee for Privileges, on a division, of 21 to 13, reported "that the Petitioner hath not made out his claim to the title, honour, and dignity of Earl of Banbury. " Whereupon, on 15 Mar. 18 13, the House resolved (*) (a much more comprehensive resolution) " that the Petitioner is not entitled to the title, tPc, of Earl of Banbury. " A " forcible and eloquent " protest (") drawn up by Lord Erskine, and signed by himself and ten other Peers, was entered on the Lords' Journal. After this decision the Petitioner discontinued the usage of the title. He tn., 23 June 1795, (Lie. 22 June, at Winchester, he 21, she 18, both of St. Thomas's, in that city) Charlotte Martha, da. of Ebenezer Blackwell, of Lombard Str., London, Banker, by Mary, his wife. She d. 5 Feb. 18 18, in Paris. Gen. KnoUys (as he was subsequently called) d. 20 Mar. 1834, of influenza, at Paris, aged 71. IX. 1834. 9. William Thomas Knollys, s. and h., who, till 1 8 13 (but not afterwards), was j/j/f^ Viscount Wal- LiNGFORD, and who in his will styles himself " by hereditary descent and by the law of the land Earl of Banbury, Viscount Wallingford and Baron Knollys of Greys, co. Oxon. " (") He was b. i Aug. 1797, ed. at Harrow and at Sandhurst College. ("*) In Dec. 18 13 he joined the Scots Fusilier Guards serving in the Peninsular War. Major Gen. 1854 ; Lieut. Gtn. i860 ; Gen. 1866 ; Col. 62nd Regiment, 1858, and (four days before his death) gazetted Col. of the Scots Guards, 19 June (*) " How far this Resolution is a conclusive judgment, and whether it does or does not bar the heir of the Petitioner from prosecuting his claim are grave constitutional questions. " See Nicolas' Treatise^ &c., p. 530. See also ante, p. 404, note " a. " (■>) " Upon this protest Lord Erskine observed, in a letter to Gen. Knollys, the late [1836] Claimant, dated 21 July 1813 — The protest gives them every fact and all their arguments, hut, giving them both, leaves them without a single voice in Westm. Hall, from one end to the other. " See Nicolas' Treatise, &c., p. 530, note 2. The "Protest" itself is printed pp. 531 to 551 of that work. It was signed by three Royal Dukes, Kent, Sussex, and Gloucester. C) Letter signed " William Wallingford Knollys, Lieut. Col. H. P., claiming to be Earl of Banbury, b'c., " in The Times newspaper, 25 Aug. 1883. In this the writer makes " a public protest against the decision [of 1692/3] by no means final " and recites a passage in a letter of his father to the Morning Post, dat. 7 Mar. 1863, as follows — " But the law of the land cannot be changed, or constituted, by such a vote of one branch of the Legislature, and the voice of Westm. Hall, from Lord Coke and Chief Justice Holt, to the present day, has repudiated, with some rare exceptions, being governed by the law as thus laid down. " C) The order book of Sandhurst College in 1813 contains the following note: — " Gentleman Cadet Viscount Wallingford will henceforth be designated as Gentle- man Cadet Knollys. "
