APPENDIX D 609 length, the Committee for Privileges eventually decided simply to leave matters as they were. It was resolved that "when this hereditary office descends to females, such persons, if more than one, have a right, subject to his Majesty's approval, to appoint a deputy to execute the said office," and that in the three co-heirs, "the Earl of Ancaster, the Marquess of Cholmon- deley, and the Earl Carrington, the right of a selection of a deputy rests, subject, of course to the condition above-mentioned. "(*) This, it will be seen, excludes the widespread misconception that these co-heirs are entitled to officiate in turn, i.e. in successive reigns, although so long as there were only two (i.e. before 1870) there was a private agreement to that effect in practice. It should also be observed that, although the Lord Chancellor gave it as his personal opinion (using the words "I think") that the co-heirs must "all agree," the Crown having the right to appoint if they did not do so, yet such proviso forms no part of the actual resolution. It would seem, therefore, to be open to the three co-heirs to appoint (subject to the King's approval) a deputy by a majority, in which case any two could exclude the third, even though a moiety of the representation were vested in him. The office of Chief Butler was conferred by Henry I on William d'Aubigny ("de Albini"), who was thenceforth known as WiUiam "de Albini" Pincerna, to distinguish him from William "de Albini" Brito (of Belvoir). It has been alleged, but wrongly, that he received the office from the Conqueror, whose Butler, probably, was one of the Ivry family. In addition to the office W^illiam received a large fief in Norfolk, and the dis- putes as to the right to the office have had their origin in the contentions that it was held in virtue of this fief or of some portion of it. William "Pincerna" was succeeded by his son, who became the first Earl of Arundel, and thenceforth the office descended with the earldom till 1243, when the last earl of this line died leaving co-heirs. Arundel itself passed to the second of these, as did the earldom also, but this, obviously, could not affect the office, for it was held by the family, as has been shown, before they acquired either Arundel or the earldom. Nevertheless, it was claimed by the Earls of Arundel that they held the office in virtue of their earldom, and they were, on almost every occasion, recognised as entitled to execute it. But claims were advanced from time to time in respect of certain Norfolk manors which had formed part of the original "Albini" fief. For the coro- nation of George IV, when the office was last executed — for there has been no coronation banquet since then — the office was claimed by the Duke of Norfolk as Earl of Arundel and by the holder of Buckenham, the old caput of the Norfolk fief It was allowed to the Duke. For that of Edward VII it was similarly claimed by the Duke of Norfolk and also by the owner of Kenninghall, another of the Norfolk manors, as well as by Lord Mowbray, (^) An excellent summary of the case, with an illustrative pedigree, will be found in Appendix A (pp. 294-304) to WoUaston's Ca«r^ of Claims (1903), and reference may also be made to the present writer's article in The Monthly Revieiv (June 1 902) and to the official report (1902). 78
