7i6 APPENDIX H The Extension of the Doctrine of Abeyance in Modern Times By the doctrine of abeyance, which was only developed in the i jth century, baronies which were last heard of five or even six centuries ago, and the very existence of which would probably he denied by historians, can now be claimed by the heirs in blood of those alleged to have held them. (J. H. Round, Quarterly Review, July 191 5, pp. 53, 54)- Having traced the development of the doctrine of abeyance through the various cases which marked its progress, we will turn to a consideration of some of the principles which have been evolved in the petitions pre- sented since the beginning of the i8th century. There is a sharp distinction to be drawn between the calling out of abeyance of baronies by writ before and after the Botetourt case in 1764. Up to that year abeyances had only been determined in favour of coheirs who petitioned for baronies held by immediate ancestors, and which had been in suspense only a few years. (^) In hearing these cases the Com- mittee was mainly concerned with the larger problems of law, the solution of which step by step laid the foundation of the complete doctrine we have to-day. Most questions of principle were decided before the Botetourt petition was granted in 1764, but this case broke new ground by creating a prece- dent for the retrospective application of abeyance on a scale unimagined hitherto. Although the Barony had been in suspense for no less than 358 years (and may, indeed, be said never to have existed), it was called out for the petitioner, whose success naturally led to other extravagant claims, cul- minating in the group of baronies — Vaux, Camoys, Braye, Beaumont, and Hastings — which G.E.C. satirised in a note which is reprinted on p. 754. The 19th century produced only one more petition involving an abey- ance of long duration, that of Mowbray, the abeyance in which had lasted 100 years. C') The decision given in this case in 1877 involved extraordinary conse- quences. It was held that the Barony originated in the summons of Thomas de Mowbray to a meeting of the King and the magnates at Shrews- bury in 1283. As 98 other persons (in addition to the earls) were sum- moned on this occasion, we are expected to believe that Edward I created 99 men in one day barons whose peerages were inheritable by heirs general. The full effects of this decision did not become apparent until the begin- ning of the present century, by which time a section of the legal profession had organised the searching for coheirs as a special department. The main outlines of the law having now been settled, the chief prepossession of the promoters of claims was to obtain for their clients the earliest possible precedence. The taint of rebellion was on Simon de Montfort's parlia- (^) The anomalous case of Despenser (see post, p. 732) is disregarded here. (*>) The Mowbray case has been so very fully dealt with by J. H. Round {Studies in Peerage and Family History, pp. 435-57) that it will not be discussed in detail in these pages.
