748 APPENDIX H rebellious Earl, he was not eligible to receive a summons; alternatively he argued that as it could be proved that David was present in the Parliament, a writ might be presumed. The Attorney General disposed of the first contention by showing that Robert de Holand, William de Latimer, Nicholas de Segrave, and Fulk le Strange, who were pardoned on the same day as David, were summoned to this Parliament. There was also adduced evidence to the effect that the only lands David had in England were not held on a tenure to qualify him for a summons, the Chilham property having escheated to the Crown and not being recovered by David till three years later. The second point, the alleged sitting in Parliament, was based on membrane 3 of the Parliament Roll of 12 Edw. II, a Roll which hitherto appears to have been accepted without question. On this membrane of the Roll Le counte de Ascites (which words were agreed to represent the Earl of Atholl) appears among the Earls in a list containing the names of bishops, barons, and certain other persons who, in the present day, are not deemed to have been on the same footing. The expert evidence called suggested the conclusion that the membranes composing the Roll had at some time been rearranged. The Attorney General argued that membrane 3 was not truly a part of the Roll of Parliament, but was a memorandum, drawn up by a committee whose names were recited, of some of the business which was to be brought before the Parliament which was about to meet; that it was a record of the transactions of the King's Council. In support of his contention he quoted the Vetus Codex, which summarises the business done in Parliament, and in its summary of this particular Parliament leaves out everything contained on membrane 3. This question of the validity of the sitting was discussed at very great length, and was finally settled by a somewhat sensational move by Mr. Cozens-Hardy. Adverting to the genuineness of membrane 3, he said: Now, of course, to a great extent historians and other authorities differ with reference to the effect of this document, my Lords, but there is one person, at any rate, my learned friend cannot dispute the authority of, and that is the gentleman who is the honorary adviser to the Crown in Peerage cases; and I find that he, at any rate, has stated in a published book his view that this particular Roll of this particular Parliament proves a sitting, and he says this dealing with the case which I referred to in opening [namely] the Mowbray case. Lord Atkinson. What is the gentleman's name ? Mr. Cozem-Hardy. Dr. Round. ... In Peerage and Pedigree, volume i, p. 257, he is criticising a resolution of the Committee: "The Mowbray resolution ran in this way: That it is proved by the Writ of Summons addressed to Roger de Mowbray in the i ith year of Edward I, and the other evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner, that the Barony of Mowbray was in the reign of King Edward I vested in Roger de Mowbray. Now there is no evidence that Roger de Mowbray 'sat in the Parliament of the 1 8th year of that King* or indeed of any of his Parlia- ments. The earliest proof of sitting is in the time of Roger's son, the second peer, who is proved by the Parliament Roll of i 2 Edward II to have sat late in the year 1318." Now, if that is right, my Lords, then I am right in my argument, and
