e
into consideration. After thirty years' delay, occasioned by the
disturbed state of the times, the so-called Lord Banbury having
accidentally killed his brother-in-law in a duel, was indicted as
"Charles Knollys, Esq.," to answer for the crime on the 7th of
November 1692. He appealed to the House of Lords, and demanded a trial
by his peers: it was therefore necessary to re-open the whole case.
After a patient investigation, his petition to the House of Lords was
dismissed, and it was resolved that he had no right to the earldom of
Banbury. He was consequently removed to Newgate.

When he was placed before the judges, and was called upon to plead, he
admitted that he was the person indicted, but pleaded a misnomer in
abatement--or, in other words, that he was the Earl of Banbury. The
pleas occupied, subsequently, more than a year, during which time the
prisoner was admitted to bail. At last the House of Lords interfered,
and called upon the Attorney-General to produce "an account in
writing of the proceedings in the Court of King's Bench against the
person who claims the title of the Earl of Banbury." The
Attorney-General acted up to his instructions, and Lord Chief-Justice
Holt was heard by the Lords on the subject. Parliament, however, was
prorogued soon afterwards, and no decision was arrived at in the
matter. Meantime, the Court of King's Bench proceeded to act as if no
interference had been made, and quashed the indictment on the ground
that the prisoner was erroneously styled "Charles Knollys" instead of
"The Earl of Banbury."

When the Lords reassembled on the 27th of November 1694 they were very
wroth, but, after an angry debate, the affair was adjourned, and
nothing more was heard of the Banbury Peerage until the beginning of
1698, when Charles Banbury again petitioned the king, and the petition
was once more referred to the House of Lords. Lord Chief-Justice Holt
was summoned before the committee, and in answer to inquiries as to
the motives which had actuated the judges of the King's Bench,
replied, "I acknowledge the thing; there was such a plea and such a
replication. I gave my judgment according to my conscience. We are
trusted with the law. We are to be protected, not arraigned, and are
not to give reasons for our judgment; therefore I desire to be excused
giving any." Mr. Justice Eyre maintained the same dignified tone, and
at length the House of Lords abandoned its fruitless struggle with the
common