me; but, as he was
unable to show any probability that he would ultimately succeed, his
demand was refused, and his petition was dismissed--Arthur Annesley,
earl of Anglesea, alone protesting against the decision.

Percy, however, displaying the same valour and obstinacy in the courts
which his ancestors had so often shown on the battle-fields, was not
daunted, although he was discomfited. He appealed to the common-law
tribunals, and brought actions for scandal and ejectment against
various parties, and no fewer than five of these suits were tried
between 1674 and 1681. The first adversary whom he challenged was
James Clark, whom he sued for scandal, and in whose case he was
content to accept a non-suit; alleging, however, that this untoward
result was not so much brought about by the weakness of his cause as
by the faithlessness of his attorney. In a printed document which he
published with reference to the trial, he distinctly states that the
Lord Chief-Justice, Sir Matthew Hale, was so much dissatisfied with
the decision, that in the open court he plainly asserted "that the
claimant had proved himself a true Percy, by father, mother,
grandfather, and grandmother, and of the blood and family of the
Percys of Northumberland; and that he did verily believe that the
claimant was cousin and next heir-male to Jocelyn, late Earl of
Northumberland, only he was afraid he had taken the descent too high."
It is further reported that Sir Matthew, on entering his carriage,
remarked to Lord Shaftesbury, who was standing by, "I verily believe
he hath as much right to the earldom of Northumberland as I have to
this coach and horses, which I have bought and paid for."

His next action was against a gentleman named Wright, who had taken
upon himself to pronounce him illegitimate, and in this instance he
was more successful. The case was heard before Sir Richard Rainsford,
Sir Matthew Hale's successor, and resulted in a verdict for the
plaintiff, with L300 damages. Flushed by this victory, he took
proceedings against Edward Craister, the sheriff of Northumberland,
against whom he filed a bill for the recovery of the sum of L20
a-year, granted by the patent of creation out of the revenues of the
county. Before this, however, in 1680, he had again petitioned the
House of Lords, and his petition was again rejected--Lord Annesley, as
before, protesting against the rejection. The litigation with Craister
in the Court of Exchequer being ve