JAMES PERCY--THE SO-CALLED EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND.

In 1670 Jocelyn Percy, the eleventh Earl of Northumberland, died

without male issue. Up to his time, throughout the six hundred years,

the noble family of Percy had never been without a male

representative, and the successive earls had almost invariably been

soldiers, and had added to the lustre of their descent by their own

valiant deeds. But when Earl Jocelyn died, in 1670, he left behind him

a solitary daughter--whose life was in itself eventful enough, and who

became the wife of Charles Somerset, the proud Duke of Somerset--but

who could not wear the title, although she inherited much of the

wealth of the Percys.

Jocelyn Percy was, however, scarcely cold in his grave when a claimant

appeared, who sought the family honours and the entailed lands which

their possession implied. This was James Percy, a poor Dublin

trunkmaker, who came over to England and at once assumed the title.

His pretensions aroused the ire of the dowager-countess, the mother of

Earl Jocelyn, who, on the 18th of February 1672, presented a petition

to the House of Lords on behalf of herself and Lady Elizabeth Percy,

her grand-daughter, setting forth that "one who called himself James

Percy (by profession a trunkmaker in Dublin) assumes to himself the

titles of Earl of Northumberland and Lord Percy, to the dishonour of

that family." This petition was referred, in the usual course, to the

Committee for Privileges. This was immediately followed by a petition

from the claimant, which was read, considered, and dismissed. However,

both parties appeared before the House of Lords on the 28th of

November, James Percy claiming the honours, and the countess declaring

him an impostor. Percy craved an extension of time; 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 £300 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 £20

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 very protracted, the Duchess of

Somerset (who was the daughter and heiress of Earl Jocelyn) brought

the matter once more before the Lords in 1685, and her petition was

referred to the Committee of Privileges. In reply to her petition

Percy presented one of complaint, which was also sent to the

Committee. No decision, however, seems to have been arrived at, and

the reign of King James came to a close without further action. In the

first year of the reign of William and Mary (1689), Percy returned to

the charge with a fresh petition and a fresh demand for recognition

and justice. These documents are still extant, and some of them are

very entertaining. In one he candidly admits that he has been, up to

the time when he writes, in error as to his pedigree, and, abandoning

his old position, takes up fresh ground. In another, "The claimant

desireth your lordships to consider the justice and equity of his

cause, hoping your lordships will take such care therein that your own

descendants may not be put to the like trouble for the future in

maintaining their and your petitioner's undoubted right;" and lest the

_argumentum ad homines_ should fail, he asks, "Whether or no three

streams issuing from one fountain, why the third stream (though

little, the first two great streams being spent) may not justly claim

the right of the original fountain?" In addition, he appends a sort of

solemn declaration, in which he represents himself as trusting in God,

and waiting patiently upon the king's sacred Majesty for his royal

writ of summons to call him to appear and take his place and seat

according to his birthright and title, "for true men ought not to be

blamed for standing up for justice, property, and right, which is the

chief diadem in the Crown, and the laurel of the kingdom." That

summons never was destined to be issued. When the Committee for

Privileges gave in their report, it declared Percy's conduct to be

insolent in persisting to designate himself Earl of Northumberland

after the previous decisions of the House; and the Lords ordered that

counsel should be heard at the bar of the House on the part of the

Duke of Somerset against the said James Percy.

This was accordingly done; and the Lords not only finally came to the

decision "that the pretensions of the said James Percy to the earldom

of Northumberland are groundless, false, and scandalous," and ordered

that his petition be dismissed, but added to their judgment this

sentence, "That the said James Percy shall be brought before the four

Courts in Westminster Hall, wearing a paper upon his breast on which

these words shall be written: 'THE FALSE AND IMPUDENT PRETENDER TO THE

EARLDOM OF NORTHUMBERLAND.'" The judgment was at once carried into

execution, and from that time forward the unfortunate trunkmaker

disappears from the public view. He does not seem to have reverted to

his old trade; or, at least, if he did so, he made it profitable, for

we find his son, Sir Anthony Percy, figuring as Lord Mayor of Dublin

in 1699. There can be no doubt that, although he was treated with

undue harshness, his claims had no real foundation. At first he

alleged that his grandfather, Henry Percy, was a son of Sir Richard

Percy, a younger brother of Henry, ninth Earl of Northumberland--an

allegation which would have made Sir Richard a grandfather at thirteen

years of age. It was further proved that Sir Richard, so far from

having any claim to such unusual honours, died without issue. In his

second story he traced his descent to Sir Ingelram Percy, stating that

his grandfather Henry was the eldest of the four children of Sir

Ingelram, and that these children were sent from the north in hampers

to Dame Vaux of Harrowden, in Northamptonshire. He advanced no proof,

however, of the correctness of this story, while the other side showed

conclusively that Sir Ingelram had never been married, and at his

death had only left an illegitimate daughter. At any rate, whether

James Percy was honest or dishonest, "the game was worth the

candle"--the Percy honours and estates were worth trying for.

Celebrated Claimants from Perkin Warbeck to Arthur Orton · 第 44 / 62 题