forty and forty-one years of age, and the second came into the world almost when his father was about to leave it, and when the countess was between forty and forty-five.  Within five weeks after the death of the earl, her ladyship married Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who had been on terms of intimate friendship with the family during the deceased nobleman’s lifetime, and it was plainly said that the children of Lady Banbury were the issue of Lord Vaux, and not of the earl.

On the 9th of February 1640-41, a bill was filed in Chancery by Edward, the eldest son, described as “Edward, Earl of Banbury, an infant,” by William, Earl of Salisbury, his guardian, and brother-in-law of the Countess of Banbury.  Witnesses were examined in the cause; but after a century and a-half their evidence was rejected in 1809 by the House of Lords.  There was, however, a more rapid and satisfactory means of procedure.  A writ was issued in 1641, directing the escheator of Berkshire “to inquire after the death of William, Earl of Banbury;” and the consequence was that a jury, which held an inquisition at Abingdon, found, with other matters, “that Edward, now Earl of Banbury, is, and at the time of the earl’s decease was, his son and next heir.”  The young man, therefore, assumed the title, and set out on a foreign tour.  He was killed during the next year near Calais, while he was yet a minor.  His brother Nicholas, then about fifteen years of age, at once assumed the title.  In the same year Lord Vaux settled Harrowden and his other estates upon him.  His mother, the Countess of Banbury, died on the 17th of April 1658, at the age of seventy-three, and Lord Vaux departed this life on the 8th of September 1661, aged seventy-four.  Meantime Nicholas had taken his seat in the House of Lords, and occupied it without question for a couple of years.  The Convention Parliament having been dissolved, however, he was not summoned to that which followed it, and in order to prove his right to the peerage petitioned the Crown for his writ.  This petition was heard by the Committee for Privileges, which ultimately decided that “Nicholas, Earl of Banbury, is a legitimate person.”

At his death he left one son, Charles, who assumed the title of Earl of Banbury, and who petitioned the House of Lords to take his case 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.