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 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