es they will become the
absolute possession of the first person seized in
tail,--even though an infant, and in case of death without
will, would go to the Exors. Such arrangement, therefore,
can only hold good for lives in existence and for 21 years
afterwards. Chattels so secured would not be heirlooms.
See Carr v. Lord Errol, 14 Vesey, and Rowland v. Morgan.

Lord Eldon remarks, that such chattels held in families
are "rather favourites of the court." This was in the
Ormonde case. Executors, therefore, even when setting
aside any claim as for heirlooms, ought not to apply such
property in payment of debts unless obliged.

The law allows of claims for paraphernalia for widows,
and, having adjusted such claims, seems to show that the
claim may be limited.

If a man deliver cloth to his wife, and die, she shall
have it, though she had not fashioned it into the garment
intended.

Pearls and jewels, even though only worn on state
occasions, may go to the widow as paraphernalia,--but
with a limit. In the case of Lady Douglas, she being the
daughter of an Irish Earl and widow of the King's Sergeant
(temp. Car. I.), it was held that L370 was not too much,
and she was allowed a diamond and a pearl chain to that
value.

In 1674, Lord Keeper Finch declared that he would never
allow paraphernalia, except to the widow of a nobleman.

But in 1721 Lord Macclesfield gave Mistress Tipping
paraphernalia to the value of L200,--whether so persuaded
by law and precedent, or otherwise, may be uncertain.

Lord Talbot allowed a gold watch as paraphernalia.

Lord Hardwicke went much further, and decided that Mrs.
Northey was entitled to wear jewels to the value of
L3000,--saying that value made no difference; but seems to
have limited the nature of her possession in the jewels
by declaring her to be entitled to wear them only when
full-dressed.

It is, I think, clear that the Eustace estate cannot claim
the jewels as an heirloom. They are last mentioned, and,
as far as I know, only mentioned as an heirloom in the
will of the great-grandfather of the present baronet,--if
these be the diamonds then named by him. As such, he could
not have devised them to the present claimant, as he died
in 1820, and the present claimant is not yet two years
old.

Whether the widow could claim them as parapherna