There had, however, been no Commission of Bankruptcy. It was necessary that the battle should be fought as well in the name of the heir and representative of the family, as in the name of the collective body of creditors. CAREW used COURTEN’S name and used it, as it appears, for some years without authority from the legal guardian. COURTEN himself did not become of age until 1663. The Restoration was hardly effected before CAREW besieged the King and the Courts with Petitions, Memorials, Claims, and Bills of Plaint. He would lose nothing for lack of asking. And he was undeterred by difficulties or rebuffs. [Sidenote: THE BARBADOES CLAIM.] The case of Barbadoes was thus put before the Committee of the Privy Council for America:— ‘COURTEN claims the whole island of Barbadoes; and, more particularly, the Corn Plantation, the Indian Bridge Plantation, the Fort Plantation, the Indian Plantation eastwards, and Powell’s plantation. Sir William COURTEN’S ships discovered the island in the year 1626, and left fifty people there. Captain Henry POWELL landed there in February, 1627, built [houses] for COURTEN’S colony, and left more than forty inhabitants there. John POWELL erected Plantation Fort, and remained until he was surprised in 1628 by a force under Charles WOLVERTON, by which the fort was captured. [Sidenote: _Colonial Correspondence_, vol. xiv, §§ 37, 39, 42.] In 1629, Sir William COURTEN sent eighty men with arms, in the ‘Peter and John,’ and they retook the fort in the name of the Earl of PEMBROKE, Trustee for COURTEN, according to the royal grant.’ And then the Petition recites the recapture, under the conflicting Patent of the Earl of Carlisle, as I have described it already. There is, of course, no foundation for the statement that Barbadoes was ‘discovered’ by the ships of COURTEN. In other respects, the details here set forth appear to be sustained by the evidence. [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles II, vol. xx, § 77; and xlviii, § 48.] In order to the recovery of the debt from the Crown, CAREW suggested, in another petition, and quite in the fashion of the day, that the Petitioners should have ‘leave to raise the money’ due to the COURTEN Estate from the estates of John LISLE, Thomas SCOTT, Thomas ANDREWS, and others, concerned in the murder of the late King. In a third petition, he prayed that ‘a blank warrant for the dignity of a baronet’ might be granted, in order to sell it to the best bidder, and to apply the proceeds in partial satisfaction of the debt. [Sidenote: THE CASE OF THE EAST INDIA SHIPS.] But it was to the prosecution of the claim upon the Dutch Republic for the unwarranted seizure, in 1643, of the rich ships of the East India Fleet that CAREW devoted his best energies. The damages were put at £163,400. The main facts of the case were fully substantiated. And a royal letter was addressed to the States General on the 21st of March, 1662, claiming full satisfaction.