Page:The Complete Peerage (Edition 1, Volume 8).djvu/45

 WAHCLL — ^WAKE. 85 tiiider} an heraditorr lUroo j. He wafl* also, ram. " ejuU el oraiti," il Oct (1297) 85 Ed. I., to NewcMtle on Tyne, and 80 ICarch (1298) 26 Ed. L, for the Sootoh expedition. He d. (1804) 82 Ed. L, leaving John, his a. and h., then aged 1 year and 17 weeks, but neither he nor any c^hia deaoendanta were anm. tn Pari, aa fiarona, tho' they continued to hold the landa in regular male aucoeaBion till the death a.p.m. of Anthony de WahuU, or Wodhull,(*) 4 Feb. 1641/2. WAKE, and WAKE DE LYDELL. Barony by J, John Wakb, of Liddell, oo. Cumberland, Kirkby ^nt. Moreahed, fte., oo. York, fto., a. and h. of Baldwin Waki,(^) of the I 1295 "'^®* ^7 Uawi8e,(«) da. and coheir of Robert Di QuiHOT, of Colne Quincy, co. Eaaex, auc. hia father (1282) 10 Ed. I., doing homage for hia landa in 1290; was in the wars of Gaacony and Scotland, being a Gommianr. (*) Altho* it would Beem that no peerage Barony of Wahull ever eztated, that fact haa by no means hindered the heir general of these feudal Barons from claiming it as one. Accordingly, in the time of James I., Sir Richard Chetwode, grandson and heir, e« parte maiemA of the said Anthony Wodhull, possessing the msnor and castle of Odell, petitioned for a writ of summons to Pari, as Baron ae WahuU, which petition " waa referred to the Duke of Lenox, the J«ord Howanl, and the liUrl of Nottingham, aa exercising the offloe of Earl Marshal, whose oertiAcate, as given by Banks, stated that the avermenta in hia petition, that his anceatora were Barons in their own right before the usual calling of Barona by writ, and were also sum. to ParL* were true ; and on theae and other grounda, but which had nothing to do with his claim to the dignity in question, reported that they held him worthy the honour of a Baron, if his Majesty thought meet. Nothing was done in consequence of this report, which admitted no right to the Barony, but merely recommended the Claimant to the notice of the Crown, as a proper person to receive the dignity of the Peeraga" [Courtkope]. In a note by '* C.O.T." [t.e.. Sir Oharlea a. Toung, Carter, 1842-69] in " OoO, Top, ef Oen:* (vol. viL pp. 267-268) it ia sUted that *< about 1739, Knigbtley Chetwood, Esq., the lineal descendant and heir of Sir Richard, revived the claim, without any aucceasful result In 1881, Jonathan Chetwood, Esq., of Woodbrook in the Queena County in Ireland, the rep. and h. gen. of Sir R. Chetwood, and, aa such, the heir of Thomaa de Wahull, " (aum. 1297-98, as in the text) presented a like petition, on which the Attorney Qen. (Denman) observed in hia report thereon. May 1882, " that altho* the fact of the ancient Barona having sat in Pari, had received no direct proof, the argument adduced appeared to him to deaerve great eonaidera- tion." It waa accordingly referred, 18 April 1888, to a committee for privilegea, and there, apparently, the matter ended. In a royal Ha, 19 Dec. 1885 (issued 4 Jan. 1886, from Dublin Ciaatle) for Conatantia Elisabeth Aiken, widow, to take the name of Chetwood, before that of Aiken, it ia atated that her father (of whom she was only da. and h.), John Chetwood, Capt 78d Foot, deed., had "become the heir and representative of Sir Richard Chetwood, the Claimant of the Barony of De Wahull, in the reign of King Jamea I." The claim of John Chetwood Chetwood- Aiken, of Stoko Bishop, oa Qlouceater, a. and h. of the above lady (then recently deoeaaed) to " the Barony of Wahull, which dates back to the time of William the Conqueror,*' came before the committee for Privileges, who, on 27 June 1892, decided that no proof having been adduced of sitting under writ by any of the claimant's anceatora he " had failed to prove that there waa a creation of any such Baron de Wahull as he alleged.*' [Morning Am<,28 June 1892]. had been issued to his ancestors ; but, as it it is stated above, there is but one instance recorded of a Writ of Summons to Parliament having been directed to thia family, and that instonce is the doubtful Writ of the 25th Edw. I." [Oourtkape]. See as to this writ p. 34, note " c." (^) He was s. and h. of Hugh Wake, of Blisworth, co. Northampton (d at Jerusalem, 1246), by Joan, da. and eventually sole h. of Nicholas dk Stutbyillb, of Liddell abovenamed. He, himself, took a leading part against Henry III., but was sub- sequently pardoned. («) Her mother, Helen, was widow of John (Le Scot), Earl of CHiester, da. of Llewellyn ap Jorweth, Prince of North Wales.
 * " From this expression it would be inferred, that repeated Writs of Summona