Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 1.djvu/44

 ABERGAVENNY. IX. 1622. 9 or 2. Henry (Xevill), Lord Bergavexny, s. and h. He m., firstly, Mary, da. of Thomas (Sackvii.i.e), 1st Earl or Dorset, Lord Treasurer of England, by Cecily, da. of Sir John Baker of Sisinghurst, Kent. He m., secondly, before 1C1C, Catharine, youngest da. of George Yaux [by Elizabeth, da. of John (Roper), 1st Loud Tenham], who was s. and h. ap. of YVilliam, 3rd Loud Vaux ok Harrowden. He was bur. at Billing 24 Dec. 1641. His widow, who was under 12 in 1604, was our. there 10 July 1649. (7) In 1627-8 James Finnic;/, 8. and h. ap. of the Earl OF DERBY, being sum. In- writ as BARON STRANGE (under the erroneous impression that that ancient Runny was vested in his father), fat in the precedency of the Barony or Strange, cr. by writ 1299. In 1736-7 the claim of the h. gen. to the Barony o by the writ 61 summons of 1S27-8 was -allowed, but not the precedency of the old Barony of 1209, which was then, as now, in abeyance, the Lord Strange (in 1754) biking his place, as a Baron of 1627-S, next immediately below Lord Maynard. (8) In (the same year) 1027-S Henry Clifford, s. and h. ap. Of the Eari. ok Ci*m- beri.axii, being sum. by writ as BahoN Cukkord (under a like erroneous impression), sat in Ota precedency of the Barony ok Cukkord, cr. by writ 1299. In 16!il the chum of the h. gen. to the old Barony of 1299 was allowed, and in 1737 the claim of the h. gen. to the Barony of 1627-S was also allowed, but not (of course) (lie ancient precedenry of 1299, this latter Barony being ranked as one cr. by the writ of 1627-8, (A? norn, notwithstanding the high precedency which had formerly (though erroneously) been assigned to it. (9) In 1722 Algernon Seymour (styled Earl of Hertford), s. and h. ap. of the Di ke ok Somerset was sum. by writ as Baron Percy (under a like erroneous impression that that ancient Barony had become vested in him on the decease of his mother), and sat in the precedency of the Barony ok Percy, cr. by writ 1299. This precedency was also allowed to his grandson and fa. in 1777, and again to his great grandson in 1817. There can, however, be no question that the old Barony of 1299, though in attainder, is in abeyance between the descendants of the daughters and coheirs of the 5th Earl of Northumberland, who d. 1572, and that the precedency, allowed in 1722 and subsequently, was probably (like the isBue of the writ) in ignorance of the real facts of the case. Note. — To the Barony ok Percy, cr. in tail male 1557, the ancient precedency (i.e., that of 1299) "in Parliament as elsewhere " was granted by Charles I. in 1628. In virtue of this grant, Algernon Peixy (s. and h. ap. of the Eari. of NORTHUMBERLAND, who sat in his father's Barony, 1626 to 1632, as Baron Percy, was riyhlly placed in the precedency of 129ft. This Barony, however, and the precedency of 1299 (so granted thereto in 1628), became ex. in 1670. The following errors have also occurred in writs of summons, but in no way affect the question of precedency : — In 1717 Charles Pawlet {styled Marquess of Winchester), s. and h. ap. of the Duke ok Bot.TON, was sum. as a Baron, by writ directed " Carolo Pawlet de Basing, Sec.," and sat as Baron Pawlet of Basing. This was under the erroneous impression that this Barony was vested in his father, whereas the name of his father's Barony was St. John of Basing. It was held to be a writ of fresh creation, and he was placed as the lowest Baron and thereby obtained a Barony in fee. On his death, however, s.p., in 1754, this Barony become ex. In 1833 Francis Russell (styled Marquess of Tavistock), s. and h. ap. of the Dukk of Bedford, was sum. as a Baron, by writ, erroneously, directed to " Francis Russell of Streatham, CO. Surrey, chevalier." The Barony, which was vested in his father, was that of Howl and [not Russell] of Streatham, co. Surrey, cr. 1695. In this case, however, it having been declared from the chair, that his Lordship's summons was "in his /after" I Barony," in that Barony (i.e., " Howland," cr. 1695) the Marquess was placed, and consequently no new Barony in fee was created. Judging from these cases (more especially from those of Strange and Clifford), it would appear that in spite of a wrongful placing in the House, a writ of summons to a person not being an heir or coheir to the Barony in which he is sum. creates a Barony de novo and one of no higher date than the writ