Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 2.djvu/295

 294 CLIFFORD. XIX. 1734. 10. Margaret, Baroness Lovel (afterwards Countess to ok LEICESTER), 3rd. da. and one of the 5 coheirs nf Thomas (Tin tun), 1775. 6t h Eahl ok Thanet, Loud dk Clifford, &c, above-named, by Catharine, da. and coheir of Henry (Cavkndish), Duke ok Newcastle, being, in right of her said father, one of the coheirs of his Barony, the abeyance thereof was terminated in her favour, and she was declared BARONESS Dl CLIFFORD, by patent 3 Aug. 1734. ( f ) She was b. Hi June 1700; was m. 2 July 1718, to Thomas Coke of Holkham, Norfolk, who was nom. K.B., 27 May 1 725 ; and who was a: Baron Lovel ok Minster Lovel, 2S May 1728, and, on 9 May 1744, Viscount Coke ok Holkham and Earl of Leicester. Hod. s. p. s., 20 April 1759, when his honours become extinct. See fuller account of him under that Earldom. His widow, the Dow. Countess of Leicester, sua jure Baroness de Clifford, d. s.p.s., 28 Feb. 1775, aged 74, at Holkham afsd. On her death the Barony, for the third time, fell into abeyance. "Will pr. March 1775. »*♦*** XX. 177G. 20. Edward Southwell of Kings Weston, co. Gloucester, only s. and h. of Edward S. of the same, Principal Sec. of State [L], by Catharine, sister and h. of Thomas (Watson), 3rd Earl ok Rockingham, da. of Lewis Watson, styled Viscount Sondes, by Catharine, 1st da. and coheir of Thomas (Tufton) Gth Eahl uf Tha_net, Lord de Clifford, &c, above-named, being, as the representa- tive of his said maternal grandmother, one of the coheirs of his Great Grandfather's Barony, the abeyance thereof was terminated( f ) in his favour, and he was sum. therein 17 April 1776, by writ directed " Edward Clifford, C/ievalicr," ;is LORD CLIFFORD, biking his seat 24th inst. He was 6. 6 June 1738, and Jap. 17, at St. Martins in the case (1674) of the Barony of Clifton (see infra p. 302, note " b," but in this case of Clifford (1691), by a farther step, it was held that the riyht to such Barony, tho' by co- heirship it might have fallen into abeyance, rc-cmcnjcd on the cessation of such abeyance, being affected by abeyance only during its existence and not permanently. Thus " the doctrine that, where a dignity fell into abeyance, it might be extinguished by the Crown was disallowed " (" Cruise," p. 195), and the report of the Judges (20 March 1625) in the case of the Baronies enjoyed by John (de Vere) Earl of Oxford (who d. 1514 s.p.), was consequently^ upset. This report of 1625 was to the effect that the right to the said Baronies having devolved on the Earl's three sisters and coheirs, which sisters, "these dignities being entire and not dividable," were " incapable of the same, otherwise than by gift of the Crown " the said Baronies " reverted unto and were in the dis- position* of King Henry VIII." See Collins' "Precedents," p. 175. The ruling of 1625 had been adhered to as late as 1660, when the abeyance of the Barony of Windsor was terminated ; a patent stating that, the last Lord having left sisters and coheirs, the dignity &c. was in the Crown (" penes nos sunt "). This declaratory jiatent was, however, omitted in the case of " Ferrers de Chartley,' ' in 1677. Certainly, if it is held that a Barony when in abeyance reverts to the Crown, it seems that an act of the Crown is requisite to divest itself thereof. However, notwithstanding this decision of 1691 (as to Clifford) "the same point was again discussed four years after " in the case of Willoughry de Broke, which had fallen into abeyance as far back as 1522. On the ground that "the Barony [had thus become] vested in the Crown, conformable to the opinions of the Judges in the case of the [Baronies of the] Earldom of Oxford," the house resolved against the Petitioner. This resolution, however, was not long maintained, and on a question put " whether, if a person, sum. to Pari, and sitting, die, leaving issue two or more daughters who all die, one of them only leaving issue, such issue has a right to demand a summons to Pari." it was resolved in the affirmative, and, as a consequence, on 13 Feb. 1696, the right to the writ was allowed. Since then, several like claims have been allowed, as, in 1720, the Barony of Berners ; in 1794 that of Clinton ; in 179S that of Convuhs ; in 1807, Howaud de Walden, &c. See " Cruise," pp. 196-212. ( u ) The hereditary Shrievalty of Westmorland, and most of the Clifford estates passed to the heir male, the 7th Earl of Thanet. (' ) Seep. 295, note "a." power of the Crown to grant such Baronies to a stranger." See " Cruise," p. 1S3.
 * " The expression of the Judges [in this case] is too general, for it is not in the