Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 3.djvu/182

 180 DUDLEY. DUDLEY^) or SUTTON DE DUDLEY. ( b ) Barony by g, Jons Sutton, of Dudley Castle, co. Stafford, s. and Writ. of J°kn Sutton,( c ) also of Dudley Castle, in right of his wife Margaret, da, of Roger DE SoMSRT, of the same (which Margaret was 1. 1342. eldest of the two sisters( d ) and coheirs of John, Lord SomeryC) [1308-21] also of Dudley Castle afsd.) was 6. probably about 1310 (his mother being aged 32 in 1321) ; sue. his father (who had been restored to the Dudley (») A most able aud by far the best account of the " Barons of Dudley," appeared in 1S70, in "The Her. and Gen.," vols, v and vi, by H. Sydney Grazebrook, aud subsequently (some 20 years later), with additions in vol. U of the Win. Salt Arch. Soc, pp. 152. The Editor has made free use of this and here (once for all) expresses his deep obligation thereto. ( 6 ) The remarks of the learned Sir Harris Nicolas, as to the nomenclature of this Barony, are as under, omitting (however) his suggestions that John Sutton, of Holder- nesse, was the husband of Margaret de Someri, inasmuch as not only the writ of 6 Ed. Ill, shews him to be a distinct person from John Sutton, of Dudley (whom, indeed, Nicolas suggests to have been his son), but there is other good evidence that the families were totally distinct. See a note on this subject by Banks in his " Bar. Amjl. Cone," vol. i, p. 425. Nicolas (followed by Courthope) places the Someri family under the heading of "Dudley," with the following note thereto. " Although this Barony is uniformly considered to be that of ' Dudley,' it appears very questionable if such is the proper designation. That, antecedent to the latter part of the reign of Edw. I, the tenure of the Castle of Dudley constituted the family of Somerie, Barons by Tenure, can scarcely be doubted ; but that such tenure did not establish a right in the possessor of that castle to demand a writ of summons to Pari, may be inferred from the fact, that John de Somerie, who was first sum. to Pari. 1 Edw. II, and who continued to be regularly summoned to the 15 Edw. II, is never once designated as ' de Dudley,' but is merely described as ' Johanni dc Somcry: On his death, s.p., 1 Edw. Ill, according to the present law on the subject, the Barony created by the writ of 1 Ed. II, became extinct. In the 16 Edw. Ill, John de Sutton, his nephew and coheir, was summoned as ' Johanni de Sutton de Duddclc,' which is the first time that designation occurs in the writs of summons to Pari., and which in all probability was solely used to distinguish him from another John de Suttcn who was sum. to the "same Pari, as 'Johanni de Sutton de Iloldcrnessc.' A John de Sutton was also sum. from 26 Dec, 17 Edw. II. [sed quere], to 30 Dec., 18 Edw. II,* as - Johanni de Sutton,' and again, from 20 July, 6 Edw. Ill, to 20 April, 17 Edw. Ill, with the addition of ' de Holdernesse,' aud there does not appear to be any greater cause for considering that the addition of ' de Dudley ' created a Barony of Dudley, than that the Barony created by the writ to Johu de Sutton, 6 Edw. Ill, should be designated as the Barony of ' Holdernesse.' The writ of the 16 Edw. Ill, was the only one ever issued to the last-mentioned John de Sutton ' de Dudley,' although he lived about nineteen years afterwards ; nor wns his son, or grandson, though each of them died of full age, ever sum. to Pari., but his great-grandson was sum. from 18 Hen. VI, 1440. It is thus manifest that the tenure of the Castle of Dudley was not at this time considered to constitute a right to a writ of summons ; that John de Somerie, who was first sum. in 1 Edw. II, was not described as Baron 1 of Dudley ' ; that, according to the decision in the case of Charles Longueville, Esquire, on claiming the Barony of Grey de Ruthyn iu 1640, the proper designation of the Barony created by the writ of the 1 Ed. II, to John de Somerie, was that of 'Somerie'; that the said dignity became extinct in the 1 of Edw. Ill ; and that the Barony created by the writ to Johu do Sutton, 16 Edw. Ill, was that of ' Sutton ' ; or if the description used in that writ be insisted upon, ' Sutton de Dudley.' Some remarks on this subject will be found been Johu Sutton of Dudley (the husband of the heiress), who in the next year, 19 Ed. II, alienated Dudley to the Despencer family, which was not restored till the next reign. In that case, this John of (J 324), 18 Ed. II, would be distinct from the John Sutton of (1332), 6 Edw. Ill, who was clearly of the Holderness family,
 * It is possible that the John Sutton of the writ of 18 Ed. II (1324), may have