Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 3.djvu/183

 DUDLEY. 181 estate in 1327 which two years before had been aliened to the Despencer family) some ante after 1329, and was Bum. to Pari, as a Baron (I.OHD DUDLEY or SUTTON DE DUDLEY) by writ 25 Feb. (1341/2), 10 Ed III. directed " Johanni de Sutton lie under ' CnF.iir.ETON ' [see vol. ii., p. 210, note " a "] ; and after much consideration the Editor [Nicolas] fully coincides with the position that the designation frequently added to the names of Barons in writs of sum. to Pari, before the reign of Hen. VI, never did, nor was it ever intended that they should, confer a title of dignity, but that it was generally used to distinguish Barons of the same name from each other, and was taken chiefly from their residence or possessions. In the reign of Hen. VI, probably from the numerous political convulsions which characterize that period, frequent anomalies in cases of Peerage are to be found, as parties, when possessed of the unbounded temporary influence which generally attends some individuals in such disturbed times, obtained from the Crown concessions which can neither be reconciled with previous or subsequent practice, and of which the case of Lisle, which will hereafter be stated, affords a sufficient proof. It was under that monarch that instances are to be first discovered, when some designations added to the names in writs of summons indisputably implied the title of the Barony ; but with the exceptions of the cases of Bergavenny and Grey of Powis, it was never even then pretended, when the addition was derived from territorial possessions, that such was the title of the dignity ; but, with the two exceptions just cited, in every single example where such addition was the title of the personage to whose name it was affixed, it was derived from the name of the family from whom they inherited, or by marriage acquired the dignity. This assertion will be sufficieutly established by the following instance In the 33 Hen. VI John Bourchier was sum. to Pari, as ' Johanui Eourchier dc Berners,' he having m. the da. and h. of Hichard Berners, who had the reputation of a Baron, temp. Hen. V, but who was never sum. to Purl. ; at that period there was a William Bourchier who sat in Pari, as Lord Fitz'Wurine, which title he acquired by marrying the heiress of the Baron of that name, and who was then and has ever since properly been considered us Lord FitzWiirine ; on the same principle this John Bourchier was sum. as Lord Berners, notwithstanding that his father-in-law was never a Par- liamentary Baron. In the writs of Summons in which these instances occur (and several other precisely similar might be cited), Edmund Grey was sum. as 'Edmundo Grey de Ruthyu,' Edward Grey as ' Edwardo Grey de Groby,' Thomas Dacre as ' Thomio Dacre de Gilleslaud,' John Scrope as 'Johanni Scrope de Masham,' Henry Scrope as ' Henrico Scrope de Bolton,' las. ; but it cannot for an instant be pretended that either Jluthyn (which, as it has been already just observed, was decided in the negative by the House of Peers in 1010), Uroby, Gillcsland, Masham or Bolton, being all names of lands, were the titles of the Baronies. The case of Bergavenny has been commented upon [see voL i, p. 14, note "b"] and the conclusion there stated is that the title of Bergavenny was never that of the Barony until Edward Neville was sum. to Pari, as ' Domino de Bcrtjavcnny,' 20 Hen. VI. 'With respect to that of Powis, which has also been noticed under Cheiileton, and will again be alluded to uuder Gbey of Powis, it is only necessary to observe here, that that instance appears strongly to corroborate the position, that when the designation was taken from lands, it waa solely a distinction, and never a title of dignity, excepting in tho case of Bergavenny in the reign of Hen. VI, or when the title originated in a patent. To these observations it should be added that such descriptions are very similar to those since used in patents of creation ; for example, ' Baron Montagu of St. Neots,' 'Baron Howard of Effingham,' ' Viscount Duncan of Campcrdomi,' &c." ( c ) See tub note to note "b" (p. ISO) as to Que possibility Of this John Sutton having been sum. as a Baron by writ 30 Dec. (1324), IS Ed. II. ( d ) "Edmondson asserts they were his daughters and heirs, and hence deduces tho Barony from the writ of summons 1 Edw. II ; but the escheats in both instances provo that his sisters were his [i.e., John, Lord Somery's] heirs." See " Nicolas." _ (°) The peerage Barony of Somery is in this work treated of under that title. It is treated of, by " Nicolas " (followed by " Courthope "), under " Dudley " (of which John de Somery was doubtless feudal Lord) inconsistently with the treatment of " Cherleton " (feudal Lords of Powis) and the dicta thereunder laid down.