Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 5.djvu/120

 118 LISLE. i ileal cousin), Henry VIII, by whom he was knighted, 11 Oct. 1513 ; Sheriff of Hants, 1513-14, and was, in consequence at his abovenamed marriage, c>, 25 April 1533 (after the resignation of the dignity on the 20th inst. by the Duke of Suffolk) VISCOUNT LISLE with rem. to the heirs male of [Qy. ? his body, by] the body of Elizabeth, his wife,;- 1 ) the heiress of the Lisle family, being invested( b ) the 27th following; K.G., 23 April 1524; Vice Admiral of England, 1525 ; First Commissioner to Fraucis I., King of France, with the Garter, who was invested at Paris, 10 Nov. 1527 ; Gov. of Calais, 1533-40; Pautler at the Coronation of Anne Boloyn, 1 June 1533; P.O., 1510. Being suspected of a design of betraying Calais to the French, he was imprisoned in the Tower from April i "> 4 0 till his death there 3 March 15 11, 2, which was said to be caused by joy at the King having ordered his release on being convinced of his innocence. He was 6i(> there. His wife, Elizabeth, the suojnre I'.aroness, who was living 27 March 153S, d. before him, probably about 1540, and on her death (her son and heir ap. having sold his reversion iu the manor of Kingston Lisle) the Barony of Kingston Lisle became (under the peculiar limitations of its creatiou iu 14 14 and succession to John Hyde, Esq., who died seised thereof in May 17J5, and his widow iu the following year sold the same to Abraham Atkins, of Clapham, in Surrey, Esq., the possessor when the case was printed in 1790." [Nicolas.] This claim was printed for private use only and it does not appear that Mr. Atkins pursued the subject by any formal claim [addressed] to the Crown. See Sir C. G. Young's pamphlet on " Barons by tenure." l»j The limitation intended is not very clear when the circumstances of the case are considered. John Dudley was, at the date thereof, the eldest son and heir male apparent of the said Elizabeth and became on her death (about 1540) her [actual) heir. The remainder of the creation of " Arthur Plantagcnot, Kiit.," to the Viscountcy of L'Isle as set out iu (that most useful and valuable work compiled by Mr. R. Douglas Trimmer) the " Creations of Peers ami Baronets" (ap. to 47th Report of D. K. Pub. Records) is " Limitation to the heirs male of the body of L'liza- bcth, his wife, sister and heir of John Grey, late Viscount L'Isle." If this be the true rendering of the paleut, not only would Sir Arthur's creation be almost tanta- mount to a life peerage, but most certainly on his death (he died without male issue in 1542) the said John Dudley would, as heir male of the body of the said Elizabeth, his mother, have inherited the Viscountcy of Lisle under the creation of 1523. So far, however, was that from being the case that on 12 March 1542/8, he, under the name of " John Dudley " [only] is created [dc novo] " Viscount L'Isle " with the usual rem. to heirs male of his body. Mr. Trimmer, with his usual courtesy, re- investigated the matter and (27 Oct. 1892), writes as follows, " I have referred to the Patent Roll [No. 012] for 15 Hen. VIII. and the words of the patent of creation appear to bear out the statement in my inventory as to the limitation of succession to the title in question and are as follows, ' Bend, et tcnend. camlcm statum [&c, &c.], prefato Arthuro ct hcrcd. masculis de corpora Elizabeth® uxoris ejus, sororis et hercd. Johis. Grey, nupcr Vicccumitis Lysle, procrtatit site procreandis, Volcntcs et per prescnlcs conccdcntcs pro nobis hcrcd. ct succcssoribus nostris, nnod prcfatus Arthurus ct hercd. mascidi predieUc Elizabcthce, nomcn [&c, &c], predict, successive geratit cthabcant ct corum quiltbcl gent ct habcut ct per nomcn Vicccomitis Lysle successive vocitcntur ct nuncupentur et corum quUibtt vucilelurel nuncupetur. Quodqut idem Arth'jrus el hcrcd. masculi prcdidw Etizabcthce successive Yicccomit. Lysle in omnibus tencantur.' " The Editor of this work, not being satisfied (considering the position of the parties) as to what should be the correct construction of the above, submitted the matter to one most competent to judge thereon (Mr. J. Horace Round) who replied thereto as under, "On full consideration I am of opinion that tho' the patent of 1523 if strictly construed and if taken apart from the relevant facts would limit the dignity to the heirs male of the body of Elizabeth (on the analogy of patents granted to males) yet that, bearing in mind all the facts of the case, one must read it as (clumsily) expressing a limitation to the heirs male of the body of Arthur, by his wife, Elizabeth, the object evidently being to exclude his heirs by any other wife. We must, there- fore, read ' prcfalo Arthuro et hcrcdibus masculis [suis] dc corporc Elizabethaj, uxoris ejus.' ' (") Viscount Lisle and the Lords Berkeley, Sandys, and Vuux, were invested 27 April 1523, at Bridewell Palace.