Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 1.djvu/520

 470 COMPLETE PEERAGE Parr, the attainted Marquess of Northampton, being restored in blood but not in honours was, on 13 Jan. 1559, again cr. by such title with the precedency of the former creation (1547), to which no objection was ever made by the Lords. (4) In 1 603, the King having awarded the Barony OF Abergavenny to Edward Nevill (who was neither heir nor a coheir of any former Baron), the House assigned to him its old precedency, though, in this case without, apparently, a royal warrant to that effect ; while, on the other hand, (5) without consulting Parliament, and simply l?y royal warrant, 3 1 March 16 13, the Earl of Abercorn, a Scottish Earl, was authorised " to hold the place and precedency of an Earl " in the Parliament of Ireland. (6) In 1 61 8 the King granted to Charles (Howard), Earl of Nottingham, a descendant (but not the representative nor even a coheir) of John (Mow- bray,) Earl of Nottingham in 1377, the same " place and precedency as well in Parliament 2is in the Star chamber, ^fc," as was possessed by his said ancestor, and " above all Earls of a later creation," in which precedency (of 1377) he sat for the remainder of his life. Such then were the prece- dents which Charles I followed when (7) in 1626 the precedency of the previous year was granted to the Earldom of Banbury, a precedency which was, after protest, acquiesced in by the House of Lords for the Earl's life, and not for his heirs. No such acquiescence, however, was given to (8) the precedency of the Barony of Montjoy conferred, 5 June 1627, on Montjoy (Blount), Baron Montjoy in Ireland. In this creation the clause of precedency was over all (they were but two) Barons cr. after the 20th day of May last past. On complaints being preferred by these two Barons, {viz. by Lord Fauconberg, who had been cr. 25 May, and by Lord Love- lace, who was cr. 30 May in the same year), the point was referred to the Lords' Committee for Privileges, who reported 29 April 1628 that the Committee had considered thereof, and are of opinion, " That according to the statute 31 Henry VIII, and according to a former judgment of this House, in the like case of precedency (granted to the Earl of Banbury), that the said Baron Fauconberg and the said Baron Lovelace are to have place and precedence according to the ancienties and dates of their several patents before the said Baron Montjoy, whose patent of creation bears date afterward, notwithstanding the said clause in his patent to the contrary. " See Lords'' Journals, vol. iii, p. 174. The natural result of this report was that Lord Montjoy was, on 3 Aug. following, raised to the rank of an Earl, as Earl of Newport. Before, however, the date of the report of the Lords' Committee, the King (9) on 7 Apr. 1628 granted a patent to Henry (Percy), Earl of Northumberland and Baron Percy (under the limitation of the creations of 1557 above mentioned, in which a spec, precedence had been granted to the Earldom but not to the Barony"), " that he and his heirs male " should enjoy " the same seat, place and degree of Baron Percy as well in Parliament ■x% elsewhere," as any the said Earl's ancestor. Under this patent the Earl's son and h. ap., who had already been sum. in his father's Barony, sat in the old precedence (in lieu of that of 1557), and his claim to precede Lord Abergavenny came before the Lords' Committee in 1628-9. It is to be remembered that this Earl, though inheriting the Barony of