Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 1.djvu/521

 APPENDIX C 471 Percy under the spec. rem. of the creation of 1557 was »ot the heir gen. nor even a coheir of the ancient Lords Percy. (10) On 12 Sep. 1640, Sir William Howard and Mary his wife, sister and h. of Henry, Lord Stafford, were cr. respectively Baron Stafford and Baroness Stafford, with a warrant of precedency " to possess such place and precedency of Baron of Stafford as well in Pcir/iciment, <yc., as Henry, late br. of the said Mary, in his lifetime Baron of Stafford, ever held or enjoyed. " Sir William took his seat in the old Barony of Stafford, cr. 1298, which seems to have been then under forfeiture. The question of his right to do so having been referred to the Committee for Privileges, the King, to prevent controversy (as in the similar case of Montjoy in 1627), raised him to a higher rank, 1 1 Nov. 1 640, as Viscount Stafford. In Garter's list of Peeresses at the cor- onation of James II, this early precedence (1298) was allowed to his widow, suo jure Baroness Stafford (her husband's Viscountcy and Barony being under attainder), such list having been duly approved of by the King in Council. When, however, in 1829, the attainder of her husband was reversed and their h. gen. inherited his and her Barony, the place assigned to it was according to the patent of creation (1640), the Lord Chancellor Eldon stating that, having the case of Banbury in view, the clause of pre- cedency was void. The last case of a warrant of precedency of higher date than the creation of the Peerage is one that does not involve any rank in Parliament^ being that of Alice Dudley, cr. 23 May 1644, Duchess Dudley for her life. Her husband had been cr. a Duke by Ferdinand II of Tuscany, by patent dat. 9 March 1620 at Vienna, and her precedence was to date from the time of such creation. The words in the grant are "out of our Prerogative Royal which we will not have drawn into dispute. " So late, however, as February 1645/6 (as has been pointed out to the Editor by J. H. Round), the Crown endeavoured X.o follow the Abergavenny precedent by diverting the descent of the Barony of Windsor (a barony in fee), with its ancient precedence, in favour of the heirs male of the body of a coheir, though the endeavour was abandoned. (See Studies in Peerage and Family History, pp. 360-361). The same informant mentions the similar attempt previously made by the Crown in the Patent granted to Sir Conyers Darcy in 1641 which made him Baron Darcy, with the precedence of Henry IV's reign, and with a limitation of the Barony to the heirs male of his body. The House, however, appears to have ignored this grant.