Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 3.djvu/333

 CLINTON 313 in the Scottish and French wars. He was sum. to Pari. 6 Feb. (1298/9) 27 Edw. !,(*) by writ directed Johantti de Clinton^ whereby he is held to have become LORD CLINTON. C") He was never again so sum. He was 2 years later (12 Mar. 1 300/1), sum. with more than a thousand others cum equis et annis, being then denominated as of Maxstoke. He appears to have been Knight of the Shire for co. Warwick 1300-0 !.('=) Constable of WaUingford Castle, 1308. He m., probably about 1290, Ida, sister and coh. of Edmund d'OniNGSELLs, ist da. of William d'OniNcsELLs, of Max- stoke afsd., by Ela, da. of Walter FitzRobert, of Woodham Walter, with whom he acquired the Lordship and Castle of Maxstoke and other con- siderable possessions. He d. late in 13 10. His widow accompanied the Queen Consort to France in (1312-13) 6 Edw. II. She, who was ^. about 1270, was living i Mar. 132 1/2. II. 13 10 2, John (de Clinton), Lord Clinton, s. and h., l>. or probably in, or shortly before 1300. He fought, 16 Mar. 1332. 132 1/2, ex parte Regis, at Boroughbridge.C) Knighted before 1324. From 27 Jan. (1331/2) 6 Edw. Ill (*) to I Apr. (1335) 9 Edw. Ill, he was sum. to Parl.,('') the words '■'Mortuus est" being added to the last writ. He ;«., before 24 Feb. 1328/9, Margery, da. is dat. 12 Jan. 1 277/8, and who m. Mazera, da. and h. of James de Bisey, of Baddesley. A yr. s. of this last named Thomas was John de C, called the elder, of Coleshill, CO. Warwick, who d. 131 5/6. His s. and h. ap., John, m. Alice, da. of Robert de Grendon, and left a s. and h., b. 1304, who d. s.p.m. in 27 Edw. III. For some discussion on mediaeval English names, see Appendi.x C to this volume. G.E.C. and V.G. (^) According to the ranking of the Barony in the House of Lords (" Garter's Roll," 1887), whereby "Clinton" is placed next under " Dacre " {cr. 1 321), and next above Zouche (1348?) and Botreaux (1368), the origin of the Barony of Clinton can only be considered as originating with the writ of 6 Edw. Ill (1332) and not with that of 1299. G.E.C. In the present Editor's opinion there was no more intention to cr. an hereditary Barony by one summons than by the other. V.G. (*") As to how far these early writs of summons did in fact create any peerage title, see Appendix A in the last volume. V.G. (•=) It is certainly surprising to find the man sum. in 1298/9, who then became according to modern doctrine a peer of the realm, elected to the House of Commons a year or two later. Nevertheless it is difficult to suggest who else but this " noble- man" can have been the M.P. who in the return is described as of Maxstoke, and in the writ of expenses as junior. It certainly cannot have been his uncle John nor his cousin John (see note "c" on preceding page), who were not of Maxstoke nor his son John, who was under age in 9 Edw. II. V.G. (^) For an account of this battle see volume ii, Appendix C. (') The fact that his yr. br., William, should have been sum. some 16 months be- fore him (see poit, p. 324) and that both William and John should have been sum. at the same time in 1 33 1/2, thus according to modern doctrine creating two peers with- out any distinction in title, offers a striking commentary on the still generally received notion that such writs were intended to confer any title at all. V.G. 40