Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 3.djvu/574

 554 CROMWELL V. 146 1 4 or I. Sir Humphrey Bourchier, 3rd s. of Henry, to 1st Earl of Essex, by Isabel (aunt to Edward IV), da. 147 1. of Richard (Plantagenet), Earl of Cambridge, was sum. to Pari, from 25 July (1461) i Edw. IV to 15 Oct. (1470) 49 Hen. VI, by writs directed Humfrido Bourchier de Cromwell^ Humfrido Domino Cromwell Chfr, Humfrido Cromwell ChVr, or Humfrido Bourchier de Cromwell ChPr, whereby he is held to have become LORD BOURCHIER or LORD CROMWELL. Constable of Nottingham Castle and Steward of Sherwood Forest, 2 Mar. 1455/6. He w., before 14 Feb. 1455/6, Joan, 2nd and yst. da. of Sir Richard Stanhope, of Rampton, by his 2nd wife, Maud, sister of [whose issue was coh. to] Ralph (Cromwell), Lord Cromwell abovenamed. He d. s.p., 14 Apr. 147 1, being slain fighting for King Edward at Barnet field, and was bur. in Westm. Abbey.('') Will pr. 18 June 1471. As he never had issue by his wife, he was not tenant by the courtesy, and probably this Barony should be regarded as a new creation,^') in which case it became exdnct at his death; if, however, it be considered as a Barony of 1375, it fell into abeyance between his widow and her sister. His widow m. Sir Robert Radclyffe, of Hunstanton, Norfolk, whose will dat. 24 Nov. 1496, was pr. 19 May 1498. She d. s.p.^ 10 Mar. I490,('=) and was bur. at Tattershall afsd. M.I. (^) Sir John Paston, in a letter dated 18 Apr. 147 1, mentions him, as "the Lord Cromwell," being " kyllyd uppon the ffelde halffe a myle ffrom Bernett on Esterne Daye." See note j«i^ William, Lord Save and Sele [145 i]. V.G. (*>) It seems to have been so considered in the "Return of all Baronies called out of Abeyance," made "pursuant to an order of the House of Lords, dat. 28 June 1858." To this return, three peerages are appended with the remark that "it is uncertain whether they can be regarded as [being] within the terms of the order." These are (i) Furnival, 1406; (2) Cherleton de Powys, or Powys, 1422; and (3) Cromwell, 1461. As to the last, the statement runs thus, "Maud, da. and after sole h. of Ralph, 2nd Baron, had issue 2 daughters, Maud and Joan; the latter m. Humphrey Bourchier, who was sum. in 1 46 1 as Humphrey Bourchier de Cromwell. He had no issue by his wife, Joan, and was not a coheir himself, nor had he acquired that interest in his wife's inheritance, which would have entitled him to enjoy the dignity in her right, and it is scarcely possible to consider that this summons terminated the abeyance." On the other hand Cruise seems to have no doubt of the Barony being the ancient one, referring to it several times as the case of the younger coheir being preferred to the elder, and (at p. 184) when speaking of the prerog. of the Crown to terminate an abeyance, adding that " the nominee becomes entitled to the place and precedence of the ancient Barony to which he is thus nominated. Bourchier, Lord Cromwell, was, perhaps, the first person in whose favour the Crown exercised this prerogative, but there are so many subsequent instances of it that it cannot now be questioned." G.E.C. J. H. Round points out that the above return is based merely on Courthope's Nicholas (1857), where (p. xxxiii) the same doubt is expressed as to this alleged case of abeyance. V.G. («) On her death the representation of the Barony devolved on her sister (see p. 553, note " b "), after whose death s.p. in 1497, it vested in the representatives of the three sisters of the 2nd Lord, vix. (i) Hawise, who m. Thomas, Lord Bardolph,