Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/189

 DELVIN 171 The descent of" the barony is obscure. According to Lodge, the grantee had two other brothers, Christopher of Balrath, and John of Brackloone: Christopher's successor being J/mericus, living 38 Hen. Ill, father of Robert, living 31 Edw. I, father of Hugh, living 7 Edw. 11, father of Richard [sic], father of William, who m. Katherine, da. or sister of John Fitzjohns, Baron of Delvin, the descendant of one "Johns or Jones," who 7)/. the da. and h. of Richard ^^ Capella abovenamed. As to the family of Fitzjohn nothing further is said-C) It is, however, possible that Richard htz John, of Moylagh and Ardmulchan, co. Meath, a tenant of the Mortimers, who d. before i 8 Nov. 1324, and whose witiow, Eglentine (who m., 2ndly, William dc Londoun), was living 8 Apr. I348,('') was father or grandfather of John Fitzjohn mentioned below. John FitzJohn, Baron of Delvin, co. Westmeath. It was ordered, 15 Feb. 1371/2, that he (or, less probably, his son of the same name) should be sum. to a Great Council to be held at Dublin, 25 Feb. following. (") He is styled in the writ baronem de Delvyn. There is no writ summoning him to Pari. [I.] enrolled on any of the Chancery Rolls now extant. C^) (') Lodge, ut supra. (b) Close Rolls [I.], 18 Edw. II, d, no. 146: Patent Rolls, lO Edw. Ill, p. 2, m. 3; 21 Edw. Ill, p. 2, m. 18; 22 Edw. Ill, p. I, >n. 10. {^) " Magnum Consilium apud Dublin' tenendum die Mercurii proximo post festum Cathedre Sancti Petri proximo futurum." {Close Roll [I.], 46 Edw. Ill, d, nos. 110-118). This Council has been represented to have been a Pari. In 1800 John Nugent petitioned for a writ of summons as Baron of Delvin [I.]. His petition, after reference, was reported on, 3 Nov. 1800, by the chief Law Officers [I.], who were of opinion " that John Fitzjohn sat and voted in Pari, in 46 Edw. Ill in pursuance of the said writ of summons, as Baron of Delvin, and thereby became and was seized in fee of the said Barony." There is no evidence for the sitting and voting, and indeed only a presumption for the summoning: for the writ enrolled is not to John Fitzjohn, but to the SheriflF of the cross, or to the Seneschal of the liberty, of Meath (the persons to be summoned by each of these officials arc placed in one list in the enrolment) ad premuniendum 'Johannem Fitxjohan baronem de Delv and some 35 others. All the laymen attending this Council, except the two Earls, were thus summoned by the various sheriffs, cfc. Those so sum. consisted of one dominus, one baro, 10 milites, one generosus, and over 70 others without any title. For the Parliaments [I.] of 1374/5, 1377/8, 1380, and 1382, the writs were directed to those ordered to attend. C*) A Thomas fitz John kt. was sum. to the four Parliaments just named, and in the report mentioned above it is stated that " the presumption is that John was sue. by [this] Thomas, although Thomas is not in any of them i.e. the writs] called Baron of Delvin." There are, of course, no grounds for any such presumption. Thomas fitz John kt. occurs (co. Waterford) in Apr. 1390 with his sons Thomas and John [Patent Roll [I.], 13 Ric. II, d, no. 229), and was most probably a Geraldine.