Page:The Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage of the British Empire Part 2.djvu/717

 Mii^ m^lHiJ^^ CHAOS. Under this heading, which is intended to express the state of doubt and con- fusion in which the matters hereafter referred to are involved, I have ventured to present, together with notes upon points which appear to require explanation or confirmation in some of the preceding pedigrees, all such information as I have been able to collect with respect to the families of persons claiming the dignity of Baronet, but regarding whose claims there does not appear to be accessible the prima facie evidence which would justify their inclusion among those whose title is unquestioned. Upon the validity or otherwise of such claims it will be distinctly understood that I do not in any way pretend to pass judgment. Any further information bearing upon these claims, or any others which may be made in print to the title of Baronet, will be very welcome. J. FOSTER. CAKMICHAEL-ANSTRUTHER, Sir Wynd- HAM Chaeles James, an undoiibted Baronet of Great Britain (1798), is descended from Sir Wil- liam Anstruther of Austnither, said to have been created a Baronet of Nova Scotia in the year 1691 (the same year as his brother Sir Robert, of Bal- caskie), but of this creation there seems to be no record or even indirect evidence. (See pedigree in Baronetage. I BARNEWALL, (Sir) Reginald Aylmer John De Barneval (1622, I.), born posthumous 16 Feb. 1838, when he succeeded his father (Sir) Aylmer John. The Pedigree. It is impossible to reconcile the pedigi-ees relative to tlie early history of this Baronetcy as compiled by Sir Bernard Burke, Ulster King of Arms, 1880 1, and by John Lodge, Deputy Keeper of the Records and of the Rolls, kc. Dublin (say 1780), for they not only disagree but they also bear evidence of Inaccuracy which provokes caution, if not distiiist, the former more particularly, by reason of the change of descent in the Baronetcy in 1868 as detailed below. Ulster King of Arms, in his Peerage for 1881. attempts to strengthen his pedigree by repeated reference to an uncertified and meagre entry among the funeral certificates recorded by his department, and, while holding the torch to "Chaos," persists in the edition of his work for 1882— notwithstanding the followLUg damaging statements — in reprinting a descent which is clearly proved to be untenable. The following is a transcript of the funeral certificate referred to : (J) (t) See Collectanea Genealogica, part I.— Ep. FOSTER, " Sir Patrick Bamwall, Baronett, died the " He married Sisly, daughter of the Rt. Honble. WUliam, Lord " of Slane, by whom he had issue, — Sir Richard Bamwall, " Baronett, John, George, James Mary, Katherine, and " Frances," but surely this interesting entry (!) would not be held even by a king of arms to overrule the will and codicils of the baronet (as stated below), for had it been probable or even possible that further issue might have been bom subsequent to the making of the will 24 Mar. 161.5, the testator would naturally have alluded to the eventuality, and certainly if a son (as alleged by Sir B. Burke) or other chilflren had been born either of his wife Sisly or of his wife Elizabeth (appolntedTexecutrix under the codicil of 30 June. 1624). they would undoubtedly have been named and provided for in the codicils; but the fact is that no mention is made of any children other than those named in the win, and as by the codicil of 1616 the testator's " cousin" Robert, Lord Triinlestou, is to get Stackallan, it would favour the theory that no other child had been bom. The codicil of 30 June, 1624, casts a doubt also on the accuracy of the alteration in Ulster's new pedigree with regard to the wife of the 2nd Baronet. Even if it were allowed that Sir Patrick BamewaU had a son James, Ulster's pedigree aflords no evidence that this James was father of Bartholomew, of BaUyhost, co. West- meath, from whom the present representative derives his descent — see Burke's " Peerage." The parenthetical statement that Bartholomew is mentioned in the will of " his cousin,'' the 4th Baronet, is, unfortunately, calculaterl to mislead, for no relationship as alleged is even hinted at, as may be seen by reference to the follo'n'ing extract, which contains the only mention made of him. E.xtract from will of Sir George Barnewall, Bart, dated 18 Aug. 1735, proved 29 Jan. foUo-^-ing: — '•■ Item, whereas Bartholomew BamewaU who married Mrs. of Castleto'mi's daughter, who lives or did live in the county of Westmeath, did lend me ten pounds some time agoe upon my bond, which my servant has mislaid, my will is .that not only the said ten pounds but also ten pounds more may be paid him if he is alive at the time of my death; if not, that the same may be paid to his heir or lawfiil representative,"