CORRIGENDA, ETC., TO VOL. IH. 869 Uu« 14, after " 1846," aid "at St. JimieB*, Westm."; line 18, fw " 1890," read <M898"; lin^ 20, afUf "1848," add "in BelgniTe sqaare"; line 88, /or ' Ferrierres, rtod " Ferrieres." Note (•), line 1, fw " modern," rtad "sham." Note (^), conclude '* as also p. 66, note {^), as in the corrigenda.'* p. 65 ; line 2, after " Vrnm," add " Giving 1125) "; dde note (c), and inteH « mid note^ " (') Planch^ observes [see p. 64, note («)], that' Alar^et PeTerel has been msrried bj various genealogists to at least three sucoesstve EaHs of Ferrers.' It certainly seems that one of these Earls must haye married the Pe?erel heiress [see p. 66, note (<>), as in the corrigenda], and in all probability this Earl was that one." p. 06 ; line 28,/or " firatly (0 Sybilla," read ^'HrsUy (••) SybHIa O "; line 26./er "secondly," rtad "secondly m"; add a$ taid fiei$. "(••)The order of thcM marriases is Tsrioasly given. IhU note (<>), and ineert at taid noU "(') Plnnche's theory [see p. 64, note («)], that these Earls had no descent from William Peverel, and his remark that their claim to his lands was probably thro' the match with the coheir of the family of Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, has called forth the following statement by a well-known (iSrans Atlantic) genealogist, Rdson Salusbury Jones, who is preparing a paper on the succession and marriages of these Earls. 'BBnr OP Proofs that Wiluam db Fxrrsm, Earl of Dirbt, 1190-1247, wab HiiR OF William Pbvbril, bt Rioht of Dbbobnt, and thai FUmeM wae wronf. DuKB Hbrbt'b Chartbr to Earl of Chbbtbr. — As far as this charter relates to Pererers estate, it is but a provuional promue^ distinctly condittonod upon PeTerel not being able to clear himtcff of wickedness and treason in Henry's Otntrt. This charter is quite too extravagant for us to believe that Henry intended to make it good. The Earl of Chester dietl in 1164. Where is the e?idenoe that Peverel did Dot continue to hold the whole of his estate until it was confiscated by Henry in 1165 ? Where is the evidence that any E. of Chester ever had any of Peverel's estate, or ever claimed anything under this charter t Planch^ does not produce or cite any. Henry II. kept the whole of Peverel's estate, except a few parts which he allowed Robert de Peissi (Rot. Pip. H. 2) and the Earl de Ferrers (in 1166, Lib. Rub.) to hold by knight's service. The estate passed to Rich. I., who cave it, with the Honor of Peverel, to l||is brother John, in 1189. Duke Henry's charter played no part whatever in, and was not the foundation for Earl de Ferrers' daim to Peverel's lands. His wife, Agnes, did not become one of the coheirs of her brother, Ranulph, Earl of Chester, until the latter part of 1£S$. Oblatb Roll, 1 John.— Plancb^'s translation of the vital part of the entry, which he discusses, was wholly erroneous. For his — " that the King may forego all claim to other lands which were William Peverel's," we should road — the Sari de Ferrere releaeet to the King all hie claime to the other lande which were JFilliam PcpcreTe, and warrante the Aiu§ againet all othere. Here is proof that the Earl de Ferrers claimed all of Peveml's lands in 1199 y which was S3 geare before his wife, Agnes, became one of her brother's coheirs ; and proof that it was the Earl himeelf who was the heir. "So jure Hxofie is in this entry, and none could have been. Plba Roll, 26 Hbn. III.—Planch6 says that this plea " certainly shows that some Earl of Ferrers assumed a right of heirehip to William Peverel, buibg no meant hintt ihrtt it irof in the right of hit wifCy or makes any mention of Margaret " [Peverel]. There is n^ jure ux. in this plea because none belongrs therein; and yet Planch6 deliberately uses Jure ux, in fiis theory as to how the Enrl de Ferrers obtained Peverel's lands, in part. There is no Margaret Peverel in this plea, because she was not the wife of thit Earl, and nobody has ever suggested that she was. Planch6 did not even know which Earl was referred to. Planch6 truly says that this plea shows the Earl de Ferrers '* to have made himself heir of the aforesaid William Peverel, and to have intruded himself into the same inheritance during the war between the King and hie baront " ; but he did not ascertain how the Earl " made himself heir," or in what war it was done, both of which poiota are vital. Now, what does this plea oonoern t Which was the Earl who made himself heir f And when was this war f The plea shows that certain persons (Prior, monks. Dean and Chapter) were summoned before the King to show why they did not permit him to present a suitable person to the chapel *' de Frioh "; it shows that this chapel was in the same 2a
