112 AP-AD AM. [Sib Thomas Ap-Adam, only s. and li., about 1304, wboee wardship in 1310 Ralph de Monthermer obtained for t>,000 marks. In 1325 ho became of age, and immediately commenced a series of alienations of his vast estates. He was tnighted before" June 1329. In 1330 he sold the estate of Beverstone Castle and Overe, co. Gloucester, &c, to Thomas de Berkeley and Margaret his wife. Beiug denuded of nearly all his possessions, neither he nor any of his posterity were ever Bum. to Pari. The name of his wife is unknown. He left (besides a da. Alice) three sous Robert, Hamund and John, all of whom appear to have d. s.p.: the two former were living in 13' Ed. Ill (1342-43) : while, in 49 Ed. Ill (1376), it is clear that John Ap Adam was the representative of the family, and, as such, released his rights in Bever- stone and Overe (as also in Barrow and Tickenham, Somerset), to the Berkeley family, and it seems most probable that he was identical with the John Ap Adam; b ), who rf. s.p. in 1424. Anyhow his sister Alice, or (granting the identity aboveuamed) Elizabeth( c ) (names which, considering their various forms, might easily be con- founded), m. Tomlyn Huntley of an English family in Monmouthshire (who, being s. of Philip Huntley, was called, by the Welsh," Tomlyn ap Philip"!'), and their s. and h., John Huntley (called, by the Welsh, John ap Tomlyn), in 1424 sue. his maternal uncles in the lauds at Tideuham, and was living 144S( d ).] directed to the Temporality." Now, according to Sir N. H. Nicolas, this writ, of 26 Jan., (1296-7), 25 Ed. I, commanded attendance at Salisbury on Sunday, the feast of St. Matthew the Apostle ( i.e. 21 Sep.) next ensuing. This last" date, however, is an error, and one that is fatal, to the validity of the writ as a regular summons ; the discovery of such error having been made (store than fifty years after it was promulgated) by one of the most accurate genealogists of the present century, Mr. Henry Sough, who writes thereon as follows "It has been suggested that this writ was supplemented by another writ, dated 9 Sep. in the same year, summoning the Spiritual Lords and others to meet in London on the morrow of St. Michael. The question is discussed at some length by Nicolas ; and his extraordinary view, as to the writ of 26 Jau. having possibly been perfected by a later writ, has been accepted by several writera of reputation who have followed him. Nicolas adds a foot note to trtie ett'ect that, according to certain tobies, the feast of St. Matthew, in 25 Ed. I, fell upon a Saturday {not a Sunday], as it appears by calculation that it really did. It is surprising that this known discrepancy did not induce Nicolas, or liis Editor [L'ourthope] to exaiaine the writs more carefully. The idea of completion by a later writ results from a mistaken reading of the writ of 26 Jan. The meeting at Salisbury was rvtt appointed for the feast of St. Mathew (" ilathci") 21 Sep.. but for that of St. Matthias (" Mnthie,") 24 Feb. The swjyested view of the completion of the summons by the writ of 9 Sep. consequently falls to the ijround. The question affects the existence of several alleged English Baronies and the seniority of several others. On Sunday, 24 Feb. 1296-7, an assembly, not properly a Pari, was held at Salisbury as appointed." . . . • See, also, "N. & Q.," 5th s. V., 103, where Mr. James Greenstreet gives 94 coats of arms of the magnates there assembled, which he calls " The First Nobility Roll," being the earliest dated roll of arms known to exist. ( b ) There is an inquisition "ad melitiH inquirendum," taken 38 Hen. VI QUO), relative to Johu Ap Adam, who held lands in Red wick, co. Gloucester, and who if. 3 Hen. VI (1424), leaving John Huntley, s. of his sister Elizabeth (sic), his cousin ail h., then aged 40 aud upwards. In Fosiaooke's " Gloucestershire " (vol. ii, p. 8) it u said that John Ap Adam [the Baron] had lands in Redwicke and Northwicke, part of which descended to John Ap Adam [presumably his grandson], who if. during the reign of Hen. VI. Besides the apparent identity of the lands, it seems almost inconceivable that there should bo two persons, each named Johu Ap Adam about the same time, and each succeeded by a John Huntley, the s. of a sister, yet Dr. Ormerod says (" Strigulensia," p. 105, note 3), "It is a striking coincidence, but no more, and Sir H. Nicolas stated that he did not consider this Johu [who d, 1424} to be identical with the John Ap Adam of [i.e. living in] 1376." ( c ) In Protheroe's Welsh genealogies (now preserved at the College of Arms, London) the heiress of LJanllowell, who m. Tomlyn is called Margaret, and she is said to be the da. (not sister) of John Ap Adam, who was s. of Sir Thomas Ap Adam the s. [not of John, Lord Ap Adam, but) of Adam Herbert ! (Protheroe MS., vol. xiii, p. H 2 )' ( d ) John Ap Tomlyn, alias Huntley, d. s.p.m., leaving several daughters, amen? whose representatives the Barony, supposing it to be one in fee, would be in abeyance
