ABERGAVENNY. 21 precedency wan certainly not on account of his having been held to be a Baron by tenure, for the decision of the House was, " that the place, seat, precedency and pre-eminence of the Barons Le Despencer, anciently iras, and i» and ought to be before and above that of the Barons of Bergavenny," i.e. that a Barony cr. by writ of 1 264, was entitled to the precedence of one, which, IF by ten ure, must have been long before that date, " for the territory of Bergavenny undoubtedly existed in the hands of tenants in chief of the Crown, before 49 Hen. Ill (1*264) and of persona who were certainly esteemed Barons of the Kealm." — See "First Report of the Lords' Committees on the Peerage," p. 440. Unless we accept the theory that this writ was incidental either (1 ) to a Patent (hitherto undiscovered) of this date, or (2) to the tenure of the Castle, it must (according to all modem Peerage law) have cr. a Barony in fee, and one de novo of the date of 100 J. He m. Rachel, 3rd da. of John l.i-NN.Mtu of Knole, near Chevening, co. Kent, by Elizabeth, da. of William Harman of Kllam, in Crayford, in that co. She was bur. 15 Oct. 1616 at Birling, Kent He d. at his house in Great St. Bartholomew's, London, 1st, and was bur. 3 Dec. 1622 at Birling aforesaid. Will dat. HI Jan. 16J8-9. Cod. 24 Nov. 1622, pr. 2 Dec. 1622. the heirs gen.), was declared by the Commissioners of the Earl Marshal "to have commenced by writ 13 Edw. IV," and so " ought not to descend to the said Leonard as h. male." The royal award which (in the ease of Dacre, though not in that of Bergavenny) declared expressly it should be to heirs male, not having been carried out by letters patent, went for nothing. It is difficult to see why the writ of 1604 in the case of Bergavenny (which has not, as iu the case of Dacre. the support even of a Royal edict declaring the limitation to be to heirs male), is not to be similarly interpreted. The PRECEDENCY DUE TO CERTAIN BARONIES OF ANCIENT CREA- TION has been allowed in the following cases to the person sum. therein, though such person has not been the h. gen. or even a coheir of the Barony, and would not, according to the now accepted notion, have been entitled to such precedence. There is some ground for supposing that to certain ancient Baronies (say those before temp. Hen. VI.) certain seats in the House of Lords were formerly assigned, and that to such seats the persons sum. in the name of such Baronies (whether entitled thereto by descent or otherwise) were deemed to be entitled. (1) In 1421 James Berkeley, h. male (but not h. gen.) of Thomas, Bakon Berkeley (sum. by writ 1295) was himself sum. by writ as a Baron, and both he and his heirs were allowed the precedency of the old Barony, in which his grandson Thomas sat (1529-33), though, as the latter was not iu possession of the Castle or estate of Berkeley, the precedence could not (in his case, at all events), be due to a Barony by tenure. (2) In 1533-4 Henry Pole was sum. by writ as Baron Montagu, and sat in the precedency of the Barony of that name (a: by writ 1300), though such Barony was then under attainder, and though his mother, through whom his claim was derived, was then living. (3) In 1558 Henry {Stafford), Lord Stafford (who having been declared Baron- Stafford, with rem. to the heirs male of his body, by Act of Pari. 1547, had taken his seat as junior Baron in 1548) claimed and was allowed the precedency of the Barony of Stafford (cr. by writ 1298), which, so far from being vested in him, was then actually under forfeiture. (4) . In 1571 (on 4 April) Thomas Paget was sum. by writ in a Barony of that name, cr, by writ 1550, and was ranked accordingly. If this date and the date of death of Elizabeth, da. and h. of the last Baron (viz. 29 June 1571) is correct he would not have been so entitled till two months later, riz., after her death, s.p. (5) In 1597, Thomas (Went) Lord de La Warr, whose father had Bat as junior Baron under a creation of 1570, was allowed the precedency of the ancient Barony of De la Warr {cr. by writ), of which, though h. male, he was not h. gen. (6) In 1604 Edward Necill, a descendant, but neither h. nor coheir of William {Seauchatnp), Lord Bergavenny (who was sum. by writ 1392), was himself sum. by writ as Baron Bergavenny and allowed the precedency of 1392, a precedency (it is to be observed) which, had it been considered to be a Barony by tenure, would have been totally inadequate. [In the cases subsequent to this date the writs were issued by inadvertence, viz.:— ]
