CHERLETON. 219 His widow, by whom ho had no issue, m. John (Sutton), Loud DUDLEY, who d. 1IS7. She d. in, or shortly before, 1479. Oil the death of Lord Churletuii the Baron;/ fell into abeyance between his two daughters and eoheirs by his 1st wife.( :l ) (*) There were (1) Joane, aged 21 in 1421, who inherited the Lordship of Powis, and who m. Sir John Grey, K.G. a: in 141S, Karl of Tankcrville, In Normandy, whose great grandson John Grey was sum. to Pari. l"i Nov. 14S2 by writ directed "Oreyde Povys." (2) Joyce, aged IS in 1421, in. Sir John Tiptoft, sum. to 1'arl. 7 Jan. 1121) by writ directed " Johanni Tiptoft." A i|uesti' 'ii arises as to whether this Barony can be considered as the Barony of " Pattys and, if so, whether the abeyance has not been terminated. The whole matter is very clearly and succintly put in the " Return, pursuant to an order 28 June 1S5S, of ALL Bakonjks CALLKD 00* OK ABEYANCE up to the present time, Ssc" Under "ChBBLETON DE Powys, or Powys, 1422 " is the following account. '• John de Cherleton, Lord of Powys, was sum. to Pari. 131:1. He 13.13 and was sue. by his s. John. The father and also the son, down to 13G0, were sum. as johanni dc Cherleton. Ill 13<>2 John, the sou [.tic, but should be John, son of the last named John], was sum. as Johanni dc Cherleton de Powys and this addition of dc Powyi was used by the ( 'kerletons until the death of Edward, s.p.m. in 1422. Edward left two daughters, between whom the Barony fell into abeyance. The Lordship of Powis became the property of Joan the eldest, who m. Sir John Grey, Kut. The grandson of Joan is said to have sat in Pari, in 1455. Rot. Pari. p. 2S2, but no summons for such sitting is to bo found. John, the great grandson of Juan, was sum. to Pari, in 1 482 as Johanni dc Grey de Powis. It is doubtful, however, whether this can be considered a termination of the abeyance of the Barony of Cherle- ton, ur a new creation in the family of Grey. Joyce, the yst da. of Edward, m. Sir John Tiptoft, who was sum. to Pari. 1426, as Juhannis Tiptoft, Cld'r. He was never sum. by any other designation, but Duydalc considers that he v;ls sum. in his wife's llarony, probably because his son on being created [14 I'.'] Earl of Worcester is called Lord Tiptoft and Powys." Sir Harris Nicolas, than whom few better authorities exist, has given considerable attention to this point, arguing that the abeyance has never been terminated. His remarks are as under. — "Edwaud UK CufkletoN sum. to Pari, from 2 Dec. 1401, to 26 Feb. 1421, died 1422, s.p.m., leaving his two daughters his heirs, viz. — Joan, his eldest da. who m. Sir John Grey, Kut. ; and Joyce, who became (he wife of Sir John Tiptoft, which Sir John Tiptoft, Dugdale says, was sum. to Pad. in consequence of this marriage, and Iwre the title of Lord Powis : it is certain he was sum. to Pari, in 1426, but never with the designation of " Powis," although his son is called Lord Tiptoft and Powys upon his creation to the Earldom of Worcester, 1 6 July 1 441). The Lordship of Powis became the property of Joan, her [Joyce's] eldest sister, whose grandson appears to have sat in Pari. 1455, although no summons for such sitting is to be found, and whose great-grandson John Grey, was sum. to Pari. 14S2, as " Johanni Grey de Powes." Itis however, very doubtful if this Barony has ever been taken out of the Abeyance in which it fell on the death of Edward, the last Baron, in 1422; for although the descendants of the eldest coheir and the husband and descendants of the younger, were sum. to Pari, yet it is most probable that both the Baronies in question lnitst be considered as neio creations. The claim of John Kyuaston, Esq., in 1731, which is more fully noticed under Grey of Powis, appears to have been made under the presumption that John Grey, w ho was sum. in 22 Ed. IV had this Barony as sole h., in consequence of the attainder of John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester (the other coheir), in Oct. 1470, or that the Abeyance was terminated by the Crown in his favour. The former could not have lieen the fact, for such attaiuder would have vested that uioiety in the Crown ; and with respect to the second conjecture, that the Abeyance was terminated by the Writ of Summons to John Grey in 22 Ed. IV, the editor [Sir Harris Nicolas] acknow- ledges himself incompetent to speak decisively, though, if no other evidence of the fuct can be adduced, than the addition of " de Powes," to his name in that writ, he presumes, from the numerous examples of such additions without any inference of a similar nature being deducible therefrom, that little stress in favour of such a suppo- sition can be laid on that circumstance ; for if it bo conceded that John Grey was sum. on that occasion as " Lord Powis," it is much more likely that he was then created to
