348 CON VERS. III. 1538, •>'. John (Costers), Lonu C'onvkks, s. and h. He was tu .sum. to Pari by writs 30 Jan. (1544/6)38 Hun. VIII to 22 Oct. (IfiSB) 1557. 2 and 3 Ph. and Mary. He served at the siege of Leith. Was Warden of the West Marches and Gov. of Carlisle, tan/,. I'M. VI ; Warden of the Bast Marches and Gov. of Berwick, temp. Mary, Ik- m. Maud, <Ia. of Henry (Cukfohd), 1st Eabi. or Ou.MBKitL.AND, by his 2nd wife Margaret, da. of Henry (Percy) Earl OK Northumberland. He d. s.p.ru. (165(3-57), 3 and 4 l'h. and Mary, when the. Barony fell into abeyance.
- ♦ g * *
IV. [1641, 4- Coxykks (Dakcy), Loiui Darcy and Conyeus, or] [1641], s. and h. of Thomas Daucy, by Elizabeth, 2nd da. and coheir 3 644 ^ m (Cqhibbs), Lord Convers, last abovenamed, having on 13 July 1644, by the extinction of the issue of the other coheirs, become the representative of his said maternal grandfather, be- came in consequence de iur«( b ) LORD CONYEUS [1509]. He was b. in York about 1571, being admitted Fellow Commoner at Cains Coll., Cambridge, 10 Dec. I5S8, and then aged 17. He was knighted 23 July 1603, sue. his father 6 Nov. 1605, and seated himself at Hornby Castle, co. Y'ork, the inheritance of his maternal ancestors. On 10 Aug. 1611 he was cr. BARON DAKCY, and on the 11th, was or. BARON CONYEUS (some three years before he had by inheritance acquired a right to the latter B«rony( c ) us sole heir thereto), with, in each case, "declaration, acceptance, ratification, and confirmation of the dignity, as also new creation of the same, to the said Convers and the heiis male of his hodj/,{ d ) With the'place and pre- cedence of his ancestors, the former Barons. "(«) The Itoyal warrant (dat. the 2nd of the same month) directs the preparation of two iiWs,( f ) and declares more explicitly ( a ) The coheirs were his three daughters, of whom (1) Anne, m. Anthony Keinpe, of Slindon, Sussex, by whom she had one child, Henry, who d. s.p. (2) Eliza- beth, m. Thomas Uarcy, leaving by him Conyers Darcy, who in 1644 became sole representative of the Barony ; and (3) Katharine, who m. John Atherton, of Atlierton, co. Lane, by whom she had an only child, John Atherton, whose only da. and h. Rt, Sir vVLUiain Pennyman, Bart., and d. 13 July 1644 s.p. ( b ) According to the decision, 27 April 179S, as to that Barony. (°) See as to such right, p. 293, note "d," sub. " Clifford." ( d ) A somewhat similar favour had been granted to his great uncle, George Darcy, s. and h. nf Thomas, Lord Darcy (so a: by writ, 1500), whose Barony was forfeited by his attainder in 1538. This George was restored in blood by Act of Pari. 1548, with the dignity of Baron Darcy to him and the heirs mule of his body. To these heirs (tho' not, however, to himself) the precedence of 1509 was allowed till their extinction in 1635. It should be noted that though, after 1635, Conyers Darcy was the heir male of his great grandfather, Thomas, Lord Darcy (cr. 1509), he was not heir general, and that the Barony of Darcy, of which he was a coheir (through his mother's family of Conyers) was quite distinct therefrom, being a Barony of (1332) a much higher precedence. (o) See "Creations, 1483-1646," in ap. 47th Report D.K. Pub. Records, where the reference given is " Privy Seals and signed Bills (Chancery) Bundles 337 and 338." The patent is not to be found. (f) " Notwithstanding the direction in this warrant that two bills should be pre- pared for the expressed intention of restoring the ancient c liberties, places, and states 1 of John, Lord Darcy, and John, Lord Conyers, it does not appear either from the concluding words or from his subsequent sitting, that two separate baronies were intended to be conferred upon liim. The words are — ' The one concerning the Barony of Darcy to be made for the said Sir Conyers Darcy by the name of Sir Conyers Darcy of Hornby, co. York, Kut., and the other concerning the Barony of Conyers to be passed in the latter place (Hornby) to be made to or for him by the title also of Barou DArcy.' " See " Courthope," p. 143, sub. "Darcy." It is, however, impossible to doubt that, whatever was " intended to be cot if ci red on him" lieu (distinct) Baronies Vjcre so conferred, else how cau be explained the position in the Pari, of 1685 of Father and Son, the one in the precedence of 1332 (Darcy) and the other in that of 1509 (Conyers). See below, y. 349, note " b." If the ami were not sum. in a Barony vested in his father his precedence would have been one of 1680 in lieu of 1509.
