224 DUNSANV. d. s.p. He m. secondly, May 1711, Bridget, only da. of Richard Fleaiing, of Stalinl- mock, co. Meath, ami his only child by his first wife, who was dead before 172-1. She was b., April 1689. He d. 16 March 1735, and was 6«r. at Dimsany. XII. 1735. 12. Edward (Plunkett), Lord Dunsany [I.], e. and h. by 2d wife, 6., 1713. Iu 1735, he conformed to the established (Protestant) Church [I.], but took no steps towards establishing his peerage. He m., Aug. 1731, Mary, 1st da. and coheir of Francis Allen, of St. Wolstaus, co. Kildare, by Frances, da. of Charles White, of Leixlip. He d., 9 June 17S1. XIII. 1781. 13. Randall (Plunkett), Lord Dunsany [I.], s. and h., 6., March 1738/9. In Dec. 1781, he petitioned for his writ of Peerage [I.], which was favourably reported on by the chief law officers [[.], on 25 April 1782.(») The House agreeing therewith, he, on 1 March 1785, took his seat "upon the death of his grandfather, Randall, Lord Baron of Dunsany." He m. firstly, 12 Aug. 1771, Margaret, widow of Edward Mandeville, of Ballydine, co. Tipperary, da. of Edward Alien cekin, of co. Kilkenny. She (/., 12 Sep. 1791. He m. secondly, 7 Aug. 1800, Emma-Mary, da. of John Smith, of London, Merchant (br. of Sir Drummond Smith, 1st Bart.), by Mary, da. of Griffin Ransom, of Westminster, Banker. lie d., 4 April 1821. Will ]>r. 1829. His widow, d. s.p., Juno 1S28. Will pr.. July 1828. XIY. 1821. 14- Edward -Wadding (Plunkett), Lord Dunsany, [I.], s. and h., by 1st wife ; b. 7 April 1773 ; ed. at Westminster school. Lord Lieut, co. Meath, liF.r. Feek [L], 1836-48. He m. firstly, 20 June 1N03, Charlotte-Louisa, 3d da. of Nicholas (Lawless), 1st Bakon Cloncluiiv [I.], by Margaret, da. of Valentine Browne of Dublin. She, who was b. 21 Jan. 1769, d. 10 June 1818. He m. secondly, 26 March 1823, Eliza, 1st da. of George (Kinnaiud), 7th Loud Kinnaiud [S.], by Elizabeth, da. of Griffin Ransom abovenamed. He d. 11 Dec. 1848, aged 75, at Clevedon, Somerset. Will pr. March 1849. His widow, who was 6. 13 May 1781, d. s.p., 30 April 1864, in her 84th year, at 6 Chester square, Midx. XV. 1S4S. 15. Randall-Edward (Plunkett), Lord Dunsany, [I.], s. and h., by 1st wife; b. 5 Sep. 1801, at Rome; ed. at Eton and at Ch. Ch. Oxford; B.A. and double third class, 1833; M.P. for Drogheda, 1835-37. Rep. Peeu [I.] 1850-52. lie m., 29 Dec. 1S38, at St. Geo. Hon. sq., Elizabeth, only ( a ) They stated that " the disability incurred by the claimant's ancestor, was for im offence committed after the beginning of the reign of James II, and before the 3 Oct. 1691 ; that the evidence of the title forfeited by the claimant's ancestor having been restored to him under the articles of Limerick, and the said act of King William IMM full and irresistable, &e." A full account of this is in [Lynch's '!] " Remarks npon the ancient Baronage of Ireland" [1829], pp. 118-123, where it is pointed out that f ho claimant being the heir male, but not the heir general, " the House of Peers [I.] decided a third time in favour of the principle of the male descent of the ancient Paronies of Ireland." That of Kiugsale had been so decided in 1721 and again in 1762. Thus in no single instance, out of the nine ancient Paronies of Ireland (i.e. those existing at the accession of the house of Tudor), ha3 the right of the heir general, prevailed over that of the heir male. As to (1), Thimleston such right is secured by the patent, and in all the other cases, where the origin of the peerage dignity is unknown, the succession has taken place aB under, VIZ., as to (2) Keiiivy and (3) Howth, the question has not arisen, the heir male being alio the heir general ; as to (4) Dklvin, the heir male inherited, in 1752, the Earldom of Westmeath, and is generally supposed to have inherited therewith the Barony of Delviu, the claim thereto of the heir general not having been successful ; as to (5) Athenuy, (6) Slane and (7) Killken, the right of the heir male, to the exclusion of the heir general, is shewn by several sittings in the House of Lords, while as to (8) Kinosale and (9) Dunsany, not only was this the case, but the right of the heir male was asserted by the House of Lords [I.]
