102 GREY. abeyance having been determined iu his favour. This petition( a ) presented, 21 April 1800, was opposed by Lord Searsdalc, the heir of the Vernons, of Stukcsay, and by Lord Lilford on behalf of his wife and her sister? the Misses Athertou, coheirs of the Vcrnons of Hodnet. It was, however, decided Chat the heirs of Joyce Tiptoft were (") The remarks of Sir Harris Nicolas hereon are as follows. "The petition appeals to have been presented under the presumption that the writ of summons to John Grey as ' Johanni Grey dc I'oiccs' in 22 Ed. IV. did not create a new Barony but took out of abeyance what has been considered the Barony of Powi*, but which the Editor [Xieolas] has under CHEHLETOX endeavoured to prove was properly that of Cherleton. It is not necessary to repeat the arguments there urged to establish the fact that that Barony was not affected by the writ of summons of 22 Ed. IV. to John Grey, and, consequently, that the Barony conferred on him by the said writ was a new Barony ; the ancient Barony of Cherleton, or as it is generally termed Powis [or Cherleton de Powys], still remaining in abeyance between the coheirs and representatives of Edward de Cherleton, who died in 1 122, of which coheirs, however, the said John Grey was unquestionably the eldest. If this view of the question be correct, w hen Mr. Kynaston presented his petition, he was not, even upon his own showing, either the heir or coheir of the Barony created by the writ of 22 Ed. IV. as he was only descended from the aunt of John Grey then summoned ; and the same observation applies to Sir Nathaniel CurxoiJ his opponent, as bis claim was only as one of the coheirs of the sister of the said John Grey ; but either Mr. Kynaston or Sir Nathaniel Curzou was then the elder coheir of the [more ancient] Barony of Cherleton, a point depending, of course, upon the authenticity of their respective pedigrees. As Edward, the last Lord Grey of I'owis, was the only surviving issue of his grandfather John Grey abovementioned, and as he died s.p. Irgit. the Barony of Grey of Pmcis, under the writ of 15 Ed. IV. (.unless it were a confirmation of the Barony created by the writ of summons to John de Cherleton in 7 Ed. II.) became extinct. It is also to be observ?d that the remarks offered under DuDLET, Bkhgavennv, and Cheri.kton, on the subject of the appellation added to the names of Barons in writs of summons, applies equally strongly against this Barony being considered as that of Pousit, though it has in most cases been so styled ; but for the reasons there expressed it is presumed that the proper title of this dignity is 1 Grey de Towis.' The remark [sub Pudley " in vol. iii,p. ]>;0, note " b,"] that excepting in the ease of this Barony and that of Abergavenny, ' it was never even then pretended, when the addition was derived from territorial possessions, that such was the title of the dignity,' is not at all contradictory to the preceding observations for it has been attempted to be proved that until George Seville was gum. to Purl., temp. Hen. VI., as ' Dmiinv dc Bcryavcnny,' Bergavenuy was never the title of that Barony ; aud with relation to the Barony of Powis, although it must be conceded that this [i.e., in lS2. r >] is the lirst time that ever a doubt has been expressed on the subject, still it is [(resumed that there is Butticient ground for urging it, when, in addition to what has been previously said both in this place ami under those titles just pointed out, it is considered that there is this very marked distinction between this case and that of Bergavenuy — that the first writ to Edward Neville is expressly directed ' Domino de Bergattnny, and which designation is frequently used both to him and to his descendants, though occasionally the words are only 'tic Jlcryarcnny ;' whi'. t there is not a single example of either of the Lords Grey of Powis being designated in the writs as 'Domino dc I'ouys.' A reference to some of the writs in the reign of Henry VI. contirma the opinion that the title of this Barony never was that of Powis ; whilst it also proves that in some cases even when the words ' Domino dc,' &c, were prefixed to that of a place, the name of the family was notwithstanding that of the title; for example [in 29 Hen. VI.] we find ' lidwardo Grey, Domino de Groby ;' though in the writ of 27 lien. VI. be was properly styled ' Domino dc Fcrrariis (de Groby) ;' whilst, in the same writ, William Bourgchier is called 'Domino de Fitz-Waryn ;' Lord Hoos ' Domino de Hoos;' and although Groby, iu the instance first cited, was not the title of the Baron to whose name it is affixed [yet] in the case of Lord Cobham, on the other hand, he is described as 'Edwardo Brooke dc Cobham;' aud Lord Lisle iu a similar manner as 'John Talbot dc Lisle, Chl'r." In fact, and with which statement the observations on this subject will be concluded, the additions to the names of Barons in writs of summons to Pari, admit of no general inference after the reign of Henry V. beyond the conclusion that when
