LISLE. 115 L'Isle and his ancestors, by reason of the lordship and manor of Kingston L'Isle, had from time whereof the memory of man was not to the contrary/") the name and dignity of Baron and Lord L'Isle, and by that name had seat in Parliament, &c., as other Barons of the Realm had."^! The patent (which tho' in fact it created a new Barony with a new limitation, was apparently meant to terminate the abeyance of the old Barony cr. by the writ of 1357) contained also a clause that the grantee should have the precedency; 0 ) held by " the said Warine or any other person heretofore having the afsd Barony." He was accordingly sum. to Pari- from 13 Jan. (1444/5), 23 Hen. VI., to 5 Sep. (14501, 'J!) Hen. VI., by writs directed " Johamn Talbot tic Lisle, Militi." He was subsequently <r„ 30 Oct. 1451, VISCOUNT LISLE, with the usual rem. to the heirs male of his body. P.C., 1153 ; Capt. of an Armada for Aquitaine, March 1453. He «. Joan, widow of Richard Stafford, da. and coheir of Sir Thomas Cheddkr, of Chedder, oo. Somerset. He was slain (with his father) 20 July 1 153, at the battle of Chatillon. His widow (I. 15 July 1484. II. 1453, 2. Thomas (Talbot), Viscount Lisle [1451], and to (being Lord of the manor of Kingston Lisle) Baron Lisle [1444], 1470. only s. and h., b. 1443 ; sue. to the peerage. 1453 ; K.B., 3 oiay " 5. He m. Sep. 1400 Margaret, yst. da. of William (Herbert). ' ..RL of Pembroke, by Aune, suiter of Walter. Loud Ferrers, da. of Sir Walter I. . ereux. He (/. s.p., 20 March 1469/70, being slain in a skirmish (at Nibley, co. Gloucester), with the Berkeley family, from whom he claimed certain lands in right of his grand- mother, Margaret. Countess of Shrewsbury, abovenamed. His widow, however, came to terms with the Berkeley*, 6 Oct. 1472, and in. shortly afterwards Sir Henry Kudu; 'GAS, of Bodrugau, co. Cornwall, who was convicted of treason 9 Nov. 1487, but escaped abroad, and <(. before 1503. She predeceased him. On the death of the Viscount in 1470 tho Viscountsg of Lisle became extinct while the Barony of Lisle fell into abcyancc.i'- 1 )
- »**«»
tenants of the manor of Kingston L'Isle, were ever sum. to Pari. Many arguments might be adduced to support the conclusion stated [in note " d " next below] relative to this dignity, but they are rendered useless, even if the limits of this work per- mitted their insertion, by the statement of the case ill the Report of the Lords' Committee just cited, p. 191, ct seq., and by the opinion of the great legal authorities [therein] referred to. It is, therefore, sutlicient to remark that this singular creation probably arose from the powerful influence possessed by the Earl of Shrewsbury in a reign when more anomalies connected with dignities are to be found than under any preceding or subsequent monarch." (a) A similar recital " entirely without foundation " is in the judgment of 1433, con- firming the petition of John Fitz Alan for the Earldom of Arundel, wherein it i3 recited "that Uichard Fitz Alan was seized of the Castle, Honour, and Lordship [of Arundel] in fee [and] that by reason of his possession thereof he was, without other reason or creation, Earl of Arundel, &c." The fallacy of this statement has been ably exposed by Mr. J. Horace Round in his " Geoffrey tic Maiidcriilc" (pp. 316 — 325), who shews conclusively that the assertion that William de Albini (ancestor of the said Richard) became Karl of Arundel (1135-39) "in virtue of his possession of Arundel Castle is pure assumption and nothing else," and that, in fact, as to this Earldom " there is nothing to distinguish it in its origin from the other Earldoms of the day." ('■) A copy of each of the patents which create the Barony of Lisle in 1444 and in 1457 is in Nicolas's " Report on the claim to the Barony of L'Isle " (1829), pp. 32-37. Both of these Baronies are among the 16 which were cr. by patent before the 16th century, for a list of which see vol. iii, p. 31, note "e," sub "Daubeuy." (°) See vol. i, p. 229, note "a," sub " Banbury," as to the prerogative of the Crown as to the precedeucy of Peers. ( ,l ) The coheirs were his two sisters of whom (1) Margaret, wife of Sir George Vere, o*. s.p. within five years afterwards when (2) Elizabeth, the survivor, inherited the Baron}'. Sir Harris Nicolas makes the following observations on this subject. "It is a very doubtful point into what state the Barony then [i.e., on the death of the 2d Viscount in 1470] fell, and upon a question so abstruse, and which has been the subject of so much discussion, the Editor scarcely feels himself justified in hazarding an opinion. In the Third Report of the Lords' Committee ou the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm I
