STAFFORD. 215 XVI. 1610, 1. "Sm Wkxiam Howard, K.B., aud Mauy, liis to wife," sister and sole h. to Henry (Stafford), 5th Baron 1678, Stafford abavenawed, were cr. 12 Sep. 1(540, BARONf 1 ) AND or 1691. BABQNESS .STAFFORD, co. Stafford, with rem. of that Barony to the heirs male of their bodies, failing which, to the heirs of their bodies " with a proviso to possess such place and precedency of the Barony of Stafford as well in Pari., Are., as Henry, late br. of the said Mary, in his lifetime Baron of Stafford, [1625-37] ever held or enjoyed."( D ) He, accordingly, on taking his seat was placed in the precedency of the Barony of Stafford cc. by writ (129!) 27 Kd. 1., which precedency had been allowed to the holders of the late Barony (a creation of 1517) tho' the Barony of 1299 had been under attainder since 1521. The question, however, of his right to precedency having been referred to the Committee for Privileges the King (in order, apparently, to prevent any controversy) or, him two mouths later, 11 Nov. 1610, VISCOUNT OF STAFFORD, tho' (in this case) with the ordinary limitation to heirs male of his body, and he took his seat accordingly ou tile next day. lie was 3d but 2d stirv. of Tliomas (Howard), Earl op Arlwdel, Surrey and Norfolk, by Aletheia, da. and coheir of Gilbert (Talbot), 7th Earl of SwiEwsnnty ; was A. ;i0 Nov. 1014 and brought up in the Roman Catholic faith ; K.B. at the cornn. of Charles I., 1 Feb. 1625/6 ; m. Mary Stafford, as above (Lie. Lond., 11 Oct. 1637, he aged 22 and she IS) and was (with her) cr. 12 Sep. 1640,(a) BARON STAFFORD, being cr. 11 Nov. following, VISCOUNT STAFFORD, as above stated. At the outbreak of the civil war he retired to Flanders(' 1 ) ; was arretted at Heidelberg ou a charge of scandalous immorality about Sep. 1652, remaining a prisoner for more than a year,(°) and writing a letter to Cromwell from Amsterdam, 1 Jan. 1656, petitioning to see him on a matter that " n holy concerned your owue person and affayres.";'- 1 ) Iu 1661, he petitioned without success,'/) for Viscountcy. I 1610, to 1678. Earldom. IX. 1688, to 1691. 0. E. Long in his preface to his admirable little book " Royal descents," &c. [1815], as "an individual taking toll at a turnpike almost under the very walls of those feudal towers that gave the name to the Barony of which he is a coheir " [rcctius " descend- ant."] (*) In this patent of creation his descent (oue which he shared with very many others) from Edward (Stafford), Duke of Buckingham and Lord Stafford, is set out; the da. of that Duke having m. Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, his grandfather's great grandfather. See vol. vi, p. 50, note "d," sub "Norfolk," in tabular pedigree. ( b ) The precedency of the more recent Barons Stafford was iu reality that of 1547, but, not only was that of 1299 allowed (at lirst) to this grantee iu the House of Lords but it was also so allowed many years later to his wife, who (shortly before the coronation of James II.), March 1685 (in the list of Peeresses, Peeresses dowager and Peeresses by creation which Gai ter King of Arms was ordered to deliver to the Secretary of State, which list was approved by the King in Council), was expressly described as Baroness of Stafford by descent, and placed immediately after the widow of Benjamin, Lord Fitzwalter, whose Barony was created by writ, 23 Edw. I. The legality of the grant of precedency in the patent of 1640 was thus fully recognised. (°) As to precedency of Peers in Pari, by Royal warrant," see vol. i, p. 229, note "a." sub "Banbury," and p. 286, note " b," sub '•Beaumont." J. H. Round writes that the precedence granted in 1610 "should be compared with the Duke- dom of Norfolk in 1421 and also with the Douglas Manpuisate (Riddell, p. 160), and the Lothian Marquisate of 1701 (Riddell, p. 23.)" ( d ) "Nat. l)[ogr„" where it is added that the statement in Doyle's "Official Baronage," that Stafford served as a volunteer in the Royal army, 1642-46, is inaccurate, as it is clear that he was beyond the seas iu 1643. ( c l Cal. Clarendon state papers, ii, pp. 263-276. V) Whether from this cause or otherwise he considered himself, according to Burnet, {Hist, of his oivn time, ii, p. 262) not to have been rewarded by Charles II. as he deserved, tho', as he had fled from England iu 1 643, or previously, and had corresponded with Cromwell, his deserts as a Royalist do not seem of much account.
