ARDEE COMPLETE PEERAGE 189 ARDAGH See " SuNDON of Ardagh, co. Longford, " Barony [1.] (Clayton).^ cr. 1735 ; 'xii»(^f ^IS'^- ARDEE i.e. "Lord Brabazon, Baron of Ardee, (") co. Louth" [L], see " Brabazon, " Barony [L] (Brabazon), cr. 1616, (•) A Claim to the Barony of Ardee [L], as heir general, on the supposition that a Barony [L] of that name (other than the Barony of 1616) had been cr. by a If^rit of Summons, in 1665, was made, in 1762, by Chidley Coote, of Mount Coote, CO. Limerick, s. and h. of Charles Coote, of the same (who d. 1761), who was s. and h. of Sir Philips Coote, by Lady Elizabeth Brabazon, ist da. and coh. (and in her issue, sole h.) of Edward, and Earl of Meath, Lord Brabazon and Baron Ardee [I.]. It appears from a case laid, in 1836, before the eminent Peerage lawyer, Sir N. Harris Nicolas, by Chidley Coote, of Mount Coote afsd. (grandson and h. gen. of the abovenamed Chidley Coote, the Petitioner), that the said petition was, on 22 Apr. 1762, referred to the Attorney Gen. and the Solicitor Gen. [I.], and that the latter (alone) gave his opinion thereon, which was in favour of the Petitioner, " in conse- quence of which a writ was ordered to issue, but the Petitioner, C. C, dying in the meantime [24 Feb. 1764], the subject was not brought forward again." The facts of the case were these — William Brabazon, s. and h. ap. of Edward, 2nd Earl of Meath [I.], was called v.p. to the House of Peers [I.] by writ of summons, 30 Oct. 1665, as Lord Ardee, or Lord Brabazon of Ardee (the title is " Atherdee " on the Lords' Journals [I.] of 21 Dec. 1665), and sat and voted in the House as Junior Baron till his father's death, when he inherited the Earldom of Meath [I.]. His father's title as given in the patent which cr. him a Baron [L], 19 July 1616, was " Lord Brabazon, Baron of Ardee. " Nicolas' opinion was (i) that the decision in the case of the Barony of Sydney in 1782 (20 years after the report in this case) was conclusive against any new Barony of Ardee being cr. by such writ of summons and sitting, unless there was " a material variation " from the name of the Barony enjoyed by the father of the Peer so sum- moned ; and (2) that though the fact of Lord Brabazon having sat as Junior Baron " is entitled to some weight, still, I fear, it would not in itself be deemed sufficient to prove a new creation. " The opinion that the precedence assigned to a Barony is not, of itself, sufficient to determine the date of its creation, is strengthened by the cases of Strange, Clifford, ijr'c. In the former case we read in Cruise (p. 227) that the newly summoned Baron's " rank and precedence is a matter merely collateral : . . . . and if any question arises upon the place given [to such Baron] by the Heralds, it is to be decided by the Lords of Pari., in the House of Lords, as a matter of privilege ; whereas the right of Peerage itself the Lords never have judged, hut upon a reference by the Crown. " G.E.C. J. H. Round however considers that this is a hazardous propos- ition, and instances the well-known Delawarr case temp. Eliz., in which stress was laid on the fact that William West sat as junior Baron, under a new creation, and not in the seat of his ancestors. V.G. With respect to this claim it must moreover, be borne in mind that " Ardee, "
