APPENDIX D 473 ancient Barony of De la Warr {cr. by writ), of which he was not, appar- ently, h. gen. (6) In 1604 Edward Nevill, a descendant, but neither h. nor coheir of William (Beauchamp), Lord Bergavenny (who was sum. by writ 1392), was himself sum. by writ as Lord Bergavenny and allowed the precedency of the older lords, that is to say, a much higher precedency than that of 1392, the earliest to which he would have been entitled had the Barony been treated as a Barony by writ. E.g.y temp. Henry VIII Bergavenny was ranked above Zouche (1308), Willoughby (1313), de la Warr, Dacre, Ferrers, &c. (See J. H. Round's Peerage and Pedigree). In the cases subsequent to this date the writs were issued by inad- vertence, viz. : — (7) On 7 Feb. 1627/8 Henry Clifford, s. and h. ap. of the Earl of Cumberland, being sum. by writ as Lord Clifford (under the erroneous impression that that ancient Barony was vested in his father), sat in the precedency of the Barony of Clifford, under a sum. by writ 1299. In 1691 the claim of the h. gen. to the old Barony of 1299 was allowed, and in 1737 the claim of the h. gen. to the Barony of 1627/8 was also allowed, but «o/ (of course) the ancient precedency of 1299, ^^is latter Barony being ranked as one cr. by the writ of 1627/8, de novo^ notwithstanding the high precedency which had formerly (though erroneously) been assigned to it. (8) On 7 IVIar. 1627/8, (a few weeks later) James Stanley, s. and h. ap. of the Earl of Derby, was sum. by writ as Lord Strange (under a like erroneous impression), and sat in the precedency of the Barony of Strange, cr. by writ 1299. In 1736/7 the claim of the h. gen. to the Barony cr. by the writ of summons of 1627/8 was allowed, ibut not the precedency of the old Barony of 1299, which last was then, as now, in abeyance, the Lord Strange (in 1754) taking his place, as a Baron of 1627/8, next immediately below Lord Maynard. (9) In 1722 Algernon Seymour {styled Earl of Hertford), s. and h. ap. of the Duke of Somerset was sum. by writ as Lord Percy (under a liice erroneous impression that that ancient Barony had become vested in him on the decease of his mother), and sat in the precedency of the Barony of Percy, cr. by writ 1299. This precedency was also allowed to his grandson and h. in 1777, and again to his great-grandson in 18 17. There can, however, be no question that the old Barony of 1299, though under attainder, is in abeyance between the descendants of the daughters and coheirs of the 5th Earl of Northumberland, who d. 1572, and that the precedency, allowed in 1722 and subsequently, was probably (like the issue of the writ) in ignorance of the real facts of the case. Note. — To the Barony of Percy, cr. in tail male 1557, the ancient precedency (z.^., that of 1299) " in Parliament as elsewhere" was granted by Charles I, by patent 2 Apr. 1628. In virtue of this grant, Algernon Percy (s. and h. ap. of the Earl of Northumberland), who sat in his father's Barony, 1626 to 1632, as Baron Percy, was after (though not before) 1628 rightly placed in tQ precedency oi 1299. This barony, however, and the precedency of 1299 (so granted thereto in 1628), became extinct in 1670.
