474 COMPLETE PEERAGE The following errors have also occurred in writs of summons, but in no way affect the question oi precedency : — In 1 7 17 Charles Pawlet {styled Marquess of Winchester), s. and h. ap. of the Duke of Bolton, was sum. as a Baron, by writ directed " Carolo Pawlet de Basing, fffc, " and sat as Lord Pawlet of Basing. This was under the erroneous impression that this Barony was vested in his father, whereas the name of his father's Barony was St. John of Basing. It was held to be a writ of fresh creation, and he was placed as the lowest Baron and thereby obtained a Barony in fee. On his death, however, s.p., in 1754, this Barony become extinct. In 1833 Francis Russell (i/j/tf^/ Marquess of Tavistock), s. and h. ap. of the Duke of Bedford, was sum. as a Baron, by writ erroneously directed to " Francis Russell of Streatham, co. Surrey, chevalier. " The Barony, which was vested in his father, was that of Rowland [not Russell] of Streatham, co. Surrey, cr. 1695. In this case, however, it having been declared from the chair that his Lordship's summons was " in his father's Barony, " in that Barony {i.e., "Rowland, " cr. 1695) the Marquess was placed, and consequently no new Barony in fee was created. Judging from these cases (more especially from those of Strange and Clifford), it would appear that, in spite of a wrongful placing in the House, a writ of summons to a person not being an heir or coheir to the Barony in which he is sum. creates a Barony de novo and one of no higher date than the writ.
