Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 1.djvu/75

Abergavenny, he was sum. to Parl., 23 July (1392), 16 Ric. II to 18 Dec. (1409) II Henry IV,^[1] as a Baron, [LORD BERGAVENNY, or BEAUCHAMP DE BERGAVENNY^[2], all the writs being directed "Willelmo Beauchamp de Bergeveny,"^[3] In 1399 he was appointed Justiciary

1. There is proof in the Rolls of Parl. of his sitting.
2. In Pat. Roll 21 Mar. 1401/2 he is called "Lord Pembroke and Bergaveny."
3. The following note by Sir N. Harris Nicolas states that much doubt exists in his mind "whether, until the Writ of Summons of the 29th Hen. VI. to Edward Nevill, as 'Domino de Bergavenny,' the proper designation of the previous barons was not that of their family name. The first possessor of that territory after Writs of Summons were regularly issued was John de Hastings, who d. 6 Edw. II. and was suc. by his s. John de Hastings, who d. 18 Edw. II.; to these personages nearly thirty Writs of Summons were directed, and in no instance, in this number, does the word 'Bergavenny' occur, in addition to which the said John de Hastings was entitled to Summons to Parl. as s. and h. of his father Henry, Lord Hastings, a Baron of great note, and the barony in which they sat passed away upon the death of the last Earl of Pembroke, and was separated from the tenure of Bergavenny. From the creation of the 1st Earl of Pembroke till the death of the last, no inference on the subject is to be drawn, until the Writ of Summons to William Beauchamp, 16 Ric. II., who was sum. as 'Willielmo Beauchamp de Bergavenny.' This William Beauchamp not being related to the preceding Barons, and being summoned as 'de Bergavenny,' certainly affords at the first view strong grounds for the generally received opinion that he was sum. as Lord Bergavenny, by tenure of that Castle. On looking attentively into the point, however, a conclusion equally strong may be drawn, that it was merely an addition used to distinguish him from 'John de Beauchamp de Kydderminster.' In the previous reign, a John de Beauchamp was sum. as 'de Somerset,' and another John de Beauchamp, a younger son of Guy Earl of Warwick, as 'de Warwyck;' and before, contemporary with, and after this William de Beauchamp de 'Bergavenny,' numerous Barons were named in Writs of Summons with the addition of their place of residence, without such ever being supposed to be the title of their Baronies: as, therefore, in the only instances which occur of Writs of Summons being issued to the possessor of the Castle of Bergavenny, previous to that to William de Beauchamp, in the 16th Ric. II. they were never designated as 'de Bergavenny,'—and as examples of such additions were exceedingly frequent, without any similar inference being deduced from them,—there does not appear any greater cause for supposing that the designation in question was intended to express the title of the Barony, than there is for concluding such to have been the case either in the instances of John de Beauchamp 'de Somerset,' 'de Warwyk,' or in either [sic] of the numerous examples alluded to. In order, however, to obtain as much information as possible on the subject, it was necessary to inquire in what manner the Barons in question were described in the Rolls of Parliament previous to the reign of Henry VI., and the result of the examination is certainly in favour of William Beauchamp's being considered as Baron Bergavenny, though it does not positively establish the fact, whilst it confirms the opinion that his predecessors in the Lordship of Bergavenny never bore that name as the title of their dignity. The earliest instance when Bergavenny occurs as a title in the Rolls of Parl. is in the 21st Ric. II. 1397, five years after William Beauchamp was sum. to Parl. as 'Willielmo Beauchamp (de Bergavenny),' when he was described as 'W^m Beauchamp, S^r de Bergavenny.' In the 1st Hen. IV. the names of 'Dns. de Roos, de Willoghby, de Bergeveney,' occur; and in the following year we find among the Barons then present, 'le S^r de Berga-