I20 BERKELEY cannot be ascertained,(*) that of Thomas, his s. and h., is on record. This Thomas, who was sum. as a Baron (1534) 25 Hen. VIII, was placed between Lord Zouche (1307.) and Lord Morley (1299.) being the third Baron C") on the Roll. It must be borne in mind that since 1492 none of these Lords abovementioned were in possession of the estate of Berkeley^ but, in 1553, Henry, Lord Berkeley, s. and h. of the last Baron, sue. thereto, whereby, according to Dugdale and others, he acquired the original Barony of the family, yet this Baron's position in the House of Lords (excepting as to some varying and unimportant alterations) was then in no way advanced. (') In May 1661, George, Lord Berkeley, great-grandson and h. of the abovenamed Henry, petitioned for a higher place in Pari, than that which had been assigned to him, claiming precedence (firstly) of the Lord Dela- warr('^) and (secondly) of the Lords Abergavenny and Audley, and founding his claim on his Barony being one by tenure. In this claim he asserted as a fact (that which, as abovementioned, is certainly not proved to be so) that Maurice Berkeley, said to have been sum. as a Baron in 1522, szt,in conse- quence of his not possessing the Castle, &'c., " no otherwise than as a Puisne Baron." In this petition, if correctly given in Cruise, the whole of the controversy, temp. Henry V, between the h. gen. (the Earl of Warwick) and the h. male is omitted, as also is (the very important point, viz.) the " ranking " of Thomas, Lord Berkeley (who did not own the Castle, tfc), as the third Baron on the roll, in (1534) 25 Hen. VIII; these are dishonest suppressions oi facts that considerably militate against the justice of the claim. "Although this claim was before the house till 1673," says Courthope, "no decision was if) " Antecedent to I Hen. VIII, there are no means of ascertaining correctly the precedency given to Peers; and, as the fournah between 7 and 25 Hen. VIII are not now extant, and, as between I and 7 Hen. VIII no Baron Berkeley was sum. to Pari., the earliest entry of a Baron Berkeley in the fournah is in 25 Hen. VIII." — See Nicolas, p. xxviii, note. i^) " With the exception of Lord Zouche being improperly placed above him, it is certain that he sat in the place of the ancient Barony; for on no other grounds could he have been placed above Lord Morley." See Nicolas, pp. 3 to 12, being a very elaborate treatise on " Baronies by tenure." It should be remarked however that the " ranking " of these early Barons was, apparently, quite anomalous. See vol. i, Appendix D. if) So far from any accession of dignity, he was " in 4 and 5 Ph. and Mary, and even after his controversy with the Lord Willoughby, 39 Eliz., assigned a lower prece- dency than had been allowed to his father, who was not possessed of the Castle." — See Courthope, p. 56, note "c." ('^) "The precedency of the Barony of Berkeley under the writ ot (1295) 23 Edw. I, is certainly above that of La Warr, which was cr. by the writ of 6 Feb. (1299) 27 Edw. I, [but] the claim was not grounded on that circumstance, probably because, if it was admitted to be a Barony by tenure, it would give its possessor a precedency over every Baron who was not then seized of such lands as constituted his ancestors Barons of the Realm before the reign of Henry I." — See Nicolas, xxix. It seems however not impossible that the then impression was that the Barony of De la Warr was cr. 8 June 1294, by a summons which is not now considered as a regular writ
