BERKELEY 121 come to upon it, and it must be concluded that he (the Petitioner) did not establish his pretensions to sit in the precedence of the original writ." The elevation of the claimant to an Earldom 6 years afterwards (1679), was probably a convenient way of getting rid of the matter. In 18 10, on the death of the 5th Earl of Berkeley, the Barony of Berkeley (as also his other titles) became (and till 1893 continued) dormant; the Castle of Berkeley, ^c, having been inherited, under settlement, by his ist s., William FitzHardinge Berkeley, whose legitimacy has never been estab- lished. This William in 1823 claimed the Barony of Berkeley as a Peerage by tenure, which claim (after the usual references) was heard by the Committee for Privileges in 1829 and 1830, but was prosecuted no further, inasmuch as the Petitioner had in 1831 been cr. Baron Segrave and was in 1841 cr. Earl FitzHardinge. He d. unm., 10 Oct. 1857, and was sue. in the Berkeley estate by his next br. (whose legitimacy was likewise unproved), Admiral Sir Maurice Frederick FitzHardinge Berkeley. He, also, claimed in 1858 the Barony of Berkeley as a Peerage by tenure, but judgment was pronounced, 26 Feb. 1861, to the effect that he had not proved such claim. On 5 Aug. following he was raised to the Peerage as Baron FitzHardinge, and was sue., 17 Oct. 1867, by his s. and h., in that dignity and in the Berkeley estates. The Barony of Berkeley and the precedency thereof is treated of by Smyth in his Lives of the Berkeleys, vol. ii, p. 48, ^c, whether (i) from the grant in the first year of Hen. II, (2) from the death of Thomas (the last h. gen.) s.p.m. in 141 7, or (3) from the writ of (1523) 14 Hen. VIII. (") The view of "Smyth of Nibley" on such a subject is perhaps worth mentioning. Briefly analysed it is as under. — ■ "That till the time of King Richard I, or of King John, each man to whom the Crown gave lands to hold by knight service in capite was thereby made a Baron and Peere of the Realme and had voice in Pari." That supposing any Baron makes alienation thereof "^y /zV^«Ci?" and (not "for money or other recompense to a meer stranger," but) "for the continuance of the Barony in his name and blood or issue male, then have such issues male together with the Barony (bee it Castle, Manor or House soe holden), held alsoe and lawfully enjoyed the name, style, title and dignity of a Baron with their ancestor's place of precedency ; and thereof the heires generall or next heires female have been utterly excluded and debarred." He then quotes the following cases in support thereof. I. Ferrers, Baron of Groby ; a Lordship bestowed by Margaret (Countess of Derby) on her second son William Ferrers, who d. 1283 [but in this case no Peerage Barony appears to have existed till the writ of 1300- issued to the s. of the said William]. (') It is to be remarked that the writ of (1421) 9 Hen. V (of which the succeed- ing Lords were unquestionably heirs) is not mentioned. Smyth, probably, considered that it was issued ex debito to James Berkeley, as owner of the Castle. 17
