122 BERKELEY II. "Walleron, Baron of Killpeck," i Edw. I. III. "Haiidlowe alias Burnell," Baron of Holgate temp. Edw. Ill, IV. The entail of the Castle and Manor of Warwick in tail male, 1 8 Edw. Ill, excluding the granddaughters and coheirs of the entailer [no Peerage dignity, however, herein seems involved]. V. The entail of the Castle, fe'c, of Arundel, in tail male, 21 Edw. Ill, whereby "John, Lord Maltravers was Earl of Arundle after the death of Thomas, the Earle, who d. s.p. (141 5) 5 Hen. V," leaving sisters and coheirs. VI. The entail of the Honour and county of Oxford in tail male by John, Earl of Oxford, 18 Hen. VIII, so that " John de Vere his next heir male was Earl of Oxford, by reason of the said entail." [but query if such be the reason]. VII. The entail by Lord Paget, 5 Mary [the true date is the morrow of the Trinity], of his Baronies and Manors in tail male, so that "by virtue of the said fine" Thomas Paget, the h. male, was sum. to Pari, as a Baron on the death of his br. Henry Paget, who left a da. and h., though such da. did not long survive. VIII. The entail of Robert, Lord Ogle (1553-58) in tail male. He had two sons by two respective wives, the yr. of whom sue. the elder (to the exclusion of a sister of the whole blood of the said elder son) and received a writ of summons in 1563. IX. De la Warr ; whereby on the death in 1426 of Thomas, Lord De la Warr, "by reason of a fine leavyed in the time of his ancestors of the Barony" he was sue. by his nephew of the half hooil (Reginald West), who "^j reason of the entaile afsd. was sum. to Pari, by the name of Lord de la Ware" to the exclusion of John Griffin (called, by Smyth, John Griffith), second cousin and heir of the whole blood to the deceased peer. From these precedents he concludes that James, Lord Berkeley 1421-62, was entitled by the tenure of the Castle and Manor, under the entail in tail male made with licence (1349) 23 Edw. Ill, to a Barony with the precedence of (11 55) i Hen. II, and that George the then (16 18) Lord, and such of his predecessors as were in possession of the said Castle, were similarly entitled; while as to the writ of 1523 to Maurice Berkeley, or the writ of 1529 to his br. and h., Thomas Berkeley, or that of 1534 to Thomas, s. and h. of the said Thomas (none of whom were in the possession of the Berkeley estate), those, according to Smyth, were but personal and could not be any bar or hindrance. "The precedents" (writes J. Horace Round) "that are quoted by Smyth, in 1 6 1 8, should be compared with those adduced in 1 604 in the case of Bergavenny, and, in 1640, in that of Grey de Ruthin. In the former case they were intended to prove (just as urged by Smyth) that 'if any such alienation be made for the continuance of the Barony in the name, then have
