200 CHIRBURY i.e. "Herbert of Chirbury, co. Salop," Barony (^Herbert), cr. 1743; as also "Herbert of Chirbury and of Ludlow, co. Salop" (^Herbert), Barony (this last being with a spec, rem.) cr. 1749; see "Powis," Earldom of, cr. 1748; all such honours becoming extinct in 1801. i.e. "Herbert of Chirbury, co. Salop," Barony (Clive), cr. 1804, with the Earldom of Powis, which see. CHIRK See "Mortimer (of Chirk)" (Mortimer), Barony by writ, as Mortimer (only) 1299 to 1306, and as Mortimer "of Chirck," 1307 to 1321. CHISLEHURST i.e. "Sydney of Chislehurst, co. Kent," Barony (Townshend'), cr. 1783; see "Sydney of St. Leonards," Viscountcy, cr. 1789. CHOLMONDELEY CHOLMONDELEY OF KELLS AND CHOLMONDELEY OF WICHE-M ALB ANK otherwise NAMPTWICH VISCOUNTCY [I.] I. Robert Cholmondeley, s. and h. of Sir T /- n Hugh C.jC) of Cholmondeley, co. Chester {d. 23 July 1601), by Mary {d. 1625), da. and h. of BARONY TF 1 Christopher Holford, of Holford, in that co., was '- ■-' b. 26 June 1584, at Crouchend, Highgate, Midx.; L 1645 matric. at Oxford (Queen's Coll.), 24 Oct. 1600; to was, 29 June 161 1, cr.z Baronet, being the 36th of 1659. that order from its institution. High Sheriff of Cheshire, 1621; M.P. for that co. 1625-26. On 2 July 1628, he was cr. VISCOUNT CHOLMONDELEY OF KELLS, CO. Meath [I.J.C') Having greatly distinguished himself in the Royal cause by raising troops in Cheshire, in which county, in 1642, he was a Joint Commissioner of Array, he was, on i Sep. i645,('=) cr. BARON CHOLMONDELEY OF WICHEMALBANK, co. Chester [E.], and C) This Hugh was s. and h. of another Sir Hugh C. (who d. 1577-78), by his 1st wife, Anne, da. and h. of George Dorman. V.G. C") For a list of creations and promotions in the Irish peerage at this date, see Appendix H to this volume. {^) In Creations, 1 483- 1 646, in App., 47th Rep. D.K. Pub. Records, this creation is given as I Sep. 1646 {following the creation of the Earldom of Leinster in Mar. 1645/6), but as the grantee is called (only) '■'■Viscount Cholmondeley in Ireland," and not Earl of Leinster, the date of the docquet is probably an error. There is no other authority for this creation; see vol. ii, p. 454, note " b," note sub Byron.
