yio APPENDIX H He died in 1595, when his son and heir Thomas, who succeeded to the barony by patent, claimed successfully in 1597 the precedence of the ancient barony by writ. DE LA VVARR tliiibeth MonimCT=pThom»i (Weit), Lord de la Warrt, d. i 525=j=EUjnor Coplex. I i 1 i 1 i , Lord de la Eleanor. Dorothy. Sir Owen Wc»t,=p. ... Sir George We8t,=i=. . . . Leonard Warr, rf. J.;.. 1554. i. 1551. | <^. 1538. West. T I I I Sir Adriao=Mar7=Sir Richard Anne. William West, !r. hy patent Vojuingt. Roger«. Lord dc la Warr 1570. I Thomas (West), Lord de la Warr, allowed precedence of the ancient barony in 1597. All writers on this peerage of De la Warr have been puzzled that Thomas, son of William, should have been allowed the precedence of the ancient barony when, according to the accepted law, the ancient barony fell into abeyance between the heirs general of Sir Owen West in I554.(^) J. H. Round, discussing Pike's very full account of this case,() says he [Pike] makes the tentative suggestion that the judges in 1597 may have been influenced by the doctrine of barony by tenure, the heir male being in possession of p. 51) says he was summoned hy writ 13 Eliz. Courthope correctly states that he was created by patent 5 Feb. 1570, but gives his first summons as 8 May 14 Eliz. (1572), a date which has been followed by other writers, all being misled by Dugdale. The facts appear to be these. All the summonses printed by Dugdale for the reign of Elizabeth up to 1586 were concocted by him. He fabricated the writs, and made up his lists for all the parliaments up to 23 Eliz. (pp. 521-529 of Summonses) by taking the surnames from the Lords^ .'J ournals (see his marginal notes, " Ex dicto Diario Domus Procerum "), and adding baptismal names to them. For the parliament of 13 Eliz. he looked only at the list of the meeting on the first day, 2 Apr., in which West does not appear. Had he looked further he would have seen that Delawar comes at the end of the list of 4 Apr. (the second meeting), and ef each succeeding list in 13 Eliz. At the close of the list on 4 Apr. follows (after entries relating to the Bishop of Exeter and Lord Paget) Lord Delawar Item et aliud Breve retornatum fuit, quo JVilHelmus summoned to Dominus Delaware presenti Parliamento summonebatur, Parliament. qui admissus fuit ad suum in sedento Pre-eminentie locum, salvo cuique suo jure. Presumably Doddridge's date of 8 Eliz. for the issue of the patent is a slip, or a misprint in Collins; and Lord Redesdale's Committee do not seem to have been aware that a creation by patent preceded the sitting of 13 Eliz. (^) Courthope (p. 150, note " m ") says that "Sir Adrian Poynings [husband of one of Sir Owen West's daughters] considered that his issue had, in right of their mother, a right to the Barony, and in 9 Eliz. 1567 a case was prepared in which that claim was urged; but the heralds of that day, upon what principle it is impossible now to say, were of a different opinion." There can be little doubt, however, that there was then no conception of any right in the coheirs. l^) Constitutional History of the House of Lords, pp. I 19-129.
