7i8 APPENDIX H Elizabeth de Say (see 1383 and 1393) and of Elizabeth Bourchier (see 141 1 and 1424/5). Elizabeth de Say married first Sir John Fawsley, who was summoned as Johanni de Falvesley Chivaler. There was no addition to his name because he was the only Fawsley summoned. Elizabeth married, 2ndly, Sir William Heron, who, being the only man of his name in the list of writs, was summoned as Willielmo Heron Chivaler. Elizabeth Bourchier married first Hugh Stafford, whose writs were directed Hugoni Stafford without addition, because no other Stafford was summoned then. She married, 2ndly, Lewis Robessart, who also was sum- moned without any addition as Lodovico Robessart, because he was the only man of his name in the lists. There was no need in these cases to direct the writs Johanni de Falvesley de Say, Willielmo Heron de Say, Hugoni Stafford de Bourchier, and Lodovico Robessart de Bourchier, for there were no other men of these names with whom they might be confused. The words jure uxoris proved a fatal attraction to the Committee which heard the petition for the Barony of Fauconberg in 1903. William Nevill, who married Joan, daughter and heir of Thomas Fauconberg, was summoned to Parliament from 1429, and in the later summonses (33 Hen. VI to i Edw. IV) the writs to him were directed Willelmo Nevill de Fauconberge Chivaler (see Schedule), on which form of summons the petitioner based a claim that William was summoned in right of his wife Joan. In 19 10, before the Fitzwaryn case was heard, J. H. Round pointed out that The cases of Fauconberg and Fitz-Warine are similar in all respects. In both cases the earliest writ is that of 1283; in both it is followed by valid sum- monses to the great Parliament of 1295 and others afterwards; and in both there is no proof of sitting, till the line ended in an heiress, save the Barons' letter to the Pope, which has not been accepted by the house. In both cases the father of the heiress was never summoned to Parliament; and in both cases the husband of that heiress was summoned to and sat in Parliament in the reign of Henry VI, and bore her surname as his style. In the Fitz-Warine case the precedence of his barony can be tested, and we find that the House allowed it only as from his first summons. Therefore the precedence of the Fauconberg barony is only that which is similarly given by the first summons of William Nevill in the reign of Henry VI. (•) The precedence of Fitzwaryn referred to above was that allowed in 1 5 12, and it might therefore have been supposed that the Committee in 1903 would be guided by circumstances which were exactly analogous to those in the case before them. In spite, however, of all the Attorney General could do to dissuade them from so rash a course, they decided That the Barony of Fauconberg is an ancient barony in fee ; that it is proved by the writ of summons addressed to William Nevill in the seventh year of Henry VI, and by the sitting in Parliament of the said William Nevill as Lord Fauconberg in (*) Peerage and Pedigree, vol. i, p. 273.
