720 APPENDIX H We have left to the last the Barony of Furnivall, the abeyance in which was determined in 191 3. It is worthy of special consideration, for it is typical as a peerage case both in the nature of the claims made and in the Committee's treatment of them. We will first set out the facts concerning the Furnivall family. Thomas de Furnivall was summoned to a Council at Shrewsbury in 1283, and to Parliament from 1295 to 1332. In 1325/6 he objected to being amerced as a baron, alleging that he did not hold by barony or part of a barony. If his statement was true — which is doubtful — it is clear that the writs of summons were not issued to him by reason of his tenure; they do not appear to have been referred to, and therefore we may conclude that they did not make him a baron amerceable as such. His disclaimer also throws a curious light on the estimation in which he held the status of Baron which tenure by barony could give him. He d. 1332. Thomas, his son, was summoned to Parliament v. p. from 25 Aug. 1318 to 27 Jan. 1331/2, and continued to be summoned till 1338. He died 1339. Thomas, the grandson, was summoned to Parliament from 20 Nov. 1348 to 4 Oct. 1364. He died s.p. 21 Apr. 1365. William, brother of the last-named Thomas, was summoned to Parliament 20 Jan. 1365/6 to 7 Jan. 1382/3. He died leaving an only daughter, Joan, who married Thomas Nevill, brother of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland. Thomas Nevill was summoned to Parliament from 20 Aug. 1383 to I Dec. 1 4 1 2 by writs directed Thome de Nevill de Halumshire, but on the Rolls of Parliament he was styled Le Sire de Furnivall. He and Joan had an only daughter, Maud, who married John Talbot, who was summoned to Parliament from 26 Oct. 1409 to 26 Feb. 1420/1, the writs being directed Johanni Talbot Domino de Furnivall, Johanni Talbot de Halomshire, and Johanni Talbot de Furnivall, as long as Gilbert Talbot was summoned, but after Gilbert's death John was only described as Miles or Chivaler. Proof of sitting in Parliament was forthcoming for Thomas Nevill and for John Talbot, but no member of the Furnivall family was proved by any record of Parliament to have taken his seat. Briefly stated, the claim of the petitioner was that Thomas de Furnivall was a peer by reason of his summons to attend the meeting at Shrewsbury in 1283, and that the summons to Thomas Nevill in 1383 was in right of his wife, Joan, who, it was alleged, inherited a Barony of Furnivall from her father. The Crown contended that neither the above-named Thomas de Furnivall nor any of his descendants were peers, and that the first peer was either Thomas Nevill or his son-in-law, John Talbot. The business of the Committee was to listen to, and adjudicate on, the evidence and arguments which the petitioner advanced to prove that the Furnivalls were peers. To the layman the procedure of the Committee in these circumstances is amazing. For their Lordships, who are called upon to decide whether a man is a peer, start by assuming that such is his status, and accept as facts —
