APPENDIX H 745 written in a different hand, and because the parchment was not of the same size as the roll."(^) The second proof advanced was that on 28 Apr. i 376 John, the grandson, was one of the mainpernors in Parliament for William Latimer (whom Nicolas calls Lord Latimer). This proof was accepted, and the Committee reported to the House: Resolved, That it appears to this Committee, that the Barony of Botetourt is in Abeyance; and that the Petitioner is One of the Coheirs oi John Lord Botetourt. (*>) On 1 3 Apr. the petitioner took his seat " next after the Lord Dacre." (') " This," says Nicolas, must have been considered the precedence created by the writ to John de Botetourt in 33 Edw. I, though the date of the earliest writ issued to Ralph "de Dacre, the first person of that name ever summoned to Parliament, was in the 14th Edw. II. As the first Botetourt, who was summoned, but did not sit, and his grandson, whose sitting was proved, were both named John, the resolution is indefinite; but the precedence does not favour Nicolas's view that the Barony dates from the first summons. BURGH, STRABOLGI, AND COBHAM These three baronies were petitioned for in iqog by Cuthbert Matthias Kenworthy, Reginald Gervase Alexander, and Alexander Henry Leith, the two former claiming jointly as coheirs, and the last-named claiming as senior coheir. The claims were taken together in 191 1. The parties were not in opposition — indeed, counsel announced that the evidence was being used in common; and it does not appear that any particular barony was specially desired by any one of the petitioners. On 23 July 191 2 the Committee for Privileges reported favourably on Burgh and Cobham, subject to the attainder of the latter being reversed. Strabolgi was adjourned sine die for the production of further evidence. After a rehearing the Committee reported favourably 7 May 19 14. Burgh In this case the petitioners sought to establish a claim to a barony which they alleged to have been created by a writ of summons to Thomas Burgh, I Sep. (1487) 3 Hen. VII. Though Thomas continued to be summoned till 1 1 Hen. VII, they could prove no sitting for him, and his son Edward was not summoned to Parliament. The grandson, Thomas, could not be shown to have been summoned before he took his seat in 1534 (entry, Lords' Journals), but counsel for the petitioners in their Proposition xxxvii, to prove that he " was summoned and sat," oflFered a {") For similar objections to a proof of sitting, see Strabolgi, p. 748. () Lords' Journals, vol. xxx, p. 56 li. (c) Idem, p. 572^. 94
