746 APPENDIX H " certified extract from a manuscript in the College of Arms containing an account of the opening of Parliament on 3 November, 21 Henry VIII (1529), in which it is stated that 'the Lord Burgh made his first entry into the Parliament chamber.' "(*) The Attorney General, on behalf of the Crown, contended that the Barony could not be proved to have existence before 1534. A discussion as to whether the extract from the College of Arms manuscript — MS. H. 13 — had actually been "put in" by the petitioners and was to be regarded as evidence ended in a very definite agreement between the parties and the Committee that it was not in evidence. Whereupon the Attorney General made the position quite clear by saying: The matter will stand simply that we must strike out altogether the 1529 date, and I can only deal with it as a question whether the admission is to be 1534 or 1487. A'Ir. Cozens-Hardy. I accept that entirely; it is either 1534 or, if my pro- position is right, it is the earlier date.C") It might be supposed that this dialogue placed the question beyond all possibility of confusion, but the following resolution of their Lordships, that the Barony was created in 1529, is based solely on MS. H. 13, which they explicitly agreed was not in evidence: Resolution, 23 July 1 91 2: Barony of Burgh. 1. That the Barony of Burgh is an ancient Barony in fee: 2. That it is proved that Sir Thomas Burgh sat as a Peer in Parliament next after Lord Windsor in the year 1529 and that the said Sir Thomas Burgh was from that date entitled to the Barony by Writ descendible to the heirs general of his body: 3. That upon the death in or about the year 1600 of Robert Burgh the fourth Lord Burgh the Barony of Burgh fell into abeyance among his four sisters and coheirs, namely: (i) Elizabeth who married George Brooke; (ii) Frances who married Francis Coppinger; (iii) Anne who married Sir Drue Drury; and (iv) Katherine who married Thomas Knyvett: 4. That the coheirs of the first Thomas Burgh aforesaid and the said Robert Burgh are the following persons: (i) The Petitioner Alexander Henry Leith; (ii) John Francis Byde Russel, who has presented no petition and makes no claim; (iii) The Petitioner Reginald Gervase Alexander; (iv) The Petitioner Cuthbert Matthias Kenworthy; (*) The extract was from a MS. in the College of Arms, known as H. 13, which is printed in Dugdale's Summonses, pp. 496-7. The date of 3 Nov. is contradicted, however, by another extract from this MS. {Summonses, p. 500, where the heading has been tampered with by Dugdale), containing the entry "The Lord Borough of Gaynesborough admitted the Second day of December Anno xxj. H. 8." () Minutes of Evidence, p. 346.
