DARCY 69 inference that of Conyers] in his favour,() whereby he became BARON DARCY (of Knaith) [i344]C') and BARON CONYERS [1509], both baronies being held in fee.() He d. 3 Mar. 1653/4. See fuller account of him sub Conyers, vol. iii, p. 406. (^) A somewhat similar favour had been granted to his great-uncle, George Darcy, s. and h. of Thomas, Lord Darcy (so cr. by writ, 1509), whose Barony was forfeited by his attainder in 1537. This George was restored in blood by Act of Par). 1548, with the dignity of Baron Darcy to him and the hein male of his body. To these heirs (though not, however, to himself) the precedence of 1509 was allowed till their extinction in 1635. It should be noted that though, after 1635, Conyers Darcy was the h. malt- of his great-grandfather, Thomas, Lord Darcy [cr. 1509), he was not h. general, and that the Barony of Darcy, of which he was a cob. (through his mother's family of Conyers) was quite distinct therefrom, being a Barony of (1332) a much higher precedence. () This was held in 1903 by the Committee to be the date when John, Lord Darcy sat first in Pari. See /iw/, p. 72, note"b." Conyers Darcy and his four successors in title doubtless thought that the result of the petition of 1 64 1 was to create a peerage dignity in tail male, "Lord Darcy and Conyers." V.G. (^) It is observed by J. H. Round that "only one 'Patent of Restitution and Creation' for 'the Lord Darcy and Conyers' is mentioned in the entry in the Lords' Journals (20 Jan. 1 64 1 /a), and that Dugdale — to whom we are indebted for our knowledge both of Conyers Darcy's petition and of the date of the Patent (10 Aug. 1 641) — states in his Baronage (1675) that Conyers Darcy was 'erectus et restoratus in baronem [m] d'Arci et Conyers.' It is also noteworthy that, while giving this information under 'Darcy' he is silent under 'Conyers' as to any existence of the barony after 1557. As Norroy King of Arms he must have been acquainted with the facts of the case at the time, and his statement that the King 'did, by his Letters Patents, bearing date at Westminster, 10 August in the seventeenth year of his reign, declare, restore, and confirm unto him . . . the stile, title, and dignity of Lord d'Arcy, so enjoyed by his ancestor, John, Lord d'Arcy as aforesaid' (vol. i, p. 375) implies that he knew the terms of the Patent. His date is confirmed by the pedigree entered by Lord 'Holdernesse ' in May 1754, which described Conyers Darcy as 'restored and declared by Patent 10 August 17 K. Chas. 1st.' Again Courthope states {Historic Peerage, p. 143) that a Royal Warrant of 2 Aug. (1641), not now forth- coming, directs that two bills shall be prepared for restoring the ancient 'liberties, places, and states' of John, Lord Darcy and John, Lord Conyers, to Conyers Darcy, but contends that it does not appear either from the concluding words or from his subsequent sitting, that two separate baronies were intended to be conferred upon him. The words are: 'the one concerning the Barony of Darcy to be made for the said Sir Conyers Darcy by the name of Sir Conyers Darcy of Hornby, co. York, and the other concerning the Barony of Conyers to be passed in the latter place, to be made to or for him by the title also of Baron d'Arcy.' Two bills were prepared in accor- dance with these directions, and the Darcy one was delivered to the Keeper of the Great Seal 10 Aug. (1641). As the Patent was issued the same day, the bill for Conyers, which was not delivered till 12 Aug., must have been followed, it would seem, by a separate Patent, in spite of Courthope's contention. And this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that, in i68o, the son of the then peer was summoned to Parliament as Lord Conyers while his father was sitting as Lord Darcy. "The fact is that ' Darcy ' was the barony which Conyers Darcy wanted, owmg to its high precedence and also to his own male descent from its holders. He pro-
