&c. read, being s. and h. of Sir John Grey K. G. (ob. v. p.) &c. P. 291. William Grey, XIII.-14. Baron Grey de Wilton, was attainted in 1553, when his honors became Forfeited, but he was fully restored to them in 1558. He was likewise a Knight of the Garter. P. 293. 1. 9. for "William de Greystock, s. and h. ob. 1288," read, brother and heir, &c. P. 317. Humphrey de Bobun, XIII.-6th Earl of Hereford, is erroneously called a Knight of the Garter. P. 355. Dele KINCUMBURGH; the name of Walter de Kincumburgh was taken from Dugdale's Lists of Summons to Parliament, where it is erroneously printed for Walter de Fauconbergh, in which manner it stands in the Lists of Summons given in the Appendix to the I. and II. Peerage Reports. P. 385. 1. 31. John L'Isle, II.-2d Baron L'Isle of Rugemont, was Summoned to Parliament only until the 15th March, 28 Edw. I. 1354, and the Writs addressed to his son and heir Robert L'Isle, were tested 15 Dec. 31 Edw. III. 1357, and 20 Nov. 34 Edw. III. 1360. P. 421. 1. 7. for "28 Edw. II." read 28 Edw. III. P. 448. Dele the Note, as the name of John de Morley among the persons summoned 24 May, 11 Hen. VI. 1433, was Dugdale's error; for in the Appendix to the I. and II. Peerage Report it properly stands as Thomas de Morley. P. 456. Vide some remarks under " OBSERVATIONS ON DIG- P. 476. 1. 18. Henry Howard, XI.-8th Duke of Norfolk, is P. 497. 1. 4. Dele K. G. 1. 32. After the words "cousin and heir," add male. P. 505. 1. 26. for "I. 1672. 1." read, "I. 1762. 1. P. 508. 1. 31. for "K. B." read, K. G. P. 510. 1. 2. for "EARLS," read, BARONS BY TENURE. P. 514. 1. 32. for "Lord Philip Howard," read, Philip Howard, Esq. P. 577. SAY AND SELE. Gregory William Twisleton, present Baron Say and Sele, sits in the precedency given by the Patent of 9th August, 1603; hence it must be inferred, that the only Barony which is recognized to be vested in him is that created by that Patent; but as he is heir-general of the body of Sir James Fienes who was summoned to Parliament 3 March, 25 Hen. VI. 1447, if that personage can be proved to have sat in the House as Baron Say and Sele between the day on which the Writ was tested, and that on which he is said to have been created to that dignity in full Parliament, with remainder to his heirs male; or if it could be established that Sir James Fienes was never created to the dignity in question, with remainder to his heirs male, and of which, according to Mr. Cruise, there does not appear to be any evidence, his Lordship must, it is presumed, be deemed to have inherited a Barony in fee under the Writ of Summons to Sir James Fienes in 1447. The earliest proof of a Lord Say and Sele having been present in Parliament is in 1449; thus the only claim which appears feasible to the Barony created in 1447, consists in establishing, that no Patent limiting the dignity to the heirs male of Sir James Fienes ever passed, and consequently that it originated in a Writ of Summons. It is also to be observed, that the Patent of 9th August, 1603, recited the fact, that James Fienes was summoned by Writ 3 March, 1447, and that on the 5th of the same month he was created in full Parliament a Baron of England by the style, title, and honor of Baron Say and Sele, but mentions no limitation whatever; hence perhaps the only evidence against the Patent of 1603 being a confirmation of the original Barony, to which Sir Richard Fienes was undoubtedly entitled, whether it was limited to the heirs male or heirs general of Sir James Fienes, he being both heir male and heir general of that personage, was the circumstance of his always sitting as junior Baron. P. 581. 1. 28. Henry le Scroop, Justice of the Common Pleas, was summoned to Parliament ex officio, from 5 Edw. II. instead, as is there stated, from 8 to 19 Edw. II. P. 621. William de Ufford, II.-2d Earl of Suffolk, was never a Knight of the Garter; this correction applies also to p. 653, 1. 26. P. C62. 1. 32. The earliest Writ of Summons addressed to Hugh de Vere was tested 6 February, 27 Edw.I. 1299. P. 677. Henry de Beauchamp, XV. Earl, and I. Duke of Warwick, is erroneously called a Knight of the Garter. P. 680. 1. 16. for "38 Hen. VI. 1640," read, 38 Hen. VI. 1460. P. 682. 1. 30. Francis Lord Wemyss is improperly stated to be 6th Earl of Wemyss in Scotland, his Lordship not having established his claim to that dignity. P.757. Note *. Dele the words, "but no record exists of the said Thomas having been summoned to any Parliament as a Baron;" for he was summoned to Parliament, vitâ patris, as Lord Maltravers. Vide p. 408. P. 843. ST. DAVID'S. Thomas Burgess, Bishop of that See. Translated to Salisbury May, 1825. Ap 1825. John Banks Jenkinson, Dean of Worcester. pointed May, 1825. PRESENT Lord Bishop of St. David's. P. 885. SALISBURY. 1807. John Fisher, ob. 1825. 1825. Thomas Burgess. Translated from St. David's May 1825. PRESENT Lord Bishop of Salisbury and Chancellor of the Order of the Garter. OBSERVATIONS ON DIGNITIES. To a work containing the descent and present state of every title of Peerage which bas existed in this Country since the Conquest, such observations as tend to explain the nature of those dignities, with a brief analysis of the principles which regulate their descent, together with a short history of the different degrees of honour which constitute their possessors a Peer of the Realm, will of course be expected. In the following attempt to afford this information, those remarks only are submitted which contain what is now deemed to be the law on the subject; for it would be useless, were it compatible with the limits of the Work, to attempt to follow the voluminous writers who have treated on dignities in their speculations on points which do not admit of proof, and which consequently depend entirely on conjecture. The greatest part of the authors here alluded to have been consulted; and although occasional statements have been extracted from them, it is necessary to observe, that the works from which the following conclusions have been chiefly deduced, are the valuable "Treatise on Dignities," by the late Mr. Cruise, and the "Reports of the Lords' Committees appointed to search the Journals of the House, Rolls of Parliament, and other records and documents, for all matters touching the dignity of a Peer of the Realm." While thus avowing that the most important part of these remarks have been derived from the sources alluded to, the Editor feels it right to acknowledge that he has not been implicitly guided by the dicta laid down in either of those publications, where the investigation of VOL. J. d the numerous titles contained in these pages has produced a different impression on his mind; and therefore one or two cases occur in which a slight variation from the statements of former writers will be found: these, however, are submitted with unfeigned diffidence, and perhaps demand his apology. On the contents of the Reports of the Lords' Committees it would be the height of presumption to offer any encomium, but it is impossible to refrain from expressing the homage of that admiration which frequent reference to their pages has elicited. The trifling errors which are to be found in them *, together with the bias with which some parts appear to have been written, serve only, by the force of contrast, to render the brilliancy of their general merits the more conspicuous: some of the misstatements have been occasionally noticed in different parts of this Work, and against that bias the Editor has presumed, in one instance, strenuously to contendt. The deep research, profound learning, and important deductions, which every page of the Reports exhibit, must, however, command the respect of all who are capable of appreciating their value, and render them, beyond all comparison, the most important work on the subject which has ever appeared. On Mr. Cruise's Treatise any observation would be superfluous, as its merit is universally acknowledged; hence the Editor has felt satisfied whenever he has been able to cite that Work as his authority. In these observations, each dignity is treated of under a separate head, in the following order. BARONIES, BY TENURE. BY WRIT. BY PATENT. VISCOUNTCIES. Under the head of " BARONIES BY TENURE," a few remarks are submitted on feudal titles generally; whilst, under "BARONIES BY WRIT," what is now considered to be the law relative to ABEYANCES, SITTINGS, BARONIES "JURE UXORIS," * Vide the Critique on these Reports in the Edinburgh Review for March, 1821. + On the subject of the Barons' Letter to Pope Boniface VIII. vol. II. p. 761 et seq. |