230 BANBUBY. x in ParL, but the King sending " a gracious message " to the House of Lords in which (1546), to which no objection by Pari, was ever made. (4) In 1603, the Kins having awarded the Barony of Abergavenny to Edward Nevill (who was neither heir pur a coheir of any former Baron), the Pari, assign to him the precedency of 1892, though, in this case, without, apparently, a royal warrant to that effect ; while, on the other hand (5) without consulting Tar]., and simply by royal warrant, 31 March 1613, the Eahl i if Abehcorn, a Scotch Earl, was authorised " to hold the place and precedency of an Earl " in the Pari, of Ireland. (6) In 161b the King grants to Charles (Howard), Earl of Nottingham, a descendant (but not the representative nor even a coheir) of John (Mowbray,) Earl of Nottingham, in 1377, the same " place and precedency as well in Pari, as in the Star chamber, &c," as was possessed by his said ancestor, and " above all Earls of a later creation," in which precedency (of 1377) he sat fur the remainder of his life. Such then were the precedents which Charles I followed when (7) in 1626 the precedency of the previous year was granted to the Earldom of Banbury, a precedency which was, after protest, acquiesced by the House of Pari, far the Earl's life, and not for his heirs. No such acquiescence, however, was given to (8) the precedency of the Barony of Mo.stjoy, conferred, 5 June 1627, on Montjoy (Blount), Baron Montjoy in Ireland. In this creation the clause of precedency was over all (they were but two) Barons cr. after the 20th day of May last past. On complaints being preferred by ttiese two Barons, (riz. by Lord Eauconberg, who had been cr. 25 May, and by Lord Lovelace, who was cr. 30 May in the same year), the point was referred to the Lords' Committee for Privileges, who reported 2!) April IG2S that the Committee had considered thereof, and are of opinion, " That according to the statute 31 Hen. VIII, and according to n former judgment of this House, in the like ease of precedency (granted to the Earl of Banbury), that the said Baron Fauconberg and the said Baron Lovelace are to have place and precedence according to the ancienties ami dates of their several patents before the said Baron Montjoy, whose patent of creation bears date afterward, notwithstanding the said clause in his patent to the contrary." See " Lords' Journals," iii, p. 174. The natural result of this report was that Lord Montjoy was, on 3 Aug. following, raised to the rank of an Earl, as Earl of Newport. Before, however, the date of the report of the Lords' Committee, the King (9) on 7 April 1628 granted a patent to Henry (Percy), Earl of Northumberland and Baron Percy (under the limitation of the creations of 1557 above mentioned, in which a spec, precedence had been granted to the Earldom but not to the Barony), " that lie and his heirs male " should enjoy " the same seat, place and degree of Barcn Percy as well in Pari, as elsewhere," as any the said Earl's ancestor. Under this patent the Earl's sou and h. ap., who had already been sum. in his father's Barony, sat in the old precedence (in lieu of that of 1557), and his claim to precede Lord Abergavenny came before the Lords' Committee in 1628-9. It is to be remembered that this Ear), though inheriting the Barony of Percy under the spec. rem. of the creation of 1557 was not tho heir gen. nor even a coheir of the ancient Lords Percy. (10) On 12 Sep. 1640, Sir William Howard and Mary his wife, sister and h. of Henry, Lord Stafford, were cr. respectively Baron Stafford and Baroness Stafford, with a warrant of precedency " to possess such place and precedency of Baron of Stafford as well in Pari,, &c, as Henry, late br. of the said Mary, in his lifetime, Baron of Stafford ever held or enjoyed" — Sir William took his seat in the old Barony of Stafford, cr. 1293, which seems to have been then under forfeiture. The question of Ins right to do so having been referred to the Committee for Privileges the King, to pre- vent controversy (as in the similar case of Montjoy in 1627), raised liim to a higher rank, 11 Nov. 1640, as Viscount Stafford. In Garter's list of Peeresses at the coronation of Jac. II, this early precedence (1298) was allowed to his widow, suo jure Baroness Stafford (her husband's Viscountcy and Barony, being under attainder) such list having been duly approved of by the King in Council. When, however, in 1829, the attainder of her husband was reversed and their h. gen. inherited his and her Barony, the place assigned to it was according to the patent of creation (1640) the Lord Chancellor Eldon stating that, having the case of Banbury in view, the clause of precedency was void. The last case of a warrant of precedency of higher date than the creation of the Peerage is one that does not involve any rank in Par!,, being that of Alice Dudley, cr. 23 May 1644 Duchess Dudley for her life. Her husband had been cr. a Duke by Ferdinand II of Tuscmy by patent dat. 9 March 1620 at Vienna, and her precedence was to date from tho time of such creation. The words in the grant are " out of our Prerogative Royal which we will not have drawn into dispute."
