BERKELEY. 323 The elevation of the claimant to an Earldom C years afterwards (1679), was probably a convenient way of getting lid of the matter. In 1810 on the death of the f)th Earl of Berkeley, the Barony of Berkeley, (as also his other titles) became and still (1SS5) con- tinues dormant ; the Castle of Berkeley, &c. having been inherited, under settlement, by his 1st s. William Fitz Hardinge Berkeley, whoso legitimacy has never been established. This gentleman in 1823, claimed the Barony of Berkeley, asaPeerage/j.'/iettio'ewhichclaim (after the usual references) was heard by tin- Committee for Privileges, in 1829 and 1S30, but was prosecuted no further, inasmuch as the Petitioner had in 1831 been cr. Baron Segrave and was in 1S41 cr, Earl Fitz Hardinge. He d. num. 10 Oct. 1S57, and was sue. in the Berkeley estate, by his next br. (whose legitimacy was likewise disputed), Admiral Sir Maurice Frederick Fitz Hardinge Berkeley. Ho also claimed in 1S5S the Barony of Berkeley as a Peerage by tenure, and judgment waspionouncedtliereon,26Feb., 1801 to the effect that he had not proved such claim. On 5 Aug. following he also was raised to the Peerage as Baron Fitz Hardinge and was sue. 17 Oct., 1SG7, by his s. and h. in that dignity and in the Berkeley estates. " The Barony of Berkeley and the precedency thereof " is treated of by Smyth in Ins ' Lives of the Berkeley* " vol. 2 p. IS &a, whether (1) from the grant in the first year of Hen. II, (?) from the death of Lord Thomas (the last h. gen.) s.p.m., in 1417, or (3) from the wait of (1528) 14 Hen. VIU.(«.) The view of such an authority as "Smyth of Niblny " on such a subject is too important to be passed over. Briefly analysed it is as under — "That till the time of King Ric. I, or of King John, each man to whom the Crown gave lands t< . hold by Knights service in eapite was thereby made a Baron and Peere of the Healuie and had voice in Pari." That supposing any Baron makes alienation thereof " by lieenee " and (not " for money or other recompense to a meer stranger." but) " for the continuance of the Barony in his name and blood or issue male, then have such issues male together with the Barony (bee it Castle, Manor or House soe holdeii), held alsoe and lawfully enjoyed the name, style, title and dignity of a Baron with their ancestor's place of precedency ; and thereof the heires gencrall or next heires female have been utterly excluded ami debarred." He then quotes the following cases in support thereof. I. Ferrers, Baron of Groby ; a Lordship bestowed by Margaret (Countess of Derby) on her second son William Ferrers, who d. 12S3 [but in this case no Peerage Barony appears to exist till the writ of 1300 issued to tho s. of the said William]. II. " YValleron, Baron of Killpeck," 1 Ed, I. III. " Handlowo alius Buniell," Baron of Holgate temp. Ed. III. IV. The entail of the Castle and Manor of Warwick in tale male, 18 Ed. Ill, excluding the grandaughters and coheirs of the entailor [no Peerage dignity, however, herein seems involved]. V. The entail of tho Castle, &c, of Arundel, in tail male, 21 Ed. Ill, whereby "John, Lord Maltravers was Earl of Arundle after the death of Thomas, the Earle, who d. s.p. (1 115) 5 Hen. V." leaving sisters and coheirs. VI. The entail of the Honor and county of Oxford in tail male by John, Earl of Oxford, IS Hen. VIII, so that " John de Vere his next heir male was Earl of Oxford, by reason of the said entail." [Sed, queft such reason]. VH The entail of Lord Paget, 5 Mary (said in Collins' "Precedents" to be 1 Mary) of his Baronies and Manors ill tail male, so that "by virtue of the said fine " Thomas Paget, the h. male was sum. to Pari, as a Baron ou the death of his br. Henry, Lord Paget, who left a da. and h. 'tho' such da. did not long survive. VIII. The entail of Robert, Lord Ogle (1.153-1558) in tail male, who had two sons by two respective wives, the yr. of whom sue. the elder (to the exclusion of a sister of the whole blood of the said elder son) and received a writ of summons in 1563. IX. Delawarr ; whereby on tho death in 1 426 of Thomas, Lord Delawarr, " by reason of a fine leavyed in the time of his ancestors of the Barony " he was (') It is to be remarked that the writ of (1421) 9 Hen. V, (of which the succeeding Lords were unquestionably heirs) is not mentioned. Mr. Smyth, probably, considered that it was issued Ex debito to James Berkeley, as the owner of the Castle.
