178 LUMLEY. of Pari, restoring him in blood, and enacting " that the said John Lumlcy and tlie heirs male of his body should liave hold, enjoy and bear the name, dignity, state and pre-eminence of a Huron of the realm," whereby he became BAltON LUMLEY (a new Barony of that name, in tail male, being thus created) and he was sum. to Pari, accordingly from 5 Oct 1553 to 5 Nov. 1605. K.B., 29 Nov. 1553 ; attending at the subsequent coronation of Queen Mary, being also a commissioner of claims at the coronations of Queen Elizabeth and of James I. He was suspected of treasonable dealings with Mary, Queen of Scots, and was, in 1570 (as also was the Earl of Arundel, his father-in-law) imprisoned ; in Oct. 1686 he was one of the triers( ;l ) of that Queen, as also in 1002 of the Earl of Essex. He in. firstly, before 1 March 1552, Joan, eldest^') of the two daughters ami coheirs of Henry (FitzaI.an), EahL OK ArUXDBL, by his first wife Catharine, da. of Thomas (GrrT), Mahqukss OF PoltSET. She was one of the si* principal ladies, that sat in the third chariot of stite at the cornation of Queeu Mary, in 1553, She was bur. (with her infant children), 9 March 1676/7, at Cheam, CO. Surrey. He IB. secondly, Elizabeth, da of Thomas (Daucy), 2d Baiion Dairy ok Chichk, by Frances, da. of Richard (RICH), 1st BaHon RICH, Hot/., s.p.s., 11 April 1009, aged 70, and was buried at Cheam afsd( c ) M.I.('>) At his death the Barony of I.umUy {cr. in 1547) became cstinct!?). Inn. -post mortem at Southwark, 30 May 1009. Will (whereby, as also by settlement, he had settled the bulk of his estates on his distant kinsman and heir nude) dated 28 Jan. 1005/0, pr. 1609. His widow was bur. from St. Olive Hart street, London, 1 Feb. 1610,7, at Cheam afsd., M.I.(' 1 ) Will dated 0 Nov. 1010. pr. 1617. ( a ) See vol. iii, p, 7"2, note " a," sub Derby, for the names of the 24 noblemen thus appointed. ( b ) Mary the second da. (the only child of her father who hail issue) m. Thomas (Howard), Duke of Norfolk, and was ancestress of the succeeding Dukes of Norfolk and Earls of Arundel. ( c ) In Camden's " Elizabeth " his zeal, (which apparently exceeded his discretion) for his ancestry is thus alluded to " Had so great a veneration for the memory of his ancestors that he caused monuments to be erected for them in the collegiate church of Chester-on-the-street (opposite to Lumley Castle), in order as they succeeded one another, from Liulphus down to his own time; which he had either picked out of the demolished monasteries, or made new." ( d ) This monument is engraved in " Sandford," p. 423. ( c ) Splandian Lloyd, then aged 40 and upwards, was found tc be his heir, being s. and h. of his only sister Barbara Williams deceased, which Barbara had n, firstly, Humphrey Lloyd, of Denbigh (who </. Aug. 1508, aged 41), and secondly, William Williams, of Cochwillan, co. Carnarvon, This Splandian was consequently the heir in 1609 to the Barony of Lumley as cr. by the writ of 1384, subject to the reversal of the attainder thereof. This Splandian ((. s.p., but his great-grand-nephew and heir, Robert Lumley Lloyd, D.D.. Hector of St. Paul's, Covent Garden (who had inherited from his ancestor, Lord Lumley, the estate of Cheam, in Surrey) laid claim to the Barony, as heir general, to whose petition the committee for privileges replied, 23 March 1723, " That the petitioner had no right to a writ of summons in pari, as prayed by his petition." This resolution was founded upon the previous report. (1) "That by the Act of pari, of 1 Ed. VI. [1547] a new Barony of Lumley was created and limited by express words to John, Lord Lumley, in tail male, and that upon his death without issue male, the said Barony became extinct. (2) That the attainder [1538] of George Lumley is not reversed by the said Act, but remains yet in force, and that the restitution of John, Lord Lumley, in blood only, while the attainder remains unreversed, could not possibly revive the ancient Barony, which was before merged in the crown in consequence of that attainder." The petition of 1723 is given in full in Collins' " liuronics by writ " pp. 373-377. The claim was opposed by the Earl of Scarbrough, the heir male, to whom (on account of this groundless ami apparently wanton opposition) Dr. Lloyd, by his will dated 29 Dec. 1729, leaves the body of Richard "late Viscount Waterford " now in the vault belonging " to our family " at Cheam, with liberty (as he sarcastically adds) " to make such use thereof as he shall think fit." Dr. Lloyd d. Nov. 1730, apparently s.p. His numerous relatives are set forth in Burke's " Extinct Peerage," (sub. " Lumley ") but he appears to have left the (Lumley) estate of Cheam (away from them) to the Duke of Bedford.
