Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 1.djvu/253

BANBURY. 231 he "desires this may pass for unce in this particular, considering how old a man this Lord is, and childkss,( h ) &c," the Lords resolve, on 9 April 1028, that though " the Act of Pari., 31 Hen. VIII, is most strong and plain for the settling of the Precedency of the Peers, according to their ancienty and times of creation," yet that they are contented that the said Earl [of Banbury] may bold the same place, as he now stands entered, for his life mill/ and that place of precedency not to go to his heirs ; " accord- ingly on the 15th, he took his seat anil was "placed next to the Karl of Berks." The' Earl seems to have been latterly in embarassed circumstances and to have alienated much of the family property.^) He m. firstly, Dorothy, Dow. Baroness Chandos. da. of Edmund (Bhayk), 1st Loud Buayk (by .rane, da. and h. of Sir Richard H.M.i.nvKi.i.), whose first husband had tl. in Oct. 1605, and who must herself have d. within a few weeks after his death and her own remarriage. The Karl m. secondly (settlement dated 23 Dec., in the same year. 1605) a young lady of 19 (being himself about 58), Elizabeth, da. of Thomas (HOWARD), Eaiu. of Suffolk, by Katharine. 1st da. and coheir of Sir Henry Knyvett of Charlton, Suffolk. Besides a da. who died young, sometime before 1610( d ) (and possibly other issue), the Countess was mother of two sons (//. 1627 and 1630-1) whose paternity has been frequently called in question. The Earl (/. at the house of Dr. Grant, his physician, in Pater- noster Bow 4 (*J London, 25 May 1032, aged about 85, and was bur. at Iiothertield Grays. Will (no mention being therein made of any children) leaving all, but a few legacies, to his wife, dai. 19 May 1630 and pr. by her 2 July 1032. Kun. certif. at Coll. of Arms stating that he d. s.p.( f ) tnq, post mortem taken at Burford, Oxou, 11 A]iril 1633 (about 11 months after his death), finding that he it. at Cavershain(s) and without issue, his next heirs being the (female) issue of Henry Knollys, his ist br. By a subsequent inq, at Abingdon, 1 April 1041 (by direction of the Court of Wards, on behalf of the infant Karl), it was found that the late Earl d. in London leaving " Edward, now Earl of Banbury, his s. and next h.," who was then aged 5 years, 1 month and 15 days. His widow who was bap. 11 August 15S6 at Saffron Walden, m. (within 5 weeks "of her husband's death) before 2 July 1632, Edward (VaUX), 4th Loud Vaux of Hauuowden, who d. s.p. (or, at all events, s.p. leg.), S April 1661, aged 74, and was bur. at Dorking, Surrey. The Countess, "a professed Papist" (who appears to have been an object of constant suspicion to the Pari.), d. in his lifetime 17 April 1658 in her 72nd year and was also bur. there. M.I.(>>) ( b ) He was childless at the date of the patent of precedency (18 Aug. 1626), though the Countess had given birth to a son some 10 or 11 months before the date of tins Royal message : a fact probably unknown to the Court. It is probable that the King, to support his Koyal prerogative, made a great point of Lord Banbury's precedence, which, at his age of 82, and as being only over some eight Earls or so, could not have been of much importance to his Lordship). ( c ) On 1 March 1630-1, he sold the manor of liotherfield Greys to Sir Robert Knollys, who (with his eldest s. William K.) sold it again, in May 1642, to Sir John Evelyn and Arthur Evelyn. ( 4 ) The fact of issue born previous to 1627 is here mentioned, as it confutes the argu- ment based on the absence of any such between 1606 and 1627. See "Males' Catalogue of Honour " (1610), p. 546, as to this da. ; and see Brooke's " Catalogue of Nobaity " (1619), where it is stated that the Earl "had issue," which issue, according to Vincent, who corrected Brooke (with a vengeance) in 1622, " died young." (°) Deposition of his servant Hubert Lloyd, /'resent at his death. This agrees with the finding in the second 1115. post mortem wherein it is stated' that the Earl d. in London, leaving Edward his s. and h. P) It is stated in " Dugdale " (vol. u, p. 413), that this certificate was signed by his widow. Such, however, is not the fact. ( 8 ) The pilace of his death was undoubtedlyjwrong, and both it and the statement 5 , 5"* o£ issue contradict the finding in the subsequent inquisition. Neither did uie ladies, who were found heirs herein, inherit any of the Earl's lands which were uen able, whereas by the subsequent inquisition the s. and h. did so inherit. ' ' aet a S e ou tue M.I. is erroneously given as in her 75th year.