Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 5.djvu/418

416 MOWBRAY. XIX. 1 701. 19. Thomas (Howard), Duke of Norfolk, &c, 1 : «' Lord Mowhray, Skuuave, 4c,, nephew and h,, being s. anil li of Thomas, next br, to the late Duke. He </. s.p. 23 Dee. 1732, aged 19. o . . § XX. 1732, 20. Edward (Howard), Duke of Norfolk, Earl to or Arundel, Surrey, NORFOLK and Norwich, Lord Mow- 1777. nit ay, Segravk, fee, br. and 1). He d. s.p. 20 Sep. 1777, aged 91, when the Earldom of Norwich [1072], and the Barony tf 7 § 3 Hovard of Cast/e Jliting [1(3(39], became extinct, while the Dukedom of Norfolk, the Earldom of Arundel (and the Baronies attached thereto by Act of Paid. 1427}, the Earldom of Surrey and the Earldom of Norfolk devolved on his cousin and b. male, but the Baronies of Mowbray. Stgrave, and any others held in fee fell into abeyance.^') I XXI. 1878. !?/. Alfred JosErn (Rtourton), Baron Stouutov, 3d but 1st surv. s. and h. of Charles, ISth Haron Stourton, by Mary- Lucy, da. of Charles (CLIFFORD), Gth Baron CLIFFORD oy CBDDLBIQH, h. 2S Feb. 1829; Lieut. Yorkshire Yeomanry Cavalry, 1853 j sue. to the peerage, 23 Dec. 1872. By a resolution of Hie House of Lords, 27 July 1S77, he was found the senior of the two coheirs of the Baronies of Mowbray and Segrave, which their Lordships held had been terminated in favour of the Howard family( b ) prior to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, The abeyance of these Baronies was accordingly terminated in his favour and he thus became LORD MOWBRAY and LOUD S EG) RAVE and was sum. by- writ to l'arl. in Jan. 1 S7S.(°) He m., 13 Sep. lSt!">, at Skvne, Mary Margaret, only child of Matthew Klias CORBUXT, of Corbalton Hall, co. Meath, by Matilda, da. of Jenieo (Preston), 12th Viscount Gorman-stos [I.] He d. (of influenza) 18 April 1898, aged (31, at the Hotel St. James, Paris. Will pr. 1893 at £27,971 gross but £8,034 net. Ilia widow living 1S93. that the abeyance of the ancient Barony of Mowbray has ever [i.e. ever before the date of 18;'7, irhen this was iitiMcii], been legally terminated, and if not, the Writ of Summons to Henry Frederick Howard in 1639 [see note "a" next above], created a new Barony of the same Dame, which is now in abeyance between his coheirs the Lords Petre aud Stourtou, who are also coheirs of one moiety [the Lords Berkeley representing the other moiety 1 of the original dignity." («) The coheirs were his two nieces (the daughters and coheirs of his br. Philip Howard), or their representatives. These, in 1777, were (1) Charles Philip Stourtou. 8. And h. of Winifred, the 1st da. (who d. lf> July 1754), by William, 15th Baron Stourtou, which Charles, who was b. 22 Aug. 17f>2, sue. his father, 3 Oct. 1781, as 10th Baron Stourtou and was great grandfather of the 19th Baron Stourtou, in whose favour the abeyance of the Baronies of Mowbray and Segrave was terminated in 1878 (2) Anne, the 2d da., wife of Robert Edward" (Petre), 9th Baron Petre of Writtle, ancestress of the succeeding Barons. ( b ) See p. 411, notes " a " and "c," ( c ) His Lordship claimed " that as it has been decided that the writ of summons of 49 Hen. III. under which Lord de Ros is placed in the House of Lords could not ereate a peerage he [Lord Mowbray] is entitled to be placed as the Premier Baron of England. [Iiurke's " Peerage," 1893.] See vol. iii, p. 90, note "c," sub " Despencer," as to the writ of 49 Hen. III. which the Barony of Despencer, as well as that of De Itos, claims for its origin. Both of these Baronies were in abeyance when, in 1039 and 1G79, Mowbray was placed at the head of the Baronies, but, had they then been in existence, it Bcems not improbable that Mowbray (which was placed above the anomalously- venerated Barony of Abergavenny, usually allowed to head the list) would have been placed before them.