Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/400

382 DINHAM 25 Sep. I50i.(') Among their representatives any hereditary Barony, that may be supposed to have been created by the writ of 1295, is in abeyance. (^) DINORBEN OF KINMEL PARK BARONY. I. William Lewis Hughes, s. and h. of the Rev. Edward H., of Kinmel Park, co. Denbigh, by Mary, yst. I. 1 83 1. da. and coh. of Robert Lewis, of Llysdulas, co. Anglesey, b. 10 Nov. 1767; M.P. for Wallingford 1802-31 (in nine Parliaments), being a supporter of Fox and the Whig party; Militia A.D.C. to the Queen 1840-52. He was cr., 10 Sep. 1831, BARON DINORBEN OF KINMEL PARKjC) co. Denbigh.('>) He m., istly, 8 Mar. 1804, at Earsdon, Northumberland, Charlotte Margaret, 3rd da. of Ralph William Grey, of Backworth, Northumberland. She, who was b. (") Patent Roll, 17 Hen. VII, p. i,m. 16 (15). The writ describes the coheirs as in the inquisitions — except that Margery is called Margaret, Katherine is called the 3rd da., and Joan the 4th — stating in addition the names of the fathers, then deceased, of Edmund Carewe and John Arundelle. C") in 191 4 the Committee for Privileges had before them a claim to the baronies of " Dynaunt Fitzwaryn and Martin," by Viscount Gage and Sir Robert Bourchier Sherard Wrey. As the claim to Dinham was made through Elizabeth, sister of Sir John [Lord] Dinham (sum. 1466/7), it was all important to prove that Sir John's ancestor, Sir Oliver, had acquired a heritable peerage by his summonses to Parlia- ment, and that Sir John's summons and sitting (if proved) could be referred back to the ancient barony. The fact that no writ of summons ever issued to the five generations which separated these two members of the family was bound to prove a great difficulty, but it seems to the Editor that, by striving for a few years' higher pre- cedence, counsel for the claimants handicapped their case yet further. Although Sir Oliver was summoned to the "model" Parliament of 1295, whose validity no Committee was likely to dispute, Sir Robert Finlay rested his case on the doubtful meeting at Shrewsbury in 1283, for which Sir Oliver had also received a writ. " As regards Martin and Fitzwaryn," he said, "it [the 1283 writ] affects the antiquity. As regards Dynaunt it is vital to the claim of the Petitioners " — which it certainly was not. Even if Sir Oliver's presence at the Shrewsbury meeting could have been established, the irregularity of that assembly would probably have weighted the scales against the claim; whereas a sitting proved in the 1295 Parliament might have carried the day, the long gap in the summonses notwithstanding. The resolution of the Committee was: "That no evidence has been produced of the existence or descent of the alleged Barony of Dynaunt." V.G. {") This was one of the " Coronation Peerages " of William IV. See a list of them, vol. ii, Appendix F. {^) He was one of the seven peers who protested against the Act for declaring the illegitimacy of the son of the Marchioness Townshend, then styling himself Earl of Leicester. The others were Lord Cottenham (Lord Chancellor), the Marquess of Clanricarde, the Earls of Wicklow, Devon, and Radnor, and Lord Monteagle of Brandon. All of these, except Devon, were Liberals, though the self-styled Earl of Leicester was a Conservative M.P. V.G.