Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/737

APPENDIX H 715 summoned v.p. in his father's Barony of Clifford of Lanesborough in 1689. On 8 Dec. 1 69 1 it was reported to the House that Lord Clifford of Lanesborough " doth not obstruct the said claim, "(') and on 12 Dec. follow- ing it was reported to the House that the Committee for Privileges had considered the pedigree of Thomas, Earl of Thanet, and that it was their opinion that he " is the sole lineal and right heir to Robert de Clifford, first summoned to parliament as lord de Clifford, by writ dated Decem- ber 29, 28 Edw. I. And that the said title and barony of lord Clifford, doth of right belong to the said earl of Thanet and his heirs. "C") CLIFFORD iry Clifford, 2nd Earl of Cumberland, aaJ Lord Clifford •ight of deicent from Robert de Clifford, Bum. 1299. George Clifford, 3rd Earl and Lord=Margaret. Clifford, J. i.p.m.s. 1605. Francis Clifford, 4th Earl of Cum- berland, J. 164.1. I I Richard, Earl=Anne, iwijure Baroness Clifford, claimed=Philip, Earl of Henry Clifford, 5th Earl, .um.= of Dorset. the barony 1606, 1628, and 1663, d. Pembroke. t/.p. in error a» Lord Clifford s.p.m.s. Mar. 1676. Feb. 1628, d. i.p.m.i. Margaret, co-= barony. 676, J. Aug. 1676. =John, 2nd Earl of Thanet. Isabella,= /. 1661. =James, Earl of Northampton. new barony of Clif- ford, cr. 1628 in error, d. 1691. Baron Clifford of Lanesborough by patent 1644, and Earl of Bur- lington 1664, d. 1698. II II I I Nicholas, 3rd John, 4th Earl Richard, 5th Thomas, 6th Earl Alathca, coh. to Charles, became Earl and Lord and Lord Ciif- Earl and Lord of Thanet, claimed ancient barony Lord Clifford (1628) Clifford, (/. i.^. ford, d. unm. Clifford, </. ancient barony of i6y6, d. t.f. on his mother's 1679. '680. unm. 1684. Clifford 1690. Oct. 1678. death in 1691. The resolution of the House in this case implied acquiescence in the view that a barony which had been in abeyance emerged from that state when the title of the coheirs became united in one surviving heir, and thus marked another step in the development of the doctrine. Although apparently unchallenged in this case, the assertion of such right in the surviving coheir was assailed three years later, as appears under the Willoughby de Broke case (see post), but finally was accepted by the House. (') Lords' 'Journals, vol. xiv, p. t~%a. () Lords 'Journals, vol. xiv, p. 683^.