Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/744

722 APPENDIX H sat in Parliament, but their Lordships thought it " highly probable that the first Lord Furnivall did sit in Parliament." And why? Because His name is not returned in the list, but a Parliament was held at Carlisle at a time when he was at Carlisle, and that was not near his home, for he was a Norfolk man.(») Needless to say, he was not a Norfolk man, but came from Sheffield, a fact that was constantly referred to in the hearing of the case. That an argument which greatly influenced their Lordships' decision was based on a false assumption did not disturb the Committee's equanimity. The mistake was mentioned after the judgments were given, but no one worried about such a trifle, and the Committee resolved on 1 1 Dec. 1 9 1 2 : That it is proved by the Writ of Summons addressed to Thomas de Furnivall in the 23rd year of Edward I and the other evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner that the Barony of Furnivall was in the reign of King Edward I vested in Thomas de Furnivall. As no " Record of Parliament " was produced to prove that Thomas de Furnivall sat in Parliament, the effect of the Committee's decision, strictly speaking, is to admit that the summons of 1295 sufficed to create a barony in fee.C*) On the question of " sitting " we get a further illustration of the confusion in which their Lordships get involved. One of the noble Lords argued strongly that Thomas Nevill acquired the Barony of Furnivall in right of his wife. My Lords, one fact would appear almost to clinch this as a conclusion, and that is the order of the entries on the Roll of Parliament for the year 1382. The list of summonses issued (in which, of course, occur [sic] the name of William, Lord Furnivall) was as follows: "Lord Le Strange, Lord le Nevill, Lord Aldeburgh." In the year 1383, when the nobleman whose title is said to have been newly created entered Parliament, he entered Parliament summoned in the same order, again between Lord Le Strange and Lord Aldeburgh. It is hardly necessary to remark that on the Roll of Parliament of 1382 neither William de Furnivall nor Thomas Nevill appears; that {*) Minutes of Evidence, p. 28. C") Not the least remarkable feature of the Furnivall case is the effect it appears to have had on J. H. Round's opinions regarding baronies by writ. Writing in 19 10 of the possibility of a Barony of Furnivall being claimed [Peerage and Pedigree, vol. i, p. 274), he said: "In this case, therefore, also we might learn if the heiress of a non- existent barony could transmit that barony to her husband." In an article in the Quarterly Review, July 1915, entitled "Recent Peerage Cases," he discussed the Furnivall case, and wrote of Thomas de Furnivall, summoned to Parliament in 1295: "and indeed, to the lay mind even of a critical historian, it would certainly seem clear tha.t he and his heirs were peers." (The italics are mine. H.A.D.). Those who have looked to him as a leader in the cause of truth which the modern school of history seeks to promote may well exclaim, " Et tu, Brute ! "