Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/760

738 APPENDIX H expressed by Coke — namely, that "there cannot be -a. possessio fratris in a point of honour," because Whosoever shall make a title to a barony must . . . make himself heir to the person first ennobled by that record; which the daughter cannot do, notwithstanding the possession of the brother; for she is not heir to the first ancestor, but the brother of the half-blood. {») And on the question of the surrender of a dignity, which came up incidentally and did not arise out of the case, the Judges held That no peer of this realm can drown, or extinguish his honour (but that it descends unto his descendants) neither by surrender, grant, fine, nor any other conveyance to the King. (*■) This opinion was reaffirmed in the Purbeck case, and was the foundation of the extraordinary decision in the Earldom of Norfolk case (1906), to which, however, it was not applicable, for the surrender of , Bigod's earldom was not made by fine. On 5 Feb. 1 640/1 the House resolved that Charles Longueville should " be admitted to the Title and Dignity of Lord de Greyy (=) WINDSOR On the death of Thomas (Windsor), Lord Windsor, in Dec. 1641, the Baronv of Windsor fell into abeyance between his two sisters or their issue, (i) Elizabeth, wife of Dixie Hickman, to whose son, Thomas, the Barony was allowed in 1660; (ii) Elizabeth the younger, who married twice, and had issue only by her 2nd husband, Sir James Ware. Andrew Windsor is held to have been created a Baron in I534.() There is no evidence of any writ to him, but Dugdale states^^) that he was admitted to Parliament i Dec. i 529. As mentioned above, the Barony fell into abeyance on the death of Thomas, Lord Windsor, in 1641, and it was given without question to his nephew Thomas in 1660, the patent reciting that it rested with the King to declare " which of the said coheirs shall enjoy the dignity of their ancestors." The principle of abeyance is usually said to have been stated for the first time in this case, but the warrant which was issued nineteen years earlier for Conyers Darcy's creation or restoration as Lord Darcy contains practically the same expressions. See Darcy. (») Collins, p. 256. (•>) Idem. (•=) Lords' yournah, vol. iv, p. 152^. ("') According to the statement in the London Gazette, 16 Oct. 1855, where Sir Andrew Windsor is said to have been summoned 25 Hen. VIII. (*) Summonses, p. 496, quoting College of Arms MS. H. 13, the evidence of which has been critically examined by J. H. Round. He is not in the list of summonses dat. 3 Nov. 1529 on the Parliamentary Pawn; and the Lords' 'Journals are missing.