Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 4.djvu/86

70 VI. DARCY [654. 8. CoNYERS (Darcy), Lord Darcy [i344](^) and Lord Conyers [1509], s. and h. He was sum. to Pari, from 8 May (1661) 13 Car. II to i Mar. (1679/80) 32 Car. II, by writs directed Conyers Darcie de Darcie,Q') with, in the last two writs (7 Oct. 1678 and I Mar. 1679/80) the addition of the words " f / Meynill."('=) On 5 Dec. 1 682 he was cr. EARL OF HOLDERNESS. He ^. 14 June 1 689. VII. 1680. 9. Conyers (Darcy), Lord Darcy (^) and Lord Conyers, s. and h., who was sum. v.p.{^) in his father's Barony of Conyers [1509] i Nov. (1680) 32 Car. II, as Conyers Darcy de Conyers, and took his seat two days Iater.(*) On 14 June 1689 he sue. his father as Earl of Holderness, tfc. Ht d. 13 Dec. 1692. VIII. 1692. 10. Robert (Darcy), Earl of Holderness, Lord Darcy () and Lord Conyers, grandson and h., being s. and h. of John Darcy (s. and h. ap. of the last named Peer), which John d. v.p., and before his father's accession to the Earldom, 7 June 1688. He d. 20 Jan. 172 1/2. IX. 1722. II. Robert (Darcy), Earl of Holderness [1682], Lord Darcy [i344]() and Lord Conyers [1509], s. and h. He d. s.p.m.s., 16 May 1778, aged 60, when the Earldom of Holderness became extinct, but the Barony of Darcy [1344] and the Barony of Conyers cr. by the writ of I509] devolved as under. O -t 3 ^ ^.x bably looked on Conyers as only an addition to his style. Therefore, though he was Lord Darcy and also Lord Conyers, under two separate patents, he probably took his seat under the Darcy Patent alone. Courthope, however, held that the Patent of 164 1 operated as creating a barony with the style of ' Lord D'Arcy and Conyers,' limited to his heirs male, which became extinct, accordingly, in 1778. And he explained the writ of 1680 as referring to the old barony of Conyers, to which Conyers Darcy had become entitled in 1644. This view was followed by G.E.C. in the previous edition of this work. " This view, however, is rendered obsolete by the Lords' decision in the Darcy (de Knayth) case (1903), which, in accordance with the Petitioners' contention, con- tained the statement 'That in 1 64 1 the abeyance then existing in the said barony of Darcy (de Knayth) was determined by Letters Patent in favour of Conyers, Lord Darcy, and Lord Conyers' _sic. Though this is not quite accurate — for Conyers Darcy was not yet * Lord Conyers ' — the decision obviously governs the correspond- ing instrument in the case of Conyers and makes it, not a creation, but the determina- tion of an abeyance." V.G. (*) According to the decision, 29 Sep. 1903, as to that Barony. C') In the Pari, of 1 66 1 he was placed between Lord Dacre (1321) and Lord Stourton (1448), and in the Pari, of 1679/80 between Lord Ferrers (1299) and Lord Fitz Walter (1369). V.G. (*=) See vol. iii, p. 407, note "c." {^) See vol. iii, p. 407, note "d." (') House of Lords 'Journals.