SOME CURIOSITIES OF THE PEERAGE.
IN TWO PARTS.—PART I.
In a paper which appeared in this Journal ([January 12]) headed ‘What is a Peer?’ it was sought to present within very narrow limits and in untechnical language a sketch of the institution generally known as the Peerage. We endeavoured to exhibit the difference between the peerage itself as a whole and that important section of it termed the House of Lords, the status of the peers of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain, of Scotland, and of Ireland, and the distinction between real titles of nobility and those permitted to be adopted by courtesy. In short, we dealt with the external and legal features of the peerage viewed as an element of the constitution. We now propose to, in some measure, fill up the previous outline of the subject, and this will be done by shortly examining some of the internal characteristics of this institution which are distinctly peculiar to it. These will include a reference to matters which may not inaptly be termed ‘curiosities,’ if we limit the sense of this word to matters which, though perhaps not exactly curiosities in themselves, are nevertheless such, from their being confined to the cognisance of comparatively few persons.
Adopting for present purposes this acceptation of the word ‘curiosities,’ it may safely be asserted that the peerage abounds with curiosities of all kinds. Probably the most interesting are those disclosed in the records of family vicissitudes; but then these are but chapters in human life with their interest enhanced by the exalted position of the actors in the various dramas presented. Then, again, there are the anecdotal curiosities, which are exceedingly amusing, especially those of a strictly personal character; and we might easily fill many pages with narrations of this kind, any one of which would abundantly confirm the saw, that truth is stranger than fiction. But we think that such curiosities as we have mentioned are not those which would most interest or arrest the attention of an uninitiated reader, and accordingly, we have culled a few which we consider calculated to instruct as well as amuse him. If we are asked to define the species of instruction likely to be conveyed by the study of a theme like the peerage and its peculiarities, we should reply, that considered as we now propose to consider it, the subject will unfold many facts of deep historical interest; and we should not hesitate to declare that no one can fully comprehend either the general or the constitutional history of this country without some acquaintance with the peerage and its workings.
In ‘What is a Peer?’ we dealt with the legal and the courtesy aspect of titles; we shall here consider the mode of limiting them, their devolution, &c.; and we shall have one word to say about etiquette—not that species of etiquette, however, dealt with in books which purport to be manuals of good manners, but what may be called the etiquette of bearing titles; and this we hope will not be deemed unworthy of attention.
And first, the reader is reminded that all hereditary titles of honour are known to the law by the name of incorporeal hereditaments, a term explained in ‘What is a Peer?’
A close analogy to the rules of real property law is observable in those which govern the creation, &c., of titles. Thus, we have heirs apparent and presumptive to honours as well as to estates; and this observation will introduce us to one feature in the etiquette of the peerage worthy of notice. We have shown how a peer may hold several titles of different grades; and we will now more fully consider a case of this kind. Suppose that the Marquis of A. is also Earl of B., Viscount C., and Baron D., and that he has several sons and daughters. His eldest son is his heir-apparent, and he may assume, according to his father’s pleasure, either of the other titles during his lifetime. It is usual, however, in such cases for the eldest son to take the earldom as a courtesy title. During the existence of the Marquis and his eldest son, none of the other sons would be permitted to adopt the remaining two titles; but all after the Earl would, as sons of a Marquis, be Lord John or Lord William So-and-so, &c.; and only the younger sons of Dukes and Marquises are so styled. The daughters, however, of all noblemen except Viscounts and Barons are styled ‘Ladies,’ with their Christian and surnames following the word ‘Lady;’ but they have no other style similar to that of an eldest son. (The position of daughters who claim a barony held by their father will be considered in a subsequent portion of the present paper.) Now, if the Earl of B. above mentioned were to die in his father’s lifetime, the second son would succeed to the courtesy title, and so on as to the rest, in the event of each son dying in his father’s lifetime. Thus, on the decease, in 1865, of Viscount Cranborne, eldest son of the then Marquis of Salisbury, Lord Robert Cecil—now Marquis of Salisbury—became Lord Cranborne. But the rule just mentioned is not absolute as to any of its features; for it may be remembered that the eldest son of the late Marquis—who, by the way, was also Earl—of Clanricarde, Viscount Burke, and Lord Dunkellin—was styled by the baronial title. On his death in the lifetime of the Marquis, the second son became Viscount Burke, and not Lord Dunkellin. Again, in 1879, when the Earl of Tankerville’s eldest son, Lord Ossulston, died, the latter’s brother, the Honourable G. M. Bennet, became eldest son, not, however, as Lord Ossulston, but as Lord Bennet; and instances of this might be multiplied. We believe, indeed, that the practice indicated under such circumstances to be the correct or fashionable one at the present day.
In the grant of a peerage the succession is generally limited in tail male—that is, entailed in the male line; but there are instances of special limitations in the grant to meet the want of heirs male of the body; and in such cases we may have a peerage as it were wandering about in all directions. Thus, a peerage may be limited in tail male, with a remainder over in tail male to some other person. This was the case with the barony of the great Lord Nelson. In 1798, he was created Baron Nelson of the Nile, and of Burnham-Thorpe in the county of Norfolk; and in 1801, Viscount Nelson. But these were entailed honours; and in the same year he was created Baron Nelson of the Nile, and of Hilborough in the county of Norfolk, with remainder—failing his own issue male—to his father and his issue male; failing which, to the issue male, severally and successively, of Lord Nelson’s sisters. At the death of the hero in 1805 at Trafalgar without issue, the first barony and the viscounty became extinct; but the second barony descended—the father being dead—to Lord Nelson’s brother. This nobleman was then elevated to the earldom, and the grant was again limited to him in tail male, with remainder over, failing his own issue, to the heirs male of his sister, Mrs Bolton; and failing them, to the issue of another sister, Mrs Matcham. The first earl having died without issue, was succeeded by his nephew, Mr T. Bolton, who thus became second Earl Nelson; and the present earl is his son, and has issue. Should all the male descendants of the latter eventually become extinct, the title will then go in remainder to the right heir of Mrs Matcham. If there be no such heir of that lady, then the title of Nelson will become extinct.
But of all the curiosities of the peerage, its ‘complications’ may justly be reckoned among the strongest and most interesting, and these complications are numerous, peculiar, and at the same time interesting in their way. They are attributable to various causes, of which the following may be accounted the chief: The failure of male issue in a family wherein exists a female peerage, the holder of which marries a commoner, who assumes her name; the absolute extinction of a title in one family by forfeiture or want of issue, and its subsequent assumption or revival in the person of a stranger in blood to the previous holders of the title; the failure of heirs to a title in tail male—that is, one limited to heirs male of the body, while perhaps another title held by the same person is in fee—that is, descendible to his heirs general. In such a case, the title in tail would of course become extinct, while the other would go to the right heir. Again, these complications are caused by the assumption of surnames other than those originally belonging to the persons assuming them, by the creation of special limitations in the grant of a title; by the confounding of names with titles, or those of peerage with those borne by courtesy; by the growth of peerages which, as it were, sprout from some great House already ennobled; and lastly, by the distinctions which exist with regard to peers of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain, of England, or of Ireland. We will endeavour to illustrate as informally as possible some of the foregoing statements, and this we think may be done by giving a short account of one well-known title and some of its family ramifications. This mode of treating the subject—on the principle of ex uno disce omnes—will be found to answer the object in view, and will also disclose other matters of interest connected therewith.
Some few years ago, there existed an amiable but weak young nobleman known to the world as the Marquis of Hastings, and to his intimates as Harry Hastings. Born in 1842, he succeeded his brother as fourth marquis at the early age of nine, was married when twenty-two under somewhat romantic circumstances, ‘plunged’ heavily on the turf, sustained enormous losses, and died at the age of twenty-six, when the marquisate of Hastings became extinct. It was a singularly fantastic display of the irony of fate which caused this man ‘of noble blood and high descent,’ the holder of a long string of proud titles, to become the associate and the victim of blacklegs and swindlers. Yet so it was; and when he died, society could not but heave a sigh of pity. In Burke’s Peerage of the time, the Marquis of Hastings is thus described: ‘Sir Henry-Weysford-Charles-Plantagenet Rawdon-Hastings, Earl of Rawdon, and Viscount Loudoun in the peerage of the United Kingdom; Baron Rawdon of Rawdon, Co. York, in the peerage of Great Britain; Baron Grey de Ruthyn, Baron Hastings, Hungerford, Newmarch, Botreaux, Molines, and Moels, in the peerage of England; Earl of Loudoun and Baron Campbell of Loudoun, Tarrinyeane and Mauchline, in the peerage of Scotland; Earl of Moira and Baron Rawdon in the peerage of Ireland; a Baronet of England, and one of the co-heirs[1] to the barony of Montague.’
Now, from the extract just cited it will be seen that Hastings is not only a title but a name. As a matter of fact, however, Hastings is not the original patronymic of those who held the title as a marquisate. Their real name was Rawdon, and the Rawdons are an important Yorkshire family, established in that county at least since the Conquest. In 1665, one of them was created a Baronet; and we shall see that this was the baronetcy held by the late Marquis of Hastings. In 1750, a great-grandson of the Baronet was raised to the Irish peerage as Baron Rawdon; and in 1761 was promoted to an earldom, taking the title of Moira. This nobleman was thrice married, his last wife—by whom alone he had male issue—having been Lady Elizabeth Hastings, eldest daughter of the ninth Earl of Huntingdon.[2] Hastings, then, was the family name of the Earls of Huntingdon; and it is that of the present earl, who is the only peer entitled to it as an original surname. The eldest son of the above-mentioned marriage was Francis, second Earl of Moira, who achieved an historical reputation as a soldier, a statesman, and an accomplished gentleman. He is well remembered as an able governor-general of India; and he it was who became the first Marquis of Hastings; but we need hardly say that he was connected with his great predecessor, Warren Hastings of Daylesford, only by reason of the marriage above mentioned. It may be observed that during the suspension of the earldom of Huntingdon, the then proprietors of Daylesford claimed to represent the chief branch of the Hastings family.
Having traced the connection between the families of Rawdon and Hastings, it now remains to discover how the baronies of the latter became attached to the former family. The ninth Earl of Huntingdon, father of the first Countess of Moira, died in 1746, and was succeeded by his son, brother of the Lady Moira. The tenth earl, however, died without issue in 1789; whereupon the earldom became suspended, and so continued for thirty years, a fact involving matters of very deep interest, but of no importance so far as present purposes are concerned. The tenth Earl of Huntingdon’s heir was his sister, Lady Moira, and upon her descended the ancient baronies of the Huntingdon earldom—namely, Hastings, Hungerford, Botreaux, and Molines. Her husband, the first Earl of Moira, died in 1793, and, as just stated, was succeeded as such by his son Francis, who, in 1804, married Flora, Baroness Campbell and Countess of Loudoun in her own right. Elizabeth, Countess-Dowager of Moira, died in 1808; Francis, her son, was promoted to the English peerage so far as the barony of Rawdon was concerned. Then came his assumption of his mother’s maiden name of Hastings, his successful claims to the Huntingdon baronies, and lastly, in 1816 we find him Viscount Loudoun, Earl of Rawdon, &c., and Marquis of Hastings—all in the peerage of the United Kingdom. It is thus shown how a Rawdon was the founder of the Hastings marquisate; how Elizabeth Hastings brought the old baronies previously mentioned into the Rawdon family; and how the Scotch earldom of Loudoun and the United Kingdom viscounty were held by the same family.
There are two more titles to account for—the ancient baronies in fee of Hastings, created in 1264, and Grey de Ruthyn, created in 1324. These titles were originally in the De Hastings family, one of whom married, some time in the seventeenth century, Sir Henry Yelverton, Bart., of Norfolk, since which time, Yelverton—not to be confounded with Lord Avonmore’s family name—has been the patronymic of the Lords and Ladies Grey de Ruthyn. On the death of the nineteenth lord in 1831, the title descended to his daughter, who married the second Marquis of Hastings. This is how these two titles of Hastings, as a barony, and Grey de Ruthyn came to be held by the late marquis, whose mother was the twentieth holder of the latter title.
We have said that on his death in 1868 the marquisate became extinct; but what, it may be asked, became of the other titles? The answer to that question, though simple, will reveal yet further complications, caused by the assumption of surnames, &c. In the first place, all of what may be called the Rawdon honours necessarily became extinct. Not so, however, all those acquired by their marriages, &c. Thus, the Scotch earldom of Loudoun survived, and of this we will trace the devolution from the death of the last Marquis of Hastings. That nobleman left a sister, married to a commoner, Mr C. F. Clifton; and she, by her brother’s death without issue, became Countess of Loudoun in her own right, and succeeded to some of the family property. Mr Clifton took the family name of his wife; and at her death some time since, her son became Earl of Loudoun, Baron Hastings, Botreaux, &c., and by the last-named title now sits in the House of Lords. The other baronies transferred to the Rawdon family by the Lady Elizabeth Hastings, Grey de Ruthyn, &c., are in abeyance; but the Earl of Loudoun is the eldest co-heir to them. (The terms ‘abeyance’ and ‘co-heir’ will be explained later on.) Mr Clifton himself, the earl’s father, has been raised to the peerage as Lord Donington, the name of the Hastings’ seat in Leicestershire. We see that the Earl of Loudoun is also Baron Hastings, and by that title he may also vote; but, for the following reasons, Botreaux is a preferable title whereby to sit. The fact is, there is another Lord Hastings, whose family name is Astley. He is a peer of the United Kingdom, and his title is one of great antiquity, created in 1289. The present baron is the twenty-sixth in order of succession; but it will be found that this barony is not so ancient as the oldest of those which came to the Rawdons through Lady Elizabeth Hastings, daughter of the Earl of Huntingdon. Thus, while a higher title may absorb all those of a lower rank existing in the same family, the latter may nevertheless as it were attract the higher one to them, and a nobleman of the highest rank may be heir to a title of a less exalted character than his own. Thus, the Marquis of Lansdowne is heir to the titles of his mother, who is second Baroness Keith and seventh Baroness Nairne. It may be observed in passing that there are about ninety Scotch and Irish peers in parliament who sit and vote by titles other than those by which they are commonly known and addressed.
The story of the present great House of Northumberland also furnishes a remarkable instance of the vicissitudes of a peerage, and the strange results of changing or adopting surnames by titled families. The present name of the Dukes of Northumberland is Percy, and their table of lineage connects them with the family to which the renowned Harry Hotspur belonged. But supposing this connection to be real, which we do not dispute, such of the blood of that renowned soldier as now flows through the veins of the Percies of to-day must certainly be in an extremely diluted condition. Unless we are mistaken, the actual family name of the Northumberland family is Smithson, and that of Percy is an assumed name. Hence the following lines to a Duke of Northumberland, by no less a person than George Canning:
No drop of princely Percy’s blood
Through those cold veins doth run;
With Hotspur’s blazon, castles, arms,
I still am poor Smithson.
The fact is, the present Northumberlands are the issue[3] of a marriage which took place in 1657 between an heiress of the real Percies and one Sir Hugh Smithson, a Yorkshire baronet; and the whole narrative may be read in Burke’s Peerage under the title of ‘Northumberland.’ It does not, however, mention the reply of George III. to one of the dukes of this house who complained to him that he was the first Duke of Northumberland who did not possess the Garter. ‘Quite so,’ said the king snappishly, ‘and the first Smithson who ever asked for it!’
It appears that the lady just alluded to was a daughter of Marmaduke, second Lord Langdale; and this fact introduces us to a notable curiosity of the peerage—namely, the extinction and resuscitation of titles. The latter circumstance may occur not only in the family originally holding the extinct title, but, as already intimated, in some other family in no way connected with the former. We will shortly give a few instances of this feature of the peerage, and the title of Langdale may first be noticed.
The first peer was a Mr Marmaduke Langdale, who in 1658 was created Baron Langdale, title and family name being the same. There were in all five holders of this title, all bearing the single Christian name of Marmaduke. The last died without issue in 1777, and the title became extinct. In the year 1836, an eminent King’s Counsel—still remembered by some persons—named Henry Bickersteth became Master of the Rolls, and was raised to the peerage as Lord Langdale, but so far as we know he was in no way connected with the Langdale family, and there is no Lord Langdale now. The wife of this peer, who was Master of the Rolls, was Lady Jane Harley, daughter of the Earl of Oxford; and this celebrated title will furnish another instance of the loss of titular honours by one family, and their resumption by another. The peerage of Oxford—an earldom from beginning to end—was originally held by the illustrious family of De Vere, one of whom was created Earl of Oxford by the Empress Maud, an honour confirmed by Henry II. in 1155. The ninth earl was Robert, who was created Marquis of Dublin in 1386 by Richard II., and, as stated in ‘What is a Peer?’ was the first marquis in the English peerage. He was banished and attainted in 1388, whereupon his honours became forfeited. Four years afterwards, however, the earldom was regranted to his uncle Aubrey, and subsequently the attainder of Robert was annulled. In 1464, we find the twelfth earl beheaded, and another attainder created; but after a lapse of three years, his son John is reinstated, only, however, to enjoy his honours for ten years, at the end of which period he also is attainted and suffers forfeiture. In 1513, all is right again; his nephew becomes the fourteenth earl; and from his time down to 1702, there is no break in the succession. But in that year, Aubrey, the twentieth earl, dies without male issue; and from that time to the present, we hear no more of the ancient and noble family of De Vere as Earls of Oxford. Perhaps the most distinguished of them was Edward, seventeenth earl (1540-1604); while another member of the family was Sir Francis de Vere, a celebrated soldier in the time of Queen Elizabeth. The title of Oxford was revived in 1711 by a stranger in blood to the De Veres—Robert Harley, Queen Anne’s celebrated Tory statesman, who in that year became Earl of Oxford and Mortimer. The second of these earls was the founder of the Harleian Library. The first earl had been a great collector of books, and it is said that he was so much attached to them, that although his library contained about one hundred thousand volumes, he knew the precise position of each on the shelves! The honours of the Harley family continued until 1853, when Alfred, the sixth earl, died without issue, and the earldom of Oxford once more ceased to exist.
These are but representative instances of the creation, forfeiture, extinction, and revival of titles. We could, of course, considerably increase the list of them, but to do so, would fill a volume. We will, however, just glance at five lines of the well-known speech of Henry V. to his soldiers in Shakspeare’s play of Henry V. (act iv., scene 3), and inquire how many of the great personages there mentioned are represented in blood at the present time by those who hold the very same titles:
Then shall our names,
Familiar in their mouths as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Glo’ster—
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
These words are supposed to be uttered on the eve of the battle of Agincourt, in 1415, and the Bedford of that day was John Plantagenet, third son of Henry IV. There were only three of these Dukes of Bedford, the last of whom died in 1495; and it was not until 1550 that the first Russell, the ancestor of the present Duke of Bedford, was ennobled. To him the existing great House owes its origin; and there has been an unbroken continuity in the succession from his time until now, according to the limitations in the grants of the various honours bestowed on the family of Russell.
The peerage of Exeter is extremely singular. Therein we find four dukes, starting from John Holland, the first of them, in 1397. Between the first and the last duke there were two forfeitures and one extinction of the title; moreover, only three of them were Hollands, the second having been a Beaufort, a natural son of John of Gaunt; and this must have been the Exeter mentioned by Shakspeare; but the poet and dates are not quite reconcilable here. Then came two Marquises of Exeter, both of whom were Courtenays; and the present Marquis is a Cecil, the originator of the now existing marquisate having been the second Lord Burleigh or Burghley, who became Earl of Exeter in 1605. The present marquisate of the title dates from 1793.
The history of the peerage or title of Warwick is one of the most extraordinary to be found on the rolls. It was commenced in the reign of the Conqueror, comprises, in the first place, fourteen earls, mostly of the name of De Newburgh and De Beauchamp, a duke, and a countess. It has been extinct four times, and forfeited five times; has been borne by royalty, by the noblest of the noble, by traitors, and by no less than thirty-three persons of various families. After becoming extinct in the family of Rich by the decease of the eighth earl without issue in 1759, it was revived in that of Greville, and the present earl is the fourth in succession since then. The first of these holders of the title was Francis Greville, a descendant of William de Beauchamp, the tenth of the first set of earls, who died in 1298. The fifth and last of the De Beauchamps as Earls of Warwick must have been Shakspeare’s Warwick; so that while clearly the Bedfords and Exeters of to-day are not the representatives of those mentioned in Henry V., the Earl of Warwick who fought at Agincourt has a living descendant. The same may be said as to Talbot. The person alluded to by Shakspeare was the sixth baron of that title, and was the greatest soldier of his time. He was created Earl of Shrewsbury in 1442, and the present earl—who is the twentieth from him, and premier Earl of England—is also Earl and Baron Talbot, and accordingly is a blood-relative of Shakspeare’s fourth hero. Salisbury comes next; but the present marquis being descended from Robert Cecil, created Earl of Salisbury in 1605, is therefore not connected with Henry V.th’s Salisbury, who was Thomas de Montacute. The Marquisate of Salisbury was created in 1780, every other previous holder of a Salisbury title having been an earl, and the honour first arose in the reign of Stephen.
With regard to the last of the personages introduced by Shakspeare, Glo’ster, it may be observed that the title of Gloucester appears from its very beginning to have been appropriated to personages of unusually exalted birth. It commenced with a natural son of Henry I., and went through eleven earldoms to 1337. From that time we have only dukes; and Shakspeare evidently alludes to Humphry Plantagenet, youngest son of Henry IV., and therefore brother of Henry V., whom the poet, with strict regard to the rules of courtesy, makes the last to be named by the gallant king. With him the dukedom of Gloucester became extinct; but it was revived in 1461, and conferred on Richard, brother of Edward IV., commonly known as ‘Crookback.’ At his death at Bosworth in 1485, the title merged in the Crown; and the last who held it was the uncle of our present gracious Queen, William-Frederick, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh. Seeing that Shakspeare’s Glo’ster was the son of Henry IV., and that our present royal family trace their descent through all the previous sovereigns of England, we may conclude that while the ‘Bedford and Exeter’ and Salisbury of Agincourt fame have no representatives at the present day connected with them by any ties of sanguinity, yet that ‘Harry the King,’ ‘Warwick and Talbot’ and Glo’ster are so represented, and in the manner just intimated.