LORD FAIRFAX.
(Vol. ix., p. 10.)
The following is all the information which I have been able to collect respecting the present possessor of the title of Fairfax of Cameron, in answer to the third Query of W. H. M. It gives me pleasure to communicate it.
The Lords Fairfax have been for several generations natives of the United States. The present possessor of the title is not so called, but is known as Mr. Fairfax. He resides at present in Suter County, California. His Christian names are George William.
The gentleman who bore the title at the commencement of the present century, was a zealous member of the republican (now called democratic) party.
The Fairfax family, at one time, owned all that portion of Virginia called the Northern Neck, lying between the Potomac and Rappahannock rivers.
So much for the third Query. I beg leave to add a few remarks suggested by the fifth.
The citizens of the United States are not called subjects of the United States, and for the same reason that your excellent Queen is not called a subject of Great Britain. Native citizens take no oath of citizenship, expressly or impliedly, whatever the latter word may mean. Foreigners, who become naturalised, do not renounce allegiance to the sovereign of Great Britain more "pointedly" than to any other sovereign. Every one renounces his allegiance to the potentate or power under whose sway he was born: the Englishman to the King (or Queen) of Great Britain, the Chinese to the Emperor of China, the Swiss to the republic of Switzerland, and so of others.
W. H. M. says that the existence of the peers of Scotland "is denial of the first proposition in the constitution of" the United States. If W. H. M. will turn to this constitution, he will find that he has confounded the Declaration of Independence with it.
Foreigners, on becoming naturalised, have to renounce their titles of nobility; but I know of nothing to prevent a native American citizen from being called Lord, as well as Mr. or Esq. As above mentioned, a Lord Fairfax was so called twenty-six years after our Independence; and Lord Stirling, who was a Major-General in the American army of the Revolution, was always so styled by his cotemporaries, and addressed by them as "My Lord" and "Your Lordship."
Some farther information upon this subject has been promised to me.
Uneda.
Philadelphia.
If W. H. M. desires particular information concerning the Fairfax family in Virginia, it will give
me pleasure to send him Notes from Sparks' Washington, Virginia, its History and Antiquities, &c.; amongst which is a picture of "Greenway Court Manor House." I now give only an extract from Washington to Sir John Sinclair (Sparks, vol. xii. pp. 327, 328.), which answers in part W. H. M.'s third Query:
"Within full view of Mount Vernon, separated therefrom by water only, is one of the most beautiful seats on the river for sale, but of greater magnitude than you seem to have contemplated. It is called Belvoir, and belonged to George Wm Fairfax; who, were he now living, would be Baron of Cameron, as his younger brother in this country (George Wm. dying without issue) at present is, though he does not take upon himself the title. This seat was the residence of the above-named gentleman before he went to England ... At present it belongs to Thomas Fairfax, son of Bryan Fairfax: the gentleman who will not, as I said before, take upon himself the title of Baron of Cameron."
T. Balch.
Philadelphia.
I cannot but deem your correspondents W. W. and H. G. in error when they consider that the name of Baron Fairfax ought not to be retained in the Peerage. The able heraldic editors of the Peerages are likely to be better versed in such matters than to have perpetrated and perpetuated so frequently the blunder; or what is to be said of Sir Bernard Burke's elevation to be a king of arms? Not to omit the instance of the Earl of Athlone, who, though a natural-born subject of a foreign realm, in 1795 took his seat in the House of Lords in Ireland (a case which H. G. wants explained), we have a more recent instance in the case of the present King of Hanover, a foreign potentate, who is Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale by inheritance, in our peerage, and whose coronation oath (of allegiance?) must be quite incompatible with the condition of a subject in another state. I confess I should like to see this explained, as well as the position of those (amongst whom, however, Lord Fairfax now ranks) who, while strictly mere subjects and citizens of their own state, may have had conferred upon themselves, or inherit, titles of dignity and privilege in a foreign one. We usually (as in the case of the Rothschilds, &c.) acknowledge their highest title in address, but without any adjective or epithets to qualify with honor, such as "honorable;" as is the case, too, with doctors of foreign universities, whose title from courtesy we also admit, though this does not place them on a footing with those of England. The present Duke of Wellington and the Earl Nelson inherit, I believe, titles of dignity in foreign lands, though natural-born subjects of this realm; and there can hardly be a doubt that Lord Fairfax inherits correctly his British barony, though, whenever he may exercise for the first time a legal vote, he may have to exhibit proof of his being the very heir and person qualified, merely because born and resident in a foreign state; the same as would in such case doubtless occur with regard to the other noble persons I have referred to.
A Fairfax Kinsman.
Nantcribba Hall, N.W.
The followings entry in T. Kerslake's catalogue, The Bristol Bibliographer, seems worth notice:
"Burrough's (Jer.) Gospel Remission. True blessedness consists in pardon of sin, 1668, 4to., with autograph of Thos. Lord Fairfax, 1668, and several MS.[[2]] notes by him, 12s. 6d."
E. M.
Hastings.
Footnote 2:[(return)]
One note may be thought to be characteristic. In the table occurs, "Many think their sins are pardoned, because it is but little they are guilty of." The general has interlined, "A pistol kills as well as a cannon."