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.’