The foreign title of baron is occasionally borne by English subjects, but confers no precedence in the United Kingdom. It may be Russian, e.g. Baron Dimsdale (1762); German, e.g. Baron Stockmar, Baron Halkett (Hanoverian); Austrian, e.g. Baron Rothschild (1822), Baron de Worms; Italian, e.g. Baron Heath; French, e.g. Baron de Teissier; French-Canadian, e.g. Baron de Longueil (1700); Dutch, e.g. Baron Mackay (Lord Reay).
(J. H. R.)
The Foreign Title.—On the continent of Europe the title baron, though the same in its origin, has come, owing to a variety of causes, to imply a rank and status very different from its connotation in the United Kingdom, and again varies considerably in different countries. Originally baro meant no more than "man," and is so used in the Salic and other "barbarian" laws; e.g. Si quis mortaudit barum vel feminam, &c. (Lex Aleman. tit. 76). In this way, too, it was long preserved in the sense of "husband," as in the Assize of Jerusalem (MSS. cap. 98): Si l'on appelle aucune chose femme qui aura baron, et il la veut deffendre, il la peut deffendre de son cors, &c. Gradually the word seems to have come to mean a "strong or powerful man," and thus generally "a magnate." Finally, in France in the 12th century the general expression barones was introduced in a restricted sense, as applied properly to all lords possessing an important fief, subject to the rule of primogeniture and thus not liable to be divided up, and held of one overlord alone. Sometimes it included ecclesiastical lordships of the first rank. In the 13th century the Register of King Philip Augustus places the barones regis Francie next to the dukes and counts holding in chief, the title being limited to vassals of the second rank. Towards the end of the century the title had come to mean that its bearer held his principal fief direct from the crown, and was therefore more important than that of count, since many counts were only mediate vassals. Thus the kings in granting a duchy or countship as an apanage to their brothers or sons used the phrase in comitatum et baroniam. From this period, however, the title tends to sink in comparative importance. When, in the 14th century, the feudal hierarchy was completed and stereotyped, the barons are ranked not only below counts, but below viscounts, though in power and possessions many barons were superior to many counts. In any case, until the 17th century, the title of baron could only be borne by the holder of a territorial barony; and it was Louis XIV. who first cheapened the title in France by creating numerous barons by royal letters. This entire dissociation of the title from the idea of feudal rights and obligations was completed by Napoleon's decree of March 1, 1808, reviving the ancient titles. By this instrument the title of baron was to be borne ex officio by a number of high officials, e.g. ministers, senators, councillors of state, archbishops and bishops. It was given to the 37 mayors who attended the coronation, and could be claimed by any mayor who had served to the emperor's satisfaction for ten years, and by any member of an electoral college who had attended three sessions. The title was made to descend in order of primogeniture to legitimate or adopted sons and to the nephews of bishops, the sole condition being that proof must be presented of an actual income of 15,000 fr., of which one-third should descend with the title. The creation of barons was continued by Louis XVIII., Charles X. and Louis Philippe, and, suspended at the revolution of 1848, was revived again on a generous scale by Napoleon III. The tolerant attitude of the Third Republic towards titles, which it does not officially recognize, has increased the confusion by facilitating the assumption of the title on very slender grounds of right. The result has been that in France the title of Baron, unless borne by the recognized representative of a historic name, not only involves no political status, but confers also but very slight social distinction.
The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of most other European countries, and notably of Italy. In Austria and Germany the
case is somewhat different. Though in Latin documents of the middle ages the term barones for liberi domini was used, it was not until the 17th century that the word Baron, perhaps under the influence of the court of Versailles, began to be used as the equivalent of the old German Freiherr, or free lord of the Empire. The style Freiherr (liber dominus) implied originally a dynastic status, and many Freiherren held countships without taking the title of count. When the more important of them styled themselves counts, the Freiherren sank into an inferior class of nobility. The practice of conferring the title Freiherr by imperial letters was begun in the 16th century by Charles V., was assumed on the ground of special imperial concessions by many of the princes of the Empire, and is now exercised by all the German sovereigns. Though the practice of all the children taking the title of their father has tended to make that of Baron comparatively very common, and has dissociated it from all idea of territorial possession, it still implies considerable social status and privilege in countries where a sharp line is drawn between the caste of "nobles" and the common herd, whom no wealth or intellectual eminence can place on the same social level with the poorest Adeliger. In Japan the title baron (Dan) is the lowest of the five titles of nobility introduced in 1885, on the European model. It was given to the least important class of territorial nobles, but is also bestowed as a title of honour without reference to territorial possession.
See du Cange, Glossarium, s. "Baro" (ed. Niort, 1883); John Selden, Titles of Honor, p. 353 (ed. 1672); Achille Luchaire, Manuel des institutions françaises (Paris, 1892); Maurice Prou, art. "Baron" in La Grande Encyclopédie.
(W. A. P.)
BARONET. Although the origin of this title has been the subject of learned speculation, it is not known for certain why it was selected as that of "a new Dignitie between Barons and Knights" created by James I. The object of its institution was to raise money for the crown, as was also done by the sale of peerage dignities under this sovereign. But the money was professedly devoted to the support of troops in Ulster, that is, each grantee was to be liable for the pay of thirty men, at 8d. a day for three years. This amounted to £1095, which was the sum paid for the honour. When it was instituted, in May 1611, the king, to keep the baronetage select, covenanted that he would not create more than two hundred, and that only those who had £1000 a year in landed estate and whose paternal grandfathers had borne arms should receive the honour. But these qualifications were before long abandoned. As an inducement to apply for it, it was made to confer the prefix of "Sir" and "Lady" (or "Dame"), and was assigned precedence above knights, though below the younger sons of barons. Eight years later (30th of September 1619), the baronetage of Ireland was instituted, the king pledging himself not to create more than a hundred baronets. Meanwhile, questions had arisen as to the exact precedence of the baronets, and James by royal decree (28th of May 1612) had announced that it was his intention to rank them below the younger sons of barons. As this had the effect of stopping applications for the honour, James issued a fresh commission (18th of November 1614) to encourage them, and finally, as "the Kinges wants might be much relieved out of the vanities and ambition of the gentrie" (in Chamberlain's words), he granted, in 1616, the further privilege that the heirs apparent of baronets should be knighted on coming of age.
The baronetage of Nova Scotia was devised in 1624 as a means of promoting the "plantation" of that province, and James announced his intention of creating a hundred baronets, each of whom was to support six colonists for two years (or pay 2000 marks in lieu thereof) and also to pay 1000 marks to Sir William Alexander (afterwards earl of Stirling), to whom the province had been granted by charter in 1621. For this he was to receive a "free barony" of 16,000 acres in Nova Scotia, and to become a baronet of "his Hienes Kingdom of Scotland." James dying at this point, Charles I. carried out the scheme, creating the first Scottish baronet on the 28th of May 1625, covenanting in the creation charter that the baronets "of Scotland or of Nova Scotia" should never exceed a hundred and fifty in number, that their heirs apparent should be knighted on coming of age, and that no one should receive the honour who had not fulfilled the conditions, viz. paid 3000 marks (£166, 13s. 4d.) towards the plantation of the colony. Four years later (17th of November 1629) the king wrote to "the contractors for baronets," recognizing that they had advanced large sums to Sir William Alexander for the plantation on the security of the payments to be made by future baronets, and empowering them to offer a further inducement to applicants; and on the same day he granted to all Nova Scotia baronets the right to wear about their necks, suspended by an orange tawny ribbon, a badge bearing an azure saltire with a crowned inescutcheon of the arms of Scotland and the motto "Fax mentis honestae gloria." As the required number, however, could not be completed, Charles announced in 1633 that English and Irish gentlemen might receive the honour, and in 1634 they began to do so. Yet even so, he was only able to create a few more than a hundred and twenty in all. In 1638 the creation ceased to carry with it the grant of lands in Nova Scotia, and on the union with England (1707) the Scottish creations ceased, English and Scotsmen alike receiving thenceforth baronetcies of Great Britain.
It is a matter of dispute whether James I. had kept faith with the baronets of England as to limiting their number; but his son soon rejected the restriction freely. Creations became one of his devices for raising money; blank patents were hawked about, and in 1641 Nicholas wrote that baronetcies were to be had for £400 or even for £350; a patent was offered about this time to Mr Wrottesley of Wrottesley for £300. On the other hand, the honour appears to have been bestowed for nothing on some ardent royalists when the great struggle began.