|
|
The Complete Peerage
[2nd edition, volume 1, page xxvi]
Preface
to the First Edition(26a)
This work is intended as an alphabetical “ Synopsis ” of the entire Hereditary Peerage, extant, extinct, or dormant, of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, as also of Scotland and Ireland (including such Peerages as have been created for life only by charter or patent), containing a short account of each Peer, and stating also (where it can be ascertained) the date and place of birth, baptism, marriage, death and burial, not only of all the Peers themselves, but of their respective wives, together with other particulars, including the name and description of the father and mother of each Peer and Peeress.
The succession to the title is shown, and the plan generally adopted is almost the same as in the “ Synopsis of the Peerage of England ” (a work of infinite labour and merit), edited by that well-known antiquarian genealogist, Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas, G.C.M.G., in 1825. Of this work (after his death), a new edition, under the name of the “ Historic Peerage of England,” was issued in 1857, with many very valuable additions, by one who was thoroughly competent for such a work, viz., William Courthope, late (1854–66) Somerset Herald. Both these works, however (besides that upwards of a quarter of a century has now [1887] elapsed since the publication of the latter), take no notice of the Peerage of Scotland or Ireland, and (though most useful, and indeed indispensable, to all genealogists) contain, even as to the English Peers, a somewhat meagre (though generally accurate) account ; while no notice whatever is taken of their alliances.
This work includes such eldest sons or grandsons of Dukes, Marquesses, or Earls, who, having been styled by a courtesy title as heirs apparent to such Peerages, have died in the lifetime of their respective fathers or grandfathers. Of these the account is placed immediately after the notice of such their ancestors.
With respect to Baronies by tenure (of which a fuller and more [page xxvii] accurate account than any hitherto published is greatly to be wished), they are not included, save in two or three cases, such, more especially, as Abergavenny, Berkeley, &c., where it has been contended that the tenure per Baroniam constituted the actual peerage. Baronies by Tenure are a class of dignities which are best dealt with by themselves, and the account of them given in Nicolas and reproduced in Courthope is, when tested by the light of the researches made during the last threescore years, very inaccurate, besides also that a vast number of such Baronies are altogether omitted in those publications.
The object of the present work being not only to amplify and continue any previous account of the hereditary Peerage of England, &c., but to insert therewith that of Scotland and Ireland, some difficulty arises in determining, with respect to these last two kingdoms, as to what in them constituted a Peerage, in the same sense as that term (mutatis mutandis) is applied to England.
As to Scotland, an accurate distinction between such Barons as may be considered Peers (i.e., the Greater Barons, who were ‘ Lords of Parliament ’) and such (i.e., the Lesser Barons) as held only a territorial Barony, is, at an early period, hardly attainable. In this work an account will be given of such Scotch Baronies only as were Lords of Parl., or which (though, in some cases, almost imperceptibly) developed afterwards into such. One of the best authorities on such a subject, the well-known John Riddell (‘ Scotch Peerage Law,’ edit. 1833, p. 89, note 2) remarks that in Scotland ‘ we had no hereditary Lordships of Parl. till about [1437–1463] the reign of James II.’ [S]. R. R. Stodart, Lyon Clerk Depute, in a letter (1885) to the Editor, writes that ‘ It does not seem that there were Barons by tenure here [S] as in England, or rather, one might say that the Minor Barons were all Barons by tenure ; they certainly were not Lords of Parl.’ G. Burnett, Lyon, adds, in a similarly directed letter (1889), that ‘ the Scotch Parl., as it existed in the 14th and 15th centuries and the greater part of the 16th, was an assemblage in one Chamber of three separate orders of the Community, the Prelates, Barons and Burgesses. The Earls belonged to the order of Barons. All Barons in the old sense, i.e., landholders holding their land as a Barony, had the right, or, more properly speaking, were under the obligation, to attend the meeting of the Estates, sometimes expressed as part of the reddendum of a charter. By the less considerable landowners the obligation to be present was often held a grievous burden, and a statute of James I [S], in March 1427/8, enacted that the Small Barons should be excused from attending Parl., provided they sent two or more wise men from each Sheriffdom to represent them. Though this act, as well as a later one, was a failure as to its main object (Parliamentary representation) it was probably held to afford a quasi-sanction to the habitual absence of the Small Barons, with the bestowal of a new title, that of Lord of Parliament, on the more considerable of the order, who might regard parliamentary attendance as a privilege rather than a burden, contributed further to the same result. No such creations, however, existed prior to the time (1406–37) of James I [S], who created [page xxviii] but few, though his successor (1437–60) James II [S], created a good many, but many Barons even at that period, who attended the meetings of the estates, were not Lords of Parliament.’ The distinction between the Greater Barons [S] (who were Lords of Parl.), and the Lesser Barons (who were not such Lords) is emphasised in the creation (14 Apr. 1616) of Sir David Carnegy in Baronem Majorem et Dominum Parliamenti [S].
As to Ireland, where no comprehensive account of the entire Peerage exists, and where one cannot (as in England) be guided by the writ of summons (which in Ireland was merely incidental to, and not creative of the Peerage),(28a) the Editor has not attempted to deal with any title of honour in that kingdom, which may have existed as an hereditary Peerage of parliament and have become extinct prior to the reign of Henry VII, other than with such among them as had been created, before that period, by patent or charter, (of which there appear altogether to have been but twelve), and with the Earldom of Cork, which in all probability was so created.(28b) In addition to these, and to such Peerages as were existing in the reign of Henry VII, and (of course) such as thereafter were created, some account will be given of the few feudal Baronies which had developed before that reign, into the hereditary Peerages then existing, such as those of Slane, Howth, &c. Of the twelve Peerages created by patent before the reign of Henry VII as above-mentioned, the holders of five were among the fifteen Irish Peers(28c) who were summoned by that King in 1489 [page xxix] to Greenwich, but the remaining ten of those so summoned (two Viscounts and eight Barons) possessed Peerages, the mode of whose creation is, and probably will ever remain unknown ;(29a) it certainly was not by writ,(29b) and probably, in the earlier cases at all events, not by patent. These ten may be called Prescriptive Peerages, of which the holders were, in 1489, acknowledged as Hereditary Peers of Parliament by Henry VII.
As to Scotland and Ireland, the Editor, though he has not in all cases implicitly adopted the views therein contained, is under the greatest obligation to two most valuable works : one entitled “ Inquiry into the Law and Practise in Scottish Peerages, &c.,” by John Riddell : the other, “ Feudal Baronies in Ireland during the Reign of Henry II,” by William Lynch, F.S.A.(29c) The early dates (1181, &c.) assigned to some of the Irish Baronies have always been a great difficulty, one, it is feared, that has not been very adequately dealt with in this work, but (since its issue) the [page xxx] solution thereof has been thus ably indicated. ‘ The origin of the difficulty is, we would suggest, that whereas in England the creation of a Barony [if not by letters patent] is reckoned to date from the first proved writ of summons ; in Ireland the writ of summons has been comparatively ignored, and dignities traced to the earliest period at which their possessors were Barons by tenure. This principle, tho' pressed upon them, has always been rejected by our own House of Lords, so that the apparent superior antiquity of Irish over English Baronies has no foundation in fact.’ The anomalous precedency accorded to the Barony of Abergavenny seems, however, a case (probably the only case) in which the English Peers have in modern times recognised some such right.
As to England, Courthope's work (above mentioned) is an almost infallible guide as far as it extends ; some matters, however, have been changed since (1857) the date of its issue. The validity of the writ of (1264) 49 Hen. III (to Montfort's parl.) which had been accepted in the cases of Le Despencer (1604) and of De Ros (1806) has been disallowed in 1877 (in the decision on Mowbray) whereby it ‘ has raised a question of precedence as yet insoluble.’ It had previously, in 1841, been ignored in the Hastings Case. The theory that the next valid writ to 1264 was that of 24 June (1295) 23 Edw. I, (though the late Dep. Keeper of the Records, the well-known Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy, expressly stated in 1841, in the Hastings case, that he had made search for any intermediate writs of summons and found none) has also been upset by their Lordships' decision in 1877 (in the Mowbray and Segrave case) who allowed the validity of the writ of summons to Shrewsbury, 28 June (1283) 11 Edw. I, ‘ apparently without the slightest conception that they were establishing a precedent of the most momentous consequence. When it is added that the contested writs of 1294 and 1297 were also allowed to be put into evidence without question(30a) and that the writ of 1283 affects a hundred [!] Baronies, it will be seen that the Mowbray decision (1877) unconsciously worked a revolution, and that the histories of baronies by writ must now be undertaken de novo.’(30b) The decision in 1841 in the Hastings case (ignoring the writ of 1264) recognised the sitting in 1290 (no record being found of writs of summons) as the date of that dignity. [page xxxi]
The account of existing Peers, or even of existing Peerages, forms but a small part of this work. An acknowledgement is however due to the various Editors of the Annual Peerages for such information as may have been taken therefrom, e.g., from “ Dod ” it may have been culled that a certain Peer was born in Wilton Crescent, educated at Harrow &c. ; from “ Lodge ” that some nobly born lady of an uncertain age was actually born on some precise (though possibly ancient) date ; from “ Foster,” that a marriage or birth occurred at some hitherto unascertained and unsuspected period ; as also a full account of all the places for which the embryo Peer was M.P., with the dates thereof, and many other precise and well verified dates ; while from “ Burke ”—but who can say what can, or rather what can not, be found in the closely printed and well-arranged pages of that most energetic and chivalrous King of Arms ? His are the Extant and Extinct Peerage, the Extant and Extinct Baronetage, the Landed Gentry, the Vicissitudes of Families, the Anecdotes of the Aristocracy, &c., &c., &c. The amount of indebtedness which all who write on a kindred subject must feel to this all comprehensive and indefatigable genealogical writer cannot be too deeply acknowledged.
The account of the Family estates is taken from Bateman's “ Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland,” 1883. An earlier edition was pub. in 1878. A still earlier one, which related to England alone (being called “ The Acre-ocracy of England ”) was pub. in 1876. It should also be mentioned that, early in 1886 (about two years after this publication had commenced) a most important work, as far as the higher grades (Dukes to Viscounts) of the English Peerage is concerned, has appeared. It is entitled (somewhat strangely, inasmuch as it is not by an “ official,” nor under “ official ” sanction, and [alas !] does not (excepting in some few special instances) contain the “ Barons ”) “ The official Baronage of England, by James E. Doyle.” [3 vols. 4to.]. The great value of this work consists in the long list of the various appointments held by the Peers therein mentioned, the dates whereof (of which a free use has been made in this work), having been sought out, with wonderful and most commendable industry, from the original authorities by the indefatigable Editor.
Among the persons who energetically assisted the Editor during the progress of the work (1884–97) are, taking first those who have passed away before its completion in the order of their death, [1] Edmund Montagu Boyle, d. 11 Aug. 1885 aged 40 ; [2] Robert Riddle Stodart, Lyon Clerk Depute (1863–86) d. 19 Apr. 1886, aged 58 ; [3] Walford Dakin Selby, of the Public Record Office, Editor (1884–88) of The Genealogist, N.S., vols. 1 to 5 (in which work, from Jan. 1884 to Dec. 1889, the first two vols. of this Peerage were first issued), who d. 3 Aug. 1889 aged 45, and as to whom see The Genealogist, N.S., vol. vi, pp. 65–68 ; [4] George Burnett, LL.D., Lyon King of Arms (1866–90) who d. 24 Jan. 1890, as to whom see The Genealogist, N.S., vol. vi, pp. 213–215 ; [5] Sir Bernard Burke, Ulster King of Arms (1853–92), above mentioned, who d. 12 Dec. 1892, aged 80, as to whom see The Genealogist, N.S., vol. ix, p. 186 ; [6] Michael J. M. Shaw-Stewart, sometime in the Bombay Civil Service, [page xxxii] d. 3 Apr. 1894, aged 65. Among those that are still,(32a) happily, among us, are [7] J. Horace Round, LL.D., author of Geoffrey de Mandeville, &c.; [8] G. Wentworth Watson, M.A.; [9] Joseph Bain, F.S.A. (Scot)(32b) ; [10] R. E. Chester-Waters, M.A.(32c) ; [11] The Rev. John Woodward, F.S.A.(32d) author of a valuable work on Heraldry ; [12] B. Wyatt Greenfield, F.S.A.(32e) ; [13] Sir Albert W. Woods, K.C.B.,(32f) Garter, as well as several other members of the College of Arms, London ; [14] George Dames Burtchaell, M.A.,(32g) whose assistance has been invaluable ; [15] W. Duncombe Pink, of Leigh, co. Lancaster ; and last, but by no means least, [16] The Hon. Vicary Gibbs, M.P., not only for contributing numerous dates, and names of persons and places, but for supplying many notices of peers and peeresses, generally from contemporary sources (more especially those in vols. vi to viii), and for various valuable suggestions. The Editor takes this opportunity of mentioning that during the course of this work, a large number of Letters, Memoirs, Journals, Obituaries and other kindred writings have (with the assistance of friends) been carefully examined, with the result not only of correcting and amplifying many vague and doubtful statements appearing in works bearing on the Peerage, but of checking and confirming a still larger number. Such a field is practically inexhaustible, and, if this enquiry be pursued, it will, as printing makes more and more of such works accessible, be possible in the future to approach much nearer, not only to correctness, but also to completeness, than in this so styled Complete Peerage has hitherto been attained.
In conclusion, the Editor, though fully (most fully) aware how many errors and imperfections there must (almost of necessity) be in a work of this nature, and how little competent (more especially as regards the intricacies of the Scotch Peerage) he is to deal with it, trusts that the manifest advantage of an arrangement by which any correction for any Peerage can at once be effected, and be thereafter capable of at once being referred to, will in a great measure compensate for the numerous sins of omission and commission which are herein.
- G. E. C. 1887.
Notes
(26a) The Preface to volume i of the first edition is here reprinted with the additions made by G. E. C. in later volumes.
(28a) The case of the Barony of La Poer (or Power of Curraghmore) is but an apparent contradiction to this statement, for the decision concerning it (in 1767) was grounded on the erroneous report of the Attorney and the Solicitor General for Ireland, that this ancient feudal Barony (of which the Peerage dignity was created by patent, 33 Hen. VIII, to Richard Power, the then feudal Lord, “ et hœredibus masculis de corpore exeuntibus ”) was a Barony created by writ, and, consequently, one in fee. With this anomaly, the entire Irish Baronage is composed exclusively of the male heirs of the Peers recognised in 1489 by Henry VII, and of those since ennobled by letters patent. So clearly was the fact recognised (even at so late a time as the end of the 17th century) that no writ of summons created a Peerage of Ireland, that when James II, shortly after the revolution, wished to confer a hereditary Irish Peerage, he (being then unwilling, in those troublous times, to rely solely on letters patent) introduced express words to that effect in the writ of summons, which otherwise would have been (like the Irish writs of his predecessors) merely personal.
(28b) These were seven Earldoms (which, with the Earldom of Cork, were apparently, all that ever existed before that date), four Baronies, and one Viscountcy, viz. the Earldoms of Ulster (1205) ; Carrick (1315) ; Kildare (1316) ; Louth (1319) ; Ormonde (1328) ; Desmond (1329) and Waterford (1446). The Baronies of Trimleston (1461/2) ; Portlester (1461/2) ; Ratowth (1468) and Rathwire* (1476) ; also the Viscountcy of Gormanston (1478).
* As to the existence of Rathwire as a peerage title see Appendix A., p. 458, note “ a ” in this volume. V.G.
(28c) Viz., three Earls, i.e., Kildare, Ormonde and Desmond (all three Earldoms having been created by patent) ; three Viscounts, i.e., Buttevant, Fermoy and Gormanston (of which the last alone had been, in 1478, created by patent), and nine Barons, i.e., Athenry, Kingsale, Kerry and Lixnaw, Slane, Delvin, Killeen, Howth, [page xxix] Trimleston and Dunsany, of which Trimleston alone had been (in 1461/2) created by patent. The Earl of Waterford (Earl of Shrewsbury in England) was not summoned, neither was Lord Portlester, who did not die till 1496. The Baronies of Ratowth and of Rathwire* were probably under forfeiture.
(29a) Even with respect to the Baronies of Killeen and Dunsany, two of the most modern prescriptive peerages, nothing can be ascertained as to the mode of their creation. Camden merely states that “ Christopher Plunket was advanced [evectus est] to the dignity of Baron of Killeen, having inherited Killeen (i.e., the manor) from the family of Cusack.” The Barony so created (though the name and estate were inherited through a female) was, according to the established rule of the Irish Baronage, one descendible to the issue male of the grantee, and has, as such, twice passed over the heir general in favour of the heir male. The writ under which Lord Killeen's male ancestor, Richard Plunkett of Rathregan, sat in the Parliament of 48 Edw. III did not entitle him (as in England) to any hereditary Peerage.
(29b) Until the 10th year of Henry VIII the power of summoning these Parliaments was in the chief Governor of Ireland though he issued his writ in the Royal name and style. No act of any subject, however exalted, can, in any case, create a Peer, and indeed (excepting in the case of the Barony of La Poer) none of the families so summoned ever attempted to advance any such claim. See “ Remarks upon the Ancient Baronage of Ireland ” [Dublin 1829, 8vo., pp. 158], page 16, 31, &c., which little work is a very clear account of these dignities, probably written by William Lynch, the Author of “ Feudal Baronies in Ireland.”
(29c) “ Lynch is the ablest writer, no doubt, upon the subject, but, we must remember, a partisan. Lynch wrote with the object of establishing, as a rule of law, a presumption in favour of heirs male in the descent of Irish dignities. Betham, in spite of his official position [Ulster King of Arms, 1820–53] was so poor an advocate (in his Dignities Feudal and Parliamentary, 1830) of the opposite view, that we cannot wonder at G. E. C. following Lynch throughout…. The native tribal principle, invincibly in favour of Agnates, strove here, as elsewhere, against the principles of English law. We imagine that at first the latter prevailed especially within the Pale, but with the ebb of the English rule the native principle revived, and even the Anglo-Normans (Hibernis Hiberniores) adopted, in the wilder parts, the old tribal system, or at least elaborately entailed their estates upon heirs male. Thus there arose, in practise, a system of male succession, altho', in our opinion, it had not [page xxx] prevailed at first. It is largely due to this development that the houses of the Conquistadores present so long and illustrious a descent in the male line, instead of merging in heiresses, as in England would have been their fate.” (Quarterly Review, for Oct. 1893, vol. 177, p. 410, in an able article headed “ The Peerage ”).
(30a) These writs, however, were very possibly not questioned, as nothing turned upon them. The number of writs (already held to be valid) under which (by the decision of 1673), a peerage descendible to heirs general is now held to have been created, is great, and the persons summoned in such writs are “ legion.” It is curious, too, that these (now deemed) hereditary peerages should have been created in batches of 100 or so, and that, too, by the early Plantagenet kings, generally supposed to have been more chary of such creations than their successors.
(30b) Article headed “ The Peerage ” in the Quarterly Review for Oct. 1893.
(32a) i.e. early in 1897.
(32b) Living early in 1909.
(32c) Died 25 Nov. 1898, aged 60.
(32d) Died 4 June 1898, aged 60.
(32e) Died 16 Sep. 1897.
(32f) Afterwards (1903) G.C.V.O. ; died 7 Jan. 1904, aged 87.
(32g) Afterwards (1908) Athlone Pursuivant and Registrar of the College of Arms, Dublin, being probably the ablest Genealogist (among the many able ones) that has ever existed in that office.
|
|
