Transcript:Cokayne, George Edward. Complete Baronetage/Preface

[volume 1, page v]

Preface.

This work is intended to set forth the entire Baronetage, giving a short account of all holders of the dignity, as also of their wives, with (as far as can be ascertained) the name and description of the parents of both parties. It is arranged on the same principle as The Complete Peerage (eight vols., 8vo., 1884–98), by the same Editor, save that the more convenient form of an alphabetical arrangement has, in this case, had to be abandoned for a chronological one ; the former being practically impossible in treating of a dignity in which every holder may (and very many actually do) bear a different name from the grantee.(^v-a)

Baronetcies, will, accordingly, be here treated of according to the date of their creation ; thus, the reign of James I will be first dealt with and will comprise the English Baronetcies (1611–1625) and the Irish Baronetcies (1619–1625) conferred by that King ; then will follow the reign of Charles I, which will comprise the English, Irish and Scotch (or Nova Scotia) Baronetcies (these last having been first instituted in this reign in 1625) conferred (1625–1649) by that King. See fuller prospectus on p. 272.

The date of creation is put within square brackets after each Baronet, inasmuch as the territorial description of a grantee (a description which, in many cases,(^v-b) does not exist) is not, by [page vi] the grant of a Baronetcy, made hereditary. In a few cases where two Baronetcies of the same name have been created in the same year, the numerals “ 1 ” and “ 2 ” are added after such date, thus, in the case of the two Baronetcies of Molyneux, “ [1611(¹)] ” signifies that it was the first of that name created in that year, and “ [1611(²)] ” that it was the second so created.

The letters “ [S.] ” and “ [I.] ” put before the date of creation, denote severally that the Baronetcy is one of “ Scotland ” (or Nova Scotia) or of Ireland. The letters “ [E] ” for England, [page vii] “ [G.B.] ” for Great Britain, and “ [U.K.] ” for the United Kingdom, are sometimes used (when required for the sake of clearness), but must be understood when absent.

The index at the end of each volume will shew the surname of every holder (being a Commoner) of any Baronetcy created during the period treated of therein, while a general index at the end of the work (the incorporation of all these several indexes) will shew the same during the entire period.

As to the term “ Baronet,” it is here used in the same sense as it was by Thomas Fuller in his Worthies, who (under Sir John Darell, Bart., of Berkshire) writes, “ We meddle not with ancient Baronets, finding that word promiscuously blended with Bannerets (Sir Ralph Fane in a patent(^vii-a) passed unto him [by Edward VI in 1550] is expressly termed a Baronet) but insist on their new erection in [1611] the ninth of King James.”(^vii-b)

Baronetcies of England were instituted (as above stated) by James I, on 22 May 1611, who also, on 30 Sep. 1619, instituted Baronetcies of Ireland, while Baronetcies of Scotland, or of Nova Scotia, were instituted by Charles I on 26 May 1625. The creation of the last two classes ceased respectively at the date of the Union with Scotland, 1 May 1707, and with Ireland, 1 Jan. 1801. After the first date, Baronetcies of Great Britain took the place of English and Scotch Baronetcies till the last date, since which, all creations are styled Baronetcies of the United Kingdom.

Much interesting and original information respecting “ the institution and early history of the dignity of Baronet ” is given in The Herald and Genealogist (vol. iii, pp. 193–212, 341–352, 449–458) in an article, so headed, contributed by its learned and [page viii] accomplished editor, John Gough Nichols. In this it is stated (p. 346) that though James I engaged “ for himself, his heirs and successors,” that the number of Baronets in the Kingdom of England should never exceed 200, and that, though he eventually created 204 (or 205, if Vavasour, a creation of 22 June 1631, with the precedency of 29 June 1611, be reckoned) yet “ he did not depart from his bargain, inasmuch as five vacancies had arisen, not by extinction, but by promotion to the peerage, viz., Sir Robert Dormer to an English Barony in 1615 ; Sir Thomas Ridgeway, Sir William Maynard and Sir William Hervey to Irish Baronies in 1616 and 1620, and Sir Thomas Beaumont to an Irish Viscountcy in 1622.” This mode, however, of reckoning mergers as equivalent to extinctions is not necessary, for six actual extinctions occurred in the lifetime of James I, four of them being before 1623, in which year the last English Baronetcies created by him were conferred. These extinctions were (1) St. Paul, 28 Oct. 1613 ; (2) Bigg, 11 June 1621 ; (3) Clere, 21 Aug. 1622 ; (4) Forster, in or about 1623 ; (5) Ashby, 23 Dec. 1623, and (6) Courteen, in or about 1624. Whether, however, the King was aware of these extinctions, or of these mergers in the peerage, before he proceeded to create English Baronetcies above the number of 200, is very questionable. It is more probable that, like his son and his other successors, he would, had he lived longer, have disregarded the stipulated limitation altogether, as he certainly did one clause thereof which stipulated that, failing the heir male of the body of the grantee, “ the first number of 200 should thereby be allowed to decrease and be reduced to a lesser number.”

The precedency of the Scotch and Irish Baronetcies in relation to those of England and Great Britain is left undetermined by the respective acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland. The general opinion, held for more than half a century after the Irish Union, was that, by analogy, they followed the precedency assigned under those acts to other hereditary dignities, i.e., Peerages. One thing, however, is certain, viz., that either they were, or they were not, affected by these acts. If the former, the precedency in England, Scotland and Ireland of the Scotch Baronets is next after those of England and before those of Great Britain, while the precedency, as above, of the Irish Baronets is next after those of Great Britain, and before those of the United Kingdom. If, however, Scottish and Irish [page ix] Baronetcies were not (analogously) so affected, their precedency in England would (still) be in the case of Scotch Baronetcies below those of England, and in the case of Irish Baronetcies below those of Great Britain (such having been their precedence in England at the time of the respective Unions), but there would be this difference, that in Scotland (and in Scotland alone) the Scotch Baronets would precede all others, and in Ireland (and in Ireland alone) the Irish Baronets would, also, precede all others, such having been the precedency that existed in each of those Kingdoms before the respective acts of Union. Sir Charles George Young, Garter (1842–69), probably the best authority in all matters of “ precedence,” writes (9 June 1863) as under, “ By the act of Union in 1801, no direct provision is made for the precedence of Baronets of Ireland any more than in the prior case for those of Scotland, which, though hereditary dignities, were overlooked in these acts. By analogy (and no other reason can be applied) their rank must be determined by those rules which govern superior hereditary dignities . . . so that, regard being had to the ranking of the Baronets of Scotland and Ireland after those of England, Sir James [should be ‘ Charles ’] Coote, although he may retain his precedence of 1620 among Baronets of Ireland as a class, would, nevertheless, give place to Sir James Fergusson [whose ancestor was], created a Baronet of England [sic, but doubtless a misprint for ‘ of Scotland ’] in 1703,(^ix-a) upon occasions where the respective orders are ranked in public proceedings, and this analogy is recognised and admitted in the Roll of Precedence in Ireland, issued by ‘ Ulster ’ [Sir John Bernard Burke] himself from Dublin Castle in 1854.” It appears, however, that “ Ulster ” changed his views some nine years later, for he writes, on 9 June 1863, in answer to “ Garter,” as under, “ To the doctrine insisted on by Sir Charles Young, that an act of Parl. which alters the precedence of one body of men [i.e., Peers] can, by analogy, be made to take [page x] away the precedence of others not named in it, I demur in toto . . . Baronets of England, Ireland and Scotland, hold at this moment the exact precedence granted to them by their respective patents, according to the priority and seniority of their creations unaffected by the acts of Union, which acts do not name Baronets at all. Consequently, Sir Charles Coote, Baronet of Ireland, does retain his precedence of 1620, and should not give place to Sir James Ferguson [whose ancestor was], created a Baronet of Scotland in 1703 ” [See Herald and Genealogist, vol. i, pp. 555–558, in an article on the relative precedence of the cities of Dublin and Edinburgh]. It is difficult to follow the late(^x-a) “ Ulster's ” argument. No doubt the Baronetcy of Coote retains “ the exact precedence ” granted to it by its patent, one which places it (with the exception of Annesley) probably above all other existing Irish Baronetcies. Irish Baronetcies may possibly (perhaps probably) rank in Ireland (as they did previous to the Irish Union) before all other Baronetcies whatsoever, but neither by express words, nor by analogy, does the act of Union give them a precedency in England or Scotland over the Baronetcies of England, Scotland, or Great Britain, which they previously had never enjoyed.(^x-b)

The great difficulty which presents itself in a work treating of Baronetcies is to ascertain the persons who, by succession, are entitled to that dignity. There is, however, in many cases, no little difficulty in determining as to whether, or no, the fact of the creation itself may fairly be assumed. The enrollment of the patent on the patent rolls is, of course, the best evidence (next to the actual production of the original) of the creation of the dignity, but its non-enrolment by no means disproves its existence. Passing over the later years of the reign of Charles I (when, owing to the Civil War, such enrolments were the exception rather than the rule) it is astonishing to find that no less than twenty English Baronetcies (of whose existence there has never been any doubt) are [page xi] in that plight out of the 204 that were created by James I. These are (1) Napier ; (2) Bayning ; (3) Temple ; (4) Penyston, all four created 24 Sep. 1611 ; (5) Blakiston, created 27 May 1615 ; (6) Grey ; (7) Salisbury ; (8) Mill ; (9) Phelipps ; (10) Foulis ; (11) Hervey ; (12) Mackworth ; (13) Ley ; (14) Villiers ; (15) Hicks ; (16) Beaumont ; (17) Dryden ; (18) Airmyn ; (19) Forster ; and (20) Chester, of which the last named fifteen were created in 1619 or 1619/20. With respect to the first nine of these, there being no signet bill or other document respecting their creation, their names do not appear in the valuable list of the Creation of Baronets, 1611–1646, in the appendix to the 47th Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records. The names, however, of the other eleven do so appear, as the signet bills for their creations (in one case, Beaumont, being only a fragment) exist, besides, also, that in one case, Foulis, there is the “ warrant for granting receipt of £1,100 on his creation as Baronet.”

The compiler, has, however, endeavoured to include all, who, rightly, or wrongly, have assumed the title of Baronet, though when he himself is not satisfied with their right thereto he has ventured to call attention to the want (or possible want) of proper evidence. No check, however, exists to anyone assuming a Baronetcy and such assumptions unfortunately, in rapidly increasing number, pass muster but too frequently in Society, and even (it is believed) at Court, while Official gazetting of naval, military, and other appointments given to “ soi-disant Baronets,” are (it is feared) not uncommon. The withholding of Royal and Official recognition until proper proof is given of the succession to a Baronetcy seems the only practical method of restraining these ever increasing and, in many cases, preposterous assumptions.(a) It may, of course, be a question as to the desirability of withholding recognition from the existing holders of (doubtful or fictitious) Baronetcies, but, at all events, no hardship would be caused by a notice that no person, who succeeded to the dignity of a Baronet on or after a certain date next ensuing, would be recognised as such, until proper [page xii] proof of his right to such succession had been given. This would gradually and effectively (without any violent measures having to be adopted) effect the purpose, though it would not interfere with the existing style of any person, save of those who, after due warning and in defiance of such notice, had assumed the dignity, without having proved their right thereto. The heir apparent of a Baronetcy (unlike the heir apparent to a peerage) has no distinctive title (such as “ Honble.,” or “ Lord ”), so that he would, by this measure, be only detained in the position he had always occupied, instead of being recognised at once in a new one to which he had not proved himself to be entitled.(^xii-a) The Baronets themselves have recently become alive to the want of a proper court to determine the claim of succession to that dignity, and are endeavouring to obtain one. It is to be hoped that whatever may be the measures that they are able to enforce against the existing pretenders they will not fail to obtain the power by some such method as this to bar any future assumptions of the title.

Notes

(^v-a) Besides the cases (more numerous than would be imagined) where the heir, by royal licence, or otherwise, has changed his name, there are many Baronetcies granted with special remainder to families of a different name to that of the grantee, e.g., Foote, cr. 1660, with rem. to Onslow ; Bowyer, cr. 1678, with rem. to Goring ; Barrow, cr. 1784, with rem. to Crawley-Boevey, etc.

(^v-b) Thus for instance, the description of Francis Cottington, cr. a Bart. by James I, 15 Feb. 1622/3, is simply “ Secretary to Charles, Prince of Wales ”; that of Thomas Aylesbury, cr. a Bart. by Charles I, 29 April 1627, is “ one of the Masters of Requests,” while, later on, in 1746, William Gooch was cr. a Bart. as “ Lieut. Governor of Virginia ”; in 1755, Horatio Mann as “ Envoy at [page vi] the Court of Florence ”; in 1764, George Brydges Rodney as “ Vice Admiral ”; in 1765, Charles Knowles as “ Admiral of the Blue ”; in 1766, John Moore as “ Admiral of the Red.” Thus in a single year, 1813, we have the Baronetcies of Sheaffe, “ Major General ”; of Duckworth, “ Admiral of the Blue ”; of Oakes, “ Lieut. General "; of Rowley, “ Capt. R.N.”; of Broke, “ Capt. R.N.”; and of Hewett, “ General in the Army.” In the next year, 1814, we have the Baronetcies of Beresford, “ Capt. R.N.”; of Grey, “ Capt. R.N.”; of Wylie, “ Physician to the Emperor of Russia ”; of Blackwood, “ Rear Admiral ”; of Collier, “ Capt. R.N.”; of Hoste, “ Capt. R.N.” In the next year, 1815, we have those of Hamilton, “ Lieut. Gen.”; of Campbell, “ Lieut. Gen.”; of McMahon, “ Master of the Rolls in Ireland ”; of Campbell, “ Lieut. Colonel.” In the next year, 1816, those of Ochterlony “ Major General ”; of Brownrigg, “ Lieut. General ”; of Ogle, “ Admiral of the Red ”; of Floyd, “ General in the Army,” and of Elphinstone, “ Lieut. Colonel.” In 1660, the territorial description “ of London ” was given to Gould, Adams, Allen, Humble, Robinson, Brown, Backhouse, Cutler, Foote, and Gardiner, grantees of Baronetcies ; in like manner, that “ of Westminster,” in 1662, to Long ; in 1698, to Germaine ; in 1723, to Frederick ; etc. In many cases (probably most) the estate by which the grantee is described, has been alienated by one of his successors in the dignity, as, for instance (to go no further than the first Baronetcy), was that “ of Redgrave, co. Suffolk,” about 1690, by Sir Robert Bacon, the 5th Baronet [1611]. In that family the following curious incident occurred as to the territorial designation “ of Gillingham, co. Norfolk,” being that of Nicholas Bacon, the grantee of a Baronetcy in 1662. That Baronetcy became extinct in 1685, when the estate of Gillingham devolved on the last holder's cousin, Sir Henry Bacon, 3d Bart. [1627], whose ancestor had been cr. a Bart. in 1627, as “ of Mildenhall, co. Suffolk.” The estate of Mildenhall, however, had been alienated before 1685, at which date the holder of the Baronetcy of Bacon, which, in 1627, was “ of Mildenhall ” became (by possession of the estate) “ of Gillingham,” though the Baronetcy of Bacon, which, in 1662, was “ of Gillingham,” was extinct. In 1755, the Baronetcy of Bacon, which, in 1611, was “ of Redgrave ” (an estate which had long since been alienated) devolved on the 8th Baronet of the creation of 1627, and the two Baronetcies (1611 and 1627) became united and continue to be so held by his posterity.

(^vii-a) In the Genealogical Magazine (vol. iii, p. 55) this grant (Pat. Roll, 4 Ed. VI) of the “ order, state, rank, honour and dignity of a Baronet,” is set out in full.

(^vii-b) Besides Sir Ralph Fane, or Vane, above mentioned, whose dignity seems to have been but personal, William de la Pole and his heirs had (according to Sir Robert Cotton, the Antiquary) letters patent of 13 Ed. III [1339], conferring on them the dignity of a Baronet in return for a sum of money ; a precedent more in accordance with the Baronetcies conferred by James I. “ By the statutes of Richard II, every Archbishop, Bishop, Abbot, Prior, Duke, Earl, Baron, Baronet and Knight of the Shire, was commanded to appear in Parliament, according to ancient usage, and in an attaint, under Henry VI, one of the jury challenged himself because his ancestors had been Baronets and Seigneurs des Parlesments.” [Debrett's Baronetage, etc., p. xxxiii, edit. 1900].

(^ix-a) This Scotch Baronetcy is, apparently, quoted, as the letter has reference to the relative precedence of Scotland and Ireland only. The relative precedency of the Baronets of the three Kingdoms would have been better illustrated, by the substitution of “ Stirling ” (in lieu of “ Fergusson ”), that dignity cr. 15 Dec. 1800, being the last creation of a Baronetcy of Great Britain and, accordingly, one which, at the date of the Irish Union (1 Jan. 1801), ranked unquestionably in England next immediately above all Irish Baronetcies.

(^x-a) Sir John Bernard Burke, C.B., the well known editor of Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, Burke's Extinct Peerage, Burke's Extinct Baronetage, and numerous other genealogical works, was Ulster King of Arms, from 1853 to 1892, and died 12 Dec. 1892, aged 80.

(^x-b) “ Until the Union of 1801 all Baronets of Ireland ranked in England after English Baronets of whatever creation.” [J. G. Nichols on the “ Dignity of Baronet ” in the Herald and Genealogist, vol. iii, p. 347.]

(^xi-a) In Foster's Baronetage for 1883, no less than sixty-five Baronets (then living) are relegated to the part of that work called “ Chaos,” as being among “ the more questionable assumptions,” to which statement is added the remark that “ it is, however, more than probable that there are weak points in some of the other titles which I have not discovered.”

(^xii-a) See Herald and Genealogist, vol. iv, p. 285, for an almost similar suggestion made in Jan. 1867, by “ a non-practising Barrister,” accompanied with some remarks thereon by (J. G. Nichols) the well known editor of that work.