|
|
The Complete Peerage
[2nd edition, volume 1, page 465]
Appendix B
The Dukedom of Châtellerault
James Hamilton, who succeeded to the Marquessate of Abercorn in 1818 was styled Duke of Châtellerault in France, inasmuch as “ he was served h. male of the body of the 1st Duke of Châtellerault by the Sheriff of Chancery in Scotland, 13 Jan. 1862, and, as such h. male of the 1st Duke, asserts his hereditary right to the original title of Duke of Châtellerault of 1549. By the edict of Louis XIV, May 1711, the descent of French Dukedoms was declared “ to be to heirs descendus de mâles en mâles.”(465a)
“ It has been doubted of late whether the title of Duc de Châtellerault ever existed as a peerage dignity, and it has even been argued by the late R. R. Stodart (in his paper on the Dukedom of Châtellerault in Her. & Gen., vol. iv, pp. 97–107), that no creation of a Duchy took place, and that the object of the grant made by Henry II (5 Feb. 1548/9) to James, Earl of Arran, and his heirs was merely to secure a yearly revenue of 12,000 livres to the grantee. This opinion was fortified by the fact that the letters patent of Châtellerault differ from those by which, three years later, the Constable de Montmorency was created Duke ; Mr. Stodart concluded therefore that the title of Duke was never regularly conferred at all, and was only a title of courtesy given to Arran as Lord of the Duchy. But, (though in a later part of his paper he seems to be aware of it) Mr. Stodart has overlooked the fact that in France, Dukes were not necessarily Peers. It is quite clear that, in the sense of being a duché-pairie, the duchy created by Henry II for Arran was not “ a peerage dignity ;” but that did not at all affect the fact that the Duchy was nevertheless an hereditary dignity. The difference in the letters patent, on which Mr. Stodart lays stress, is fully accounted for by the fact that Montmorency was created (while Arran was not) ‘ Duc et pair ;’ and it must be added that no further argument can be based upon the difference in the letters-patent, if it be remembered that Montmorency was the first French subject created ‘ Duc [page 466] et pair ’ by letters patent ;(466a) of this fact Mr. Stodart seems to be unaware.
It must be noted that by the treaty signed at Châtillon, 27 Jan. 1547, Henry II expressly engaged ‘ a conférer au Comte d'Arran le titre de duc, avec duché en ce royaume de France de douze mille livres de rente, pour lui, ses hoirs et ayants cause, à perpétuité.’ The after proceeding shows clearly that this engagement was carried out to the letter by Henry. On 5 Feb. 1548 the act of cession of the duchy of Châtellerault received the sign manual. In the same month letters patent of investiture were delivered by the King at St. Germain-en-Laye. In the month of July letters de grand naturalité were granted to the ‘ Comte d'Arran, duc de Châtellerault, pour lui et ses héritiers ;’ and moreover the King divested himself and his successors of the ‘ droict d'aubeyne ’ with regard to the duchy, in favour of the Duke, his heirs and successors. In 1550, the Bishop of Ross, as procurator for Arran, did homage for the Duchy, and the needful proceedings in fulfilment of the provisions of the treaty were thus completed. There is really no doubt whatever that a hereditary duchy was fully and legally created, and that it was not merely a rental of 12,000 livres which was secured to Arran and his heirs. The King thoroughly carried out the stipulation of the treaty, and we may be sure that no other arrangement would have satisfied the Earl. No doubt could have arisen on the subject had it been remembered of how very few persons the ‘ pairs de France ’ consisted at this time, and that the two dignities of the duché and pairie were, and continued to be, distinct. Arran as a foreigner would care nothing for the special privileges of the pairie ; the Duchy of Châtellerault, with its hereditary title and its guaranteed revenue of 12,000 livres, would be all that he would value. The seizure of the Duchy in 1559, after Henry's death, by the ‘ parlement de Poitiers,’ did not destroy Arran's rights ; and in 1560, in the treaty between England, France, and Scotland, it was particularly stipulated that the Scottish seigneurs, particulièrement le duc de Châtellerault rentreraient en possession et jouissance de toutes les terres, possessions, héritages, estats, et offices dont ils jouissaient en France avant le sixième Mars 1558, non obstant toutes saisies, dont par ce traité, Sa Majesté consentit par ses Ambassadeurs une pleine et entière mainlevée. As a matter of fact the full restitution of the Duchy was hindered by various causes ; though money payments were made in partial satisfaction of the claim ; but the hereditary rights granted to Arran and his heirs in the Duchy, and therefore to the title of Duke of Châtellerault, were never legally annulled. It must be added that no argument can be drawn from the fact that the Earl of Arran was not always styled in documents ‘ Duc de Châtellerault ’ by the French King, in the face of many others in which his full title was accorded to him.”(466b)
The tenure of the Duchy ceased, as far as the Hamilton family are [page 467] concerned, eleven years after its creation, though the pension thereby secured of 12,000 livres was continued to the heir of the grantee (which h. was h. male as well as h. gen.) till the death of the 1st Duke of Hamilton [S.], s.p.m., in 1649, when (for two years) it was paid to his br., the 2nd Duke, who was h. male (but not h. gen.) of the grantee. Since his death in 1651 the French government appears to have recognised the claim of the h. of line, Anne, suo jure, Duchess of Hamilton [S.], by repeated grants (but apparently not by actual payment) of the said pension, and in 1714 arrangements were made for payment to the said Duchess Anne of 500,000 livres as an equivalent for her claims. The then Earl of Abercorn [S.], however, protested, as h. male, against such recognition, and it was agreed that one-fourth of the sum so recovered should be paid over to him. The money, however, appears never to have been actually received.
Although there appears to have been some recognition of the title of Duc de Châtellerault to the Hamilton family previous to 1649, after that date, when the h. male ceased to be the h. gen., there is none whatever. The rights of the h. male, however, were asserted by a protest of the then Earl of Abercorn [S.], 14 July 1652, against the rights of the Duchess Anne, as h. of line to her father, which general protest hardly seems to apply to this special point. There is also a protest of the 6th Earl, 9 Sep. 1712, stating that, as the ambassadors at Utrecht were to obtain from the French King justice as to the restitution of the Duchy of Châtellerault, he himself reclaimed the said Duchy with all its privileges ; and on the coffin plate of the 8th Earl, who d. 1789, he is styled “ Duc de Châtellerault.” On the other hand, the Dukes of Hamilton [S.], from 1651 to 1799, during which time they were the heirs of line to the grantee, never assumed or claimed such title. Since 1799, the family of Stanley, Earls of Derby (as descendants and representatives of the 6th Duke) have been such heirs ; but they also, never assumed nor claimed such title. The family of La Trémoille, the possessors of the Duchy, however, long since adopted it, and made use of it in 1748, when the then Duc de la Trémoille styled himself Duc de Châtellerault in his protest as to his right to the Kingdom of Naples.
After the restoration of the French monarchy the 10th Duke of Hamilton advanced his claim to the Dukedom of Châtellerault, which was, however, opposed by the Abercorn line, the heirs male. In 1819, he assumed the title, and his wife was received at the French Court as a Duchess (which indeed she was), but probably only as a foreign lady of that rank. Charles X of France took advantage of the disputed succession to drop all recognition of the title. The 11th Duke of Hamilton [S.] (s. of the 10th Duke) having m. a cousin of Napoleon III, renewed his claim. His rank and that of his wife was in 1855 settled in the French Court as being next to that of the Imperial family. Nothing, however, was said of the title of Duc de Châtellerault till (shortly after his death in July, 1863) the following paragraph relating to his s., the 12th Duke, appeared on 25 Aug. 1864, in the “ Bulletin des Lois,” viz., that the “ Duc d'Hamilton a été maintenu et confirmé, par décret du 20 Avril 1864, dans le titre héréditaire de Duc de Châtellerault, crée par le Roi de [page 468] France, Henri II, en 1548, en faveur de Jacques Hamilton, Comte d'Arran.” Such “ confirmation,” however, appears only to apply to a creation of 20 April 1864, for with respect to the creation of 1548/9, the opinion of W. B. D. Turnbull, in his “ Factum touching the restitution of the Duchy of Chatelherault ” (Edinburgh, 1843), is doubtless correct, viz., “ that his Grace of Hamilton being neither heir male nor heir female [h. of line] has as much right to it as he has to the throne of China.”
The decree of the Emperor was so far favourable to the Abercorn line (the heirs male), in that it acknowledged the creation of an hereditary French Dukedom which his predecessors had ignored ; and, this being acknowledged, it would appear to follow that its descent would be (as set out in the decree of Louis XIV) to the h. male of the body of the grantee. Inasmuch, however, as the decree assigned the said title to the Duke of Hamilton [S.], the Marquess of Abercorn appealed against it in 1864–5. The “ Conseil d'Etat aux Contentieux,” nevertheless, decided against him, and found him “ liable in expenses,” which decision was “ approved of ” 11 Aug. 1866 by the Emperor. It is stated (see The Times, 22 Sep. 1866), that the appeal was not “ rejected by the ‘ Council ’ on a question of right, but solely on the incompetence of the [said] ‘ Council ’ to reconsider or reverse the decree of the Emperor, who, in 1864, re-created that title in favour of his relative, without any consideration being given to the claims of the Marquis of Abercorn to the original title.” See the able article on “ The Dukedom of Châtellerault,” by R. R. Stodart, already referred to, from which most of the above remarks are taken ; see also Requeste et Pièces pour Milord Comte d'Aran, touchant la restitution de Duché de Chastellerault et des autres choses comprises dans le don fait par le Roy Henry II, &c., 1685, 4to., pp. 26 ; also see Mémoire Justificatif de droit qui appartient à M. Le Duc d'Hamilton de porter le titre de Duc de Châtellerault, Paris, 8vo., pp. 64, where the argument of “ A. Teulet, Archiviste aux Archives d'Empire,” against the right of the h. of line in 1799, but in favour of the right of such h. in 1652 (which two points are necessary for his case), is rather amusing; see also (a much more able work) Consultation pour James Hamilton, Marquis d' Abercorn, &c., contre le Duc d'Hamilton, Paris, privately printed, 1865, 8vo., pp. 95, signed “ E. Reverchon, Avocat à la Cour Impériale, &c.”
Notes
(465a) See Burke's Peerage, 1868–87.
(466a) Artus de Gouffier had been created in 1519 Duc et pair de Rouanne, but died before investiture.
(466b) G.E.C. was indebted to the Rev. John Woodward, F.S.A., for these remarks on the Dukedom.
|
|
