Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies in peerage and family history"

See other formats 


:LT> 


I      OE 

I  g! 


'O 
ICO 


ICD 


W.f-16-18 


A 


STUDIES  IN 

PEERAGE    AND 

FAMILY  HISTORY 


u  Genealogical  enquiries  and  local  topography,  so  far  from 
being  unworthy  the  attention  of  the  philosophical  enquirer,  are 
amongst  the  best  materials  which  he  can  use,  and  the  fortunes 
and  changes  of  one  family,  or  the  events  of  one  upland  township, 
may  explain  the  darkest  and  most  dubious  portions  of  the  annals 
of  a  realm." — PALGRAVE. 

"The  expansion  and  extension  of  genealogical  study  is  a  very 
remarkable  feature  of  our  own  times.  Men  are  apparently 
awaking  to  the  fact  that  there  are  other  families  besides  those 
described  in  the  peerage,  that  those  families  have  their  records, 
played  their  part  in  history,  furnished  the  bone  and  sinew  of 
national  action,  and  left  traces  behind  them  which  it  behoves 
their  descendants  to  search  out  and  keep  in  remembrance.  There 
is  nothing  in  this  that  need  be  stigmatised  as  vain  and  foolish;  it 
is  a  very  natural  instinct,  and  it  appears  to  me  to  be  one  of  the 
ways  in  which  a  general  interest  in  national  history  may  be 
expected  to  grow." — STUBBS. 

"  Let  no  one  deem  that,  because  a  false  pedigree  is  a  thing  to 
be  eschewed  and  scouted,  therefore  a  true  pedigree  is  a  thing  to  be 
despised.  A  true  pedigree,  be  it  long  or  short,  is  a  fact.  .  .  . 
To  those  to  whom  it  belongs  it  is  a  possession  ;  and,  like  any 
other  possession,  it  is  to  be  respected.  It  is  only  the  false  imita- 
tion of  the  true  which  is  to  be  despised." — FREEMAN. 

"Falsum  committunt  viri  docti,  qui  hominibus  de  plebe 
nobilitatem,  insignia  et  antiquitatem  generis  adfingunt  .  .  . 
Et  potest  profecto  debetque  mercenariorum  illorum  poena  tune, 
quum  reipublicae  valde  per  eos  nocitum,  atque  fides  monumentorum 
et  historiae  turbata  est,  ad  ultimum  supplicium  proferri." — 
LEYSER. 


THE    STEWART    WINDOW  (seep.  138). 
Reproduced  by  the  courtesy  of  the  Royal  Archaeological  Institute. 


STUDIES  IN  PEERAGE 

AND    FAMILY 

HISTORY 


oh-n 
By  J.   HORACE   ROUND  M.A 

AUTHOR  OF  "THE  COMMUNE  OF  LONDON" 
"  FEUDAL  ENGLAND  "  ETC 


NEW   YORK 
LONGMANS    GREEN    &    CO 

WESTMINSTER 

ARCHIBALD   CONSTABLE    &   CO   LTD 
1901 


R  C, 


SUTLER  &  TANNER, 
SHJLWOOD  PRINTING  WORTS. 
FROMH,  AND  LONDOW. 


Contents 

CHAP.  PAGE 

i    THE  PEERAGE    .  i 

n     THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  STEWARTS  .         .         .         .115 
in     THE  COUNTS  OF  BOULOGNE  AS  ENGLISH  LORDS    .     147 

iv     THE  FAMILY  OF  BALLON  AND   THE   CONQUEST  OF 

SOUTH  WALES       .         .         .         .         .         .181 

v     OUR  ENGLISH  HAPSBURGS    .         .         .         .  .216 

vi     THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  RUSSELLS    .         .         .  .250 

vii    THE  RISE  OF  THE  SPENCERS        .         .         .  .279 

vin     HENRY  VIII.  AND  THE  PEERS      ....     330 

ix     CHARLES  I.  AND  LORD  GLAMORGAN  : 

PART  i.     GLAMORGAN'S  DUKEDOM         .  -3^7 

PART  2.    GLAMORGAN'S  TREATY   .         .  .     396 

x    THE  ABEYANCE  OF  THE  BARONY  OF  MOWBRAY  .     435 

xi     THE  SUCCESSION  TO  THE  CROWN.      <  .        .  .     458 


Erratum  et  Addenda 

Page  13.  The  Irish  earldom  of  Llandaff  (1797)  is  now 
similarly  assumed,  if  not  the  barony  of  Cahir. 

Pages  126-7.  Too  late  for  insertion  in  the  text  I  discovered 
that  Jordan  Fitz  Alan  (Fitz  Flaald)  and  his  son  Alan  Fitz  Jordan 
were  lords  of  Tuxford,  etc.,  in  Notts,  and  that  Alan  was  suc- 
ceeded there,  as  in  Norfolk,  by  his  daughter  and  heiress  Olive. 
Further,  Olive  is  there  found  to  be  identical  with  that  Olive  who 
was  wife  (i)  of  Robert  de  St.  John,  of  St.  Jean-le-Thomas  (see 
my  paper  on  "The  Families  of  St.  John  and  of  Port  "  in  Genealogist 
[N.S.],  XVI.  45),  and  (2)  of  Roger  de  Monbegon,  who  gave  500 
marcs  for  her  and  her  inheritance  in  I  John.  This  completes 
the  pedigree  of  the  line. 

Their  Nottinghamshire  estate  consisted  of  Tuxford,  with  lands 
in  Walesby  and  Kirton,  together  with  West  Markham  and 
Warsop,  all  of  which  had  formed  part  of  the  escheated  fief  of 
Roger  de  Busli  (see  Thoroton's  Notts,  III.  213,  214,  219,  22O, 
227,  354,  369),  and  must  have  been  bestowed  by  Henry  I.  on 
this  favoured  family.  It  was  as  holding  the  6  carucates  at  which 
these  lands  were  assessed  that  Jordan  had  his  I2sh.  of  danegeld 
remitted  in  1130.  Alan  Fitz  Jordan  enfeoffed  Geoffrey  de  le 
Fremunt  at  Walesby  and  Kirton,  and  his  daughter  Olive  (who 
occurs  in  the  Rufford  Cartulary)  kept  her  court  at  Tuxford. 

This  discovery  enables  us  to  identify  two  of  the  churches 
given  to  the  abbey  of  Tiron  by  Alan  Fitz  Jordan  as  "  seneschal 
of  Dol."  In  my  Calendar  of  Documents  preserved  in  France 
they  occur  as  '  Tophor '  and  <  Garsop '  (p.  358)  ;  but  they  were 
clearly  Tuxford  and  Warsop.  The  scattered  character  of  tenures 
in  this  obscure  period  is  illustrated  by  this  seneschal  of  Dol 
holding  land  independently  in  the  counties  of  Lincoln,  of  Norfolk, 
and  of  Notts. 

Page  152.  The  elder  Eustace  must,  however,  have  been  dead 

vii 


ERRATUM    ET  ADDENDA 

in  1088,  for  Florence  speaks  of  the  then  count  as  Eustace  "jun- 
ior," and  the  Anglo-Saxon  chronicle  styles  him  "  the  younger." 

Page  169.  Among  the  Crown  lands  bestowed  by  Stephen  on 
his  son  earl  William  were  Woking,  Godalming,  Gomshall, 
Stoke,  and  Walton,  in  Surrey,  valued  in  all  at  £95  a  year  in 
1155  (Liber  Rubeus,  p.  654). 

Page  171,  line  14.     For  Maud  read  Mary  (as  on  p.  172). 

Pages  385-6.  With  reference  to  Glamorgan's  *  commission 
patent*  of  I  April  1644, — which  Mr.  Gardiner  insists  is 
genuine,  and  which  I  denounce  as  a  forgery, — Mr.  Gardiner 
holds  that  Endymion  Porter  was  concerned  with  Glamorgan  in 
the  sealing  of  it,  and  observes  that  "  Endymion  Porter,  it  will  be 
remembered,  was  believed  to  be  associated  with  a  similar  per- 
formance in  affixing  the  great  seal  to  a  document  despatched  to 
Ireland  in  1641  "  (Eng.  Hist.  £^.,11.692).  Unfortunately,  this 
latter  document  is  described  by  Mr.  Gardiner  himself  as  an  un- 
doubted forgery  (History  [1884],  X.  92-3). 

Pages  454-5.  Another  case  of  assumption  and  subsequent 
recognition  by  the  Crown  is  that  of  Powys.  After  the  barony  of 
that  name  had  fallen  into  abeyance  (1427),  the  title,  like  those  of 
Mowbray  and  Segrave,  was  assumed  by  both  the  co-heirs,  and 
this  assumption  was  inadvertently  recognised)  by  the  Crown  in 
the  case  of  Lord  Tiptoft  (1449),  if  not  also  in  that  of  the  Greys, 
the  other  co-heirs.  This  case  has  a  direct  bearing  on  that  or 
Mowbray. 


viii 


Preface 

THE  studies  contained  in  this  volume  are  intended 
to  illustrate  that  new  genealogy  which  is  of  com- 
paratively recent  growth,  and  to  stimulate  the 
movement  for  honesty  and  truth  in  peerage  and 
family  history.  It  is  evident  that,  both  in 
England  and  America,  there  is  an  increasing  interest 
in  genealogical  research,  and,  with  the  rapid  growth 
of  the  published  materials  available,  it  is  likely  to 
increase  further.  If  it  is  conducted  on  the  right 
lines,  that  is,  on  the  modern  system,  such  research 
is  wholly  praiseworthy,  and  is  in  no  way  liable  to 
the  taunts  levelled  against  that  older  genealogy 
which  consisted  either  in  inventing  pedigrees  or  in 
repeating  without  question  the  unsupported  state- 
ments of  a  herald.  Works,  indeed,  of  this  character, 
as  will  be  shown  in  these  pages,  are  still  produced 
even  now  ;  but  the  efforts  of  the  new  school  of 
genealogists  are  surely,  if  slowly,  bearing  fruit. 
The  hold,  however,  on  the  public  at  large  of  the 
old  fables  and  the  old  beliefs  would  seem,  from  the 
newspaper  press,  to  be  almost  as  strong  as  ever. 

That  this  is  so  is  doubtless  due  to  the  sanction 
they  appeared  to  receive  from  their  quasi-official 
and  persistent  repetition  in  the  pages  of  Burkis 

ix 


PREFACE 

Peerage  and  of  other c  Burke'  publications.1  But,  for 
the  source  of  these  fables,  or  at  least  of  the  worst 
and  the  most  venerable,  we  have  to  penetrate 
behind 'Burke'  to  the  authors  of  these  fabrications, 
the  heralds  and  the  antiquaries  of  the  sixteenth  and 
the  seventeenth  centuries.  The  joyous  age  of  the 
old  genealogy  ranged  from  the  days  of  Henry  VIII. 
to  those  of  Charles  I.  ;  and,  of  pedigrees  published 
in  modern  books,  many  were  concocted  at  that 
period  and  duly  certified  as  true  by  officers  of  the 
Heralds'  College. 

A  glimpse  of  the  gulf  that  severs  the  c  old '  from 
the  *  new '  genealogy  is  afforded  by  the  ancient 
house  of  Lyte  of  Lytes  Gary.  Under  queen  Eliza- 
beth and  James  I.,  the  Lytes,  father  and  son,  were 
unrivalled  exponents  of  the  former.  Henry  Lyte, 
the  father  (d.  1607),  compiled 

A  table  wherby  it  is  supposed  that  Lyte  of  Lytescarie  sprange 
of  the  race  and  stocke  of  Leitus  (one  of  the  five  capitaynes  of 
Beotia  that  went  to  Troye)  and  that  his  ancestors  came  to  England 
first  with  Brute. 

The  family's  seat  Lytes  Gary  was  alleged  to  de- 
rive its  name  from  "  Caria  in  Asia,"  and  its  members 
bore  upon  their  coat  "  Three  sylver  swannes,  as 

1  Even  as  this  preface  goes  to  press  the  World  (\*]  Oct.  1900), 
in  an  article  on  "  Sir  Humphrey  de  Trafford  at  home,"  asserts  that 
"  Randolf,  Lord  of  Trafford,  was  the  patriarch  of  the  family,  which 
for  nearly  nine  centuries  after  him  has  produced  an  uninterrupted 
line  of  heirs  male.  The  first  recorded  Trafford  lived  in  the 
reigns  of  King  Canute  and  Edward  the  Confessor,  being  succeeded 
by  his  son  Ralph,"  etc.  This  grotesquely  impossible  tale  is  duly 
found  in  Burke*  s  Peerage,  although  it  is  shattered  by  Domesday 
Book. 


PREFACE 

from  the  shield  which  Leit  at  Troy  did  beare,"1 
Thomas  Lyte,  the  son,  drew  up  for  James  I.  his 
genealogy  "  from  Brute,  the  most  noble  founder  of 
the  Britains,"  which  was  not  only  graciously  ac- 
cepted by  the  king  in  1610,  but  was  hung  up 
at  court  "  in  an  especiall  place  of  eminence,"  and 
extolled  by  the  great  Camden,  Clarencieux  king 
of  Arms.  It  was  in  gratitude  for  this  pedigree 
that  James  bestowed  upon  its  author  the  famous 
Lyte  jewel,  which,  purchased  by  Baron  Ferdinand 
de  Rothschild  for  nearly  £3,000,  is  now  preserved 
among  the  Waddesdon  gems  in  the  British 
Museum. 

It  is  an  interesting,  indeed  a  unique  circum- 
stance that  the  present  representative  of  the  same 
house,  the  Deputy  Keeper  of  the  Public  Records, 
has  himself  compiled  a  history  of  the  Lytes  which 
is  a  masterpiece  of  modern  genealogy.2  The 
e  old '  and  the  c  new '  are  thus  brought  into 
strange  and  direct  contrast.  But,  wide  as  is  the 
gulf  that  divides  them,  the  former  lingers  on. 
Pedigrees  compiled  in  the  age  of  the  Lytes  and  by 
heralds  contemporary  with  Camden  are  still  pub- 
lished year  after  year,  are  still  valid  at  the  College 
of  Arms.  Indeed,  within  the  last  few  years,  one 

1  A  learned  Dominican,  Father  O'Daly,  published  even  so  late 
as  1655  a  history  of  the  Geraldine  earls  of  Desmond,  which 
began  with  the  assertion  :  "  It  is  a  fact  beyond  questioning  that  the 
Geraldines,  Earls  of  Desmond — a  race  renowned  for  valour — 
derived  their  origin  from  the  ancient  Trojans,"  their  "  founder  " 
having  fled  to  Italy,  after  the  siege,  with  JEneas. 

3  "The  Lytes  of  Lytescary "  (Somerset  Arch.  Trans.  [1892], 
XXXVIII.  [2],  3-101). 

xi 


PREFACE 

family  has  "  proved  and  recorded,"  in  the  archives 
of  that  institution,  323  quarters  to  its  coat  of  arms, 
consisting  largely  of  coats  assigned  to  "  British 
kings  "  (in  Blanche's  words)  "  as  visionary  as  those 
in  Banquo's  glass."  We  are  indebted  for  this  re- 
markable information  to  Mr.  Fox-Davies'  Armorial 
Families^  in  which  this  monstrous  shield  is  depicted 
as  well  as  described.1  Among  the  arms  there  re- 
cognised as  authentic  by  the  Heralds'  College  are 
those  of  a  potentate  who  died  in  318,  as  well  as 
those  of  Coel  Godebog,  that  primitive  and  con- 
vivial soul.  We  further  learn  that — 

The  present  representative  is  6yth  in  descent  in  an  unbroken 
MALE  line  from  Belinus  the  Great  (Beli  Mawr)  King  of  Britain, 
as  shown  by  the  Records  fully  registered  down  to  the  present 
time  in  Her  Majesty's  College  of  Arms. — See  Norfolk  xvi.  45 
Coll.  Arms.8 

The  arms  of  Beli  himself  appear  repeatedly  in 
the  shield,  on  the  strength,  of  course,  of  this  pedi- 
gree, proved  by  "  Records  "  to  what  must  be  the 
early  days  of  the  Christian  era.  One  is  glad  to 
learn  what  "  Records "  mean  at  "  Her  Majesty's 
College  of  Arms."  8 

1  Ed.  1899,  PP-  512-4.  Compare  p.  xiv. : — "Some  families 
are  undoubtedly  entitled  to  a  very  great  number  [of  quarterings]. 
.  .  .  Anyhow,  at  the  Heralds'  College,  I  believe,  the  record 
is  held  by  the  family  of  Lloyd  of  Stockton,  who  have  proved  and 
recorded  323."  In  the  1895  edition  of  the  same  work,  "the 
record"  is  assigned  to  the  family  of  Lane-Fox,  with  136,  the 
Lloyds  of  Stockton  having  then  only  102.  This  enables  us  to 
date  [1895-1899]  the  proving  and  recording  of  the  rest. 

8  Ibid. 

Since  the  above  passage  was  written  Mr.  Gwenogvryn  Evans 

xii 


PREFACE 

It  would  seem  desirable  to  point  out  that  even 
so  ardent  a  champion  of  the  College  as  the  author 
of  'The  Right  to  Bear  Arms  maintains  that  "  we  are 
still  without  any  definite  evidence  that  such  a  thing 
as  a  coat  of  arms,  in  the  sense  we  now  understand 
the  term,  had  any  existence  whatsoever  at  the  time 
of  the  First  Crusade"  (p.  4).  Mr.  Fox-Davies, 
also,  holds  that  such  heraldry  "  had  no  existence  at 
the  time  of  the  Norman  Conquest,"1  while  he  stoutly 
proclaims  that "  Planche  is  the  truest  writer  who  has 
yet  set  pen  to  paper  on  the  subject  of  Heraldry."2 
Now  Planche  not  only  ridiculed  the  coats  of  "Brit- 
ish kings,"  but  placed  the  beginning  of  armorial 
bearings  a  century  at  least  after  the  Conquest. 

has   expressed    himself,  on  the   subject  of  Welsh  pedigrees,  as 
follows  : 

"  When  a  pedigree  reaches  back  beyond  the  third  generation  of 
the  time  in  which  it  was  originally  drawn  up,  unless  supported  by 
independent  documentary  evidence,  the  work  of  even  the  most 
honest  men  cannot  be  trusted.  Take  for  instance  the  vellum  roll 
(some  seven  yards  long)  of  pedigrees  at  Mostyn  Hall,  in  the  hand 
of  Guttyn  Owen,  a  man  thoroughly  trustworthy  as  to  the  matters 
of  his  own  time,  and  yet,  in  that  roll,  certain  pedigrees  are  traced 
back  to  *  Adam  son  of  God,'  without  any  conscious  sense  of  the 
incongruous.  It  does  seem  as  if  reason  took  its  leave  of  every 
genealogist  sooner  or  later "  (Report  to  Commission  on  His- 
torical MSS.  on  the  Peniarth  collection,  p.  vi.).  Even  in  our  own 
famous  volume,  The  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  the  official  who 
compiled  it,  Alexander  Swereford,  solemnly  records  that  he  wrote 
in  the  year  1230,  in  the  I5th  year  of  king  Henry  III.,  whose 
pedigree  he  proceeds  to  trace,  through  Noah,  to  Adam  **  son  of  the 
living  God." 

1  Armorial  Families,  p.  v. 

2  Ibid.  p.  xxix.     Mr.  Woodward  also,  in  what  is  perhaps  the 
leading  work  on  English  heraldry,  gives  his  "  entire  adherence  " 
to  Mr.  Planches  conclusions  (I.  32). 

xiii 


PREFACE 

Yet,  having  thus  proclaimed  his  faith,  Mr.  Fox- 
Davies  accepts  as  genuine  the  "  bogus  "  coats  of 
British  kings  because  "proved  and  recorded"  at  Her 
Majesty's  College  of  Arms.1 

Are  not,  indeed,  the  "  bogus  "  arms  assigned  to 
Edward  the  Confessor,  in  right  of  his  kingdom  of 
England — the  arms  for  using  which  the  gifted  earl 
of  Surrey  suffered  death  upon  the  scaffold — found 
in  a  *  record '  at  the  Heralds'  College  ?  We  read  of 
the  alleged  grant  of  these  arms  by  Richard  II.  to 
Thomas  Mowbray,  then  duke  of  Norfolk,  that — 

The  authority  for  this  statement  is  doubtless  an  entry  in  one  of 
the  records  of  the  College  of  Arms  (R.  22,  67),  which  is  itself  a 
copy  of  another  record,  and  which  runs  as  follows  .  .  . 

"  Et  dedit  eidem  Thome  ad  pertandum  (sic)  in  sigillo  et  vexillo 
quo  (sic)  arma  Stl  Edwardi."  * 

We  have  only  to  turn  to  the  Monasticon  (VI. 
321)  to  learn  that  this  precious  'record'  is  not 
a  record  at  all,  but  is  a  mere  copy  of  a  monastic 
narrative,  which  is  grossly  and  demonstrably 
inaccurate.  Moreover,  when  the  writer,  whose 

1  "There  are  many  people  who  grandiloquently  assert  that  *  they 
don't  recognise  the  authority  of  the  College  of  Arms.'  Such  a 
statement  may  sound  very  big,  but  it  is  pure  nonsense  "  (Preface 
to  Armorial  Families). 

8  Genealogical  Magazine,  II.  401  (signed  "  F.-D.")  ;  and  The 
House  of  Stourton,  II.  811.  As  bearing  on  the  authorship  of  the 
latter  work,  it  will  be  found  interesting  to  compare  these  two 
volumes,  especially  the  illustrations  on  pp.  378,  398,  399  with 
those  on  pp.  812,  808,  810,  and  the  text  of  the  following  pages, 
397  with  746,  397-402  with  808-813,  402-3,  438-9  with 
832-834,  and  439-441  with  828-830.  In  the  Latin  extract 
cited  above  we  find  "  pertandum  "  and  "  et  utraque  "  (for  "  ex 
utraque")  in  both  volumes  (see  further  p.  61  below). 

xiv 


PREFACE 

initials,  I  may  repeat,  are  "  F.-D.,"  assists  us  on  "the 
arduous  journey  in  pursuit  of  heraldic  knowledge," 
by  informing  us  that  the  alleged  grant  was  a  "  grant 
of  the  arms  of  Plantagenet,  which  thus  technically 
became  thereafter  the  arms  of  Mowbray," l  he 
betrays  extraordinary  confusion.  He  is  even  good 
enough  to  explain  to  us  that — 

the  knowledge  that  the  arms  of  Plantagenet  had  been  re- 
granted  to  the  Mowbrays  is  not  very  general,  and  we  take  it  that 
there  are  very  few  who  are  aware  that  in  the  strictly  technical 
sense,  and  also,  by  the  way,  in  strict  conformity  with  the  laws  of 
arms,  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  and  his  predecessors  of  the  House  of 
Howard  bear  and  have  borne  these  Royal  Plantagenet  arms,  not 
as  the  quartering  for  "  Thomas  of  Brotherton,"  but  as  a  quartering 
for  Mowbray,  to  which  family  the  arms  of  Plantagenet  were 
granted,  as  we  have  seen,  to  be  borne  (with  the  arms  of  King 
Edward  the  Confessor)  as  their  chief  and  principal  arms.2 

But  "  we  have  seen  "  nothing  of  the  kind.  For  it 
is  not  even  alleged  in  the  above  monastic  narrative 
that  Richard  II.  granted  more  than  the  arms  of 
Edward  the  Confessor,  with  which  the  arms  of 
"  Plantagenet "  had  nothing  in  the  world  to  do. 

The  critical  treatment,  in  this  volume,  of  the 
heralds  and  their  so-called  "  records  "  has  been  made 
necessary  by  recent  efforts  to  exalt  the  authority  of 
their  documents  and  to  terrorize  the  public,  in  the 
matter  of  arms,  by  crude  and  violent  language.3 
Those  who  may  have  been  impressed  by  this  ex 
parte  clamour  will  learn  with  some  surprise,  from 

1  Genealogical  Magazine^  II.  401  (cf.  p.  439) ;  and  The  House  of 
Stourton,  II.  813. 

2  Genealogical  Magazine,  II.  442  (see  also  II.  509). 

3  See  The  Right  to  Bear  Arms,  by  <  X,'  and  Mr.  Fox-Davies' 
Armorial  Families. 

XV 


PREFACE 

the  evidence  here  collected,  that  heralds  themselves 
have  been  among  the  worst  of  purveyors  of  spurious 
pedigrees,  and  have  taken  advantage  of  their  official 
position  to  give  these  productions  a  cachet  they 
would  never  otherwise  have  obtained.  It  will  fur- 
ther be  found  that,  in  arms  also,  they  have  been 
grievous  sinners.  The  modern  officer  of  arms  will 
say  that  all  this  is  now  changed,  and  that  pedigrees 
and  proofs  of  right  to  arms  are  subjected  to  close 
scrutiny.  But  the  point  on  which  I  have  to  insist 
is  that  the  College  is  handicapped  by  its  past  ;  the 
follies  and  the  frauds  of  past  heralds  are  binding  on 
its  present  members,  for  are  they  not  "  on  record  "  ? 
One  of  the  greatest  snares  in  genealogical  study  is 
the  putting  of  "  new  wine  "  into  "  old  bottles,"  the 
combination  of  the  new  genealogy,  based  on  record 
evidence,  with  the  old  heraldic  pedigrees  teeming 
with  fiction  and  with  error.  These  two  methods 
of  genealogy  cannot  possibly  be  combined,  and, 
however  strict  the  officers  of  arms  may  now  be  in 
admitting  proofs,  they  are  bound  to  accept,  at  the 
same  time,  the  pedigrees  "  recorded  "  by  heralds  in 
the  past ;  and  thus  the  "records"  of  the  College  are 
a  millstone  about  its  neck. 

Of  this  assertion  we  have  recently  been  afforded 
the  most  conclusive  proof.  For  one  of  the  heralds 
has  himself  published,  within  the  last  two  or  three 
years,  an  elaborate  account  of  his  own  family  "from 
the  Norman  era  to  the  present  day."1  The  pedi- 
gree he  gives  for  the  modern  period  is,  doubtless, 

1  Genealogical  Magazine  (not  to  be  confused  with  The  Genealogist), 
I.  459- 

xvi 


PREFACE 

absolutely  correct  ;  but,  having  claimed  as  his 
direct  ancestor  a  John  in  the  Lane  ("  en  la  Lone  ") 
— a  surname  common  enough  in  the  I4th  century 
— he  produces  as  his  father  "  Adam  de  Lona  of 
Hampton,  co.  Stafford,  and  of  Halton,  co.  Chester, 
son  and  heir  of  Sir  Richard  de  Lone/'  Moreover, 
like  the  ancestor  of  most  of  the  Smiths — "  Sir 
Michael  Carington "  to  wit,  this  Adam  was 
"  among  the  Crusaders  who  went  to  the  Holy 
Land,"  we  read,  "  under  the  banner  of  Cceur  de 
Lion"  (ngo).1  It  is  true  that  beyond  Adam's 
grandfather,  that  gallant  knight  "  Sir  Reginald  de 
Lona,  of  Halton,  co.  Chester,"  the  descent  of  "  this 
ancient  and  loyal  family "  has  not  as  yet  been 
proved  ;  but  of  him  at  least  they  are  the  heirs- 
male,2  while  one  of  them,  it  is  added,  under  Wil- 
liam Rufus,  married  into  one  of  those  "  leading 
families  "  whose  daughters  have  always  been  kept 
in  stock  at  Her  Majesty's  College  of  Arms. 
Now,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  "  Sir  Reginald  de 
Lona  "  is,  we  learn,  "  upon  record,"  the  history  of 
the  family  is  this.  They  were  townsfolk  of  Wol- 
verhampton  in  the  i4th  century,  townsfolk  who 
derived  their  name  from  the  e  lane '  in  which 
they  dwelt.  The  pedigree  can,  it  is  probable,  be 
proved  up  to  John  e  in  the  Lane,'  whose  father 
is  said  to  have  been  Adam  ;  but  Adam  cannot, 
even  as  a  farrier,  have  taken  part  in  a  crusade 
before  he  was  even  born.  His  alleged  grandson  is 
known  to  have  been  living  in  the  reign  of  Edward 

1  Genealogical  Magazine,  I.  130. 

2  Ibid.  I.  130,  459. 

xvii  b 


PREFACE 

III.  In  the  same  reign  the  "  ancient  and  loyal  " 
house  of  "  in  le  Lone  "  were  displaying  an  energy 
at  Wolverhampton  worthy  of  a  Boxer  clan.  One  of 
them  was  long  c  wanted  '  for  felony,  and  three  others 
were  among  the  rioters  who  plundered  and  assaulted 
an  unfortunate  man,  "cut  out  his  tongue,"  and 
"  plucked  out  his  eye  "  ;  they  were  also  charged 
by  John  de  Sutton  with  having  "  assaulted  his  men 
and  servants  and  cut  off  their  tongues  and  noses." 
This  is  the  house  that,  we  now  read,  "  has  been 
seated  in  the  county  of  Stafford  for  seven  hundred 
years,"  and  in  that  of  Cheshire  earlier  still.  The 
worst  of  it  is  that  the  true  pedigree  has  long  been 
perfectly  known,2  and  that  there  is  nothing  to  sug- 
gest a  descent  from  alleged  Cheshire  knights.  But 
need  one  add  that  the  latter  origin  is  duly  asserted 
as  a  fact  in  Burke's  Landed  Gentry  ',  where  Wolver- 
hampton is,  with  much  judgment,  idealized  as 
"West  Hampton"?  Thus  it  is  that  a  family 
pedigree,  which  is  by  no  means  devoid  of  interest, 
is  made  by  the  heralds  merely  absurd. 

But  indeed  the  whole  system  of  "  record  "  badly 
needs  the  light  of  day.  I  have  never  been  able  to 
ascertain  the  actual  meaning  of  "  on  record,"  or  on 
what  principle  some  documents  are  so  dignified 
and  others  not.  It  is  pretty  certain  that  if  a 
scholar,  trained  to  deal  with  documents  and  to 
gauge  their  authority  and  value,  were  let  loose  on 
the  College  "records,"  we  should  have  some 


\  ^al^r  of  Patent  Rolls,  1338-1340,  pp.  364,  366. 

See  Shaw  s  Staffordshire  (1798),  II.  97,  and  Salt  Archaeological 
Society  (\Wo)y  I.  (2),  p.  325. 


xvin 


PREFACE 

strange  revelations.  This  remark  applies  specially 
to  the  evidence  of  grants  of  arms.  When  the 
College  has  to  send  to  Oxford  for  particulars  of 
such  grants,  when  it  offers  to  "  record "  at  the 
present  day  grants  that  were  made,  but  were  not 
recorded,  two  or  three  centuries  ago,  when  it  picks 
up  stray  manuscripts  in  auction-rooms  in  the  hope 
of  filling  some  of  the  gaps  in  its  vaunted,  but 
imperfect  "records,"  we  can  afford  to  smile  at  the 
daring  statement  by  the  author  of  The  Right  to 
Bear  Arms  that  "  arms  are  good  or  bad  as  they  are 
recorded  or  unrecorded"  at  the  Heralds'  College. 
And  when,  further,  the  same  writer  deems  it  his 
duty  to  "insult  publicly"1  those  who  use  arms 
which  are  not  there  recorded,  it  becomes  desirable 
to  enlighten  the  public  on  a  state  of  things  which 
destroys  his  case,  and  which  shows  that  the  absence 
of  such  record  is  no  proof  that  the  arms  are 
c  bad.' 

It  is  a  different  matter  when  these  writers  de- 
nounce the  flagrant  abuse  by  which  the  arms  of 
old  families,  belonging  to  them  alone,  are  assumed, 
or  rather  pirated  by  those  who  happen  to  possess 
the  same  name,  but  are  not  descended  from  them. 
In  this  denunciation  one  is  bound  to  join,  although 
it  is  possible  that  one  may  exaggerate  the  heinous- 
ness,  in  practice,  of  this  assumption,  which  often 
springs  from  ignorance,  for  it  would  probably  be 
unnoticed  by  the  vast  majority  of  men.  Moreover, 
in  such  extreme  cases  as  those  of  Stuart  and  Mont- 

1  "One  has  to  insult  him  publicly  in  black  and  white"  (The 
Right  to  Bear  Arms,  p.  xiv.). 

xix 


PREFACE 

morency  it  has  received  the  official  sanction  of 
heralds  themselves.1  It  does,  however,  amount  to 
an  assertion  that  one  is  a  member  of  a  family  to 
which  one  does  not  belong,  and  this  is  why  the 
above  writers  denounce  it  as  the  act  of  a  snob. 
But  of  a  wholly  distinct  character  is  the  use  of 
arms  which  are  not  those  of  any  other  family  of 
one's  name,  but  which  do  not  happen  to  have 
been  '  recorded '  (or  c  registered  ')  at  the  Heralds' 
College.  In  this  case  there  is  no  pretension  to  be- 
long to  another  family,  and,  therefore,  no  possible 
ground  for  denouncing  the  act  as  snobbish.  The 
above  writers,  however,  have  endeavoured  to  con- 
fuse the  public  on  the  subject  and  to  class  together 
all  those  whose  right  to  the  arms  they  use  is  not 
'  registered '  at  the  College.2  The  object  is  to  compel 
them  alike  to  take  out  fresh  grants,  these  being,  as 
is  well  known,  a  lucrative  matter  for  the  heralds.3 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  oldest  and  the  purest 
right  to  arms  was  that  conferred  by  user.  In  the 
heyday  of  chivalry,  when  heraldry  was  still  a  living 
science,  in  the  age  of  Crecy  and  Poitiers  and  of  the 
founders  of  the  Garter,  it  was  user  that  determined 
the  right  to  arms.  In  the  well-known  case  of 
Scrope  and  Grosvenor  (i  389),  as  in  that  of  Warble- 
ton  and  Gorges  (1347),  the  decision  was  based  on 

1  See  pp.  20,  144  below. 

J  Mr.  Fox-Davies  classes  them  together  as  all  "  bogus  pre- 
tenders." (See  Introduction  to  Armorial  Families,  p.  xxx.) 

1  See  Mr.  Button's  article  on  "A  Reformed  College  of 
Arms  "  :  "A  considerable  proportion  of  the  fees  exacted  go  into 
the  pocket  of  the  official  who  happens  to  have  the  particular  job 
in  hand"  (Contemp.  Rev.,  July  1900,  p.  97). 

XX 


PREFACE 

user  alone.1  The  Crown  was  only  appealed  to  to 
decide  who  could  prove  the  prior  user.  When 
coats  were  used  to  distinguish  their  bearers,  it  was 
essential  that  no  two  should  be  the  same,  and  some 
authority  had  to  be  invoked  to  decide,  where  this 
was  so,  who  had  the  prior  claim.  And  the 
authority  invoked  was  the  king.  It  was  only 
thus,  and  for  this  purpose,  that  the  Crown  came  to 
intervene.  The  evidence  in  the  cases  cited  above 
proves  that  it  was  on  the  king's  "viages"  (i.e. 
military  expeditions)  that  controversies  arose  from 
the  same  coat  being  borne  by  more  than  one 
person.2  Consequently,  when  he  was  preparing 
for  a  great  viage  into  France,  Henry  V.  ordered 
the  sheriffs  (2  June  1417)  to  see  that  no  one 
should  appear  with  c  coat-armours '  at  the  musters 
"  unless  he  possesses  or  ought  to  possess  them  by 
ancestral  right  (jure  antecessorio)  or  by  the  gift  of 
some  one  having  the  power  to  give  them  (ad  hoc] ." 
Now  this  order,  which  had  in  view  only  the  viage 
in  question  (in  present*  viagio  nostro),  distinctly 
states  on  what  depended  the  right  to  bear  arms. 
A  man  had  either  to  prove  user,  i.e.  that  his  fore- 
fathers had  used  them  ;  or  he  had  to  show  that 
they  had  been  given  him  by  someone  who  possessed 

1  As  it  was  also  in  that  of  Fakenham  and  Sitsilt(i333),  which, 
however,  I  do  not  cite,  as  the  documents  are  only  known  to  us 
through  Bossewell  (Workes  of  Armor  ie  [1597],  pp.  79-81). 

2  The    great    importance,  in  war,    of  armorial    bearings   for 
recognition   is  illustrated  by  the  well-known  story  of  Simon  de 
Montfort's  barber  being  sent  up  into  a  tower,  before  the  battle  of 
Evesham,  to  identify,  as  an  expert,  the  advancing  host  by  their 
arms. 

xxi 


PREFACE 

that  right.1  Of  grant  by  the  Crown  there  is  no 
word.  And  yet  this  is  the  one  document  on  which 
those  who  assert  that  no  arms  can  be  borne  except 
by  a  grant  from  the  Crown  are  compelled  to  take 
their  stand.2 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  right  conferred  by 
established  user  continued,  on  the  most  reluctant 
showing  of  '  X  '  himself,  to  be  recognised.  In  his 
opinion,  at  the  Heralds'  visitations, — 

The  definite  production  of  a  specific  grant  for  the  arms  in 
question  was  not  necessarily  insisted  upon  by  the  Heralds,  who 
allowed  and  confirmed  arms  as  borne  by  right  when  the  right  to 
these  was  established  to  their  satisfaction.  .  .  .  What  proofs 
the  Heralds  required  the  production  of  to  establish  this  legal  right 
I  am  utterly  unable  to  say.  .  .  .  One  can  only  surmise. 
In  the  case  of  less  important  families  using  arms  which 
in  no  way  interfered  with  the  rights  of  other  people,  one's  ex- 
perience leads  one  to  suppose  that  the  claimants  were  treated 
more  easily  and  the  arms  admitted  (that  is,  they  were  recorded 
and  confirmed  with  little  or  no  alteration)  upon  the  strength  of 
usage  for  a  certain  period.3 

This,  as  is  well  known,  was  sometimes  done. 
*  "Certain  is  it  that  in  the  year  1418  (sic)  he  [Henry  V.] 
issued  a  writ.  .  .  .  It  is  on  this  writ  that  I  take  my  stand," 
etc.,  etc.  (The  Right  to  Bear  Arms,  pp.  17,  20).  The  writer  ekes 
out  his  case  (pp.  21-2)  by  a  warrant  of  Charles  II.,  reciting  inter 
alia  that  the  descendants  of  Lord  Ogle,  by  the  heiress  of  the 
Percys,  could  not  quarter  the  arms  of  Percy  "  according  to  the 
law  of  Armes  without  the  special  dispensation  and  license  of  us." 
And  yet,  according  even  to  Mr.  Fox-Davies,  they  would  be  "  en- 
titled by  the  English  law"  to  do  so  without  permission.  (See 
Armorial  Families,  p.  xiii.)  On  p.  159  the  above  writer  goes 
further  and  asserts,  in  general  terms,  that  "Charles  II.  says  of  the 
assumption  of  name  and  arms,"  etc.,  etc.,  as  proof  that  a  man 
cannot  assume  arms  for  himself.  But  the  king  is  merely  speaking 
of  the  old  arms  of  Percy,  not  of  a  man  assuming  fresh  arms 
himself.  '  The  Right  to  Bear  Arms,  pp.  87,  99. 

xxii 


PREFACE 

No  attempt  is  made  by  the  writer  to  give  any 
reason  why  the  Heralds  should  not  now  do  what, 
he  himself  admits,  they  seem  to  have  done  then. 
And  yet  they  avowedly  decline  to  do  it,  apparently 
in  order  that  they  may  be  able  to  obtain  the  fees 
on  a  grant  de  novo.1  And,  meanwhile,  the  above 
writer  classes  arms  which  are  not  pirated,  and  for 
which  user  can  be  proved,  with  those  which  are 
stolen  from  another  family,  as  no  less  "  bogus  "  and 
"  illegal "  (p.  1 1 6).  As  there  is,  in  spite  of  the 
writer's  bluster,  no  law  in  existence  against  such 
arms  being  borne,  it  is  probable  that  county 
families  who  have  borne  them,  as  such,  for  genera- 
tions, will  continue  to  do  so  until  such  time  as  the 
College  of  Arms  consents  to  revive  its  ancient 
practice.  They  only  profess,  by  so  doing,  that 
their  position  entitles  them  to  use  arms,  a  fact 
which  the  Heralds  would  themselves  admit,  if  they 
should  apply  for  a  grant ;  and  they  will  but  find 
themselves  in  company  with  two  and  twenty  peers, 
and  over  thirty  baronets,  who,  according  to  the 
author  of  Armorial  Families^  "  have  no  right  what- 
soever to  the  arms  they  bear."  That  those  whom 
he  describes  as  "  prominent  people,  whose  social 
position  is  undoubted,"  may  even  esteem  more 
highly  the  arms  their  ancestors  have  borne  than  those 
which  a  retired  tradesman  has  lately  been  induced  to 
purchase,  may  indeed  be  inconceivable  to  a  person 
of  vulgar  mind.2  But  the  fact  remains.  Indeed, 

1  I  take  this  suggestion  from  their  own  mutual  recriminations 
about  the  time  of  James  I. 

2  '  X,'  for  instance,  exclaims  that  they  "  in  their  lunacy  prefer 
a  bogus  coat"  (The  Right  to  Bear  Arms,  p.  165). 

xxiii 


PREFACE 

in  a  sudden  burst  of  emotion  the  writer  himself 
exalts  "the  aristocracy  of  birth,"  and  admits  that 
"the  cachet  of  birth"  is  what  "the  plebeian"  lacks.1 
But,  as  it  is  the  object  of  his  work  to  prove  that 
plebeians  are  those,  of  whatever  birth,  who  have 
not  had  a  grant  of  arms  (or  been  included  in  its 
limitation),  it  is  obvious  that  the  poor  man  is 
simply  contradicting  himself. 

There  is  one  more  point  on  which  I  may  en- 
lighten the  public.  Loud  assertion  is  not  evidence, 
although  it  may  impose  upon  the  timid.  Mr. 
Fox-Davies  loudly  asserts  that  "nothing  can  alter  the 
fact  that  the  officers  ...  of  the  College  of 
Arms  .  .  .  have  the  sole  authority  and  control 
of  armorial  matters "...  [are]  "  the  sole 
authority  upon  matters  of  arms."  And  the  author 
of  The  Right  to  Bear  Arms  closes  his  work  with  the 
confident  assertion  "  that  matters  armorial  have 
been  delegated  in  England  in  all  due  form  to  the 
control  and  supervision  of  the  Earl  Marshal  and  the 
College  of  Arms"  (p.  83).  Yet  he  himself  cites 
Dallaway  for  the  fact  that  "  Appeals  from  the  Earl 
Marshal's  Court  could  be  carried  into  the  King's 
Bench"  (p.  38),  and  Dallaway  (whose  work  is 
dedicated  to  the  Earl  Marshal  himself)  tells  us 
that — 

Appeals  from  its   jurisdiction     .     .     .     were  referred   to  the 

1  Armorial  Families,  pp.  xviii.-xix.  So  too  :  "  Money  will 
do  much.  .  .  .  But  money  cannot  purchase  real  ancestry  " 
(an  observation  admirably  true).  Unhappily  it  can  and  does 
purchase  a  grant  of  arms. 

8  Armorial  Families,  pp.  viii.,  xxx.  (the  italics  are  his  own). 

xxiv 


PREFACE 

king's  bench,  by  which  the  awards  were  sometimes  superseded, 
and  always  liable  to  revision,  which  .  .  .  invalidated  the 
general  opinion  of  the  necessity  of  the  existence  of  the  court.1 

To  this  I  may  add  the  interesting  fact  that  in 
1625  (or  1624)  the  law  officers  of  the  Crown  (to 
whom  the  matter  was  referred)  "  uppon  long  serch 
of  recordes  and  presidentes "  certified  that  it  was 
"just  and  lawfull "  to  appeal  from  the  Court  of 
Chivalry  to  the  Court  of  Chancery  in  a  suit  con- 
cerning the  bearing  and  quartering  of  certain 
arms.2  So  much  for  what  Mr.  Fox-Davies  terms 
the  "  legal  side." 

The  fact  is  that,  in  harping  on  "the  legal  apart 
from  the  scientific  and  antiquarian  view  of  the 
study  of  Armory  "  (p.  xxix.),  Mr.  Fox-Davies  does 
but  reproduce  the  attitude  of  modern  heralds,  one 
of  whom  was  the  first,  he  tells  us,  to  impress  on 
him  that  there  is  "  a  legal  side  to  Armory  as  well 
as  an  antiquarian"  (p.  xxxi.).  The  "  scientific  " 
side,  we  are  told,  "  might  well  have  been  left "  for 
the  present.  To  the  real  student  and  lover  of 
heraldry  nothing,  on  the  contrary,  can  be  more 
uninteresting  than  its  modern  commercial  develop- 
ment in  the  hands  of  the  Heralds'  College.  To 
certain  members  of  that  corporation,  as  also  to  c  X ' 
and  Mr.  Fox-Davies,  the  most  interesting  thing  in 
heraldry  may  be  the  modern  grant ;  but  the  result 
is  that  the  present  movements  in  favour  of  the 
intelligent  study  of  the  science,  of  the  revival  or 

1  Inquiries  into  the  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  Science  of  Heraldry 
in  England,  pp.  95,  289-90. 

2  Pixley's  History  of  the  Baronetage,  p.  138. 


XXV 


PREFACE 

pure  and  artistic  design,  and  of  the  new  honest 
genealogy,  have  all  originated  not  within,  but 
without  the  walls  of  the  Heralds'  College.1 

"  As  a  lover  of  Armory,"  Mr.  Fox-Davies  pleads 
for  an  Act  of  Parliament  which  "  would  in  ^  some 
measure  restore  the  ancient  respect  for  Arms."  In 
stirring  words  the  prophet  cries : 

When  the  glory  of  knightly  honour  once  more  shall  hold  sway 
in  these  kingdoms  three,  and  these  marks  of  honour  take  their 
rightful  place,  let  it  not  be  said  that  whilst  in  our  charge  we  have 
allowed  their  splendour  to  be  tarnished  or  their  lustre  to  be 
dimmed  (p.  xxxii.). 

After  which  it  is  painful  to  return  to  the  facts  of 
everyday  life,  and  to  be  reminded,  as  we  recently 
were,  how  these  "  marks  of  honour  "  are  obtained. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  payment  of  the  fees 
claimed  will  always  secure  a  grant,  apart  from  the  rule,  now 
somewhat  meaningless,  .  .  .  that  grants  are  not  made  to 
retail  shopkeepers.2 

Mr.  Hutton  rightly  ridicules  the  pretence,  in  these 
circumstances,  that  a  grant  is  a  special  favour  from 
the  Crown.  As  strenuous  efforts  are  made  to 
bamboozle  the  public  on  the  point,  it  is  needful 
to  insist  upon  the  fact  that  the  Crown  knows 
nothing  of  the  grant.  Take  for  instance  this 
passage  from  The  Right  to  Bear  Arms  (pp.  165-7, 
170)  : 

A  grant  of  Arms  is  a  patent  of  gentility  in  precisely  the  same 

1  See  further,  for  the  Heralds  and  their  ways,  pp.  144-146, 
308-321  below. 

*  "  A  Reformed  College  of  Arms  "  (by  Mr.  Hutton),  in  Cont. 
Review,  July  1900,  p.  98. 

xxvi 


PREFACE 

manner  as  the  letters  patent  creating  a  peerage  constitute  a  patent 
of  what  we  here  in  England  commonly  and  colloquially  call 
nobility.  .  .  .  Each  of  them  grants  a  definite  honour. 
.  .  .  But  every  Peerage  patent  that  is  issued  carries  with  it 
the  obligation  of  certain  fees.  .  .  .  When  a  Patent  of  Arms 
is  applied  for,  certain  fees  are  payable.  .  .  .  But  the  cases 
of  a  Patent  of  Arms  and  a  Patent  of  Peerage  are  identically  the 
same,  inasmuch  as  on  the  issue  of  either  patent  certain  fees  are 
required  to  be  paid.  .  .  .  Consequently,  if  a  coat  of  arms 
granted  by  patent  is  to  be  stigmatised  as  bought  from  the  Crown, 
then  of  a  surety  every  Peerage  granted  by  Patent  is  equally 
<  bought.' 

The  writer,  of  course,  is  well  aware  that  no  such 
parallel  exists.  In  the  first  place,  the  grant  of  a 
peerage  proceeds  directly  from  the  Crown,  and 
involves  its  special  sanction  ;  in  the  second, — and 
this  is  the  essential  point, — a  peerage  cannot  be 
purchased  by  the  mere  payment  of  fees.  Even  a 
man  who  has  no  pretentions  to  be,  by  birth  or 
breeding,  what  is  termed  a  gentleman  can  obtain  a 
grant  of  arms  by  merely  paying  the  fees.  Let 
him,  if  he  accepts  the  above  writer's  statements, 
attempt  to  obtain  a  peerage  dignity  by  similarly 
offering  to  pay  the  fees.  If  he  should  actually  be 
led  to  do  so,  his  faith  in  the  above  writer  is  likely 
to  be  rudely  shaken. 

And  this  is  the  essence  of  the  case.  A  peerage 
is  the  object  of  ambition,  because  but  few  can 
obtain  it  ;  a  grant  of  arms  is  of  no  account, 
because  nobody  values  what  "  anyone  "  can  obtain. 
And  no  amount  of  rhodomontade  can  alter  or 
obscure  the  fact.  '  X,'  indeed,  wildly  exclaims  : 

Why  do  people  object  to  have  their  arms  described  as  'bogus'? 
.     .     .     Because  in  the  frantic  struggle  to  get  into  Society  nine 

xxvii 


PREFACE 

men  out  of  ten  will  tell  lie  upon  lie,  to  prove  that  their  fathers 
were  not  labourers  or  '  dans  cette  galere,'  and  will  therefore  use 
bogus  arms,  to  show  that  they  and  their  people  are  not  of  the 
vulgar  crowd.  That  is  what  I  call  snobbery,  rank,  utter  and 
absolute.1 

But  even  if  the  right  to  bear  arms  gave  the  entree 
to  any  '  Society  '  but  that  which  he  himself  adorns, 
the  anonymous  author  must  be  aware  that  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  a  labourer's  son  from  becoming 
"  a  gentleman  of  coat-armour,"  if,  in  the  sarcastic 
language  of  the  World^  he  has  "  a  few  pounds  to 
spare  to  the  accommodating  fossils  of  Queen 
Victoria  Street."2  The  above  writer,  who  angrily 
complains  that  the  word  '  gentleman  '  is  "  applied 
in  an  idiotic  manner "  to  those  not  entitled  to  it, 
and  "  even  to  a  man  of  polite  and  refined  manners 
and  ideas,"  insists  that — 

Nothing  a  man  can  do  or  say  can  make  him  a  gentleman 
without  formal  letters  patent  of  gentility — in  other  words  with- 
out a  grant  of  arms.3 

May  one  not  venture  to  suggest  to  composers  of 
comic  operas  that  they  might  introduce  a  chorus 
of  heralds  with  some  such  refrain  as  this  ? — 

Seventy-six  pound  ten  ! 

Seventy-six  pound  ten  ! 
The  sum  isn't  large, 
Yet  it's  all  that  we  charge 

For  making  you  gen — tie — men. 

Solvitur  ridendo.  It  is  only  by  showing  its  ridicu- 
lous aspect  that  one  can  effectually  expose  "  a 

1  The  Right  to  Bear  Arms,  pp.  x.-xi. 

2  Article  entitled  "Order  Arms  !  "  in  World  of  1 6  Aug.  1899. 

3  The  Right  to  Bear  Arms,  p.  8. 

xxviii 


PREFACE 

standard  of  social  and  personal  measurement  which 
makes  plebeians  of  men  of  county  family  and 
established  position,  and  c  gentlemen '  of  all  the 
c  bounders '  in  the  kingdom  "  who  care  to  pay  the 
fees.1  What  I  am  exposing  is  not  the  practice  of 
granting  arms,  but  the  effort  to  persuade  the  public 
that  the  grant  is  a  special  privilege,  when  it  is 
notoriously  obtained  by  the  mere  payment  of  cash. 

It  is  hoped  to  show  in  these  pages  that  genealogy 
and  the  study  of  the  peerage  may,  when  intelli- 
gently pursued,  be  useful  handmaids  to  history. 
The  paper,  for  instance,  on  the  Counts  of  Boulogne 
will  explain  the  devolution  of  some  great  territorial 
c  Honours,'  and  will  throw  what  seems  to  be  a 
fresh  light  on  the  acceptance  by  Stephen  and  his 
son  of  Henry  II. 's  succession.  The  study  on  the 
family  of  Ballon  introduces  the  Norman  Conquest 
of  South  Wales  ;  and  that  on  the  Peers  under 
Henry  VIII.  involves  a  new  theory  on  his  action 
in  '  the  Reformation  Parliament.'  In  "  Charles  I. 
and  Lord  Glamorgan "  a  famous  problem  in 
English  history  is  approached  trom  the  standpoint 
of  a  student,  not  only  of  the  peerage,  but  of  docu- 
ments. Without  professing  to  have  demolished 
Mr.  Gardiner's  conclusions  on  the  subject,  one 
may  claim  that  the  evidence  in  the  case,  when 
scientifically  stated,  raises  at  least  grave  doubts,  and 
proves  that  his  arguments  are  not  consistent,  while 
his  treatment  of  the  documents  concerned  has  been 
neither  critical  nor  exact.  "  The  succession  to  the 

)  1 6  Aug.  1899. 
xxix 


PREFACE 

Crown"  raises  the  question  whether  that  succes- 
sion, in  certain  contingencies,  is  at  present  clearly 
provided  for.  It  is  argued  that  the  wording  of  the 
Act  of  Settlement  was  based  on  a  misconception, 
and  that  its  legal  interpretation  might  involve  the 
vacancy  of  the  throne. 

In  view  of  the  points  of  law  discussed  in  these 
pages,  it  is  perhaps  desirable  to  mention  that  I  am 
not,  directly  or  indirectly,  connected  with  the  legal 
profession.  I  may  also  explain  that  publication 
has  been  unavoidably  delayed,  and  that  these  papers 
were  in  type  before  Lord  Mowbray  and  Stourton 
had  "claimed  to  be  heir  of  line  and  senior  [?]  co- 
heir general  to  the  ancient  earldom  of  Norfolk 
created  in  1312. "*  His  lordship's  petition  to  the 
Crown  to  determine  the  "  abeyance  "  of  the  earl- 
dom is  of  great  interest  for  peerage  history,  and  the 
last  paper  in  this  volume  will  be  found  to  bear  on 
the  question.  For  the  same  reason  there  is  no 
mention,  on  p.  184,  of  Miss  Bateson's  valuable 
papers  in  the  English  Historical  Review  on  the 
"Laws  of  Breteuil,"  while  the  last  edition  (1900) 
of  Burke's  Landed  Gentry  has  also  appeared  too 
recently  to  be  noticed  in  these  pages. 

I  have  to  thank  Mr.  Murray  for  permission  to 
incorporate  in  the  paper  on  "the  Peerage"  the 
bulk  of  my  article  on  that  subject  which  appeared 
in  the  Quarterly  Review.  "  Our  English  Haps- 
burgs"  is  reproduced,  with  some  additions,  from 

•  Times,  21  July  1900.  It  will  be  seen  that  on  p.  436  I 
have  questioned  whether  any  proof  of  the  alleged  seniority  of  the 
Howard  co-heiress  has  been  adduced. 

xxx 


PREFACE 

the  Genealogist,  and  the  argument  on  the  Mowbray 
barony,  which  is  here  enlarged  and  developed, 
originally  appeared  in  the  pages  of  the  Law 
Quarterly  Review.  With  these  exceptions  the 
contents  of  the  volume  are  now  published  for  the 
first  time.  Mr.  Lindsay,  Q.C.,  Windsor  Herald, 
was  good  enough  to  allow  me  to  collate  Dugdale's 
extracts  from  the  College  of  Arms  MS.  H.  13 
with  the  original  manuscript,  and  thereby  to  detect 
the  errors  and  alterations  in  the  printed  text. 

J.  H.  R. 


XXXI 


The  Peerage 

NEARLY  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  Professor  Free- 
man, in  a  famous  article,  set  himself  to  expose,  in 
language  of  almost  unexampled  scorn,  the  fables 
and  the  fictions  which  passed  current  for  genuine 
family  history  in  the  well-known  c  Peerage '  of  Sir 
Bernard  Burke,  Ulster  King-of-Arms.1  The  state 
of  things,  as  it  then  existed,  was  described  by  him 
as  follows  : 

When  we  turn  over  an  English  peerage,  or  a  book  of  English 
pedigrees  of  any  kind,  we  are  tempted  to  put  Juvenal's  question 
.  .  .  What  are  pedigrees  worth  ?  when  stage  after  stage, 
not  in  mythical,  but  in  recorded  ages,  not  among  gods  and  heroes, 
but  among  men  who  ought  to  be  real,  is  purely  mythical — if 
indeed  mythical  is  not  too  respectable  a  name  for  what  must  be 
in  many  cases  the  work  of  deliberate  invention.  I  turn  over  a 
peerage  or  other  book  of  genealogy,  and  I  find  that,  when  a  pedi- 
gree professes  to  be  traced  back  to  the  times  of  which  I  know 
most  in  detail,  it  is  all  but  invariably  false.  As  a  rule,  it  is  not 
only  false,  but  impossible  .  .  .  The  historical  circumstances, 
when  any  are  introduced,  are  for  the  most  part  not  merely  fictions, 
but  exactly  that  kind  of  fiction  which  is,  in  its  beginning,  deliber- 
ate and  interested  falsehood. 

Mr.  Freeman  then  proceeded   to  make  his  posi- 

1  "Pedigrees  and  Pedigree-Makers"  [Contemporary  Review^ 
XXX.  11-41]. 

I  B 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

tion  clear ;  he  explained  that  there  was  "  no  reason, 
to  blame  the  present  representatives  of  the  families 
concerned  "  for  accepting  "  tales  which  they  have 
heard  from  their  childhood,  and  which  it  is  a  kind 
of  family  honour  to  believe";  his  quarrel  was 
with  the  peerage  editor,  who  gave  not  only 
currency  but  a  quasi-official  stamp  to  tales  of 
"  manifest  falsehood,"  and  who  made  himself  re- 
sponsible "  for  the  monstrous  fictions  which  appear 
as  the  early  history  of  so  many  families."  That 
this  position  was  a  fair  and  just  one  is  shown  by  the 
very  different  attitude  of  two  peerage  editors  whose 
works,  we  shall  see,  have  been  published  since  Mr. 
Freeman  wrote,  and  who  have  rejected  without 
hesitation  whatever  appeared  to  them  false.  But, 
apart  from  this  justification  for  the  criticism  of 
published  pedigrees,  it  seems  to  me  that  a  wrong 
is  done  to  those  families  who  endeavour  to  give  a 
truthful  account  of  their  origin  and  history — some- 
times at  the  sacrifice  of  beliefs  handed  down  for 
generations — when,  by  the  side  of  their  honest 
pedigrees,  there  are  printed,  year  after  year,  the 
exploded  fictions  which  the  public  and  the  press 
accept  as  no  less  genuine  on  the  strength  of  their 
appearance  in  that  well-known  work  which  is  sub- 
jected, as  they  are  assured,  to  constant  revision  and 
amendment. 

By  the  side  of  what  has  been  termed  this  "  gor- 
geous repertory  of  genealogical  mythology,"  there 
have  appeared,  since  Mr.  Freeman  wrote,  two 
works  devoted  to  the  Peerage,  of  which  honesty 
and  even  frank  scepticism  have,  throughout,  been  ' 


THE   PEERAGE 

distinctive  notes.  The  first  is  the  Peerage  and 
Baronetage  of  Mr.  Joseph  Foster  (1880-1883)  ;  the 
second  is  the  great  Complete  Peerage  of  c  G.  E.  C.' 
(1884-1898).  Mr.  Foster,  whose  services  to  gene- 
alogy were  recognised  by  an  honorary  degree  con- 
ferred by  Oxford  University,  on  the  completion  of 
his  great  work,  Alumni  Oxonienses,  confined  his 
labours  to  the  members  of  the  existing  Peerage  and 
Baronetage ;  the  Complete  Peerage,  in  its  eight  vol- 
umes, comprised,  on  the  contrary,  the  whole  Peerage, 
extinct,  extant,  dormant,  or  in  abeyance,  of  all 
three  realms.  The  first  attempt,  in  modern  times, 
to  produce  a  work  of  this  character  was  that  of 
Sir  Harris  Nicolas,  whose  useful  Synopsis  of  the 
Peerage  (1825) — re-edited  by  Courthope  as  the 
Historic  Peerage,  in  1 857 — was  restricted  to  English 
dignities.  Although  he  gave  no  pedigrees,  and 
had,  therefore,  not  much  temptation  to  deviate 
from  history  or  from  truth,  Nicolas  deserves  all 
credit  for  his  manful  statement  of  his  principles, 
made,  as  it  was,  when  the  study  of  genealogy  was 
still  at  its  lowest  ebb,  and  when  peerage  writers 
had  brought  their  craft  into  well-deserved  con- 
tempt. 

To  the  merit  of  sedulous  care,  of  rigid  impartiality,  and  to 
having  acted  upon  the  resolution  of  not  stating  a  single  word 
which  he  did  not  believe  to  be  strictly  true,  with  the  view  of 
flattering  the  pride  or  gratifying  the  ambition  of  others,  he 
conscientiously  feels  that  he  is  entitled.  .  .  .  He  has  felt  that 
with  respect  to  hereditary  honours,  more  than  with  any  other 
worldly  possession, — 


7 

"  Rien  n'est  beau  que  le  vrai," 
3 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

and  that  to  attribute  a  dignity  to  an  individual  who  has  no  legal 
right  to  it,  is  a  species  of  falsehood  which,  if  not  so  injurious,  is 
at  least  as  morally  culpable  as  any  other  deviation  from  truth. 

Since  that  time  there  has  arisen  a  school  of  criti- 
cal genealogists,  whose  work,  unfortunately  much 
scattered,  is  now  chiefly  represented  by  that  recog- 
nised organ  of  research  in  the  field  of  family 
history,  the  Genealogist.  To  the  labours  of  these 
devoted  students  in  clearing  away  the  false,  and 
substituting  for  it  the  truth,  the  Complete  Peerage, 
as  its  footnotes  show,  has  been  very  largely  in- 
debted. 

Before  discussing  Burke's  Peerage  by  the  side 
of  this  great  work  of  reference,  I  am  anxious  to 
explain  that  the  criticisms  I  may  offer  will  be  no 
mere  rechauffe  of  Mr.  Freeman's  article.  The 
Professor  admitted  that  he  wrote  only  as  the  his- 
torian of  the  Norman  Conquest.  "  I  shall  keep 
myself,"  he  wrote,  "strictly  to  those  pedigrees 
which  touch  the  English  history  of  those  times  of 
which  I  believe  myself  to  have  some  minute  know- 
ledge," though,  as  he  added,  "  the  period  in  which 
I  am  most  at  home  happens  to  be  the  period  where 
it  is  most  needful  unsparingly  to  wield  the  critical 
hatchet  against  the  thick  growth  of  genealogical 
falsehood."  It  has,  indeed,  if  I  remember  right, 
been  somewhere  wittily  said  by  the  present 
bishop  of  Oxford  that  "  it  would  seem  that  every- 
body whose  ancestry  didn't  go  away  in  the  May- 
flower must  have  come  over  with  the  Conqueror's 
ships  "  ;  but  many  a  spurious  pedigree  begins  later 
than  the  Conquest,  while  even  within  the  field  to 

4 


THE    PEERAGE 

which  Mr.  Freeman  confined  himself  there  are 
still  fictions  to  be  exposed.  Moreover,  the  Pro- 
fessor did  not  understand  scientific  genealogy  ; l 
while,  as  for  the  Peerage,  although  he  was  entrusted 
with  the  article  on  that  subject  in  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica,  he  knew  hardly  anything  of  peerage 
law  and  history.  As  evidence  of  this  I  may  appeal 
to  his  almost  incredible  blunder  on  the  doctrine 
of  ennobling  the  blood.  In  a  violent  pamphlet 
against  the  House  of  Lords  he  told  the  people  (to 
whom  it  was  addressed)  that 

when  a  certain  body  of  men  go  on,  age  after  age,  making  in- 
ferences, laying  down  rules  which  are  altogether  in  their  own 
interest  and  not  at  all  in  the  interests  of  the  other  powers  in 
the  State,  we  are  tempted  to  call  that  process  corruption  or  usurp- 
ation rather  than  healthy  growth  or  development.  Now  this 
is  what  the  House  of  Lords  has  been  doing  ever  since  it  began 
to  be  a  distinct  House  of  Lords.  The  Lords  laid  down  the  rule 
that  the  King's  writ  "  ennobled  the  blood  "  and  bestowed  a  hereditary 
seat  in  Parliament — a  thing  which  nobody  would  have  found  out  from 
the  writ  itself.  .  .  .  The  body  which  thus  disloyally,  almost 
rebelliously,  flouted  the  Crown  has  no  right  to  claim  respect  on 
any  grounds  of  antiquity  or  traditional  dignity  when,  in  the  like 
spirit,  they  turn  round  and  flout  the  people.  They  have,  to  be 
sure,  their  "  noble  blood,"  strange  effect  of  King  Edward's  writ 


1  He  wrote,  for  instance,  in  this  article  :  "  There  is,  we  will 
say,  a  deed  .  .  .  which  is  done,  say,  by  John  of  Sutton, 
with  the  consent  of  his  wife  Agnes  and  his  son  Richard  ;  there  is 
another  deed  done  by  Richard  of  Sutton  with  the  consent  of  his 
mother  Agnes  and  his  son  William  ;  here  is  real  evidence  for 
three  stages  of  the  pedigree."  But,  with  names  so  common  as 
these,  it  is  quite  possible  that  there  might  be  two  men  named 
Richard  of  Sutton,  each  of  them  with  a  mother  Agnes.  It  is  the 
proof  of  identity  in  such  cases  as  these,  that  is,  as  the  expert 
knows,  the  usual  crux  in  genealogy. 

5 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

of  summons.  Let  us  wait  and  see  what  their  "  noble  blood  " 
can  do  for  them  when  they  have  turned  every  other  power  of  the 
State  against  them.1 

The  assertion  italicized  above  is  absolutely  con- 
trary to  fact.  "  Whenever,"  Mr.  Freeman  wrote, 
"  the  Lords  have  decreed  or  resolved  or  acted  in 
any  way  by  themselves  and  for  themselves,  they 
have  always  acted  with  the  very  narrowest  aim  of 
narrowing  the  access  to  their  own  body,  in  the 
interest  of  the  phantasy  of  '  ennobled  blood.' ' 
Now  the  doctrine  or  "  phantasy  "  of  "  ennobled 
blood,"  for  which  the  Lords  were  abused  by  Mr. 
Freeman,  was  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  laid  down 
by  them  at  all,  but  by  the  judges  of  England  ! 
We  have  only  to  refer  to  the  original  authority, 
the  Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords  (XII.  629-630), 
to  learn  that  the  doctrine  on  which  is  based  the 
right  to  many  baronies  by  writ,  the  doctrine  that 
when  a  man  had  received  a  "writ  of  summons 
.  .  .  his  blood  was  thereby  ennobled,"  was 
"  laid  down  "  in  a  unanimous  c  opinion '  of  the 
judges,  to  whom  the  Lords  had  referred  the  ques- 
tion as  a  point  of  law.  We  also  find  that  the 
Lords'  resolution  in  this  (the  Clifton)  case  did  not 
contain  anything  about  c  ennobled  blood,'  and  was 
not  even  accompanied  by  any  rationes  decidendi. 
Lastly  we  learn  from  the  Third  Report  on  the  Dig- 
nity of  a  Peer  (Ed.  1829),  pp.  31-2,  that  the  above 
'Opinion'  was  discussed  by  the  Lords  in  no  favour- 

[  The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  House  of  Lords.  By  Edward  A. 
Freeman,  D.C.L.,  LL.D.,  Regius  Professor  of  Modern  History 
in  the  University  of  Oxford. 

6 


THE   PEERAGE 

able  spirit,  the  question  being  even  raised  how  far 
it  might  be  still  binding  on  them.  But  perhaps 
the  most  astounding  of  the  Professor's  statements 
on  the  subject  is  his  assertion  that 

it  is  the  same  doctrine  which  has  led  to  the  anomalous  position 
of  the  judges  with  regard  to  the  House  of  Lords.  .  .  .It 
was  possible  to  keep  them  from  ever  winning  a  full  parliamentary 
position,  and  they  have  never  won  it.  ...  It  was  the 
superstition,  perhaps  one  should  rather  say  the  cunningly  devised 
fable,  about  hereditary  right,  ennobling  of  blood,  and  the  like, 
which  kept  them  out  for  ages. 

When  we  learn  that  the  authors  of  this  in- 
justice to  the  judges,  of  this  "  cunningly  devised 
fable,"  were  no  other  than  the  judges  themselves, 
we  realize  the  recklessness  of  the  misrepresenta- 
tion into  which  the  writer  was  betrayed  by  his 
almost  frantic  prejudice.1 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that,  in  citing  Pro- 
fessor Freeman's  criticisms,  I  do  so  merely  in  order 
to  show  that  the  statements  found  in  Burke's 
Peerage,  as  to  the  origin  and  early  history  of 
certain  great  families,  would  be  even  more  pre- 
posterous than  they  are  at  the  present  time,  if  he 
had  not,  by  his  public  and  merciless  exposure, 
compelled,  here  and  there,  a  tardy  and  reluctant 
amendment.  How  hard  it  is  to  bring  about  any 
improvement  in  the  pages  of  c  Burke '  is  shown  by 
its  persistent  repetition  of  errors,  misstatements, 
and  absurdities,  exposed  by  me  in  the  Quarterly 

1  See  my  communication  to  the  St.  yames*  Gazette  of  24th  June, 
1885,  on  "Professor  Freeman  and  the  House  of  Lords."  No 
reply  was  made  to  this  exposure  by  himself  or  any  one  else. 

7 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Review  seven  years  ago.1  With  very  few  excep- 
tions, no  advantage  has  been  taken  of  the  information 
I  then  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  editors  of 
c  Burke/  in  spite  of  the  announcement  that,  last 
year,  a  "  more  thorough  revision  than  usual  of  its 
contents  was  possible."  We  shall  find,  indeed,  that 
this  '  revision '  has  resulted  in  the  actual  revival 
of  certain  exploded  fables. 

The  extreme  difficulty  of  improving  c  Burke  '  is 
shown  also  by  comparison,  not  only  with  the 
infinitely  superior  Complete  Peerage,  but  even 
with  'Debrett,'  of  which  the  editor  is  far  more 
ready  than  those  responsible  for  Eurke's  Peerage 
to  correct  his  work.  It  would  not  be  necessary  to 
insist  at  such  length  upon  the  point  were  it  not 
that,  owing  to  it  having  been  edited  by  the  late 
Ulster  King  of  Arms,  and  connected  after  his 
death  with  a  member  of  the  Heralds'  College,  the 
book  has  acquired,  in  the  eyes  of  the  public,  a  semi- 
official status,  for  which,  in  spite  of  its  cover,  there 
is  absolutely  no  warrant.  Most  of  the  absurd 
statements  in  the  press  on  the  subject  of  noble 
families  can  be  traced  to  those  fables  which  have 
obtained  currency  through  its  pages. 

The  Complete  Peerage^  of  which  the  modest 
author  prefers  to  be  known  by  his  initials  only,  is 
distinguished  further  from  other  works  dealing 
with  ennobled  families  by  involving  many  points 
of  peerage  law  and  history,  with  which  only  a 
few  students  are  familiar  and  on  several  of  which 

1  Article  on  "the  Peerage,"  October,  1893. 
8 


THE    PEERAGE 

there  still  exist  uncertainty  and  doubt.  On  some 
of  these  I  advanced  views  in  my  Quarterly  Review 
article  at  variance  with  those  expressed  in  that 
work,  and  in  the  c  Corrigenda ' *  its  author  has 
accepted,  on  most  of  these,  my  conclusions.  In- 
deed, he  has  been  content,  for  the  baronage  of  the 
feudal  period,  to  rely  chiefly  upon  others,  his  own 
studies  having  been  directed  to  more  modern 
periods.  He  tells  us,  in  his  preface,  that  "  Mr. 
Courthope's  work  is  an  almost  infallible  guide  as 
far  as  it  extends,"  and  he  has  clearly  treated  it  as 
such.  The  consequence  is  that,  on  some  points, 
he  is,  as  indeed  are  others,  hopelessly  behind  the 
times.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  a  matter  of  such 
importance  as  the  earliest  writs  of  summons,  he 
simply  follows  Courthope  (1857),  who  had  virtu- 
ally copied  from  Nicolas  (1825).  Accordingly, 
his  work  is  based  throughout  on  the  belief  of 
Nicolas  that  there  was  no  record  of  any  valid  writs 
of  summons  between  the  Parliament  of  Simon  de 
Montfort  in  1264  and  that  held  by  Edward  I.  in 
1295  ;  also  that  the  writs  of  1294  and  1297  were 
for  Parliaments  of  doubtful  validity.  All  this  has 
now  been  changed.  It  is,  however,  right  to  men- 
tion that  the  late  Deputy-Keeper  of  the  Records 
(Sir  T.  D.  Hardy)  held  the  same  belief,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  Minutes  of  Evidence  on  the  Hastings 
case  (1841)  : — 


1  Vol.  VIII.  pp.  250-537.  It  has  long  been  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  obtain  complete  copies  of  the  book,  its  high  value 
as  a  work  of  reference  having  been  quickly  recognised. 

9 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Q.  Have  you  made  any  search  whether  there  are  any  writs  of 
summons  to  Parliament  from  the  forty-ninth  of  Henry  the  Third 
to  the  twenty-third  of  Edward  the  First  ? 

A.  I  have. 

Q.  Do  you  find  any  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Moreover,  in  his  Constitutional  History  (1875) 
Dr.  Stubbs  himself  followed  Courthope,  writing 
as  follows  : — 

The  importance  of  1264  and  1295  arises  from  the  fact  that 
there  are  no  earlier  or  intermediate  writs  of  summons  to  a  proper 
Parliament  extant ;  if,  as  is  by  no  means  impossible,  earlier  writs 
addressed  to  the  ancestors  of  existing  families  should  be  discovered, 
it  might  become  a  critical  question  how  far  the  rule  could  be 
regarded  as  binding. 

Yet  Sir  Francis  Palgravehad  long  before  (1830) 
published  his  Parliamentary  Writs^  containing  those 
of  summons  to  the  Parliament  of  Shrewsbury  in 
1283.  These,  which  every  one,  we  have  seen,  had 
completely  disregarded,  were,  in  1876,  sprung  by 
Counsel  on  the  Committee  for  Privileges,  and 
accepted  by  them  without  question,  and  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  1 294  and  1297  were  also  allowed  to  be  put 
in  evidence  without  question,  and  that  the  writ  ot 
1283  affects  a  hundred  baronies,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  Mowbray  decision  (1877)  unconsciously 
wrought  a  revolution,  and  that  the  history  of 
baronies  by  writ  must  now  be  undertaken  de  novo. 
This  decision  has  also  finally  disposed  of  the  1264 
writs,  which  had  been  accepted  in  the  cases  of  Le 

10 


THE    PEERAGE 

Despencer  and  De  Ros,  and  thereby  raised  a  question 
of  precedence  as  yet  insoluble.  But  G.  E.  C.  has 
overlooked  the  fact  that  the  Hastings  decision 
(1841)  had  already  ignored  those  writs,  and  set  up 
a  wholly  new  date  by  recognising  sittings,  in  lieu 
of  writs,  in  1290.  This  barony  is  assigned  by  him, 
we  find,  to  1295,  and  by  Courthope  to  1264, 
though,  as  I  have  said,  the  authorized  date  is 
1290  (18  Edward  I.).1  These  changes  are  so 
important,  and  are  clearly  so  imperfectly  under- 
stood, that  I  have  thought  it  well  to  explain  them 
in  detail. 

We  may  now  select  some  test  cases  of  the  ver- 
dicts on  doubtful  titles,  now,  happily,  few  in  num- 
ber. '  Burke  '  recognises  the  assumption  by  Lord 
Mar  of  the  title  c  Lord  Garioch,'  although  signifi- 
cantly unable  to  assign  to  it  any  creation :  G.  E.  C., 
however,  denies  "that  any  Parliamentary  Barony  ot 
that  name  was  ever  vested  in"  the  Earls  of  Mar. 
In  this  conclusion  he  had  the  support  of  the  late 
Lyon  [Mr.  Burnett],  although  they  both  sided  with 
Lord  Mar  in  the  matter  of  his  earldom.  Again, 
at  the  death  of  the  late  Lord  Eglinton  (1892),  it 
was  asserted  by  those  who  claimed  to  be  specially 
well  informed  that  his  father  had  succeeded  in 
1840  to  the  Scottish  Earldom  of  Winton  (i6oo).2 
c  Burke  '  admits  this  succession,  although  the  only 
proof  is  that,  after  the  title  had  been  dormant 

1  My    correction    has    been    accepted    by   the   author  in  his 
4  Corrigenda.' 

2  This  was  one  of  the  points  noted  by  me  in  the  Quarterly 
Review  article. 


II 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

nearly  a  century,  Lord  Eglinton  caused  himself 
to  be  "  served  heir  male  general "  to  the  earls  of 
Winton  :  G.  E.  C.  does  not  admit  the  validity  of 
this  proof,  and  pronounces  the  title  of  earl  of 
Winton  (United  Kingdom),  conferred  on  the  family 
in  1859,  to  have  been  "a  very  improper  one" 
under  the  circumstances.  We  observe  that  G.  E.  C. 
considers  the  attainder  of  1716  (ignored  by  Ulster) 
a  bar  to  the  succession,  though  Mr.  Riddell,  I 
believe,  held  that  it  was  saved  by  a  specialty. 
Into  the  thorny  subject  of  Scottish  retours  and 
services,  their  trustworthiness  and  their  validity  as 
proofs  of  extinctions,  or  even  as  instructing  the 
right  to  a  peerage,  under  the  present  dispensation, 
I  do  not  propose  to  enter  ;  but,  as  the  sympathies 
of  G.  E.  C.  are  clearly  with  the  Scottish  school,  I 
do  not  think  he  is  quite  consistent  in  opposing 
himself  to  that  unhappy  system  which  was  re- 
sponsible (as  even  its  advocates  admit)  for  the  fact 
that  there  was  in  Scotland  no  "salutary  check  to 
undue  assumption  or  usurpation."  Indeed,  under 
'Angus,'  he  boldly  assigns  that  historic  earldom  to 
the  dukes  of  Hamilton,  although  they  have,  as 
yet,  only  claimed  it.  Turning  to  the  dukedom  of 
Chatellerault,  we  find  that,  according  to  'Burke/ 
it  is  vested  in  the  duke  of  Abercorn,  while  the 
late  duke  of  Hamilton  was  only  said  to  "  claim  " 
that  ghost-like  relic  of  a  distant  past.1  Neither  of 
the  dukes,  though  holding  between  them  nearly 
thirty  Peerage  dignities,  would  waive  his  claim  to 

1  This  is  omitted  in  <  Burke '  since  the  late  duke's  death. 

12 


THE    PEERAGE 

this  shadowy  title  ;  and  '  Burke/  while  assigning 
to  the  Irish  Duke,  "  in  the  point  of  honour,  over 
all,"  the  escocheon  of  the  French  Duchy,  engraves  it 
also  on  the  arms  of  his  rival,  observing  with  courtly 
felicity  that  "his  Grace  places"  it  there.  But  in 
the  painfully  candid  Complete  Peerage  the  duke 
of  Abercorn  himself  is  only  recognised  as  a  claim- 
ant, an  elaborate  note  reminding  us  that  it  is  even 
quite  doubtful  whether  the  contested  title  was  ever 
created  at  all.  The  Irish  Viscountcy  of  Valentia 
is  another  of  those  cases  in  which  the  Complete 
Peerage  appears  to  great  advantage  by  the  side  of 
the  careless  '  Burke.'  On  the  death  of  the  gth 
Viscount  (1844),  the  title  was  assumed  by  "his 
distant  cousin,"  who,  adds  G.  E.  C.,  "took  no  steps 
to  establish  his  right  thereto."  According  to  the 
same  authority  there  were  senior  branches  of  the 
family  of  which  the  extinction  "  has  never  been 
proved."1  Of  all  this  we  learn  nothing,  under 
"  Valentia,"  in  '  Burke,'  though  reference  to  a  roll 
hidden  away  at  the  end  of  the  volume  will  show  that 
the  right  to  this  title  is  as  yet  unproved,  and  that, 
consequently,  no  vote  can  be  given  in  respect  of 
it  at  elections  of  representative  peers  for  Ireland. 
However  valid  the  claim  may  be,  it  is  surely,  in  the 
highest  degree,  unsatisfactory  that  its  validity  should 
thus  remain  unproved  indefinitely.  The  same  re- 
mark applies  to  the  Scottish  Barony  of  Belhaven. 
It  is  stated  by  G.  E.  C.  that  the  gth  Lord,  who 
died  in  1893,  was  succeeded  by  his  "4th  cousin 

1  Vol.  VIII.  p.  15,  note  b. 
13 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

and  heir  male  .  .  .  who  succeeded  to  the 
peerage  6th  September,  1893,  his  claim  thereto 
being  established  in  July,  iS^."1  But,  the  error 
having  been  pointed  out  to  him,  he  substituted  for 
"  established "  the  words  :  "  recognised  so  far  as 
having  been  served  heir  and  as  voting  for  Scotch 
Representative  Peers,  but  not  by  the  Committee  for 
Privileges  in  the  House  of  Lords.3  Here  again 
the  claim  may  be  valid,  but  'Burke'  gives  us  no  hint 
of  the  actual  state  of  affairs.3  The  far  more  re- 
markable case  of  the  Barony  of  Ruthven  of  Free- 
land  will  be  discussed  separately  below.  Here  it 
need  only  be  said  that  its  existence  is  energetically 
denied  by  G.  E.  C.,  as  it  was  by  Mr.  Foster  in  his 
c  Peerage '  ;  Debrett  also  admits  the  title  only  as 
"  claimed  and  assumed  by  Walter  James  Hore 
Ruthven  as  8th  'Baron'  "  and  pronounces  it  "more 
probable"  that  the  barony  "  really  ceased  with  the 
extinction  of  the  direct  male  line."  The  cause  ot 
all  this  trouble,  as  I  have  repeatedly  insisted,  is  the 
absence  of  any  valid  check  on  the  assumption  ot 
Scottish  and  Irish  titles.  The  last  case  I  select  is 
that  of  the  exalted,  but  mysterious,  foreign  digni- 
ties claimed  by  the  earls  of  Denbigh.  These 
noblemen  are  descended,  in  the  words  of  Professor 
Gardiner,  from  "  the  plain  country  gentleman  who 
had  the  good  luck  to  marry  Buckingham's  sister  in 
the  days  of  her  poverty."  Rising  with  Bucking- 
ham, he  became  a  peer,  and,  in  due  course,  the 

1  Vol.  VIII.  P.  307.  *  Vol  vm  p  532> 

It  is  only  right  to  add  that  this  criticism  applies  to  'Debrett' 
also  in  the  case  of  these  two  titles. 

14 


THE   PEERAGE 

family  revealed  a  fact  which  they  had  hitherto  kept 
to  themselves,  namely,  that  they  were  not  of 
English  origin,  but  were  descended  in  the  male 
line  from  the  mighty  house  of  Hapsburg.  It  was 
this  illustrious  descent  that  inspired  the  pen  of 
Gibbon  when,  alluding  to  their  pedigree  of  a 
thousand  years,  he  wrote  that  "  the  successors  of 
Charles  V.  may  disdain  their  brethren  of  England ; 
but  the  romance  of  Tom  Jones,  that  exquisite  pic- 
ture of  human  manners,  will  outlive  the  palace  of 
the  Escurial,  and  the  imperial  eagle  of  the  House 
of  Austria."  Lord  Denbigh,  according  to  cBurke,' 
down  to  the  present  year,  is  "  count  of  Hapsburg, 
Laufenburg,  and  Rheinfelden,"  and,  as  such  (it 
was  added),  "a  count  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire." 
An  eagle  of  Austria  bore  his  arms,  and  the  antiquity 
of  his  countship  is  so  great  that  its  date  of  creation 
is  unknown.  Yet  on  all  these  honours  G.  E.  C.  is 
mute,  though  he  hints  in  a  footnote  tha*t  no  "men- 
tion of  this  illustrious  origin  is  made  in  the  Heralds' 
visitations."  As  will  be  seen  below,1 1  have  critically 
examined  the  story  and  pronounced  it  an  absolute 
concoction,  without,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  one 
shred  of  truth.  This  year,  'Burke  '  at  last  abandons 
under  c  Denbigh '  the  countships  and  the  arms  (as 
indeed  c  Debrett '  had  previously  done) ;  but  under 
"Foreign  Titles  of  Nobility"  (p.  1894)  we  still  find 
"Hapsburgh,  etc.,  see  Denbigh,"  while  even  under 
"Denbigh,"  the  family  pedigree  is  still  traced  to 
"  GefFery,  count  of  Hapsburgh." 

1  See  the  paper  on  "  Our  English  Hapsburgs." 
15 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

These  cases  are,  of  course,  conspicuous,  but  the 
little  points  which  tempt  the  honesty  and  test  the 
accuracy  of  peerage  writers  are  more  easily  over- 
looked. It  is  by  his  treatment  of  such  points  that 
G.  E.  C.  inspires  confidence,  especially  when  his 
statements  are  fortified  by  a  dense  array  of  dates. 
If  Sir  Bernard  Burke  inclined  to  mercy,  and  flat- 
tered the  vanity  of  his  patrons,  the  opposite  ten- 
dency is  visible  in  G.  E.  C.  He  takes  a  positive 
delight  in  explaining  that  the  first  Lord  Kensington 
was  the  son  of  "  a  purser,5'  that  Lord  Kingsale 
(1759-1776)  was  "bred  a  carpenter,"  or  that  the 
founder  of  Lord  Carrington's  family  was  a  "  re- 
spectable draper  at  Nottingham."  For  pretentious 
affectations  he  is  pitiless.  Thus  he  very  sensibly 
observes  of  the  title  '  Ffrench  '  : — 

The  ludicrous  mode  of  spelling  the  name  with  a  double  "f" 
has  been  stereotyped  by  its  adoption  in  the  patent  of  1798.  It 
probably  arose  from  ignorance  that  the  form  of  the  capital  "  F  " 
was  that  of  the  small  "  f  "  duplicated,  .  .  .  and,  considering 
the  spread  of  education,  is  not  likely  to  occur  again. 

We  note,  however,  that  under  "De  Freyne"  he 
accepts  the  statement  that  "  this  title  is  merely  an 
archaic  form  of  the  family  name,  otherwise  de  Freigne 
or  de  Fraxinis"  Now  this  is  simply  absurd.  "The 
family  name  "  was  plain  "  French,"  and  its  deriva- 
tion obvious.  When  Playfair  composed  his  Baronet- 
age as  a  monument  of  sycophantic  folly,  he  dis- 
covered that  Smith  was  derived  from  Smeeth,  "a 
level  plain,"  but  confessed  that  he  could  find  for 
Baker  no  possible  derivation.  In  the  same  spirit 
the  French  family,  discarding  its  obvious  origin, 

16 


THE    PEERAGE 

assumed  an  imaginary  descent  from  "  De  la  freigne" 
(De  Fraxineto).  Yet  on  the  rage  for  c  De '  in  the 
last  hundred  years,  G.  E.  C.,  we  find,  is  unsparing 
in  his  sarcasm.  Such  titles  as  c  De  Tabley,'  '  De 
Mauley,'  and  c  De  Ramsey '  arouse  in  him  the 
same  scorn  as  a  "  modern  Gothic  castle."  Even 
c  De  Grey/  as  he  points  out,  is  a  modern  innova- 
tion on  Grey.  Supplementing  the  cases  he  quotes, 
one  may  here  attempt  a  list  illustrating  the  manu- 
facture of  the  imitation  article  in  feudal  nobility. 
The  immortal  creator  of  cjeames,'  who  from 
c  Yellowplush  '  became  '  De  la  Pluche,'  did  but 
satirize  that  process  of  conversion  which  has 
changed  the  names  of  Smith,  Bear,  Hunt,  Robin- 
son, Aldworth,  Smithson,  Wilkins,  Wigram, 
Morres,  Lill,  Smith,  Supple,  Mullins,  Green,  and 
Gossip,  into  Vernon,  De  Beauchamp,  De  Vere,  De 
Grey,  Neville,  Percy,  De  Winton,  Fitzwygram, 
De  Montmorency,  De  Burgh,  De  Heriz,  De 
Capell  Brooke,  De  Moleyns,  De  Freville,  and  De 
Rodes.  Bottom  is  indeed  translated.  The  marvel 
is  that  such  tempting  examples  have  not  been  more 
widely  followed. 

What  can  delay 

De  Vaux  and  De  Saye, 
*  *  *  #  * 

Fitzwalter,  FitzOsbert,  FitzHugh,  and  Fitzjohn  ? 

It  is  alleged  in  A  treatise  on  the  law  concern- 
ing names  and  changes  of  names  that  "  an  appli- 
cation to  assume  the  particle  c  De  '  in  front  of  a 
name  is  usually  granted  where  unquestionable  evi- 
dence can  be  produced  of  descent  from  some 

17  c 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

ancestor  who  so  wrote  his  name."  Yet,  so  re- 
cently as  1863,  the  Irish  family  of  Power,  which 
holds  a  Papal  countship,  obtained  a  Royal  license 
to  change  its  name  to  '  De  la  Poer.'  Count  c  de 
Poher  de  la  Poer '  claims  to  be  lord  c  le  Power 
(and  Coroghmore) '  as  heir  male  of  the  body  of '  Sir 
Richard  Power,  Kt.,'  who  was  so  created  in  1535.* 
Here  then  we  have  four  forms  of  the  name, 
three  of  which — le  Power,  de  Poher,  and  de  la 
Poer — contradict  one  another.  And  the  origin  ol 
this  dreadful  jumble  is  simply  the  desire  of  a 
family  as  old  as  the  Conquest  of  Ireland  to  repu- 
diate their  purely  personal  surname  and  to  claim 
for  it  a  territorial  origin.  The  name  is  very  fre- 
quently met  with,  in  the  lath  century,  in  Eng- 
land, and  in  Ireland  after  the  Conquest,  and  when 
it  has  a  prefix  at  all,  that  prefix  is  le.  Therefore, 
whatever  its  meaning,  the  name  must  be  personal. 
A  Mr.  Redmond,  who  wrote  an  account  of  this 
family,  calmly  overcame  the  difficulty  by  changing 
'  le '  into  '  de '  in  the  case  of  its  early  members, 
which  enabled  him  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that 
"  it  may  fairly  be  presumed  that  the  family  sprang 
from  the  counts  or  princes  of  Le  Poher."3  This  in- 
deed is  what  it  claims,  and,  accordingly,  it  has  now 
adopted  the  names  of  Alan,  Rivallon,  and  Yseult. 
It  is  only  fair,  however,  to  observe  that,  so  far 

1  Genealogical  Magazine,  II.  451. 

2  See  Burke' s  Peerage,  Burke' s  Landed  Gentry,  and   Genealogical. 
Magazine,  I.  140,  207,  270. 

5  Le  Poher  was  a  Comte  in  Britanny  which  ceased  to  exist  as 
a  separate  organization  in  937. 

18 


THE    PEERAGE 

back  as  1767,  the  idiotic  form  of  c  la  Poer  '  crept 
in  at  the  time  of  Lady  Tyrone's  claim,  although 
that  claim  was  made  under  a  writ  to  '  Nicholas  le 
Poer'  (1375),  and  since  that  time  the  Beresford 
family  have  used  it  as  a  Christian  name  in  the 
developed  form  of  c  De  la  Poer.'  The  Trench 
family,  one  of  whom  had  similarly  married  a 
Power  heiress  in  the  last  century,  have,  with  more 
regard  for  facts  and  grammar,  used  (as  earls  of 
Clancarty),  'Power'  and  c  Le  Poer'  as  Christian 
names.  I  have  elsewhere  shown  that  this  name 
has  no  more  to  do  with  a  Breton  Comte  than  has 
Smith  to  do  with  "  Smeetb,  a  level  plain,"  and  that 
it  is  purely  personal.1  Count  '  de  Poher  de  la 
Poer '  has  twice  replied,2  but  has  not  even  at- 
tempted to  prove  that  the  name  had  '  De  '  before 
it,  or  to  deny  that  its  prefix,  when  it  had  one,  was 

*  Le.'     Indeed,  he  very  frankly  quoted  the  verdict 
of  M.  de  Guyencourt  (Secretaire  de  la  Societe  des 
Antiquaires  de  la  Picardie)  : — 

II  est  absolument  certain  que  les  Pohiers  sont  les  habitants  de 
Poix  en  Picardie.  Aujourd'hui  encore  on  leur  donne  ce  nom  ;  ils 
se  le  donnent  a  euxm£mes.  Le  mot  Pohier  £tait  Latinise  en 
Poherus :  "  Pontivi  comitem  sequuntur  in  arma  Poheri." 

This  would  be  one  origin  of  the  name  ;  but 
there  are  others,  though  I  do  not  go  so  far  as  Mr. 
Rye,  who  approves  of  my  strictures  on  the  tam- 
pering with  the  name  and  asserts  that  it  meant 

*  the  poor  man.' J 

1  Genealogist,  [N.S.]  XII.  215,  XIII.  15-16. 

2  Ibid.  XII.  221-3,  XIII.  131-2. 

3  Ibid.  XII.  288.     See  also  Eyton's  Shropshire,  III.  197-8. 

19 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

It  is  Ireland  also  that  provides  the  most  mon- 
strous case  of  all,  that  of  c  De  Montmorency.' 
Mr.  Freeman  scoffed  at 

the  singular  fact  that  a  family  named  Morres,  dissatisfied  with  a 
very  respectable  name  .  .  .  thought  proper  in  the  last 
century  to  change  it  into  Montmorency,  and  to  give  out  that  a 
branch  of  the  house  of  the  first  Christian  baron  followed  the 
banner  of  the  Norman. 

With  grim  humour  he  pointed  out  that  this  "  is 
one  of  the  very  few  cases  where  the  faith,  even,  of 
Sir  Bernard  Burke  gives  way,"  and  "  when  he 
comes  to  this  monstrous  fable,"  we  find  that  "  there 
is  somewhere  a  last  pound  which  breaks  the  back 
even  of  an  Ulster  King-at-arms." 1  The  alleged 
descent,  indeed,  is  ignored  by  Burke' s  Peerage  and 
absolutely  laughed  to  scorn  by  G.  E.  C.  Yet  it  is 
not  fair  to  treat  the  claim  as  a  mere  private  as- 
sumption. As  Colonel  Morres  boasted  at  the 
time,  his  proofs  were  "  verifies  avec  la  plus 
scrupuleuse  attention  par  Tautorite  competente  et 
sanctionnes  desormais  par  Tautorisation  du  prince 
qui  gouverne  aujourd'hui  1'empire  britannique." a 
But,  unfortunately,  "Tautorite  competente"  was, 
as  c  X  '  and  Mr.  Fox-Davies  are  always  so  loudly 
insisting,  the  officer-of-arms  concerned.  Sir 
William  Betham,  Deputy-Ulster,  certified,  in  his 
official  capacity,  that  the  alleged  pedigree  was 

1  Cont.  Rev.,  XXX.  38. 

2  "Les  Montmorency  de  France  et  les  Montmorency  d'Irlande, 
ou  Precis  historique  des  demarches  faites  a  Toccasion  de  la  reprise 
du  nom  de  ses  anc£tres  par  la  branche  de  Montmorency-marisco- 
morres"  (Paris,  1828),  p.  25. 

20 


THE    PEERAGE 

"  established  on  evidence  of  the  most  unquestion- 
able authority,  chiefly  from  the  ancient  public 
records."  May  one  not  apply  to  this  certificate 
the  words  that  c  X,'  as  the  heralds'  champion, 
applies  to  the  unfortunate  public  : — 

The  Psalmist  in  his  haste  remarked  that  all  men  were  liars, 
and  spoke  with  no  experience  of  armorial  bearings  or  of  the 
temptation  they  afford  to  depart  from  the  truth.1 

For  the  absolute  falsehood  of  Betham's  certificate 
is  demonstrated,  beyond  the  possibility  of  question, 
in  my  article  on  "The  Montmorency  Imposture,"2 
where  I  have  proved  that,  on  its  own  showing,  the 
entire  pedigree  collapses.  Yet  the  Crown,  naturally, 
could  only  accept  the  statement  of  its  own  officer  of 
arms,  and  it  accordingly  described  the  alleged  descent 
as  duly  proved  and  recorded.3  The  energetic  protest 
of  the  French  house  was  wholly  disregarded,  and  so 
perfect  was  this  "  modern  antique,"  which  dates, 
like  others,  from  the  Wyatville  period,  that  the 
family  assumed  not  only  the  arms,  with  the  name, 
of  that  historic  house,  but  also  its  motto,  "  Dieu 
Ayde,"  as  if  conscious  that  the  proof  of  their 
claims  was  beyond  the  power  of  man.  And  now 
there  has  crept  in  the  name  of  '  Bouchard/  the 
tenth-century  patriarch  of  the  French  house.  It 
was  bound  to  come.  Have  not  the  Douglases 
stereotyped  in  '  Sholto  '  the  legend  of  the  c  dark-grey 
man/, the  Ashburnhams  in  '  Bertram '  the  victim  of 

1  The  right  to  bear  arms  (p.  176). 

2  Feudal  England,  pp.  519—527. 

3  London  Gazette,    Sept.  9,   1815  ;   Dublin  Gazette,   Aug.  12, 
1815. 

21 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

the  Conquest,  the  Stourtons  in  '  Botolph '  its 
English  hero,  and  the  Fieldings  in  c  Rudolph  '  their 
glorious  descent  ?  The  mythical  Otho  is  com- 
memorated in  the  family  nomenclature  of  Fitz- 
geralds,  and  in  that  of  the  Grosvenors  has  appeared 
a  most  traditionary  '  Lupus,'  while  the  Russells 
perpetuate  in  c  Odo '  their  imaginary  Norman 
origin.  Although  this  fashion  is  modern,  it  was 
strangely  forestalled  by  the  Percys,  whose  well- 
known  '  Algernon  '  referred  to  the  supposed  sobri- 
quet of  their  founder,  and  began  some  four 
centuries  ago,  though  not,  there  is  reason  to  believe, 
as  a  true  Christian  name.  But  in  even  earlier  days 
the  Beauchamps  had  shown  the  way,  Guy  de 
Beauchamp,  earl  of  Warwick,  who  was  born  in 
1278,  being  named  after  the  famous  Guy,  the 
mythical  ancestor  of  the  Earls  temp.  Athelstan, 
whose  adventures  with  dragons  and  with  pagan  folk 
were  long  the  joy  of  the  romancer.  The  name  has 
been  revived  in  our  own  time,  being  borne  by  the 
present  earl  of  the  Greville  house. 

Apart  from  the  "  modern  antiques  "  at  which 
we  have  glanced  above,  the  Complete  Peerage  is 
severely  critical  of  the  efforts  made  by  certain 
families  to  connect  themselves,  by  title  or  by  sur- 
name, with  houses  of  older  standing  to  which  they 
are  unrelated.  The  most  glaring  of  these  cases  is 
that  of  the  banking  family  of  Smith,  originating, 
as  observed  above,  in  "  a  respectable  draper  at 
Nottingham."1  When  raised  to  the  peerage  by 

1  Martin's  Stories  of  Banks  and  Bankers,  quoted  by  G.  E.  C. 
It  is  interesting  to  learn,  of  the  barony  conferred  on  this  family, 

22 


THE    PEERAGE 

Pitt  about  a  hundred  years  ago,  it  selected  as  the 
title  of  its  barony  c  Carrington,'  doubtless,  as  is 
pointed  out  by  G.  E.  C.,  because  an  older  family 
of  Smith,  "  in  no  way  connected  with  the  family 
of  the  grantee,"  had  borne  that  title  from  1643  to 
1 706.*  And  this  latter  house  had  itself  selected 
that  title  because  of  a  c  cock-and-bull '  story  that  its 
real  ancestor  was  Sir  Michael  Carrington,  standard 
bearer  to  Richard  I.  in  Palestine,  a  descendant  of 
whom,  John  Carrington,  "fled  out  of  England 
and  named  him  selfe  Smith."2  As  if  this  were 


that  "  According  to  Wraxall,  this  was  the  only  instance  in  which 
George  III.'si objections  to  giving  English  peerages  to  those  en- 
gaged in  trade  were  overcome"  (Dictionary  of  National  Biography). 

1  It  was,  perhaps,  unfortunate  that  in  the  person  of  Lord 
Boringdon,  the  Parkers  of  Devonshire  should  have  taken  'Morley' 
as  the  title  of  their  earldom  (created  1815),  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  ancient  barony  of  Morley  (1299),  now  in  abeyance,  had 
been  held  by  a  family  of  Parker,  with  which  they  had  no  con- 
nection, for  two  and  a  half  centuries.  But  this  can  hardly  be 
held  to  justify  the  violent  note  on  the  subject  in  the  Complete 
Peerage  (V.  374): — "It  is  impossible  to  speak  too  strongly  or 
the  contemptible  and  vulgar  vanity  and  want  of  all  right  reeling 
which  induced  the  grantee  of  1815  to  select  his  title  .  .  . 
in  the  hope  of  [fraudulently]  palming  himself  off  as  being  of  the 
ancient  stock."  Such  violent  language  as  this  is  not  only  exces- 
sive, but  is  a  subject  for  regret  in  a  work  of  reference. 

'  The  authority  of  Elizabethan  heralds  was  vouched  for  this 
story  :  "  Of  whose  family  I  may  not  omit  to  observe  what  I  have 
seen  attested  by  Sir  William  Dethick,  sometime  garter  principall 
King  of  Armes,  and  Robert  Cooke  Clarenceux  ;  viz.,  that  the 
said  John  Smyth  (the  baron)  was  grandson  to  John  Carington  ; 
and  the  said  John  Carington  lineally  descended  from  Sir  Michael 
Carington,  knight,  standard-bearer  to  the  famous  King  Richard 
the  First  in  the  Holy  Land"  (Dugdale's  Warwickshire,  p.  60 1). 
Subsequently,  however,  in  his  Baronage,  Dugdale  only  asserted 

23 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

not  enough,  the  above  modern  family  of  Smith, 
though  not  even  claiming  connection  with  the 
descendants  of  the  alleged  standard  bearer,  changed 
its  name,  in  1839^0  'Carrington'  (and  subsequently 
to  '  Carington'),  presumably  because  it  sounded 
nicer,  and  without  even  a  baseless  tradition  to 
support  the  change.  Another  branch  of  the  same 
family  now  appears  among  the  Baronets,  as  c  Brom- 
ley/ while  a  third  has  recently  been  ennobled 
under  the  title  of  '  Pauncefote.'  This  latter 
creation  gave  rise  to  a  wondrous  paragraph,  which 
appeared  on  all  sides  in  the  press,  tracing  the  new 
peer's  descent  from  a  Sir  Grimbald  Pauncefote 
living  in  the  Middle  Ages,  whose  name  indeed 
used  to  appear  at  the  head  of  the  family  pedigree 
in  Burke's  Landed  Gentry^  The  distinguished 
diplomatist  in  question,  however,  is  in  no  way 
descended  from  the  Pauncefotes,  and  in  Burke's 
Peerage  the  pedigree  begins,  in  the  most  straight- 

that  the  family  "  do  derive  themselves  "  as  above.  Their  actual 
founder,  Sir  John  Smith,  a  baron  of  the  Exchequer,  who  died 
1547,  is  alleged  to  have  been  a  great-grandson  of  Sir  Thomas  de 
Carington,  who  died  1383  !  But  the  family  arms  have  mysteri- 
ously changed  more  than  once  (see  Complete  Peerage,  II.  167). 

As  might  be  expected,  many  a  Smith  turned  with  longing  eyes 
to  "Sir  Michael  Carington"  as  an  ancestor.  The  1886  edition 
of  Burke's  Landed  Gentry  guardedly  observed  that  "Several 
families  [of  Smith]  claim  descent  from  the  earlier  branches "  of 
"  the  Caringtons,  who  are  stated  to  have  changed  their  surname 
to  Smith,"  among  them  one  whose  "  immediate  ancestor  "  died 
in  1795.  This  modest  claim  had  developed  in  the  1894  edition 
into  the  five-columned  pedigree  of  "  Smith-Carington,"  traced 
back  to  "  Sir  Mychell  de  Carinton,"  and  thence  to  the  Conquest. 

1  See  the  editions  of  1886  and  1894. 

24 


THE    PEERAGE 

forward    manner,   with    his    actual   ancestors,    the 
Smiths. 

In  sharp  contrast  with  such  instances  as  this 
of  an  honest  and  straightforward  descent,  Lord 
Lytton's  pedigree  in  c  Burke  '  still  commences  with 
"  Sir  Robert  de  Lytton  of  Lytton,  in  the  county 
of  Derby,  comptroller  of  the  household  to  King 
Henry  IV.,"  although  it  will  be  found,  on  close 
scrutiny,  that  the  present  owner  of  Knebworth 
descends  from  "  William  Robinson,"  tout  court^  a 
stranger  in  blood  to  the  old  Lyttons,  who  obtained 
the  property  by  bequest,  in  1710,  to  the  exclusion, 
as  is  pointed  out  by  G.  E.  C.,  "  of  the  heirs  at 
law  and  representatives  of  the  race  of  Lytton."  * 
Bearing  in  mind  that  the  present  family  have  not, 
in  the  words  of  the  same  authority,  "  any  descent 
from  the  old  family  of  Lytton  of  Knebworth," 
there  is  something  exquisitely  comic  in  this 
sonorous  passage  from  the  panegyric  of  Alison  the 
historian  on  Sir  E.  Bulwer  Lytton. 

"  Born  of  a  noble  family,  the  inheritor  of  ancestral  halls  of  un- 
common splendour  and  interest,  he  has  received  from  his  Norman 
forefathers  the  qualities  which  rendered  them  noble.  No  man 
was  ever  more  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  elevated  thoughts, 
the  chivalrous  feelings  which  are  the  true  mark  of  patrician 

1  The  present  Lyttons,  though  descended  in  the  female  line 
from  an  old  Norfolk  family,  the  Ballings,  are  in  the  male 
line  Wiggetts,  a  family  on  which  Mr.  Walter  Rye,  in  his 
Popular  History  of  Norfolk,  has  something  to  say.  It  is  a  singular 
coincidence  that  another  branch  of  the  same  family  (the  Wiggetts) 
has  now  become  '  Chute  of  the  Vyne,'  inheriting  that  most  in- 
teresting old  Hampshire  seat,  like  their  kinsmen  at  Knebworth, 
without  any  descent  from  the  Chute  family. 

25 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

blood  ;  and  which,  however  they  may  be  admired  by  others, 
never  perhaps  exist  in  such  purity  as  in  those  who,  like  the  Arab 
steeds  of  high  descent,  can  trace  their  pedigree  back  through  a 
long  series  of  ancestors." 

"The  dining-room  at  Knebworth,  in  Hertfordshire,  Sir  E. 
Bulwer  Lytton's  noble  family  mansion,  originally  built  by  a  Norman 
follower  of  the  Conqueror,  is  fifty-six  feet  long  and  thirty  high, 
hung  round  with  the  armour  which  the  family  and  their  retainers 
wore  at  the  battle  of  Bosworth,  and  ended  by  the  gallery  in 
which  the  minstrels  poured  forth  their  heart-stirring  strains."  * 

The  admiration  here  expressed  by  Disraeli's 
"  Mr.  Wordy  "  contrasts  quaintly  with  Thackeray's 
bitter  caricature  of  the  aristocratic  novelist. 

"  Look  again  at  me  friend  Bullwig.  He  is  a  gentleman,  to  be 
sure,  and  bad  luck  to  'im,  say  I ;  and  what  has  been  the  result  of 
his  litherary  labour  ?  I'll  tell  you  what,  and  I'll  tell  this  gintale 
society,  by  the  shade  of  Saint  Patrick,  they're  going  to  make  him 
a  Barinet." 

"  And  pray  what  for  ?  " 

"  What  faw  ? "  says  Bullwig.  "  Ask  the  histowy  of  litwatuwe 
what  faw  ?  Ask  Colburn,  ask  Bentley,  ask  Saunders  and  Otley,  ask 
the  gweat  Bwitish  nation,  what  faw  ?  The  blood  in  my  veins 
comes  puwified  thwough  ten  thousand  years  of  chivalwous 
ancestwy  .  .  .  and  the  Bwitish  government,  honowing 
genius  in  me,  compliments  the  Bwitish  nation  by  lifting  into  the 
bosom  of  the  heweditawy  nobility  the  most  gifted  member  of  the 
democwacy."  2 

Whether  the  solemn  Scottish  writer  was  hoaxed 
or  not  by  his  host,  it  adds  to  the  humour  of  the 
whole  story  when  we  find  that  even  the  old  Lyttons 
did  not  purchase  Knebworth  till  after  Bosworth  fight. 
It  was  bought,  according  to  c  Burke/  in  7  Hen.  VII. 
(1491-2),  by  "Sir  Robert  de  Lytton  of  Lytton," 

1  Alison's  History  of  Europe  (1852),  I.  480. 

2  Yellowplush  Papers. 

26 


THE   PEERAGE 

son  of  the  above  Sir  Robert  de  Lytton,  who  lived, 
we  learn,  under  Henry  IV.  (1399-1413).  The 
editor's  notions  of  regnal  chronology  seem  to  be  as 
strange  here  as  they  are  in  the  case  of  the  St. 
Johns.  Nor  is  our  confidence  increased  when  we 
find  that  this  Lytton  (a  property  in  Tideswell,  then 
valued  at  forty  shillings  a  year)  was  held,  in  1431, 
not  by  a  Robert,  not  by  a  knight,  not  even  by  an 
esquire,  but  by  Richard  Lytton,  c  gentilman.' l 

An  instance  of  the  scrupulous  exactitude  or. 
G.  E.  C.  is  afforded  by  the  title  of  Warwick.  He 
points  out  that  this  should  rightly  be  Brooke  and 
Warwick,  the  Earls  taking  precedence  under 
Brooke  (1746).  Though  adopting  the  style  of 
Warwick  (1759)  alone,  their  petition  for  assigning 
to  Warwick  the  precedence  of  Brooke  was  never, 
he  observes,  granted.  He  is  further  careful  to 
explain  that  when  these  honours  were  conferred, 
the  family,  in  spite  of  the  flourishes  of  peerage 
writers,  were  not  even  co-heirs  of  a  younger  branch 
of  the  old  earls  of  Warwick,  whom  therefore 
they  in  no  way  represent,  although  their  coat-of- 
arms  is  decked  with  the  swan  and  the  bear  of  the 
Beauchamps,  together,  he  adds,  with  the  suggestive 
motto,  "  Vix  ea  nostra  voco."  We  must  also  agree 
with  him  on  the  impropriety  of  granting  the 
baronies  of  Lovel  and  Holland  to  Lord  Egmont's 
ancestor  (1762),  when  he  was  in  no  way  a  co-heir 
to  the  ancient  baronies  of  these  names.  The  Lovel 
quartering  on  Lord  Egmont's  coat  is  most  mis- 

1  Feudal  Aids,  I.  287. 
27 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

leading,  implying,  as  it  does,  a  non-existent  repre- 
sentation in  blood. 

Nor  is  it  only  on  names  and  styles  that  G.  E.  C. 
is  outspoken.  He  reminds  us  of  the  origin  of 
the  earldom  of  Orkney,  and  is  careful  to  explain 
that  Lord  Winchilsea's  Viscountcy  of  Maidstone 
was  obtained  (1623)  by  bribery,  and  that  so  re- 
cently as  1747  the  viscountcy  of  Folkestone  was 
purchased  for  £12,000  through  the  notorious 
countess  of  Yarmouth,  who  "is  stated  to  have 
derived  considerable  sums  from  the  sale  of  peerages." 
Holies,  we  see,  according  to  him,  bought  his 
barony  (1616)  through  Buckingham  for  £10,000, 
and  the  coveted  earldom  of  Clare  (1624)  f°r  an 
additional  £5,000.  I  had  imagined  that  the  latter 
cost  him  more,  but,  though  the  purchase  system 
was  as  fully  recognised  in  the  peerage  then  as  in 
the  army  afterwards,  the  facts  are  not  easy  to 
ascertain.  The  barony  of  Teynham  (1616)  was 
undoubtedly  said  to  have  been  purchased  for 
£10,000,  but  I  have  seen  it  stated  that  the  earl- 
doms of  Devonshire  (1618),  Northampton  (1618), 
and  Warwick  (1618)  cost  no  larger  a  sum.  The 
Scottish  barony  of  Fairfax  (1627)  is  also  said  to 
have  been  paid  for.1  G.  E.  C.,  by  the  way,  would 
seem  to  be  unaware  of  Dugdale's  letter  on  the 
difficulty  (surmounted  by  a  bribe  to  courtiers)  of 
inducing  Charles  II.  to  recognise  at  the  Restora- 
tion the  suspicious  Dudley  patent  of  1 644.  Again, 
under  '  Guilford,'  G.  E.  C.  revives  the  North 

1   Markham's  Life  of  the  great  Lord  Fairfax^  p.  14. 
28 


THE    PEERAGE 

ecclesiastical  scandals  ;  though  under  c  Feversham  * 
he  does  not  allude  to  the  origin  of  the  Duncombe 
wealth.  Macaulay  and  Professor  Freeman,  be- 
tween them,  were  outspoken  enough  on  the  sub- 
ject, the  latter  writing  : — 

Lord  Macaulay's  readers  know  how  "  the  once  humble  name 
of  Duncombe  "  got  transferred  to  the  lands  which  had  once  been 
the  reward  of  Fairfax  ;  and  students  of  local  genealogy  may 
know  how  the  name  passed,  not  only  to  the  lands — the  lands 
which  the  House  of  Commons  proposed  to  confiscate  as  a  punish- 
ment of  their  owner's  fraud — but  also  to  their  later  possessors. 
Now,  if  Brown  chooses  to  call  himself  Duncombe,  or  if  Dun- 
combe insists  that  Brown  shall  call  himself  Duncombe,  no  great 
harm  is  done  to  anyone,  and  Brown  most  likely  is  pleased.  But 
when  the  lands  of  Helmsley  were  made  to  take  the  name  of 
Duncombe,  a  real  wrong  was  done  to  geography.  .  .  . 
The  thing  is  a  fraud  on  nomenclature  as  great  as  any  of  the 
frauds  which  the  first  Duncombe,  "  born  to  carry  parcels  and  to 
sweep  down  a  counting-house,"  contrived  to  commit  on  the 
treasury  of  the  nation.1 

An  unsparing  footnote  is  suggested  to  G.  E.  C. 
by  the  restoration  of  the  earldom  of  Devon  (1831), 
contrasting  strangely  with  the  famous  panegyric  of 
Gibbon  on  the  Courtenays,  who  "  still  retain  the 
plaintive  motto,  which  asserts  the  innocence,  and 
deplores  the  fall,  of  their  ancient  house."  Another 
note  carefully  explains  that,  in  1837,  a  jury  "only 
took  1 5  minutes  to  determine  upon  their  verdict " 
implying  that  the  Premier  Baron  of  England  had 
cheated  at  cards.2 

But  the  limit  of  what  is  permissible  is  reached 
in  such  comments  as  these,  and  one  cannot  but 
regard  that  this  limit  is  passed  in  certain  objection- 

1  English  towns  and  districts,  p.  310.          2  Vol.  VI.  p.  407. 

29 


PEERAGE  STUDIES 

able  notes.  It  is  possible  to  compile  an  honest 
Peerage  without  making  it  a  chronique  scandaleuse^ 
and  a  work  of  reference  is  only  disfigured  by 
remarks  which  offend,  surely,  against  good  taste. 

A  point  upon  which  G.  E.  C.  permits  himself 
to  speak  strongly  is  the  practice  of  calling  out  of 
abeyance  certain  ancient  baronies  in  favour  of 
modern  co-heirs  but  distantly  connected  with  them. 
His  remarks  on  this  subject  (under  c  Beaumont ') 
deserve  quoting  : — 

The  early  years  of  the  Queen's  accession  were  the  halcyon 
times  for  the  Peerage  lawyers.  Supporters  of  the  Whig  Govern- 
ment (Lord  Melbourne's)  who,  under  other  Ministers,  might 
have  entered  the  peerage  from  below,  had  now  good  reason  to  ex- 
pect to  be  placed  over  the  heads  of  almost  the  entire  Baronage 
(e.g.,  over  such  families  as  Stourton,  St.  John,  Dormer,  Roper, 
Clifford,  Byron,  etc.),  provided  only  that  the  Peerage  lawyer 
could  prove  that  there  was  in  them  .  .  .  some  small  frac- 
tion of  co-representation  of  some  one  of  the  prodigious  number 
of  early  Baronies,  which  (according  to  modern  interpretation) 
were  created  in  fee  by  the  numerous  writs  of  summons  issued  by 
the  Plantagenet  kings.  Before  the  time  of  George  III.  (passing 
over  the  anomalous  case  of  Le  Despencer)  no  abeyance  had  been 
terminated  that  had  existed  more  than  the  space  of  some  thirty 
years  or  so  ;  that  king,  however,  in  four  (Botetourt,  Zouche, 
Roos,  and  Howard  de  Walden)  out  of  the  eight  Baronies  [sic]  he 
thus  terminated,  introduced  the  pernicious  practice  of  reviving 
Baronies  whose  estates  had  been  entirely  alienated,  and  where  the 
dignities  themselves  had  lapsed  for  a  century  or  more.  It  was  re- 
served, however,  for  the  short  space  of  little  more  than  three 
years  (March  1838  to  May  1841)  to  terminate  the  abeyance  ot 
six  Baronies — of  which  five  had  long  been  disused,  the  'caput 
Baroniae  '  and  all  estates  belonging  to  them  having  been  alienated 
and  their  very  names  become  unfamiliar.  These  five  were  : 
VAUX,  which  had  been  in  abeyance  about  175  years  ;  (2)  BRAYE, 
about  300  years,  the  newly  established  Baroness  representing  one 
of  the  younger  of  the  six  sisters  and  co-heirs  (all  of  whom  left 

30 


THE    PEERAGE 

issue)  of  the  second  Lord  ;  (3)  BEAUMONT,  about  350  years  ;  (4) 
CAMOYS,  above  400  years ;  and,  finally,  (5)  HASTINGS,  which, 
though  in  abeyance  only  300  years,  had  been  dormant  for  about 
450  years.  .  .  .  Had  this  pace  of  terminating  abeyances 
been  continued,  the  Peerage  would,  since  the  Queen's  accession, 
have  by  this  time  been  *  adorned '  with  about  I  oo  such  (strange) 
Baronies  .  .  .  but,  happily,  the  good  sense  of  the  Crown 
itself  preserved  the  Peerage  from  being  thus  swamped. 

This  most  objectionable  system  ...  is  admirably  de- 
scribed by  Disraeli  in  his  novel  called  Sybil  (1845),  where  Mr. 
Hatton,  the  famous  Peerage  lawyer  of  the  Inner  Temple,  ex- 
plains how  he  can  make  a  Peer.  .  .  .  "If  you  wish  to  be 
Lord  Bardolph,  I  will  undertake  to  make  you  so  ...  it 
will  give  you  precedence  over  every  other  Peer  on  the  roll,  except 
three  (and  I  made  those)" 

This  complaint  is  repeated  by  the  writer  as  he 
comes  to  each  of  the  obnoxious  baronies,  and  as  a 
protest  against  the  abuse  of  the  prerogative  it  has 
much  justification.  There  is  also  a  good  deal  of 
truth  in  his  comment  on  the  modern  barony  of 
Fitz- Walter,  granted  in  1868  as  a  consolation  to 
Sir  Brook  Bridges  on  his  failing  to  establish  his 
right  to  the  ancient  barony  of  that  name  : — 

A  very  different  treatment  was  shown  to  this  (Conservative) 
claimant  of  a  peerage  to  what  had  been,  a  few  years  previously, 
shown  to  the  (Liberal)  claimants  of  the  Baronies  of  Vaux, 
Camoys,  Braye,  Hastings,  etc.  .  .  .  while  in  this  case  the 
Barony  had  continued  uninterruptedly  from  1295  to  1755,  and 
the  claimant  represented  an  undoubted  moiety,  if  indeed  not  the 
entirety  thereof. 

Another  case,  one  may  add,  of  contrasting  treat- 
ment in  the  matter  is  afforded  by  the  barony  of 
Ferrers.  With  the  exception  of  short  spells  of 
abeyance,  1646-1677  and  1741-9,  this  barony 
existed  continuously  from  1299  to  1855.  But  it 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

is  not  so  much  upon  that  ground  that  it  might 
have  been  selected  as  an  ideal  case  for  the  deter- 
mination of  the  abeyance  as  from  the  singular  and 
happy  circumstance  that  its  senior  co-heirs,  the 
family  of  Ferrers  of  Baddesley  Clinton,  were  also 
the  heirs  male  of  the  great  house  of  Ferrers,  as  is 
shown  by  G.  E.  C.  in  an  admirable  chart  pedigree 
(III.  334-5).  It  is  hard  enough  for  our  ancient 
nouses  to  trace  an  undoubted  male  descent  from 
even  the  humblest  Norman  mentioned  in  Domes- 
day Book,  but  the  house  of  Ferrers  was  already 
mighty  when  the  Conqueror  rilled  the  throne,  and 
had  attained  the  dignity  of  an  earldom  in  the  early 
days  of  Stephen.  The  heir  male  of  such  a  house 
as  this  would  be  worthy  indeed  to  take  his  seat 
among  the  ancient  barons  of  the  realm.  And  yet 
the  existence  of  such  a  line,  outside  the  House  of 
Lords,  serves  to  remind  us  that,  in  England,  a 
simple  country  gentleman  can  still  look  down  in 
calm  disdain,  from  the  heights  of  immemorial 
noblesse^  on  the  scramble  for  the  newest  of  peerage 
dignities  or  for  those  baronetcies  which  are  fast 
becoming  the  peculiar  perquisite  of  the  nouveau 
riche.1 

1  I  am  tempted  to  allude  to  the  little-known  fact  that  the 
royal  instructions  to  the  special  Commissioners,  at  the  foundation 
of  the  order  (1611),  commanded  them  to  "  proceed  with  none, 
except  it  shall  appear  unto  you,  upon  good  proof,  .  .  .  that 
they  are,  at  the  least,  descended  of  a  grandfather  (by  the  father's 
side)  that  bore  arms."  And  those  admitted  were,  accordingly^ 
gentry  of  high  position  and  ancient  lineage.  The  status  of  these 
early  baronetcies  is,  therefore,  quite  different  from  that  of  those 
conferred,  according  to  the  modern  practice,  on  persons  who — to 

32 


THE    PEERAGE 

The  first  two  Stuart  kings  are  often  charged 
with  the  degradation  of  hereditary  titles  of  honour, 
not  only  by  creating  them  too  profusely,  but  also 
by  virtually  selling  them.1  There  is,  unfortunately, 
in  this  charge  a  good  deal  of  truth  ;  but  it  would 
be  grievous  hypocrisy  to  pretend  that  the  practice 
was  restricted  to  those  monarchs,  or  that  even  in 
these  decorous  days  peerage  dignities  are  invari- 
ably conferred  for  public  services  alone.2  The 
question  involved  is  a  very  wide  one  ;  indeed,  for 
those  who  look  ahead  and  who  watch  the  signs  of 
the  times,  it  is  one  of  national  importance.  That 
the  highest  honours  which  the  Crown  has  it  in  its 
power  to  bestow  should  at  all  times  be  granted 
with  jealous  care,  if  their  value  and  their  dignity 
are  to  be  maintained,  is  a  self-evident  proposition  ; 
but  the  point  that  is  apt  to  be  overlooked,  the  now 
growing  danger,  is  the  risk  that  "  the  trail  of 
finance  "  should  sully  the  honour  of  the  Peerage, 
should  hasten  the  ever-increasing  tendency  to  sub- 
stitute a  plutocratic  for  an  aristocratic  class.  That 
this  country  has  been  saved  from  much  that  is, 
beyond  dispute,  deplorable  in  the  public  life  of  the 
United  States  is,  it  may  be  confidently  and  boldly 
asserted,  due  to  the  existence  of  a  social  standard 
other  than  that  of  mere  wealth.  This  is  a  matter 

quote  the  Quadripartite  [Ed.  Liebermann],  describing  the  novi 
homines  of  1 1 1 4 — "  vera  morum  generositate  carentes  et  honesta 
prosapia,  longo  nummorum  stemmate  gloriantur." 

1  See  p.  28  above,  and  compare  Pike's  Constitutional  History  of 
the  House  of  Lords ,  p.  355. 

2  See,  for   instance,  the  significant   note   in   Complete  Peerage 
(VIII.  47)  on  the  notorious  "resignation  honours"  of  1895. 

33  D 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

not  of  prejudice,  but  of  observation  and  of  fact. 
The  social  standard  of  this  country  may,  like  others, 
have  its  faults,  but  it  has,  at  least,  saved  us,  thus 
far,  from  making  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  how- 
ever acquired,  the  sole  national  ideal.  Nor  is  it 
among  the  least  ot  the  services  rendered  to  the 
nation  by  its  army  and  its  navy  that  the  officers 
of  those  great  professions  have  kept  before  us,  in 
a  corporate  form,  the  conception  of  a  life  of  which 
the  aim  was,  not  the  making  of  money,  but  the 
discharge  of  duty. 

It  is,  and  always  has  been,  easy  to  sneer  at  the 
claims  of  birth,  but  if  English  political  and  social 
life  is  not  to  be  degraded  to  the  level  reached  in 
the  United  States,  if  great  abilities  are  still  to  be 
attracted  to  the  service  of  the  public  and  the  State 
rather  than  to  that  of  Mammon,  there  is  absolutely 
no  means  by  which  this  can  be  effected  other  than 
that  of  maintaining  barriers  which  wealth  alone 
cannot  overleap,  of  rewarding  service  by  distinctions 
which  money  cannot  buy,  of  upholding  a  social 
standard  based  on  something  else  than  the  dollars 
a  man  has  acquired  by  fair  means  or  foul. 

We  are  not  called  upon  to  settle  what  should  be 
the  social  standard  in  Utopia  ;  what  we  have  to 
do  is,  here  in  England,  to  see  that  wealth  does  not 
usurp  the  position  of  that  standard.  And  this, 
because  its  doing  so  would  lower  the  whole  tone 
of  national  life. 

When  Mr.  Gladstone  urged  the  argument,  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  on  the  Royal  Grants  Bill, 
that  "  the  habits  of  society  have  in  the  course  of 

34 


THE   PEERAGE 

years  become  more  and  more  expensive,  and,  as  I 
may  say,  luxurious,"1  he  was  taken  to  task  by  one 
of  his  followers,  the  member  for  Sunderland,  as 
follows  : — 

When  the  right  hon.  gentleman  tells  me  that  the  cost  of  living 
has  increased,  I  admit  that  the  cankerworm  of  extravagance,  the 
precursor  of  decay  and  ruin  of  nations,  has  eaten  deeply  into  Lon- 
don Society. 

Mr.  Storey  proceeded  to  urge  that  a  member  of 
the  Royal  Family  should  rather  "  by  an  honourable 
simplicity  of  life  attempt  to  discourage  luxury  than 
.  .  .  undertake  a  race  of  competitive  extravagance 
with  the  plutocrats  and  aristocrats  of  the  time." 
One  need  not  approve  of  Mr.  Storey's  taste,  one 
need  not  share  his  political  opinions,  to  feel  that  a 
great  truth  underlay  his  words.  It  would  be  hard 
to  vulgarize  royalty,  or  to  degrade  aristocracy,  more 
effectually  than  by  stooping  to  compete,  on  its  own 
level,  with  wealth  alone.  The  whole  matter  is  one 
of  standard,  and  we  cannot  wonder  that  the  newly 
rich  should  strive  to  make  that  standard  what  it  is 
in  the  United  States.3  Here,  as  yet,  even  a  baron- 
etcy, at  least  when  Conservatives  are  in  power,  is 
not  always  to  be  bought,  as  we  learned  the  other 
day,  for  £50,000.  That  no  money,  under  any 
circumstances,  should  be  able  to  buy  a  peerage 

1  Hansard,  4th  July,  1889,  col.  1483. 

2  Ibid.  2$th  July,  1889,  cols.  1307-8. 

[  To  close  observers  it  is  a  sign  of  the  times  that,  of  late,  the 
term  '  middle  class,'  which  formerly  denoted  those  beneath  the 
rank  of  gentry,  has  been  largely  applied  to  those  of  moderate 
fortune  irrespective  of  their  birth. 

35 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

dignity  is,  if  a  dream,  at  least  a  dream  which,  in 
the  national  interest,  men  of  both  parties  might 
well  combine  to  realize.  There  at  least  a  barrier 
might  be  found,  if  in  social  life  no  leaders  can  be 
found  bold  enough  to  stem  the  flood.  If  society 
is  doomed,  we  may  at  least  strive  to  avert  the  de- 
gradation of  the  Peerage,  not  in  the  interests  of  a 
class,  but  in  those  of  the  whole  people. 

The  Stuart  kings  might  plead,  if  arraigned  at 
the  bar  of  history,  that  whether  they  received 
money  or  not,  they  bestowed  their  peerage  digni- 
ties on  those  qualified  by  birth  to  receive  them,  on 
men  who  already  belonged  to  the  ranks  of  the 
English  gentry.1  Nor,  it  may  be  added,  was  the 
danger  from  the  tyranny  of  mere  wealth  one  that 
had  then  to  be  reckoned  with.  And  Charles, 
quick  to  make  his  point,  would  doubtless  turn  to 
such  a  charter  as  that  which  he  granted  to  the 
borough  of  Colchester,  excluding  even  from  the 
franchise  itself  brewers  and  all  those  connected 
with  the  traffic  in  drink,  and,  with  an  air  of  well- 
bred  surprise,  would  inquire  if  it  were  indeed  the 
fact  that  a  peerage  was  now  the  reward  for  the 
acquisition  of  a  fortune  by  the  sale  of  a  recognised 
source  of  national  poverty  and  crime. 

There  are  few  points  connected  with  the  Peer- 
age on  which  so  much  misconception  prevails, 
among  the  general  public,  as  the  doctrine  of  abey- 
ance. It  appears  to  be  usually  considered  imma- 

1  See  the  cases  above  on  p.  28. 

36 


THE   PEERAGE 

terial  whether  a  dignity  is  spoken  of  as  c  dormant ' 
or  'in  abeyance.'  Yet  the  two  conditions  are 
radically  distinct.  A  dignity  is  said  to  be  c  dor- 
mant '  when  it  is  in  existence  but  is  not  assumed  : 
it  falls  into  c  abeyance '  when,  being  descendible 
(as  in  the  case  of  a  barony  by  writ)  to  heirs- 
general,  its  heirs  are  two  or  more  sisters,  who, 
having  an  equal  share  in  the  dignity,  can  neither 
of  them  assume  it.  In  Scotland,  where  the  eldest 
daughter  inherits  such  dignities,  such  a  state  of 
affairs  cannot  arise  ;  but  in  England,  where — except 
for  vague  traces  of  an  esnecia  or  droit  d'amesse — the 
sisters  rank  equally,  it  has  led  to  curious  develop- 
ments. Lady  Otway-Cave,  in  whose  favour  the 
barony  of  Braye  was  called  out  of  abeyance  in 
1839,  had  four  sons  and  five  daughters,  so  that  the 
succession  seemed  well  secured.  Yet,  at  her  death 
(1862),  the  barony  fell  into  abeyance,  and  only 
emerged  in  1879,  on  four  of  the  five  daughters 
having  died  childless,  so  that  the  fifth  became  sole 
heir.  This  case  aptly  illustrates  the  two  methods 
by  which  the  abeyance  of  a  dignity  can  be  c  deter- 
mined,' viz.  (i)  by  the  intervention  of  the  Crown 
in  favour  of  one  of  the  co-heirs  ;  (2)  by  the 
natural  extinction  of  all  the  co-heirs  but  one. 

Instructive,  and  in  many  respects  memorable, 
was  the  determination  of  the  abeyance  of  the  his- 
toric baronies  of  Mowbray  and  Segrave  in  favour 
of  Lord  Stourton  (1877-8),  which  will  be  the 
subject  of  a  separate  study  in  this  volume.  I  have 
already  referred  to  its  bearing  on  the  dates  ot 
baronies  by  writ,  but  I  cannot  pass  over  the  novel 

37 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

principle  it  enunciates,  with  equal  unconsciousness, 
in  the  doctrine  of  abeyance.  Yet,  apart  from  the 
points  of  law  involved,  it  was  eminently  fitting 
that  these  ancient  dignities  should  be  c  called  out ' 
in  favour  of  one  whose  ancestors  had  already  been 
peers  of  the  realm  for  more  than  four  hundred 
years.  Moreover,  it  served  to  accentuate  the  fact 
that  the  heirship  in  blood  of  that  colluvies  gentium 
which  had  made  the  fortunes  of  the  Howards  had 
long  passed  from  the  dukes  of  Norfolk,  although 
they  had  succeeded  in  diverting  in  their  favour  the 
historic  estate  and  some  of  the  dignities  so  ac- 
quired. So  too  the  anomalous  barony  of  Percy, 
vested  in  the  duke  of  Athole,  similarly  reminds 
us  that  the  dukes  of  Northumberland  have  ceased 
to  represent  the  Percys,  whose  estates,  however, 
they  retain.  It  is,  perhaps,  as  little  realized  that 
the  right  heir  of  Nelson  is  not  the  holder  of  the 
Nelson  earldom,  who  is  descended  from  a  sister  of 
the  admiral,  but  Lord  Bridport,  who  represents  his 
brother,  and  is  accordingly  duke  of  Bronte.  So 
also  the  dukes  of  Marlborough  are  but  the  junior 
co-heirs  of  Churchill,  the  representation  of  his 
elder  daughter  (suo  jure  duchess  of  Marlborough) 
being  vested  in  the  late  Lord  Conyers.  We  are 
not  told  on  what  grounds  the  princedom  of  the 
Empire  is  alleged  to  have  descended  with  the 
dukedom  to  a  junior  co-heir.  G.  E.  C.,  indeed, 
appears  to  doubt  the  fact  (V.  255). 

The  consideration  of  the  Mowbray  descent 
brings  me  to  a  question  of  heraldry  never,  so  far  as 
I  know,  raised  till  I  wrote  in  the  Quarterly  Review 

38 


THE    PEERAGE 

(Oct.  1893)  as  follows.  Few  coats  are  more 
familiar  than  that  of  the  house  of  Howard,  with 
its  famous  Flodden  augmentation.  For  the  bene- 
fit of  non-heraldic  readers  one  may  explain  that, 
like  the  scalp  that  adorns  the  Indian  brave,  an 
c  augmentation '  granted  for  a  victory  commonly 
bore  an  armorial  allusion  to  the  vanquished  leader. 
Accordingly,  the  Howards'  victory  at  Flodden,  and 
the  death  on  the  field  of  the  King  of  Scots,  were 
commemorated  by  the  grant  of  an  augmentation 
adapted  from  the  King's  arms,  but  so  imperfectly 
described  in  the  original  as  to  make  the  accepted 
blazon  somewhat  open  to  question.  My  point, 
however,  is  that  this  honourable  distinction  was 
granted  to  the  duke  of  Norfolk  "  et  heredibus  suis 
temporibus  futuris  imperpetuum."  Dugdale  ren- 
ders this  as  a  grant  in  tail  male,  and  the  late  Dr. 
Brewer,  in  his  official  calendar  of  Henry  VIII. 
papers  (vol.  I.  p.  729),  similarly  terms  it  a  "grant 
in  tail  male."  Now  this  is  a  rather  serious  matter. 
Rightly  or  wrongly,  Dr.  Brewer  enjoyed  a  great 
reputation,  and  it  may  appear  incredible  that  he 
should  so  misread  the  grant.  Yet  there  is  no 
doubt  about  it ;  I  have  examined  the  original  roll 
(Pat.  5  Hen.  VIII. ,  pars  2,  m.  13,  alias  18)  more 
than  once.  It  is  possible  that, — as  in  the  grant  of 
the  dukedom,  which  precedes  it,  and  that  of  es- 
tates, which  follows  it,  the  habendum  is  to  heirs 
male  of  the  body, — Dr.  Brewer  hurriedly  took  the 
words  of  inheritance  to  be  the  same  in  all  three 
cases.  The  augmentation,  however,  we  have  seen, 
was  granted  in  fee  simple,  and  would  therefore  de- 

39 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

scend  to  heirs  general.  In  this  case  the  Lords 
Mowbray  and  Petre  are  now  alone  entitled  to  it, 
and  it  is  wrongly  borne  by  the  duke  of  Norfolk, 
whose  shield  so  proudly  figures  in  front  of  the  Col- 
lege of  Arms,  of  which,  as  Earl  Marshal,  he  is  the 
hereditary  head.  The  vision  of  the  Earl  Marshal 
of  England  summoning  himself  before  his  own 
court  for  using  a  coat  to  which  he  is  not  entitled, 
is  irresistibly  suggestive  of  a  Savoy  libretto.  But, 
seriously  speaking,  if  mine  is  not,  as  it  surely  must 
be,  the  right  interpretation,  the  alternative  is  that 
the  coveted  distinction  ought  to  be  forthwith  re- 
moved from  the  coats  of  Lord  Mowbray  and  Lord 
Petre.  But  in  either  case,  be  it  observed,  it  is 
wrongfully  assumed  by  all  the  other  Howards, 
although  invariably  assigned  to  them  by  '  Burke ' 
and  every  one  else.  The  difference  between  a 
grant  to  a  man  and  his  heirs  and  a  grant  to  all  his 
race  is  well  seen  in  the  case  of  the  Seymour  aug- 
mentation (i5th  Aug.  1547),  which  was  granted 
not  only  to  the  Duke  and  his  heirs,  but  also 
"  omnibus  posteris  suis  totique  familie."  I  may 
add  that  the  lions  in  this  augmentation  were  not 
(as  proudly  blazoned  by  'Burke'  and  others)  'lions 
of  England,'  but  lions  regardant  (not  gardant)  and 
"langued  and  armed  with  azur" — a  correction 
which  revives  our  doubts  on  the  blazon  of  the 
Howard  augmentation. 

Since  I  wrote  the  above  passage,  the  question 
has  been  independently  approached  by  Mr.  Fox- 
Davies,  who  has  arrived,  I  find,  at  the  same  con- 
clusion on  the  actual  facts  as  myself.  In  two 

40 


THE    PEERAGE 

articles  dealing  with  "  the  arms  of  Mowbray  and 
Howard,"1  he  observes  that  the  grant  of  the 
Flodden  augmentation  is 

especially  remarkable  inasmuch  as  whilst  it  is  contained  in  the 
same  Letters  Patent  creating  the  dukedom  of  Norfolk  with  a 
limitation  to  the  heirs  male  of  his  body,  the  augmentation  is  given 
to  the  Duke  <  et  heredibus  suis.'  .  .  .  Now,  the  meaning  of 
'heredibus  suis'  is  *  heirs  general.'  Of  that  there  can  be  no 
question.  The  '  heirs  general '  of  the  said  Duke  at  the  present 
time  (1899)  are  Lord  Mowbray,  Segrave,  and  Stourton,  and 
Lord  Petre,  and  it  has  frequently  been  stated  that  the  augmenta- 
tion has  descended  to  them  and  to  them  only,  such  devolution 
being  of  course  the  strict  and  proper  interpretation  of  the  grant 
(p.  441). 

I  cite  the  passage  because  its  writer  is  the  ardent 
and  avowed  advocate  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
heralds  and  of  their  head  in  all  armorial  matters. 
He  adds,  it  is  true,  that  "  Probably,  however, 
subsequent  records  and  exemplifications  have  regu- 
larized its  use  by  other  members  of  the  Howard 
family "  ;  but  as  he  does  not  even  hint  that  the 
limitation  has  been  changed,  he  can  only  mean 
that  the  Earls  Marshal  now  bear  by  collusion  with 
the  heralds  what  he  would  term  a  "  bogus "  dis- 
tinction. 

One  may  further  add,  while  on  heraldry,  that 
'  Burke '  persists  in  repeating  that  story  of  the 
Percy  arms  which  has  long  been  conclusively  dis- 
proved. The  heiress  of  the  Norman  Percys  mar- 
ried, in  the  iath  century,  "Joscelin  of  Lovain," 
we  read,  "  son  of  Godfrey  Barbatus,  duke  of 

1   Genealogical  Magazine,  vol.  II.    [1899],   PP-  39^~4°3>  438- 
443- 

41 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Lower  Brabant,  and  count  of  Brabant,  who  was 
descended  from  .  .  .  the  Emperor  Charle- 
magne." Of  this  heiress  we  then  read,  with 
characteristic  anachronism, — 

Her  ladyship  (sic),  it  is  stated,  would  only,  however,  consent  to 
this  great  alliance  on  condition  that  Joscelin  should  adopt  either 
the  surname  or  arms  of  Percy  ;  the  former  of  which,  says  the  old 
family  tradition,  he  accordingly  assumed,  and  retained  his  own 
paternal  coat  in  order  to  perpetuate  his  claim  to  the  principality 
of  his  father  should  the  elder  line  of  the  reigning  duke  at  any 
period  become  extinct. 

Alas  for  "  the  old  family  tradition  "  !  Joscelin,  it 
is  known,  did  not  take,  as  alleged,  the  name  of 
Percy,  and  indeed  it  is  even  doubtful  whether  his 
wife  was  an  heiress  in  his  lifetime  or,  at  any  rate, 
when  he  married  her.  As  to  his  c  paternal  coat,' 
which  '  Burke '  describes,  in  its  blazon  of  the  pre- 
sent duke's  bearings,  as  "  the  ancient  arms  of  the 
duke  of  Brabant  and  Lovaine,"  *  it  was  never  the 
coat  of  that  potentate  (who,  by  the  way,  is 
wrongly  described)  and,  so  far  from  having  been 
borne  by  Joscelin,  the  shield  of  his  descendants  the 
Percies,  as  Mr.  Longstaffe  has  observed,2  shows  no 
trace  of  "  the  blue  lion  until  the  reign  of  Edward 
I."  Joscelin,  whose  legitimacy  has  been  questioned, 
was  the  son  of  Godfrey  '  Barbatus  '  duke  of  Lower 
Lorraine,  and  previously  count  of  Louvain,3  who 

This  statement  has  been  also  made  by  Mr.  Fox-Davies  in 
his  Armorial  Families.  2   The  Old  Heraldry  of  the  Percys. 

3  He  is  styled  in  <  Burke,'  as  above,  "  Duke  of  Lower  Brabant 
and  Count  of  Brabant "  !  Louvain  is  the  *  Lovaine '  of  the 
heralds,  which  is  perpetuated  in  the  barony  of  'Lovaine'  (1784) 
now  vested  in  the  duke  of  Northumberland. 

42 


THE    PEERAGE 

was  also  father  of  Adeliza  queen  of  Henry  I.  No 
arms  of  the  house  are  known  for  fully  half  a  cen- 
tury after  Godfrey's  death,  and  when  they  appear 
they  are  "sable,  a  lion  rampant,  or,"  while  those 
borne  by  the  dukes  of  Northumberland,  in  the 
first  quarter,  are  "  or,  a  lion  rampant  azure."  The 
account  in  '  Burke,'  therefore,  is  wrong  on  every 
point.1  Its  version  of  the  origin  of  the  Percys  is 
no  less  wildly  erroneous.  "The  family,"  we  read, 
"  of  Percy  of  Normandy  deduced  its  pedigree  from 
Geoffrey  (son  of  Mainfred,  a  Danish  chieftain), 
who  assisted  Rollo  in  912  in  subjugating  that  prin- 
cipality." This  gigantic  fable  can  be  traced,  one 
need  scarcely  add,  to  an  Elizabethan  herald.  Such 
also,  no  doubt,  is  the  source  of  the  statement  as  to 
William  de  Percy,  founder  of  the  house  in  Eng- 
land, that 

his  wife,  Emma  de  Port,  (was)  a  lady  of  Saxon  descent,  whose 
lands  were  among  those  bestowed  upon  him  by  the  Conqueror  ; 
and  according  to  an  ancient  writer,  "  he  wedded  hyr  that  was 
very  heire  to  them  in  discharging  of  his  conscience." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Emma  was  the  daughter  of  a 
Norman  from  the  Bessin,  Hugh  de  Port,  who  ob- 
tained a  large  fief  in  Hampshire,  on  which  he  gave 
a  solitary  manor  with  her  in  marriage  to  William  ! 
Even,  therefore,  for  the  origin  of  this  famous  Eng- 
lish house  '  Burke '  can  give  us  nothing  better  than 
exploded  fables.  I  may  take  this  opportunity  of 

1  It  is  further  complicated  by  the  arms  in  question  being  also 
described  as  the  "  arms  of  Hainault,"  which  were  wholly  differ- 
ent. See,  on  this  point,  Mr.  Watson's  note  in  Complete  Peerage, 
VI.  228-9. 

43 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

mentioning  the  interesting  fact  that  the  service  due 
to  the  Crown  from  the  fief  of  the  early  Percys  was 
that  of  30  knights.  Some  nine  or  ten  other 
great  English  fiefs  owed  the  same  quota,  the  whole 
system  being  based,  as  I  have  shown,  on  a  unit  of 
5  (or  i  o)  knights.1  On  the  death  of  William  de 
Percy,  the  last  male  of  his  line,  each  of  his  sisters 
inherited  half  the  fief;  the  quota  of  each,  therefore, 
became  1 5  knights.  Joscelin  of  Louvain,  who  had 
married  one  of  them  (by  whom  he  was  ancestor  of 
the  later  Percys)  was  himself  by  no  means  a  bad 
match,  having  secured  from  his  sister's  husband 
(the  earl  of  Arundel)  the  honour  of  Petworth,  part 
of  the  great  Arundel  fief,  which  he  held,  in  the 
days  of  Henry  II.,  by  the  service  of  22^  knights. 
Thus  these  Sussex  estates  came  to  be  united  with 
the  Percy  fief;  and  united  they  remained  till  about 
the  middle  of  the  i8th  century,  when  Petworth 
passed  away  by  will  to  the  Wyndhams,  earls  of 
Egremont,  and  from  them  to  their  illegitimate 
descendants,  the  Lords  Leconfield.2 

The  mention  of  Joscelin  de  Louvain  above  re- 
minds me  of  a  story  that  will  probably  be  new  to 
most  of  my  readers.  The  ambitious  founder  (ne 
Smithson)  of  the  present  line  of  dukes,  boldly 
refusing  a  marquessate  as  a  "  modern  rank,"  asked 
for  a  dukedom  of  Brabant  in  right  of  his  wife's 
descent.  The  king  promised  to  "  give  satisfaction 
to  a  very  respectable  person,"  and  eventually  be- 

1   Feudal  England,  pp.  246-262. 

Their  Sussex  estates  are  given  by  G.  E.  C.  as  over  30,000 
acres  in  1883. 

44 


THE   PEERAGE 

stowed  on  him,  as  a  compromise,  that  of  North- 
umberland  (1766). 

But  it  is  time  that  I  should  more  particularly 
address  myself  to  that  familiar  volume  which  is 
yearly  issued,  bearing  on  its  title-page  the  insignia 
of  the  late  Ulster  King-of-Arms. 

Of  Burke's  Peerage  I  desire  to  speak  with  all 
fairness.  It  has  long  been  the  fashion  to  pour  con- 
tempt on  peerage  writers'  pedigrees,  and  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  it  was  fully  justified  by  the  absurd 
fables  which  the  Burke  family,  like  the  Randle 
Holmes  in  the  past,  have  recklessly  repeated  in 
their  productions.  But,  in  justice,  it  is  right  to 
add  that  these  fables  were,  at  the  worst,  repeated 
rather  than  invented,  and  that  slowly  but  steadily, 
under  the  pressure  of  ridicule  and  competition, 
they  are  being  weeded  out.  The  Temples,  for 
instance,  are  no  longer  derived  from  earl  Leofric 
of  Mercia,  though  here  again  c  Burke '  succeeds 
in  stultifying  itself,  for  the  arms,  under  Temple  of 
Stowe,  'Baronet,'  are  given  as  "Quarterly,  ist 
and  4th,  or,  an  eagle  displayed  sa.,  bearing  the 
arms  of  the  Heptarch  [  !  ]  kingdom  of  Mercia, 
which  have  been  borne  by  the  family  since 
their  ancestors  were  earls  of  that  county." ] 
This  statement  is  actually  made  at  the  foot  of 

1  These  arms,  invented  by  some  herald,  must  be  recognised  as 
valid  at  the  College,  for  Mr.  Fox-Davies  assigned  them  to  Sir 
Richard  Temple  of  the  Nash,  and  blazoned  them,  under  the 
Duchess  of  Buckingham,  as  borne  "  for  Leofric "  (Armorial 
Families,  1st  Ed.,  pp.  961,  962),  though  his  own  Introduction 
denies  the  use  of  armorial  bearings  in  Leofric's  times. 

45 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

a  pedigree  beginning  somewhat  humbly  in  the 
days  of  Henry  III.  The  absurd  legend  of  the 
origin  of  the  Berties  has  been  so  ruthlessly  de- 
molished that  the  pedigree  now  modestly  begins 
about  the  time  of  Henry  VII.  This  last  instance 
calls  to  remembrance  the  article  on  "  Pedigrees  and 
Pedigree  Makers,"  in  which  the  alleged  origin  ot 
the  family  was  ridiculed  so  ruthlessly.  We  may 
note,  in  several  other  cases,  the  wholesome  effects  of 
that  bitter  attack,  but  some  families,  obdurate  still, 
cling  sturdily  to  the  legends  it  exposed.  The  Ash- 
burnhams,  proud  of  their  "  stupendous  antiquity," 
persisted  that  "  there  is  scarcely  a  pedigree  deduced 
from  so  remote  a  period  so  capable  of  proof  as  " 
theirs.  We  were  still  assured,  so  recently  as  1895, 
that  Bertram  de  Esburnham  was  "  Sheriff  of  the 
counties  of  Surrey,  Sussex,  and  Kent,  and  Constable 
of  Dover  Castle  in  the  reign  of  King  Harold,"  and 
was  beheaded,  with  his  sons,  by  the  Conqueror  for 
his  defence  of  that  fortress.  I  observed  in  my 
Quarterly  Review  article  that  Sir  Bernard  would 
find  it  difficult  to  name  those  "  ancient  records  and 
trustworthy  writers  "  where  any  such  facts  are  re- 
corded or  even  hinted  at.  From  later  editions  of 
his  '  Peerage '  we  learn  at  last  that  his  authority  for 
the  story  that  so  enraged  Mr.  Freeman  was  simply 
"  Francis  Thynne  writing  in  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth." And  Thynne,  I  need  hardly  add,  was  a 
herald. 

One  of  the  stories  in  Burke's  Peerage  which 
specially  stirred  Mr.  Freeman's  wrath  was  that 
with  which  the  pedigree  of  Fitz-William  then 

46 


THE    PEERAGE 

began  in  its  pages.  "  Sir  William  Fitz-Godric, 
cousin  to  king  Edward  the  Confessor,"  was  made 
father  of  "  Sir  William  Fitz- William,"  ambassador 
to  Normandy,  who,  joining  duke  William  "  in 
his  victorious  expedition  against  England,"  fought 
with  great  valour  at  the  battle  of  Hastings.  This 
drew  from  the  Professor  one  of  his  fierce  out- 
bursts : 

It  is  perhaps  needless  to  say  that  all  this  is  a  pure  fable  ;  but 
one  really  stands  aghast  at  the  utterly  shameless  nature  of  the 
fable.  .  .  .  When  one  is  inventing  falsehoods  about  a 
family,  it  is  as  easy  to  invent  falsehoods  to  its  credit  as  falsehoods 
to  its  dishonour.  Whoever  invented  the  pedigree  of  Earl  Fitz- 
william  was  of  another  way  of  thinking.  He  had  the  strange 
fancy  of  wishing  to  be  descended  from  a  traitor.1 

The  explanation  clearly  was  that  the  fashion  of 
the  time  required  that  the  founder  of  a  family 
should  have  fought  on  the  duke's  side  at  the  Con- 
quest. Now  the  founder  in  this  case  was  William 
Fitz-Godric  living  under  Henry  II.  As  his 
name  implied  an  English,  not  a  Norman,  origin, 
the  pedigree-maker  threw  him  back  more  than  a 
hundred  years,  and  invented  the  story  of  the 
embassy  to  Normandy,  to  account  for  his  coming 
over  with  William  and  to  do  so  by  an  explanation 
which  assigned  him  eminence  at  the  time. 

Something  of  course  had  to  be  done  after  the 
Professor's  outburst  ;  so  the  pedigree  was  over- 
hauled. There  was  not  the  slightest  difficulty  in 
ascertaining  the  facts.  One  of  our  ablest  historical 
antiquaries  in  the  early  part  of  this  century  was  the 

1  Cant.   Rev.  XXX.   29. 
47 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Rev.  Joseph  Hunter,  whose  c  South  Yorkshire ' 
stands  high  among  our  county  histories.  The 
first  volume  of  this  work  (1828)  was  dedicated  to 
Lord  Fitz- William,  and  the  origin  of  the  family 
was  there  discussed  and  established  on  record 
evidence  (pp.  332-3).  It  was  founded  by  the 
marriage  of  William  Fitz-Godric  (as  her  second 
husband)  with  Albreda  de  Lisoures,  a  Yorkshire 
heiress,  whose  father's  lands,  including  Sprot- 
borough,  passed  to  her  son  by  him,  William  Fitz 
William.1  This  marriage  took  place  about 
H70.2  In  spite,  therefore,  of  its  Norman  name, 
this  family  can  claim  the  very  rare  distinction  of 
descent  from  an  English  thegn,  Godric  by  name.3 
These  being  the  known  facts,  how  was  the 
pedigree  reconstructed  by  the  editors  of  Bur  he's 
Peerage  ?  The  above  William  Fitz-Godric,  the 
husband  of  Albreda  de  Lisoures,  was  transformed 
into  William  Fitz- William,  and  then,  in  mathe- 
matical language,  '  produced '  to  the  days  of  the 
Conqueror.  This  is  done  by  providing  him  with 

1  The  great  Laci  inheritance,  to  which  she  succeeded  through 
her  mother,  passed  to  the  descendants  of  another  husband. 

2  Mr.  Hunter  found  William  Fitz-Godric  paying  £6  1 31.  4^. 
for  it  in  1178  (Pipe  Roll  24   Hen.  II.),  but  held  that  it  must 
have  been  earlier.     I  connect  it,  therefore,  with  the  appearance 
of  this  William  Fitz-Godric  on  the  Roll  of  1170  (16  Hen.  II.). 
I  cannot  agree  with  Mr.  Hunter's  suggestion  that  this  William 
may    have   been  identical    with    another   husband  of  Albreda, 
William  de  Clerfait,  founder  of  Hampole  Priory.     Godric  was  so 
essentially  an  English  name  that,  when  Henry  I.  married  a  queen 
of  native  birth,  his  courtiers  bestowed  it  on  him  as  a  nickname. 

3  The    persistence   of  English    thegns    and    drengs,  after  the 
Conquest,  in  the  North  of  England  is  a  very  interesting  fact. 


THE    PEERAGE 

a  father,  a  grandfather,  and  a  great-grandfather, 
each  of  them  named  Sir  William  Fitz- William 
and  all  of  them  alike  fictitious.  Each  of  these 
fictitious  knights  is  made  lord  of  Sprotborough, 
and  the  second  is  provided  with  the  one  piece  of 
definite  evidence  vouchsafed  us.  We  read  that 
he  was 

living  1 1 1 7,  as  appears  from  a  grant  made  by  him  of  a  piece  or 
wood  in  Elmley  to  the  monks  of  Piland  (sic).  To  this  grant 
is  a  round  seal,  representing  a  man  on  horseback,  completely 
armed  and  circumscribed,  S.  IVillmi  Ft/it  Willml  Dnl  de  Emma- 
lala  ;  and  on  the  reverse  the  arms  of  Fitzwilliam  ;  viz.,  Lozengy. 

Really  this  addition  to  "  the  genealogical  and 
heraldic  value  "  of  the  work *  compels  one  to  ask 
whether  Somerset  Herald  possesses  any  trustworthy 
book  on  heraldry,  and,  if  so,  whether  he  actually 
believes  that  armorial  seals,  such  as  this,  were 
in  use  in  1117.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  seal 
belongs,  as  was  fully  explained  by  Mr.  Hunter, 
not  to  1117,  but  to  1217.  And  thus  the  only 
scrap  of  evidence  for  these  imaginary  Fitz- 
Williams  is  at  once  demolished.  As  for  '  Piland,' 
it  would  seem  to  denote  the  well-known  Abbey  of 
Byland. 

But  not  content  with  this  performance,  the 
pedigree  in  Burke's  Peerage  makes  the  third 
of  our  imaginary  knights  marry  "  Ella  dau.  and 
co-heir  of  William  de  Warren,  Earl  of  Surrey,  and 
d.  1 148."  Here  again  Mr.  Hunter  had  explained 
most  carefully  that  this  match  was  impossible,  as 
"there  is  abundant  evidence  "  that  the  earl  left  but 

1  See  preface  to  the  1900  edition. 

49  E 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

one  daughter  and  heiress.  The  fact  is  that  there 
has  been  a  muddle  between  two  earls  William 
living  at  different  epochs.  Hence  this  imaginary 
marriage.  And  yet  "  the  heralds  of  Elizabeth's 
reign  not  only  admitted  the  fact,  but  allowed  the 
quartering  of  Warren  to  the  later  Fitz-  Williams."  1 
Precisely  what  one  would  expect  of  them  !  2 

Mr.  Freeman,  again,  in  his  famous  article,  was  no- 
where more  severe  than  in  dealing  with  the  origin  of 
the  Stourtons.  He  dealt  with  it  at  some  length  as 
a  type  of  those  pedigrees  "  which  bring  in  large 
pieces  of  professed  history  which  are  nothing  in 
the  world  but  sheer  invention."  The  story  which 
excited  his  wrathful  indignation  was  this  :  — 

This  noble  family,  which  derives  its  surname  from  the  town  of 
Stourton,  co.  Wilts,  was  of  considerable  rank  antecedently  to  the 
Conquest  ;  for  we  find  at  that  period  one  of  its  members,  Botolph 
Stourton,  the  most  active  in  gallantly  disputing  every  inch  of 
ground  with  the  foreigner,  and  finally  obtaining  from  the  duke 
his  own  terms.  .  .  .  From  this  patriotic  and  gallant  soldier 
lineally  descended  -  3 

On  this  story  (of  which  I  omit  the  strategic 
details),  Mr.  Freeman  thus  commented  (pp. 
25-6)  :- 

Now  if  we  did  not  know  that  a  pedigree-maker  will  do  any- 
thing, it  would  really  be  past  belief  that  anybody  could  have 
ventured  on  such  monstrous  fiction  as  this.  .  It  would  have  been 
more  respectable  to  trace  the  house  of  Stourton  to  Jack  the  Giant 
Killer,  or  Jack  and  the  Beanstalk,  for  they  have  at  least  a  received 


1  Hunter's  South  Yorkshire^  1-335. 

2  Compare    Dugdale's    erroneous   allowance    of  the    earl    of 
Richmond's  coat,  as  a  quartering,  to  the  Stapletons. 

3  Cent.  Rev.  XXX.  25. 

50 


THE   PEERAGE 

legendary  being,  while  Botolph  Stourton  and  his  exploits  are 
invented  of  set  purpose  to  swell  the  supposed  credit  of  a  family 
whose  real  beginnings  seem  to  be  in  the  fourteenth  century, 
.  .  .  the  whole  thing  is  fiction.  There  is  nothing  of  the 
kind  anywhere  in  history  or  in  legend.  We  have  a  Gesta 
Herewardi^  mythical  enough  to  be  sure  in  part ;  but  we  have  no 
Gesta  Botolphi.  Yet  the  exploits  of  Botolph  greatly  surpass  the 
exploits  of  Hereward.  ...  If  William  granted  to  Botolph 
whatever  he  demanded,  it  was  clearly  not  land  that  he  demanded, 
least  of  all  the  lands  of  Stourton.  At  page  72  of  Domesday,  we 
find  Stourton  in  Wiltshire  plainly  enough  ;  but  its  lord  is  not  any 
Botolph  ;  its  actual  holder  is  not  any  Botolph  ;  its  former  owner 
is  not  any  Botolph.  ...  So  Botolph  Stourton  vanishes  from 
Stourton,  and  he  equally  vanishes  from  every  other  spot ;  for  not 
a  man  of  the  name  appears  in  Domesday  as  holding,  or  having 
held,  a  rood  of  land  anywhere.  The  tale  is  sheer  invention  ;  it 
is  mere  falsehood,  which  might  at  any  time  be  confuted  by  the 
simple  process  of  turning  to  Domesday.  .  .  .  When  the 
pedigree  was  invented,  Domesday  was  doubtless  still  in  manu- 
script ;  but  is  it  possible  that  there  is  no  copy  of  those  precious 
volumes  in  the  library  of  Ulster  King-at-Arms  ? 

Mr.  Freeman's  fierce  outburst  could  not  be  dis- 
regarded, and  so,  down  to  the  present  year,  Burke* s 
Peerage  was  content  to  begin  the  Stourton  pedigree 
with  "Sir  William  Stourton,"  living  1325  and  1341, 
and  even  pointed  out  that  Dugdale  began  it  with 
"John  de  Stourton,"  who  lived  in  1377,  though  it 
added  that  "  Brydges's  Collins  carries  back  the  pedi- 
gree, however,  to  Botolph  Stourton  temp.  Conques- 
toris"  But  now,  in  1900,  Mr.  Freeman  being 
dead,  the  "  laborious  researches "  of  Somerset 
Herald,1  a  son  of  Sir  Bernard  Burke,  are  seen  in 
the  resuscitation  of  the  rudely  evicted  '  Botolph,' 
and  in  the  discovery  that  his  namesake,  the  present 

1  See  Preface  to   1900  Edition. 
51 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Lord  Stourton,  is  his  direct  descendant.  The 
story  now  runs  thus  : — 

The  aforesaid  BOTOLPH,  *  primus  Dominus  de  Stourton  post 
Conquestum'  (from  whom  the  present  Lord  Mowbray  Segrave 
and  Stourton  is  29th  in  the  direct  line  of  male  succession)  m.y 
according  to  the  ancient  pedigrees,  Anne,  dau.  of  Earl  Godwin, 
sister  of  King  Harold  II.,  of  which  marriage  there  was  issue, 
ROBERT  and  Galfridus  (sic).  The  elder  son, 

SIR  ROBERT  DE  STOURTON  is  believed  to  have  built  the  mansion 
or  castle  of  Stourton,  etc.,  etc. 

It  is  frightful  to  think  of  what  the  effect  of  this 
crowning  outrage  would  have  been  on  Mr.  Free- 
man's mind,  and,  above  all,  on  his  language.  If 
Botolph  and  his  exploits  led  him  to  write  of 
"  monstrous  fiction  "  and  "  mere  falsehood,"  what 
would  he  have  said  of  the  "  pedigree-maker  "  who 
had  dared  to  assign  to  Botolph  for  a  wife  a  daughter 
of  his  beloved  Godwine,  a  sister  of  his  adored 
Harold  ?  "  When  in  doubt,  try  '  Anne.'  "  This 
maxim,  I  sometimes  think,  was  dear  to  the  pedi- 
gree-maker's heart  ;  but  in  Harold's  '  sister  Anne ' 
he  overshot  the  mark.  More  than  twenty  years 
ago  it  was  Mr.  Freeman's  complaint  that 

The  readers  of  the  book  accept  the  stories  on  the  faith  of  the 
author  or  editor  ....  Indeed  Sir  Bernard  Burke  himself  tells 
us,  in  his  '  Prefatory  Notice '  prefixed  to  the  thirty-second  edition 
of  his  Peerage  and  Baronetage,  that  he  has  "  again  subjected  its  pages 
to  searching  revision  and  extensive  amendment."  Here,  then,  Sir 
Bernard  Burke  distinctly  takes  on  himself  what  reason  would  have 
laid  upon  him  even  if  he  had  not  taken  it  upon  himself,  namely 
responsibility  for  his  own  book.  It  is  the  Ulster  King  of  Arms, 
not  the  unknown  persons  who  send  him  the  accounts  of  this  or 
that  family,  whom  we  must  blame  for  the  monstrous  fictions 
which  appear  as  the  early  history  of  so  many  families.1 

1  Cent.  Rev.  XXX.  12-13. 
52 


THE   PEERAGE 

But  what  shall  we  say  when  the  Botolph  fiction 
appears  in  Burke's  Peerage,  not  as  a  relic  of  a 
careless  age,  but  as  the  result,  in  1900,  of  "  a  more 
thorough  revision  than  usual "  of  its  pages  ? 

Is  it  possible  that  we  owe  this  increase  of  its 
"  genealogical  value "  to  the  access  enjoyed  by 
Somerset  Herald  to  the  priceless  records  of  the 
college  ?  What,  one  wonders,  is  their  verdict 
in  the  matter  ?  Luckily,  Sir  Richard  Colt  Hoare, 
when  he  was  writing  his  history  of  Wiltshire,  "  pro- 
cured from  the  College  of  arms "  its  authorized 
Stourton  pedigree.1  And,  even  more  luckily,  he 
gave  it  not  only  in  narrative  form,  but  in  chart 
form  also,*  heading  the  latter  : — 

This  pedigree,  down  to  the  year  1721,  was  ratified  and  con- 
firmed under  the  Seal  of  the  College  of  Arms,  on  the  26th  day  of 
September,  A°  1722. 

This  delightful  composition  duly  begins  with 
"  Botolph  or  Bartholomew  de  Stourton,  temp. 
Will.  Conq.,"  who  married  "  Ann,  dau.  of  God- 
win, earl  of  Kent."  The  story,  therefore,  must  be 
true  ;  for  is  it  not  ratified  and  confirmed  by  the 
seal  of  the  College  of  Arms  ?  And  yet,  Mr.  Fox 
Davies  cries, — 

There  are  very  many  people  who  grandiloquently  assert  that  c  they 
don't  recognise  the  authority  of  the  College  of  Arms.'  Such  a 
statement  sounds  very  big,  but  it  is  pure  nonsense.3 

1  Vol.  I.  p.  43.  *Ibid.  pp.  43,  47-8. 

3  Preface  to  Armorial  Families.  The  same  protest  recurs,  of 
course,  in  The  right  to  bear  arms  by  '  X  '  :  "  and  yet  there  are  some 
silly  fools  who  don't  recognise  the  authority  of  the  College " 
(p.  163).  The  pure  and  classic  style  of  these  twin  writers  should 
be  noted. 

53 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Surely  it  is  not  without  a  cause  that,  in  the  great 
history  of  the  Stourtons,  which  has  just  made  its 
appearance,  the  head  of  the  house  is  shown  in  its 
frontispiece  with  his  hand  resting  on  the  book 
from  which  these  words  are  taken. 

Of  the  two  gorgeous  volumes  in  which  that 
history  is  contained  I  speak  here  with  some  hesi- 
tation. For  they  are  only  a  private  production,  and 
they  have  for  their  wholly  meritorious  object  the 
setting  on  record  a  trustworthy  account  of  an 
ancient  English  house.  It  is,  indeed,  to  be  wished 
that  more  of  our  historic  houses  would,  as  in  Scot- 
land, produce  such  histories,  and  would,  like  Lord 
Mowbray  and  Stourton,  resolve  to  give  us  facts 
only,  in  the  place  of  so-called  "  tradition."  His 
lordship's  preface  is  emphatic  on  the  point  :  — 

There  can  be  no  question  of  unsubstantiated  statements  having 
been  intentionally  or  carelessly  inserted  as  facts  upon  the  mere 
strength  of  family  tradition  ;  and  throughout  the  progress  of  the 
book  I  have  always  insisted  upon  absolute  accuracy,  etc.,  etc. 

It  is  with  some  surprise,  in  view  of  these  words, 
that  one  reads  in  the  same  preface  the  unqualified 
assertion  (as  in  Burke*  s  Peerage)  that 

The  Stourton  pedigree  commences  at  the  Conquest,  since 
which  time  there  has  been  an  unbroken  male  descent  (I  am  the 
in  the  direct  male  line  of  succession). 


But  it  is  with  more  than  surprise  —  it  is  with 
bewildered  amazement  —  that  one  finds  even  the 
legendary  Botolph,  with  whom  the  pedigree  com- 
mences at  the  Conquest,  insufficient  as  an  ancestor. 
*  Tradition  '  is  invoked  for  the  existence  of  a  far 

54 


THE   PEERAGE 

earlier  Botolph,  himself  descended  from  a  long  line 
of  fighting  and  Heptarchic  Stourtons. 

The  Stourtons  of  Stourton,  co.  Wilts  were  traditionally  a 
powerful  and  warrior  family  in  the  Saxon  period,  and  are  stated 
to  have  fought  under  the  banner  of  the  Saxon  line  of  the  Kings  of 
Wessex,  and,  after  the  Saxon  divisions  of  the  Heptarchy  became 
united,  under  the  Kings  of  England.  According  to  tradition, 
King  Alfred  the  Great  made  the  head  of  the  Stourton  family  a 
Saxon  Thane — and  this  probably  testified  to  the  ownership  of  the 
lands  of  Stourton — for  his  great  valour  and  bravery  while  fighting 
in  the  service  of  the  King,  probably  at  Bonham,  in  the  county  of 
Somerset. 


The  Lord  of  Stourton  who  fought  under  King  Alfred  is  tradi- 
tionally said  to  have  been  a  Botolph  de  Stourton,  ancestor  of  that 
Botolphus  de  Stourton  who  flourished  during  the  reigns  of  Edward 
the  Confessor,  Harold,  and  William  the  Conqueror,  and  who  is 
said  to  have  obtained  a  settlement  from  the  last  named  King  on 
his  own  terms,  by  which  he  presumably  retained  possession  of 
part  of  the  parish  of  Stourton  (p.  5). 

Should  we  entertain  the  slightest  doubt,  the  writer 
is  prepared  to  smite  the  Philistines  (such  as  was 
Professor  Freeman),  not  indeed  with  the  jawbone 
of  an  ass,  but  with  the  thighbone  of  an  ancestor. 
At  Warwick  Castle  they  show  the  rib  of  the  cow 
slain  by  the  ancestor  ;  at  Stourton  they  preserved 
the  thigh  of  the  ancestor  himself.  The  only 
question  that  can  possibly  arise  is  what  ancestor  it 
was.  Let  us  continue  the  quotation. 

One  of  these  Botolphs  of  Stourton  was  a  man  of  gigantic 
stature.  The  positive  reiteration  of  this  fact  is  one  of  the  few 
surviving  traditions  of  the  Stourton  family,  and  it  is  proved  (sic) 
by  two  circumstances,  namely,  this  tradition  and  the  actual  exist- 
ence of  a  large  thigh-bone,  the  os  femur  of  a  human  being, 
.  .  .  which  was  positively  and  confidently  asserted  to  have 

55 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

belonged  to  him.  The  general  belief  is  that  this  bone  may 
have  belonged  more  correctly  to  the  Botolph  temp.  Conquestoris. 

That  a  human  thighbone,  though  now  lost,  was 
actually  in  existence  is  proved  by  the  evidence  of 
two  witnesses  who  had  seen  it  with  their  own  eyes. 
Aubrey,  who  saw  it  in  the  buttery  at  Stourton, 
declared  that  it  "  exceeds  the  proportion  of  human 
thigh-bones,  and,  besides,  .  .  .  not  of  the 
figure  or  shape  of  a  human  bone."  A  Benedictine 
father,  consulted  by  Lord  Mowbray  and  Stourton, 
wrote,  in  reply,  that  he  remembered — 

the  existence  of  the  (so-called)  thigh-bone  of  your  ancestor, 
a  very  large  bone,  almost  as  much  as  one  could  lift ;  it 
was  sometimes  called  Lord  Stourton's  thigh-bone,  or  the  thigh-bone 
of  a  giant,  but  little  credence  was  put  in  the  designation,  which  was 
used  to  *  gull '  the  innocents.  By  people  of  mature  age  it  was  re- 
garded as  the  bone  of  some  enormous  animal. 

Such  is  the  evidence  on  which  avowedly  rests  the 
existence  of  Botolph's  thigh-bone,  and  that  bone 
seems  to  be  the  best  proof  forthcoming  of  Botolph's 
own  existence. 

The  net  conclusion  at  which  we  arrive  is  that 

the  settling  of  the  Stourton  family  at  Stourton  must,  according 
to  tradition,  date  at  least  from  the  time  of  king  Alfred  the  Great. 

When  the  country,  after  the  defeat  of  the  Danes  at  Stourton 
and  elsewhere,  in  1016,  was  eventually  under  the  government  or 
the  Saxon  Kings,  the  Lords  of  Stourton  again  came  into  promin- 
ence, and  another  Botolph  of  Stourton  was  deemed  of  sufficient 
status  and  estate  to  marry  a  daughter  of  Godwin,  Earl  of  Kent, 
etc.  .  .  . 

The  position  of  Botolph,  Lord  of  Stourton,  who  lived  during  the 
reigns  of  his  two  royal  brothers-in-law,  Edward  the  Confessor  and 
Harold  II.,  and  took  an  active  part  against  the  Norman  invaders, 
and  who  himself  made  such  a  strong  resistance  against  the  Con- 
queror personally,  led  that  monarch  to  arrange  with  Botolph  on 

56 


THE   PEERAGE 

his  own  terms  when  the  Conqueror  invaded  the  Western  parts  or 
England.  ...  All  this  is  history,  and  it  has  been  chronicled 
that  it  was  actually  at  the  residence  of  Botolph  at  Stourton 
that  the  Conqueror  came  to  meet  his  opponents  to  arrange  there 
the  terms  which  these  Saxon  warriors  had  demanded  and  actually 
obtained  from  him  (p.  12). 

One  shudders  to  think  what  treatment  these 
statements  would  certainly  have  received  at  Pro- 
fessor Freeman's  hands  ;  for  we  have  already  seen 
what  language  he  applied  to  such  history.  The 
c  Botolph  '  story,  in  these  volumes,  is  actually 
more  elaborate  and  positive  than  that  which  the 
Professor  chastised. 

Botolph  de  Stourton,  being  a  brother-in-law  of  Harold,  no 
doubt  took  part  in  the  battle  of  Hastings.  ...  In  fact, 
the  tradition  which  has  survived  is  that  he  was  present  at  both 
the  battles  of  Stamford  Bridge  and  Hastings  (p.  13). 

That  Botolph  Stourton  was  a  great  personage  and  Saxon 
warrior  cannot  be  denied  .  .  .  seeing  he  was  brother-in- 
law  respectively  to  Edward  the  Confessor  and  Harold  II. 

To  Botolph  Stourton  tradition  has  attributed  the  thigh-bone, 
but  whether  it  really  belonged  to  him,  or  to  his  ancestor  of  the 
same  name,  who  fought  under  Alfred  the  Great,  cannot  for  cer- 
tain be  determined. 

That  is  where  the  caution  of  the  true  historian  comes 
in.  Confidence,  however,  at  once  returns  : — 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  Stourton  family  must  have  been 
settled  at  Stourton  early  in  the  Saxon  period,  and  also  were  there 
at  the  Norman  Conquest. 

Unfortunately  the  grants  of  William  the  Conqueror,  or  any 
of  his  sons,  are  not  in  existence,  and,  therefore,  one  has  only  to 
fall  back  on  Doomsday  and  the  most  able  authorities  to  ascertain 
facts  (pp.  18-19). 

Just  so  ;  and  what  Domesday  tells  us  we  have 
heard  in  Mr.  Freeman's  words.  With  the  ex- 

57 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

ception  of  a  weird  '  Paul  Plod/  who  is  much 
cited  for  the  early  history,  the  "  able  authori- 
ties "  seem  to  resolve  themselves  into  a  c  painter- 
stainer,'  Munday  by  name,  living  in  the  time  of 
Charles  I., — who  suggested  that  perhaps  Ralph, 
the  Domesday  holder  of  Stourton,  was  not  Ralph, 
but  Bartholomew, — and  a  certain  Mr.  William 
Turner,  who  wrote  a  book  on  '  remarkable  pro- 
vidences '  in  1697,  anc^  w^°  *s  gravely  cited  as 
evidence  for  facts  of  Norman  history.  There 
was  also,  no  doubt,  the  Heralds'  pedigree  with 
its  Botolph  lord  of  Stourton,  unknown  to  his- 
tory or  to  Domesday.  But  that  was  all. 

Stay  !  There  was,  we  find,  another  authority, 
and  one  whose  date  carries  back  the  first  appear- 
ance of  the  story.  It  is  very  difficult  to  say  why 
Lord  Mowbray  and  Stourton  should  not  have 
appealed  to  this  authority,  for  it  is  not  only  of 
respectable  antiquity,  but  carries  back  the  origin 
of  the  Stourtons  to  even  earlier  times.  All  the 
writers  who  have  dealt  with  this  old  Roman 
Catholic  house  are  fairly  surpassed  by  the  famous 
Jesuit,  Robert  Parsons  (1546-1610).  According 
to  him,  at  the  coming  of  Augustine  (597), 

there  flourished  among  the  first  converts  and  benefactors  [of 
the  Church]  two  satraps  Sturtonus  and  Sturleiusy  who  so  favoured 
the  divine  work,  that  they  were  the  first  to  establish  the  Catholic 
Church  at  Canterbury.  .  .  .  Wherefore  they  received  and 
still  bear  a  representation  of  their  benefactions  in  their  arms  (scutis 
gentilitiis)  ...  the  other  (Stourton)  a  monk  girt  with  a 
girdle,  and  armed  with  a  scourge.  .  .  .  This  antiquity  in- 
duced Botolph  Sturton,  in  the  time  of  William  the  Conqueror, 
to  combine  with  the  abbot  of  Glastonbury  and  Stigand  archbishop 

58 


THE   PEERAGE 

of  Canterbury,  and,  meeting  with  success,  he  obtained  from  the 
Conqueror,  for  himself  and  for  the  whole  tract  in  which  he  lived, 
conditions  of  peace.1 

Canon  Jackson,  the  well-known  Wiltshire  anti- 
quary, who  quotes  the  original  passage  in  Latin, 
observes  thereupon  : — 

It  is  stated  in  some  of  the  *  Peerages '  that  the  Stourtons  were 
4  of  considerable  rank  before  the  Conquest,  and  dictated  their 
own  terms  to  the  Conqueror '  ;  but  of  this  there  is  no  evidence  in 
Wiltshire  County  History.  If  there  was  any  such  family  in  this 
County  at  the  Conquest,  it  was  not  by  their  position,  or  extent  of 
property  here,  that  they  were  qualified  to  be  formidable  to  the 
Conqueror.  The  name  is  found,  apparently  for  the  first  time, 
among  Wiltshire  landholders  in  the  reign  of  Edward  L,  when  a 
Nicholas  Stourton  was  holding  one  knight's  fee  here,  under  the 
Lovells  of  Castle  Cary.2 

In  the  Complete  Peerage  its  learned  editor  goes 
even  further,  observing  that 

The  manor  of  Stourton,  which  in  the  I4th  century  was  held  by 
the  family  of  Fitzpayne,  was,  however,  acquired  before  1427  by 
that  of  Stourton  (vii.  252). 

It  is,  indeed,  a  singular  fact  that  the  family  of 
Fitz  Payne  is  found,  for  several  generations,  hold- 
ing Stourton  of  the  lords  of  Castle  Cary  pre- 
cisely as  the  Stourton  family  held  it  before  and 
afterwards.3  This  tenure  has  yet  to  be  explained  ; 
but  in  the  meanwhile  one  may  point  out  that 
Canon  Jackson  (followed  by  G.  E.  C.)  was  unjust 
(accidentally)  to  the  Stourtons  in  beginning  their 
history  only  "  in  the  reign  of  Edward  I."  The 

1  *  A  treatise  of  the  three  Conversions  of   Paganism  to  the 
Christian  religion.' 

2  Aubrey's  Wiltshire  Collections,  Ed.  Jackson  (1862),  pp.  390-1. 

3  See  Hoare's  History  of  Wiltshire. 

59 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

record  in  question1  can  be  shown,  from  internal 
evidence,  to  belong  to  the  winter  of  1242-3, 
some  thirty  years  before  Edward's  reign  began. 

Nor  is  this  all.  On  the  one  hand,  we  have 
c  unsubstantiated  statements  '  based  on  c  family 
tradition  '  or  the  guesses  of  painter-stainers  ;  on 
the  other,  we  have  mere  negation.  But  it  is  not 
enough  to  destroy  c  fiction  '  ;  the  modern  scientific 
genealogist  must  give  us  facts  instead.  And  facts 
can  be  given.  Stourton  appears  in  Domesday 
book  as  a  portion  of  the  great  fief  held  by 
Walter  de  Douai,  which  included,  in  Somerset, 
Castle  Gary,  where  he  can  be  shown  to  have 
had  a  castle,  and  in  Devon  the  great  manor  of 
Bampton,  which  had  belonged  to  Edward  the 
Confessor.  Walter's  tenant  Ralph,  who  had  suc- 
ceeded c  Alwacre  '  at  Stourton,  had  also  succeeded 
him  (as  '  Elwacre  ')  in  three  Somerset  manors.2 
This  throws  some  light  on  the  dispossessed  thegn, 
by  whom  Stourton  had  been  held  before  the  Con- 
quest. Moreover,  Walter's  great  fief  is  found,  in 
the  next  century,  divided  into  the  c  Honour  of 
Bampton,'  which  passed  to  the  Paynel  family,  and 
the  '  Honour  of  Castle  Gary,'  held  by  the  Lovels. 
Stourton  formed  part  of  the  latter,  and  it  is  strange 
that  those  who  have  sought  to  carry  back  the 
Stourton  family  have  not  observed  that  Robert 
'  de  Sturtone  '  was  the  chief  tenant  of  Henry 
Lovel  in  1166,  holding  from  him  three  fees.3 


1   Testa  de  Nevill,  p.  153.  2  Domesday,  I. 

3  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  p.  234. 

60 


THE    PEERAGE 

Thus,  if  Lord  Mowbray  and  Stourton,  instead  ot 
consulting  Richmond  Herald  or  possibly  (as  his 
frontispiece  suggests)  the  author  of  Armorial  Fami- 
lies^ had  employed  a  competent  record  agent  or 
asked  an  historian  to  assist  him,  he  might  have 
produced  genuine  evidence  that  his  house  was 
of  greater  antiquity  than  Mr.  Freeman  and  the 
writers  quoted  above  believed  to  be  the  case.  But 
the  ignis  fatuus  of  c  Botolph '  and  the  wife  found 
for  him  by  the  heralds  has  led  him  to  make  an 
ancient  house  a  prey  to  just  ridicule.  Whether,  in 
the  future,  Burke 's  Peerage  will  continue  to  pub- 
lish the  baseless  pedigree  it  has  now  taken  from 
his  lordship's  work  time  alone  can  show.  But  its 
repetition  will  be  most  unjust  to  the  genuine  pedi- 
grees in  the  same  work.  And  that  is  one  of  the 
reasons  why  a  protest  is  required. 

Let  me  now  turn  to  certain  fables  that  I  have 
myself  noted  as  needing  revision  and  correction. 
Of  these  the  majority,  as  might  be  expected,  are 
traceable  to  the  old  eagerness  for  descent  from  a 
companion  of  the  Conqueror,  and  are  the  fruit  of 
invention  tempered  only  by  the  worthless  Battle 
Roll.  How  familiar  they  are,  these  old  friends  ! 
Here  is  that  c  very  strong  man  ' — not  Mr.  Thomas 
Atkins — who,  "  according  to  the  venerable  and  al- 
most uniform  tradition,  .  .  .  landed  in  England  with 
his  master  in  the  year  1066,"  and  "  protecting  him 
with  his  shield  from  the  blows  of  an  assailant "  at 
the  Battle  of  Hastings,  became  known  as  Fortescu, 
and  was  progenitor  to  the  family  of  that  name. 
Here,  too,  is  the  patriarch  of  the  St.  Legers, 

61 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

though  he  no  longer  gives  his  arm  to  the  Con- 
queror as  he  steps  ashore.  Lord  Bolingbroke's 
pedigree  still  begins  with  the  Conqueror's  "  grand 
master  of  the  artillery  and  supervisor  of  the 
wagons  and  carriages "  ;  a  tale  to  which  I  shall 
recur  below.  Lord  Alington,  however,  since  the 
appearance  of  my  article,  no  longer  seeks  his  pro- 
genitor in  "  Sir  Hildebrand  de  Alington  " — a  name 
that  would  have  gladdened  Sir  Walter  Scott — 
'  under-marshal  to  William  the  Norman  at  the 
Battle  of  Hastings  '  ;  but  Lord  Verulam  still  traces 
to  "  Sylvester  de  Grymestone,  .  .  .  standard- 
bearer  in  the  army  of  William  the  Conqueror." 
In  this  last  case  the  descent  was  actually  recognised 
in  the  preamble  to  the  patent  of  creation  (1719), 
in  which  the  grantee  (who  had  taken  the  name  of 
Grimston)  is  asserted  to  be  descended  non  interruptd 
lined  from  this  hypothetical  vexillifer  !  Some  of 
these  strange  stories  contain  their  own  refutation  ; 
and  the  growing  tendency  to  appeal  to  Domesday, 
in  deference  to  modern  historical  research,  is 
powerless  to  save  them.  Thus  "  Sir  Mauger  le 
Vavasor,"  we  read,  occurs  in  Domesday  Book  "  as 
holding  in  chief  of  the  Percys,  earls  of  Northum- 
berland." But  the  Percys  were  not  then  earls  of 
Northumberland  ;  and  if  Sir  Mauger  was  their 
tenant,  he  could  not  hold  '  in  chief/  and  if  he  did 
he  would  not  be  a  vavassor  (i.e.  an  under-tenant) . 
"  Sir  Elias  de  Workesley,"  who  "  it  is  stated  in  an 
old  family  record,"  was  the  founder  (longo  intervallo) 
of  the  Worsleys,  is  unknown  to  chroniclers  or  to 
Domesday  Book.  As  for  Lord  Derby's  progenitor, 

62 


THE    PEERAGE 

who  came  over  with  his  sons  at  the  Conquest,  their 
coming  "  from  Aldithley  in  Normandy  "  is  one  of 
the  curiosities  of  geography ;  and  the  c  portgrave  of 
Hastings '  under  the  Conqueror,  who  is  claimed  as 
Lord  Huntingdon's  progenitor,  is  an  official  un- 
known to  history. 

The  pedigree-maker,  I  observe,  in  these  latter 
days,  has  found  a  way  of  adapting  Domesday 
Book  for  his  purpose.  Any  family  —  they  are 
countless  in  number — of  which  the  name  is  de- 
rived from  a  locality  mentioned  in  Domesday 
Book  is  now  assumed  to  descend  from  the  tenant 
who  was  then  holding  there.  Under  c  Valentia,' 
for  instance,  we  read  of  the  Annesleys  that  "  This 
family  derives  its  surname  from  the  Lordship  of 
Anneslei,  co.  Nottingham,  where  its  patriarch 
RICHARD  DE  ANNESLEI  was  seated  at  the  time  or 
the  general  survey."  Now  c  Anneslei '  was  cer- 
tainly held  by  a  '  Richard,'  but  there  is  nothing  to 
show  who  he  was,  nor  could  a  descent  from  him 
be  proved.  As  this  point  is  of  some  importance, 
I  may  illustrate  it  further  by  the  case  of  "  Sandford 
of  Sandford."  Mr.  Eyton,  who  devoted  much 
study  to  the  early  history  of  this  ancient  house, 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  "  Richard  de  Sand- 
ford,  the  first  known  representative  of  his  line, 
occurs  in  1 1 67." l  No  one  could  know  so  much  as 
Mr.  Eyton  on  the  subject,  and  yet  Burke's  Landed 
Gentry  makes  a  genuine  pedigree  absurd  by  carry- 
ing back  the  family  for  three  generations  to  the 
Conquest,  and  asserting  that — 

1  Shropshire,  IX.  222. 
63 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

THOMAS  "  DE  SAUNDFORD,"  a  Norman,  held  the  manor  under 
Gerard  de  Tournay,  a  powerful  Baron,  whose  name  is  in  the 
Domesday  Book. 

This  statement  is  sheer  fiction  ;  Sandford  is  en- 
tered in  Domesday  as  held  by  "  Gerard,"  of  the 
Earl ;  Domesday  knows  nothing  of  Thomas,  and 
still  less  of  "Thomas  de  Saundford."  An  even 
worse  case  is  that  of  the  pretentious  pedigree  of 
Smith-Carington,1  which  is  carried  up,  in  its  latest 
development  (1898),  to  "  Hamo,  Lord  of  Carinton, 
co.  Chester,  temp.  William  I."  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
Carington  (Cheshire)  is  not  mentioned  in  Domesday 
Book,  but  it  was  appurtenant  to  Dunham,  which, 
with  six  other  estates,  is  entered  in  Domesday  as 
held  of  the  earl  of  Chester  by  '  Hamo.'  Now 
this  Hamo  was  the  well-known  founder  of  the 
Massys,  barons  or  Dunham  c  Massy/  and  had  no- 
thing to  do  with  a  Carington  or  a  Smith.  As  if  to 
attain  a  climax  of  confusion,  the  name  of  the  family 
having  been  accounted  for  by  its  connection  with 
Carington  in  Cheshire,  the  '  Lineage  '  in  '  Burke  ' 
commences  with  the  statement  that  "  The  family 
derives  its  name  from  the  castle,  town,  and  port  of 
Carenton  (sic)  in  Normandy  "  ! 

Wilder,  however,  than  the  claims  to  descent 
from  Norman  invaders  are  those  of  the  families  who 
would  c  go  one  better '  by  asserting  an  earlier  origin. 
What  is  to  be  said  to  such  a  passage  as  this  f — 

There  still  remain  in  England  a  few  families,  and  Wolseley  of 
Wolseley  is  one,  that  can  prove  by  authentic  evidence  an  unbroken 

1  See  p.  24  above. 


THE   PEERAGE 

descent  from  Saxon  times,  and  show  the  inheritance  of  the  same 
lands  in  the  male  line  from  a  period  long  anterior  to  the  Norman 
Conquest.  A  legend  in  the  family  narrates  that  their  ancestor 
was  given  the  lands  of  Wlselei  (now  Wolseley)  for  destroying 
wolves  in  co.  Stafford,  in  the  reign  of  King  Edgar,  when  wolves 
were  finally  destroyed  in  England. 

And  so  the  "  authentic  evidence  "  consists  of  "  a 
legend  in  the  family/'  itself  dependent  on  another 
legend,  namely,  that  wolves  were  "  finally  destroyed 
in  England "  under  Edgar,  whereas  I  have  seen 
them  alluded  to  as  in  existence  in  twelfth- 
century  charters,  while  they  were  not  extirpated, 
of  course,  till  an  even  later  date.  Wolseley  (in  Col- 
wich),  as  a  matter  of  fact,  was  held  at  the  time  of 
Domesday  (1086)  by  the  bishop  of  Chester,  whose 
under-tenant  was  a  certain  Nigel,  unknown  to  the 
Wolseley  pedigree.  Equally  absurd  is  the  state- 
ment that  the  Derings  are  "  one  of  the  very  few 
houses  still  existing  in  England  of  undoubted  Saxon 
origin  ;  an  origin  confirmed  not  only  by  tradi- 
tion, but  by  authentic  family  documents."  What 
possible  family  documents  can  establish  the 
history  of  the  house  before  the  Conquest  ?  As  for 
"  Randolphus  de  Traffbrd,"  who  lived  ante  Con- 
questum,  "  as  the  family  pedigree  sets  forth,"  we 
may  leave  him  to  the  company  of  an  impossible 
'  Eduni,'  the  "  earliest  known  ancestor "  of  the 
Trelawnys,  who  is  alleged,  on  the  authority  of 
Domesday  Book,  to  have  held  "Trelawny  or 
Treloen  in  the  time  of  Edward  the  Confessor." 
Eadwig,  who  seems  to  be  intended,  was  no  more 
connected  with  c  Treloen  '  than  he  was  with  seve- 
ral other  manors,  and  in  no  instance  were  their 

65  F 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Norman  possessors  descended  from  him.  An  equally 
impossible  "Hugh  Fitz  Baldric,  a  Saxon  thane,"  was 
a  well-known  Norman  tenant-in-chief.  As  for  the 
Pilkington  who  survived  the  Conquest  as  the  Due 
de  Levis  weathered  the  Deluge,  he  is  a  '  worthy 
peer '  of  that  early  Fitz  William  who  was  already 
using  an  armorial  seal  when  no  one  else  possessed 
one,  and  who  set  up,  "  engraven  in  brass,"  some 
lines  of  sorry  doggrel,  thoughtfully  composed  in 
the  English  of  a  far  later  age. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  statements  at  the  head 
of  Lord  Bolingbroke's  pedigree. 

WILLIAM  DE  ST.  JOHN  (the  name  was  taken  from  the  terri- 
tory of  St.  John  near  Rouen),  who  came  into  England  with  the 
CONQUEROR,  as  grand  master  of  the  artillery  and  supervisor  of  the 
wagons  and  carriages  ;  whence  the  horses'  hames  or  collar  was 
borne  for  his  cognizance  (Brydges9  Collins,  vol.  VI.  p.  42).  He 
m.  Oliva,  da.  of  Ralph  de  Filgiers,  of  Normandy. 

It  can  be  positively  shown,  as  to  these  state- 
ments :  (i)  that  the  St.  John  family  did  not  come 
in  with  the  Conqueror,  but,  in  the  next  century, 
under  Henry  I  ;  (2)  that  their  name  was  taken 
from  St.  Jean-le-Thomas,  near  Mont  St.  Michel, 
which  was  far  away  from  Rouen  ;  (3)  that  the 
William  de  St.  John  who  married  the  above 
4  Oliva  '  was  living  a  century  after  the  date  of  the 
Conqueror's  death,  and  was  in  fact  the  imaginary 
patriarch's  alleged  great-grandson  ;  (4)  that  Oliva 
herself  was  the  mother,  not  the  daughter,  of  Ralph  de 
Fougeres  (not  Filgiers)  of  Britanny  (not  Normandy).1 

1  See,  for  all  this,  my  article  on  "The  families  of  St.  John  and 
of  Port "  in  Genealogist  for  July,  1899. 

66 


THE    PEERAGE 

As  for  William  the  Conqueror's  artillery  and 
army  service  corps,  the  tale  is  obviously  one  of 
those  venal  herald's  fables  which  even  Dugdale,  in 
his  Baronage,  was  ashamed  to  repeat. 

A  few  lines  further  down  we  read  that  : — 

JOHN  ST.  JOHN  was  killed  at  the  battle  of  Evesham  43  (sic) 
Henry  III.  He  had  been  in  the  Holy  Wars  with  Richard  L, 
who  at  the  siege  of  Aeon,  in  Palestine,  adopted  the  device  of  tying 
a  leathern  thong,  or  garter,  round  the  left  leg  of  a  certain  number 
of  knights  (one  of  whom  was  this  John  de  St.  John)  that  they 
might  be  impelled  to  higher  deeds  of  valour. 

One  can  only  ask  in  blank  amazement  whether 
the  brothers  Burke  possess  a  p  rimer  of  English 
history.  From  it  they  would  learn  that  the  battle 
of  Evesham  was  fought  not  in  43,  but  in  49  Hen. 
III.,  and  that  they  have  made  a  man  who  fought 
"in  Palestine"  in  1190  fight  and  fall  at  Evesham 
in  1265!  That  'Aeon'  was  Acre  is  more,  per- 
haps, than  any  herald  could  understand  ;  but 
what  is  the  authority  for  John  de  St.  John  receiv- 
ing a  distinction  which  cruelly  suggests  that  Richard 
urged  him  to  greater  valour  by  curling  a  whip- 
thong  about  his  legs  ? 

But  even  when  we  pass  to  Ireland,  where  Ulster, 
one  would  have  thought,  should  have  been  specially 
at  home,  we  meet  under  the  earldom  of  Fingall 
with  a  statement  so  grotesque  as  that  "  so  early  as 
the  eleventh  century  we  find  John  Plunkett  was 
seated  at  Beaulieu,  or  Bewley,  co.  Meath,  the 
constant  residence  of  the  elder  branch  of  his 
descendants."  What  business  either  John  or 

67 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

c  Beaulieu '  could  have  had  to  be  in  Ireland  at  the 
time  passes  the  wit  of  man  to  discover.  But  as  his 
successor,  a  John  Plunkett "  living  temp.  Henry  HI." 
(1216-1272),  was  father,  we  learn,  of  a  man  who 
sat  in  the  Parliament  of  1374,  the  family  history 
was  clearly  unique.  Now,  why  should  this  ancient 
and  distinguished  house  be  made  ridiculous  by  such 
statements,  when  its  name  occurs  both  in  England 
and  Normandy  in  authentic  records  of  the  twelfth 
century,  which  are  here  completely  ignored  ?  Or, 
again,  why  should  the  ancestor  of  the  Dillons, 
one  of  the  Irish  conquistadores>  be  assigned  the 
absurd  and  impossible  title  of  '  Premier  Dillon, 
Lord  Baron  Drumrany  '  ?  And  what  authority  can 
there  be  for  c  Sir  Geoffrey  de  Estmonte,  Knt.  of 
Huntington,  in  co.  Lincoln/  being  one  of  "  the 
thirty  knights  who  landed  at  Bannow"  in  1172  ? 
Again,  c  Burke '  has  yet  to  learn  that  the  Burkes 
themselves  are  not  descended,  as  stated  under 
c  Clanricarde,'  from  'William  Fitz-Adelm'  [/>. 
Audelin]1 — governor  of  Ireland  under  Henry  II.,  a 
legend,  as  is  now  known,  devoid  of  foundation.  Per- 
haps, however,  one  ought  to  be  thankful  that  they 
are  not  still  derived,  as  they  used  to  be,  in  direct  male 
descent  from  Charlemagne  himself.  Betham,  Sir 
Bernard  Burke's  predecessor  in  the  office  of  Ulster, 
actually  issued  a  formal  certificate  under  his  "  seal 
of  office,"  as  "  Ulster  King  of  Arms  and  Principal 
Herald  of  all  Ireland,"  certifying  that  this  monstrous 
concoction  rested  on  "  original  documents  of  un- 


1  See  my  Feudal  England,  pp.  517-8. 
68 


THE   PEERAGE 

questionable  authority  "  and  "  is  registered  in  the 
Archives  of  Ulster's  Office  of  Arms  "  ! * 

Again,  under  Leinster,  "  Premier  Duke,  Mar- 
quess, and  Earl  of  Ireland,"  the  pedigree  of  Fitz 
Gerald  still  begins  with  a  story  which  is  not  only 
absolutely,  but  also  demonstrably  false  : — 

The  Fitz  Geralds  are  descended  from  "  Dominus  OTHO,"  who 
is  supposed  to  have  been  of  the  family  of  the  Gherardini  of 
Florence.  .  .  .  This  noble  passed  over  into  Normandy,  and 
thence,  in  1057,  mto  England,  where  he  became  so  great  a 
favourite  with  Edward  the  Confessor,  that  he  excited  the  jealousy 
of  the  Saxon  thanes.  However  derived,  his  English  possessions 
were  enormous,  which,  at  his  death,  devolved  on  his  son,  WALTER 
FiTzOrHO,  who,  it  is  somewhat  remarkable,  was  treated  after  the 
Conquest  as  a  fellow-countryman  of  the  Normans.  In  1078 
(sic)  he  is  mentioned  in  Domesday  Book  as  being  in  possession  of 
his  father's  estates. 

Such  circumstances  are  certainly  "  somewhat  re- 
markable," their  explanation  being  that  they  are  at 
complete  variance  with  the  facts.  "  Walterius  films 
Otheri  "  (sic),  the  undoubted  founder  of  the  house, 
first  occurs  in  Domesday  Book  (not  1078,  but 
1086),  where  he  is  found  in  several  counties  as  a 
tenant-in-chief.  It  nowhere  styles  him  a  son  of 
Otho  (of  which  '  Otto '  was  the  Domesday  form), 
and  it  does  not  state  that  his  possessions  had  be- 
longed to  his  father,  but,  on  the  contrary,  proves 
them  to  have  belonged  to  forfeited  Englishmen. 
Thus  the  '  Otho '  story  is  shown  to  be  absolute 
fiction.  Will  Sir  Bernard,  I  asked  in  my  review 
of  the  1892  edition  of  his  Peerage,2  continue  to 

1  See  my  paper  on  "  The  Barons  of  the  Naas  "  in   Genealogist 
[N.S.],  XV.  5.  2  Quarterly  Review,  as  above. 

69 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

repeat  it  while  assuring  the  public  that  he  has 
"  endeavoured  to  render  minutely  correct  the 
ancestral  details  of  the  lineages "  ?  We  turn 
to  the  edition  for  1900,  subjected,  as  we  are 
informed,  to  a  "  more  thorough  revision  than 
usual/'  and  we  read  with  awe  of  "  the  laborious 
researches "  by  which  Somerset  Herald  has  so 
greatly  increased  "  the  genealogical  value  of  this 
work."  And  then  we  find  the  whole  fiction 
repeated  word  for  word,  including  the  gross  blun- 
der on  the  date  of  Domesday  Book. 

Let  us  take — also  from  the  Irish  Peerage — an 
instance  of  another  kind.  In  the  pedigree  of  the 
ancient  house  of  Howth  we  still  find  this  state- 
ment : — 

Nicholas  St.  Lawrence  23rd  Lord  of  Howth.  His  lordship  d. 
in  1643,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  surviving  son — William  24th 
Lord. 

In  editing  the  Register  of  Colchester  Grammar 
School,  for  the  Essex  Archaeological  Society,  I  made 
the  startling  discovery,  with  the  help  of  a  parish 
register  on  the  Essex  and  Suffolk  border,  that  there 
had  flourished  there  a  Lord  of  Howth,  between  the 
above  two  peers,  who  had,  in  1643,  succeeded  his 
brother  Nicholas,  and  who  was  the  real  father  of 
the  above  William.  A  discovery  so  unlikely  as 
this  is  not  only  "  part  of  the  romance  of  gene- 
alogy," l  but  is  of  much  potential  importance  for 
the  heirship  to  this  barony,  of  which  the  heir- 
presumptive  is,  apparently,  so  remote  as  to  be  un- 
known. The  Complete  Peerage^  in  its  c  corrigenda  ' 

1  Preface  to  my  edition  of  the  above  Register. 
70 


THE   PEERAGE 

(viii.  425-6),  accepted  the  discovery  and  observed 
that  it  had  been  made  by  me.  '  Burke  '  wholly 
ignores  it.  Is  it  pride  that  prevents  the  editor 
from  availing  himself  of  the  results  of  genealogical 
research  ?  Or  is  it,  in  spite  of  all  professions,  just 
mere  indolence  ?  The  case  below  of  the  barony  of 
Kingsale,  so  closely  associated,  by  tradition,  with 
that  of  Howth  in  its  origin,  points  to  the  latter 
conclusion. 

To  see  how  a  genuine  pedigree  can  and  should 
be  constructed,  we  need  only  turn  to  that  of  Lord 
Wrottesley,  the  work,  no  doubt,  of  that  excellent 
antiquary,  General  Wrottesley,  in  which  the 
family's  possession  of  Wrottesley  is  carried  up  to 
within  a  century  from  the  Conquest,  while  the 
pedigree  itself  is  traced  to  the  days  of  the  Con- 
queror. Injustice  is  done  to  those  who  can  prove 
such  a  pedigree  as  this,  when  the  wild  traditions 
we  have  glanced  at  are  published  as  sober  history  ; 
nor  have  families  of  undoubted  antiquity,  such  as 
those  of  Lord  Hereford  or  Lord  Iddesleigh,  any- 
thing to  gain  by  appealing,  in  support  of  their 
earliest  history,  the  former  to  pipe  rolls  which  do  not 
exist,1  and  the  latter  to  c  an  ancient  record  '  which 
appears  to  have  been  nothing  of  the  kind.2 

1  "  The  great  roll  of  the  Pipe  35  Hen.  I.  and  5  Stephen."    The 
pedigree  opens    with    an  odd    reference    to  "the  theory  of  the 
Heralds'  College,  London." 

2  The  Northcote  pedigree  is  asserted  (ed.  1 900)  to  be  "  clearly 
proved  by  an    ancient    and  copious    pedigree     preserved   in    the 
College  of  Arms     .     .     .     which  pedigree  is  continued  down  to 
the  Visitation  of  1620."     The  character  of  this  precious  docu- 
ment may  be  gathered  from  such  of  its  contents  as  are  rashly 

71 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

On  the  other  hand,  in  one  or  two  instances,  the 
pedigree,  instead  of  being  carried  too  far,  is  not 
carried  far  enough.  The  founder  of  the  present 
house  of  Berkeley  is  bluntly  introduced  as  '  Robert 
Fitzhardinge,'  who,  like  Melchizedek,  had  no 
father,  although  competent  genealogists  have  held, 
and  Professor  Freeman  thought  it  "  in  the  highest 
degree  probable,"  that  he  was  the  son  of  Harding, 
son  of  Eadnoth,  the  latter  being,  the  Professor  held, 
no  other  than  Eadnoth  the  Staller,  a  magnate  under 
Edward  the  Confessor.  The  probability  of  so 
unique  a  descent  might  at  least  have  been  referred 
to. 

Again,  the  ancient  and  well-known  house  of 
Tichborne  is  traced  only  to  Roger  Tichborne 
"  who  flourished  in  the  reign  of  Henry  II. "  But 
I  could  take  it  back  to  his  father  Walter  living 
under  Henry  I.  and  Stephen.  Moreover,  as 
descents  in  the  female  line  are  in  some  cases  given, 
— as  those,  for  instance,  of  the  duke  of  Northum- 
berland and  Lord  Beauchamp  (perhaps  because  the 
houses  of  Smithson  and  of  Pindar  are  compara- 
tively modern) — it  is  strange  that  under  '  Rutland  ' 
we  have  only  a  pedigree  of  the  Manners  family. 
For  the  boast,  too  often  falsely  made,  that  lands  have 
descended  from  the  days  of  the  Conquest  in  an  un- 

given  to  the  public.  The  first  ancestor  "  on  record,"  is  *  Galfri- 
dus  Miles,'  who  'had  his  seat  at  Northcote  '  in  1103,  an(*  whose 
second  successor  was  seated  there  in  1118  (sic),  a  record  being 
actually  vouched  for  the  fact.  As  a  grandson  of  this  latter 
gentleman  was  married  in  1288-9  (17  Ed.  I.),  the  whole  pedigree 
is  doubtless  worthy  of  the  heralds  and  the  College  of  Arms. 

72 


THE    PEERAGE 

broken  line,  is  absolutely  true  in  the  case  of  the 
historic  estate  of  Belvoir.  I  was  lately  enabled  to 
ascertain  its  true  descent  in  the  Norman  period, 
which,  as  I  had  long  suspected,  has  always  been 
wrongly  given. 

And  now  for  the  house  of  Howard.  Fiercely 
fighting  the  hydra  of  falsehood  which  he  found 
resplendent  in  Burke  s  Peerage,  Mr.  Freeman,  in  the 
name  of  historical  truth,  smote  the  pedigree  of 
Wake.1  The  singular  feature  in  this  pedigree  is 
that  it  betrayed  the  usual  desire  to  begin  with  a 
companion  of  the  Conqueror,  and  yet  hankered 
after  claiming  a  forbear  so  famous  in  story  as  Here- 
ward  "  the  Wake."  Hence  much  confusion  and 
c  hedging/  which  the  Professor  mercilessly  printed 
in  full.  One  need  only  quote  this  passage  : — 

Hence  the  family  is  supposed  to  have  been  of  importance  prior 
to  the  Conquest.  The  celebrated  Archbishop  Wake  wrote  a 
history  of  the  Wake  family,  in  which  he  ascribes  to  Hereward  le 
Wake  the  feat  of  having  successfully  opposed  and  finally  made 
terms  with  William  the  Conqueror.  As  Augustine  (sic)  also 
mentions  Wakes  in  Normandy,  it  is  probable  that  there  were  two 
parties  in  the  family  at  that  time. 

As  Mr.  Freeman  forcibly  observed,  "  it  does  very 
directly  touch  the  historian  when  pedigree-makers 
.  .  .  lay  their  hands  on  one  of  our  national 
heroes  in  the  form  of  Hereward."  Vigorously 
denouncing  this  "trumpery  piece  of  genealogical 
fiction,"  the  Professor  exclaimed  with  indigna- 
tion : — 

Nor  can  the  historian  calmly  look  on  while  Hereward  becomes 

1  Cont.  Rev.,  XXX.  31-3. 
73 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

the  sport  of  pedigree-makers.  His  authentic  history  is  short,  but 
he  has  an  authentic  history.  .  .  .  But  as  for  connecting 
him  with  the  family  of  Wake  or  any  other  existing  family,  there 
is  not  a  scrap  of  evidence  for  it.1 

The  Wakes,  however,  appear  to  have  c  declared  to 
win '  with  Hereward,  reviving  his  name,  as  that 
of  their  ancestor,  together  with  that  of  his  legendary 
wife  "  Torfrida,"  just  as  "  Sir  Brian  Newcome  ot 
Newcome"  set  the  seal  to  his  family  legend  by 
giving  his  children  "  names  out  of  the  Saxon  calen- 
dar." Kingsley,  moreover,  had  made  their  alleged 
descent  famous  by  inserting  this  passage  in  his  well- 
known  novel  on  Hereward  : 

Hereward  the  Wake,  Lord  of  Bourne,  and  ancestor  or  that  family 
of  Wake  the  arms  of  whom  appear  on  the  cover  of  this  book. 
These,  of  course,  are  much  later  than  the  time  of  Hereward. 
Not  so,  probably,  the  badge  of  the  '  Wake  Knot.'  ...  It 
and  the  motto  c  Vigila  et  ora '  may  well  have  been  used  by  Here- 
ward himself.  .  .  . 

Hereward's  pedigree  is  a  matter  of  no  importance  save  to  a  few 
antiquaries,  and  possibly  to  his  descendants,  the  ancient  and 
honourable  house  of  Wake.2 

1  Reference  may  also  be  made  to  articles  on  Hereward  in  the 
Saturday  Review  of  1st  Nov.  1862,  and  I9th  May,  1866,  which 
seem  to  be  from  Mr.  Freeman's  pen. 

2  It  is  a  striking  instance  of  the  firm  hold  that  these  legends 
obtain  on  the  imagination  of  the  public  that,  even  as  I  write,  this 
statement  appears  in  the  columns  of  a  newspaper  : — "  Sir  Here- 
ward Wake  bears  one  of  the  oldest  names  in  England,  being  a 
descendant  of  the  famous  '  Hereward  the  Wake.'     Perhaps  one 
of  the   most  interesting  things  in  connection  with  this   family, 
especially  in  these  days  when  lands  change  hands  so  frequently,  is 
the  fact  (sic)  that  the  Wakes  have  had  the  same  property  from 
generation  to  generation  ever  since  the  days  of  the  Saxons,  and 
echoes  of  those  times  are  still  to  be  heard  in  the  Christian  names 
of  all  the  Wakes"  (nth  March,  1900). 

74 


THE   PEERAGE 

But  we  see  the  fruits  of  Mr.  Freeman's  scorn  in 
the  guarded  phrase  which  now  appears  at  the  head 
of  the  Wake  pedigree  : — "  The  Wakes  claim  Saxon 
origin  "  ;  while  the  actual  pedigree  modestly  begins 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  I4th  century.1  This  is 
scarcely  worthy  treatment  of  one  of  our  oldest 
families,  one  of  the  very  few  that  belonged  to  the 
feudal  baronage,  and  that  can  be  traced  back  with 
certainty  to  within  a  century  of  the  Conquest.2 

I  spoke  above  of  '  the  hydra  of  falsehood '  in 
this  unfortunate  compilation.  No  sooner  had  the 
Wake  pedigree  been  thus  mercilessly  lopped  than 
the  gallant  Hereward  reappeared  as  the  founder  of 
quite  another  family,  indeed  of  no  less  famous  a 
house  than  the  Howards,  dukes  of  Norfolk. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  the  Howards — 
or,  at  least,  the  heralds  on  their  behalf — have  tried 
hard  to  extend  their  pedigree  beyond  the  known 
founder  of  their  house,  William  Howard,  who 
rose  by  the  law,  becoming  a  judge  towards  the 
close  of  the  ijth  century.  Collins'  Peerage  (1779) 

1  Burkis  Peerage,  1900. 

2  Its  founder  was  Hugh  Wac,  who  married  the  daughter  and 
heiress   of   Baldwin  Fitz  Gilbert,   and  thus   acquired  Baldwin's 
fief.      This  Baldwin  was  son,  not  of  Gilbert  de  Gant  as  alleged 
by  Dugdale  and  other  antiquaries,  but,  as  I  have  shown  (Feudal 
England,  p.  474)  of  Gilbert  de   Clare,  the  head  of  that  famous 
house.     Hugh  Wac  was  in  possession  of  the  fief  in  1166,  but  I 
have  urged  that  he  is  the  "h'Wac"  who  attests  a  charter  of  king 
Stephen  that  I  assign  to  1142  (Geoffrey  de  Mandevllle,  p.  159). 

As  I  have  shown  elsewhere  (Feudal  England,  p.  161),  Hereward, 
who  was  never  known  as  "  the  Wake,"  had  that  name  bestowed 
on  him  by  some  early  pedigree-maker,  who  wished  to  annex  him 
as  the  ancestor  of  the  Wake  family. 

75 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

gives  us  "the  descent  as  settled  by  Mr.  Harvey,  who 
was  Clarencieux  King  of  Arms  in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  and  with  whom  Glover  (Somerset 
Herald),  Philipot,  etc.,  agree"  (I.  52-3).  This 
was  the  wild  descent  from  "Auber,  Earl  of  Passy  " 
spoken  of  by  Mr.  Rye  in  a  passage  quoted  below. 
In  1638,  Lilly,  then  "Rouge  Dragon,"  produced 
quite  a  different  story,  compiling  "  The  genealogie 
of  the  princelie  familie  of  the  Howards,  exactly 
deduced  in  a  right  line  from  the  xvth  yeere  of  the 
raigne  of  King  Edgar,  sole  monarch  of  England 
in  the  yeere  of  our  redemption  DCCCCLXX.  before 
the  Norman  Conquest  96  years,  etc." 1  Dugdale, 
however,  as  in  other  cases,  ignored  the  work  of 
the  officers  of  arms,  the  value  and  character  of 
which  he  was,  doubtless,  competent  to  judge,  and, 
in  his  Baronage,  wrote  this  : — 

There  are  those  perhaps  who  will  expect  that  I  should  ascend 
much  higher  in  manifesting  the  greatness  of  this  honourable  and 
large-spreading  family  of  Howard  in  regard  I  do  not  make  any 
mention  thereof  above  the  time  of  King  Edward  I.,  some  sup- 
posing that  their  common  ancestor  in  the  Saxon  time  took  his 
original  appellation  from  an  eminent  office  or  command  ;  others 
afterwards  from  the  name  of  a  place.  And  some  have  not 
stuck  to  derive  him  from  the  famous  Hereward.  ...  I  shall, 
therefore,  after  much  fruitless  search  to  satisfy  myself  as  well  as 
others  on  this  point,  begin  with  William  Howard,  a  learned  and 
reverend  judge  of  the  court  of  common  pleas. 

In    1879,    Sir    Bernard    Burke    was  still    quoting 

1  "  A  finer  heraldic  volume  than  this  need  not  be  wished  for  ; 
the  drawings  and  their  colourings  are  of  the  first  class."  This  MS. 
is  said  to  be  in  the  possession  of  Lord  Northampton. 


THE    PEERAGE 

these  words  of  Dugdale  at  the  head  of  his  Howard 
pedigree,  though  he  added  that  : — 

Despite,  however,  of  Dugdale's  inability  to  discover  the  parent- 
age of  the  judge,  it  appears  clearly  proved  from  various  charters 
that  that  learned  personage  was  son  of  John  Howard  and  grandson 
of  Robert  Howard  or  Herward,  *  films  Hawardi,'  and  that  the 
name  was  originally  Herward. 

But  in  1880  there  was  substituted  this  version  : — 

The  Ducal  and  illustrious  Howards  .  .  .  represent  a 
family  undoubtedly  of  Saxon  origin.  Recent  enquiries  enable 
us  to  trace  the  ancestors  of  the  Howards  to  a  period  much  more 
remote  than  Sir  William  Dugdale  thought  possible  and  to  estab- 
lish the  pedigree  by  undoubted  evidence.  Ingulph  and  Matthew 
Paris  concur  in  stating  that  Howard  or  Hereward  was  living  in 
the  reign  of  King  Edgar,  957  to  973,  and  that  he  was  a  kinsman 
of  Duke  Oslac,  and  that  his  son,  Leofric,  was  the  father  of  Here- 
ward,  who  was  banished  by  the  Conqueror.  The  very  ancient  book 
of  the  church  of  Ely  entirely  confirms  the  statement.  It  appears 
that  Hereward  was  subsequently  allowed  to  return,  and  it  is  cer- 
tain that  his  family  retained  Wigenhall  and  other  portions  of 
their  inheritance  in  Norfolk.  Hereward's  grandson,  Hereward  or 
Howard,  and  his  wife  Wilburga,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  the  Second, 
granted  a  carucate  of  land  in  Terrington  in  Norfolk  to  the  church 
of  Len  (Lynn),  and  directed  that  prayers  should  be  said  for  the 
souls  of  Hereward  his  father,  and  of  Hereward  the  Banished,  or 
the  Exile,  his  grandfather.  Robert  Howard,  the  son  of  Hereward, 
was  seized  of  Wigenhall,  Terrington,  and  other  estates  in  Nor- 
folk, and  was  the  father  of  John  Hereward  or  Howard  of  Wigen- 
hall, who,  by  Lucy  Germund  his  wife,  was  the  father  of  SIR 
WILLIAM  HOWARD. 

Of  this  audacious  story  one  can  only  say  that 
no  statements  of  the  kind  are  made  by  Mathew 
Paris,  while  what  '  Ingulf  really  says  (under 
1062)  is  that  Leofric  lord  of  Brunne  married 

77 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Ediva,  c  trinepta '  of  "  that  magnificent  duke  Oslac, 
the  contemporary  of  king  Edgar."1  To  Leofric 
himself,  who  is  made  to  die  in  the  days  of  William 
I.,  no  father  is  assigned,  and,  even  if  it  contained 
(which  it  does  not)  the  alleged  statement,  the 
whole  chronicle  called  Ingulfs  is  now  known  to 
be  a  forgery  !  Yet  this  mixture  of  ignorance  and 
falsehood  is  set  forth,  in  1900,  as  the  fruit  of 
"  recent  enquiries  "  and  as  proved  by  "  undoubted 
evidence."  Strong  language,  it  may  be  said  ;  yet 
not  a  whit  too  strong.  For  so  far  back  as  3oth 
January,  1886,  Mr.  Walter  Rye  wrote  to  the 
Athenaum  on  the  subject  of  the  wild  story  in 
c  Burke,'  and  urged  that  "  surely  the  pedigree  of 
the  Head  of  the  College  of  Arms  should  be  above 
suspicion,"  while  in  the  same  widely-read  journal 
(i3th  March,  1886),  I  denounced  it  "as  a  scandal 
to  our  historical  and  antiquarian  scholarship  that 
the  ridiculous  farrago  of  this  '  mythical  descent ' 
should  be  thus  annually  repeated  to  the  public  in 
a  quasi-official  form."  Again,  in  my  Quarterly 
Review  article  (October,  1893),  I  pilloried  "that 
wildly  impossible  story  "  to  which  "  Ulster  steadily 
adheres,"  and  complained  that  he  "persists  in 
publishing  this  nonsense,  and  justifies,  so  long  as 
he  does  so,  the  sternest  criticism  of  his  work." 
Yet  the  story  is  still  repeated  when  its  falsehood 
has  been  publicly  denounced.  It  is  not,  we  shall 

1  Ed.  Gale,  P.  67. 

2  The  Almanac  de  Gotha,  naturally  misled,  proclaims  the  How- 
ards a  "  maison  f<6odale  Anglo-Saxonne  que  Ton  fait  remonter  a 
Leofric     .     .     .     vers  950." 

78 


THE    PEERAGE 

find,  in  pedigree  alone  that  revision  is  required  in 
the  history  of  the  ducal  house  of  Norfolk. 

We  have  seen  above  the  strange  shifts  to  which 
the  makers  of  Howard  pedigrees  have  been  put,  in 
their  efforts  to  get  beyond  the  judge  who  founded 
the  family  toward  the  end  of  the  I3th  century. 
But  we  have  not  seen  them  all.  In  his  well-known 
popular  History  of  Norfolk  (1887),  Mr.  Walter 
Rye  selected  "  a  few  of  the  worst  cases "  of 
spurious  pedigrees  in  Norfolk,  and  placed  at  their 
head  that  of  "  Howard,  Duke  of  Norfolk,  Premier 
Peer  and  Earl  Marshal  of  England." 

This  family  descends  from  Sir  William  Howard,  who  was  a 
grown  man  and  on  the  bench  in  1293,  whose  real  pedigree  is 
very  obscure  and  doubtful,  and  who  invariably  spelt  his  name 
Ha  ward. 

.  .  .  Two  Coram  rege  rolls,  referred  to  by  the  heralds  as 
mentioning  William  c  de '  Howard  and  William  '  Hauward,'  have 
each  been  tampered  with  to  make  them  so  read — the  '  le,'  which 
was  undoubtedly  in  the  first,  having  been  cut  out,1  and  the  tail 
of  the  *  y '  in  the  second  having  been  also  removed  with  a  knife, 
to  make  '  Hay  ward '  read  '  Hauward.' 

Mr.  Rye  then  continues : — 

The  pedigree  itself  was  concocted  very  carelessly,  and  can  de- 
ceive no  one.  It  traces  the  Howards  to  *  Auber,  Earl  of  Passy,  in 
Normandy,'  whose  grandson,  Roger  Fitz  Valerine,  is  said  to  have 
owned  the  castle  of  Howarden,  or  '  Howard's  den  '  (!).  Alliances 
with  the  Bigods,  the  St.  Meres,  the  Bardolphs,  the  Brus,  and  the 
Trusbuts  are  liberally  provided,  to  bring  in  nice-looking  quarter- 
ings,  while  an  alternative  descent  from  Hereward  the  Wake  is 
also  put  forward. 

1  Compare  the  remarks  in  this  paper  on  the  efforts  to  change 
Me'Poherinto'de'Poher. 

79 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Well  might  the  writer  urge  that  such  concoc- 
tions as  this  form  "  an  instructive  commentary  on 
the  value  of  the  work  of  the  older  heralds  and  of 
the  '  visitations.5"1 

But  now  we  come  to  the  strangest  part  of  the 
whole  Hereward  story,  one  of  the  quaintest  epi- 
sodes, I  think,  in  modern  genealogy.  In  1896 
there  appeared  a  fresh  claimant  for  the  honour  of 
descent  from  Hereward.  In  his  Hereward  the 
Saxon  Patriot,  Lieut.-General  Harward  not  only 
claimed  the  patriot  as  his  own  "  illustrious  ances- 
tor," but  fiercely  denounced  the  other  families 
which  had  made  a  like  claim  and  all  who  had 
aided  and  abetted  them.  "  No  weaker  claim,  or 
one  supported  by  more  unreliable  evidence,"  could 
be  imagined  than  that  of  the  "  grasping  family  " 
of  Howard  ;  "  the  claim  of  the  Temples  . 
is  too  weak  and  frivolous  to  be  seriously  enter- 
tained "  ;  and  "  the  last,  and  weakest,  not  to  say 
most  ludicrous  claim  ...  is  that  of  Wake 
of  Courteen  Hall,  Northampton."  Poor  Charles 
Kingsley,  as  the  chief  abettor  of  this  claim,  was 
charged  with  "  utter  incapacity,"  with  writing 
"  unintelligible  nonsense,"  and  with  a  "  mad  esca- 
pade as  Professor  of  English  History  in  twisting 
the  hero  of  these  pages,  the  renowned  Hereward, 
into  a  peg  on  which  to  hang  a  Northampton  family 
named  Wake  or  Jones."  Worse  than  "  a  silly 
archbishop  of  their  name,"  this  "  still  more  foolish 

1  For  some  criticisms  on  the  value  of  these  belauded  '  visita- 
tions '  see  the  papers  in  this  volume  on  the  families  of  Stewart 
and  of  Spencer. 

80 


THE   PEERAGE 

prebendary  turns  a  somersault  over  the  professorial 
chair,"  and  "  was  most  liberally  remunerated  "  for 
doing  so  ! 

From  Kingsley  the  gallant  and  fiery  author 
turned  to  "  the  shortcomings  of  the  Heralds' 
Office,"  and  insisted  "  that  a  public  office  should 
cease  to  disseminate  barefaced  fabrications."  This 
demand  was  perfectly  justified  ;  but  when  we  turn 
from  the  heralds'  "  fabrications  "  to  the  author's 
own  descent,  what,  to  our  amazement,  do  we  find  ? 
On  the  authority  of  a  heralds'  visitation  of  War- 
wickshire (1619),  it  is  traced  up  to  "John  Here- 
ward  de  Pebwith"  circa  1235,  but  no  higher.2 
"  Pebwith  "  can  only  be  Pebworth  in  Gloucester- 
shire, and  the  great  Hereward,  who  lived  at  the 
time  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  was  connected,  so 
far  as  records  go,  with  Lincolnshire  and  with 
Lincolnshire  alone.3  A  century  and  a  half  has  to 
be  covered  before  we  come  to  the  Gloucestershire 
man  alleged  to  have  lived  circa  1235,  and  of  evi- 
dence to  connect  him  with  the  great  Hereward 
there  is  not  one  scrap.4  Yet  on  the  assumption  of 
such  descent  the  author  constructs  his  pedigree  and 
denounces,  as  above,  those  families  who  claim  a 
baseless  connection  with  "  Hereward  the  Saxon 
patriot."  Of  the  genealogical  curiosities  contained 
in  this  extraordinary  book  it  would  be  difficult  to 

1  "  The  so-called  *  visitations '  and  the  records  in  the  Heralds' 
College  derived  from  them  are  in  numerous  cases  untrustworthy 
and  always  suspicious  "  (p.  64). 

2  Hereward  the  Saxon  Patriot ,  p.  91. 

3  Feudal  England,  pp.  160-162. 

4  The  name,  of  course,  was  in  no  way  distinctive. 

8l  G 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

give  an  idea.  One  can  only  draw  attention  to  the 
really  significant  fact  that  it  is  possible  to  publish, 
even  now,  a  work  of  this  character  and  to  have  it 
seriously,  and  even  favourably,  reviewed  by  unin- 
structed  scribes. 

A  pleasing  contrast  to  the  Howard  pedigree  is 
afforded  by  that  of  the  duke  of  Fife.  Its  rise  and 
fall  is  so  curious  a  story  that  one  may  be  pardoned 
for  giving  it  in  detail.  When  William  Duff  was 
raised  to  an  earldom  in  1759,  he  selected  the  titles 
of  Viscount  MacDuff  and  Earl  Fife  ;  c  evidently,' 
as  G.  E.  C.  observes,  "  to  indicate  a  descent  from 
the  ancient  earls  of  Fife  of  the  house  of  Macduff." 
The  same  descent  was  implied  in  the  marquessate 
of  Macduff  and  dukedom  of  Fife  granted  so 
recently  as  1889.  Accordingly,  till  some  years 
ago,  c  Burke  '  gave  as  the  origin  of  the  family  : — 

This  noble  family  derives  from  Fyfe  Macduff,  a  chief  of  great 
wealth  and  power,  who  lived  about  the  year  834,  and  afforded  to 
Kenneth  II.,  King  of  Scotland,  strong  aid  against  his  enemies  the 
Picts. 

This  descent  was  traced  through  the  Duffs  of 
Muldavit,  of  whom  the  first,  living  in  1404,  was 
said  to  be  a  cadet  of  the  old  earls  of  Fife.  Baird, 
who  wrote  a  genealogical  history  of  the  family 
about  1773,  set  forth  the  pedigree  without  ques- 
tion, as  did  others  ;  in  1783  Lord  Fife  procured  a 
charter  giving  the  name  of  MacDuff  to  the  port 
he  had  created  at  Doune  ;  and,  finally,  the  family, 
who  had  adorned  their  mausoleum  with  inscriptions 
proclaiming  it  and  with  the  crest  of  the  old  earls 
of  Fife,  ventured  on  a  crowning  step.  Incredible 

82 


THE    PEERAGE 

though  it  may  seem,  c  a  fine  stone  effigy,  with  a 
singularly  well-preserved  inscription/  erected,  it  is 
supposed,  to  an  Innes  of  Innes  about  1539,  was 
removed  from  Cullen  Church  to  the  Duff  mauso- 
leum, where,  by  altering  the  inscribed  date  to  1 404 
(in  Arabic  numerals  !)  it  was  made  to  figure: as  that 
of  the  first  Duff  of  Muldavit.  No  less  an  author- 
ity than  the  late  Mr.  Stodart,  Lyon  Clerk  Depute, 
informed  c  G.  E.  C.'  that  this  was  probably  done 
in  1792  "to  add  to  the  glory  of  [the  then]  Lord 
Fife "  !  Moreover,  an  imitation  antique  inscrip- 
tion was  cut  at  the  same  time  recording  in  detail 
the  spurious  descent.  The  credit  of  unmasking 
these  remarkable  proceedings  belongs  to  Mr. 
William  Cramond,  who,  with  indefatigable  zeal, 
established  the  real  facts.  The  descent  from  the 
old  earls  of  Fife  was  soon  seen  to  be  untenable,  but 
the  family  was  still  traced  to  Duff  of  Muldavit 
in  1404,  and  the  Almanac  de  Gotha  preserves 
this  version;1  Mr.  Cramond,  however,  eventu- 
ally disproved  this  also  and  showed  that  the 
family  could  not  be  traced  beyond  the  middle 
of  the  i /th  century.  'Burke'  has  at  last  sur- 
rendered at  discretion,  and  now  begins  the 
pedigree  with  Adam  Duff,  who  died  between 
1 674  and  1 677,  and  "  laid  the  foundation  of 
the  prosperity  of  the  family."  Sic  transit  gloria 
mundi.  If,  as  we  presume,  the  present  pedigree 
appears  with  the  sanction  of  the  duke  of  Fife, 

1  It  is  only  just  to  Mr.  Foster  to  mention  that  he  from  the 
first,  in  his  '  Peerage,'  had  independently  refused  to  admit  even 
the  Muldavit  descent. 

83 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

he  has  set  an  example  to  others,  by  this  frank  re- 
cognition of  facts,  which  we  hope  may  be  widely 
followed. 

The  story  of  the  translated  effigy  and  the 
manufactured  genealogical  inscription  is  not, 
though  startling,  unique.  Tampering  has  not 
been  confined  to  the  will  or  to  the  parish  register. 
Only  students  of  genealogy,  perhaps,  remember 
the  famous  Coulthart  imposture,  in  which  the 
evidences  for  the  pedigree  were  one  and  all 
forged,  "monuments  to  the  imaginary  line  of  the 
Coultharts  "  being  erected  in  two  Scottish  church- 
yards in  the  shape  of  altar-tombs  commemorating 
successive  lairds  of  Coulthart  !  Even  this  per- 
formance was  eclipsed  by  the  Deardens  at 
Rochdale,  who,  according  to  a  writer  in  the 
Gentleman's  Magazine  (1852),  had  constructed  in 
Rochdale  Church  an  apocryphal  c  family  chapel,' 
with  sham  effigies,  slabs,  and  brasses  to  the  memory 
of  imaginary  ancestors.  This  statement,  I  may 
add,  was  actually  true,  the  work  having  been 
executed  about  1847  ;  and  although  most  of  these 
monstrosities  have  now  been  buried,  "five  imitation 
antiques"  were  allowed  to  remain.  A  similar  per- 
formance, so  far  back  as  the  days  of  Henry  VIII., 
was  exposed  not  long  ago,  in  a  learned  paper  on 
"  the  Hughenden  effigies,"  by  Mr.  E.  J.  Payne.1 
He  showed  that  monuments  in  Hughenden 
church,  which  had  successfully  imposed  on  Stoth- 
ard  and  other  antiquaries,  even  in  the  present 

1  Records  of  Buckinghamshire,  vol.  VII.  (1896),  pp.  362-412. 

84 


THE   PEERAGE 

century,  were  spurious,  having  been  erected  by 
a  family  of  Wellesbourne  to  connect  themselves 
with  the  Montforts.  One  existing  effigy  was 
c  adapted  '  and  the  others  fabricated  for  the  pur- 
pose. His  conclusions  were  : — 

that  they  caused  a  monumental  effigy  of  this  imaginary  ancestor 
to  be  carved  in  the  style  of  the  thirteenth  century  .  .  . 
that  they  adapted  the  plate-armour  effigy  to  their  purpose  by 
cutting  similar  arms  on  the  skirts,  and  that  they  had  the  three 
rude  effigies  fabricated  by  way  of  filling  up  the  gap  between  the 
fourteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries. 

Oddly  enough,  the  same  county  contains  a  church 
in  which,  within  the  present  century,  monumental 
inscriptions  have  been  erected  for  the  purpose  of 
asserting  a  descent  which  is  now  known  to  be 
spurious.  I  can  supplement  these  cases  by  yet 
another.  An  American  family  of  Sears,  in  search 
of  English  ancestors,  laid  violent  hands  on  a  family 
of  Sayer,  formerly  of  Colchester,  and  having  con- 
structed for  themselves  a  spurious  descent  from 
that  house,  obtained  permission  to  erect  in  St. 
Peter's,  Colchester,  a  brass  (appropriate  metal  !) 
recording  that  descent — and  testifying  to  a  human 
weakness  ctre  ferenmus. 

Indeed,  even  since  my  article  appeared,  the  now 
notorious  c  Shipway  frauds '  have  revealed  the  fact 
that  such  proceedings  are  still  quite  possible.  The 
extraordinary  story  is  thus  told  by  one  of  the  clergy 
of  the  parish  : — 

In  the  fall  (sic)  of  1896,  by  an  elaborate  system  of  impudent 
frauds,  an  unscrupulous  attempt  was  made  to  claim  these 
monuments  for  one  who  was  an  entire  stranger  to  the  parish. 

85 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

An  agent  from  London1  was  employed  in  a  search  for  a  pedigree. 
He,  by  fraudulent  means,  concocted  a  very  plausible  story. 
Genealogies  were  manufactured,  tombs  were  desecrated,  registers 
were  falsified,  wills  were  forged  :  in  a  word  various  outrages 
were  committed  with  many  sacred  things  in  this  parish  and 
elsewhere.  These  two  figures,  as  part  of  the  pedigree,  were 
deposited  in  a  niche  in  the  chantry  ;  ...  on  either  side 
were  huge  brass  tablets  on  which  were  engraven  various  un- 
truthful and  unfounded  statements. 

In  this  case,  we  learn, — 

the  Bishop  of  Bristol  directed  [1898]  that  a  faculty  should  be 
applied  for  to  remove  the  glass  case  and  inscriptions,  and  to 
restore  the  tombstones  in  the  churchyard  to  their  proper 
places.  He  further  directed  that  the  forged  inscriptions,  etc., 
in  various  parts  of  the  church  should  be  removed.2 

We  shall  find,  in  dealing  with  c  the  origin  of  the 
Stewarts,'  that  among  the  adornments  of  Ely 
cathedral  is  a  prominent  inscription  similarly 
intended  to  support  "  untruthful  and  unfounded 
statements."  Nothing,  however,  can  be  done  in 
the  case  of  these  statements,  for  is  not  their  truth 
vouched  for  by  the  records  of  the  Heralds'  College  ? 
One  of  the  victims  to  this  weakness  was  Lord 
Brougham  himself.  It  was  said  of  another  ardent 
Radical,  who  had  compiled  a  voluminous  gene- 
alogy, that  he  sat  under  the  largest  family  tree 
to  be  found  in  Christendom.  But  Lord  Brough- 
am's tree,  in  its  rapid  growth,  rivalled  the  Indian 
mango.  Perhaps  the  Dictionary  of  National  Bio- 
graphy, to  which  G.  E.  C.  triumphantly  appeals, 

1  Dr.  Davies,  who  was  the  author  or  the  frauds  of  which  he 
was  subsequently  convicted. 

2  Our  Parish  :  Mangotsfield  (1899). 

86    ' 


THE   PEERAGE 

errs  on  the  side  of  incredulity  ;  but  those  who  are 
curious  in  such  matters  may  turn  with  advantage 
to  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  for  1848,  where  they 
will  find  that  the  same  romantic  genealogist  was 
a  friend  of  Mr.  Dearden  and  of  Lord  Brougham, 
and  will  read  the  wondrous  story  of  the  so-called 
c  Crusader's  tomb.' 

What  Mr.  Cramond  accomplished  for  the 
pedigree  of  the  duke  of  Fife,  Mr.  Foster  did  for 
that  of  Lord  Tweedmouth.  Certainly  there  has 
been,  in  our  time,  no  genealogical  question  of  purely 
academic  interest  so  bitterly  and  so  stubbornly 
contested  as  that  of  the  Marjoribanks  pedigree 
e  recorded  '  in  the  Lyon  Office.  On  the  creation 
of  the  Tweedmouth  peerage  in  1 8  8 1 ,  the  pedigree 
of  the  new  peer  was  duly  communicated  to  the 
two  rival  Peerage  editors,  Sir  Bernard  Burke  and 
Mr.  Foster.  The  former,  after  his  wont,  pub- 
lished it  without  question  ;  the  latter,  as  a  critical 
genealogist,  deemed  it  unsatisfactory,  and  warned 
his  readers  that  it  was  wanting  in  proof  and  there- 
rore  doubtful.  Thereupon  the  Lyon  Clerk 
Depute  ridiculed  him  for  daring  to  question  a 
"  proved  and  registered  pedigree."  Despising  him 
as  a  merely  c  English '  genealogist,  the  Scottish 
authorities  were  wholly  unprepared  for  the  result 
of  this  rash  challenge.  One  after  another  they 
entered  the  field  to  be  overwhelmed  in  turn.  Mr. 
Foster  was  found,  to  their  great  surprise,  to  have 
at  his  fingers'  ends  their  public  and  burghal 
records.  He  could  tell  them  more  than  they  ever 
knew  ;  and  he  tore  their  pedigree  (or  rather 

8? 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

pedigrees)  to  shreds.  His  straightforward  on- 
slaught contrasted  strongly  with  the  pitiful  subter- 
fuges of  his  opponents.  As  an  example  of  these 
he  was  accused  by  the  then  Lyon  king  of  arms 
of  fabricating  a  date  (1688)  which  "occurs  in 
no  printed  account  of  the  family  except  Mr. 
Foster's,"  for  the  purpose  of  demolishing  it.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  date,  so  far  from  being  his 
fabrication,  was  given  by  Ulster  in  his  '  Peerage/ 
and  remains  there,  it  will  be  found,  to  this  day  ! 
Mr.  Foster's  determined  honesty  had,  of  course, 
made  many  enemies,  who  joined  eagerly  in  the 
attack  ;  but,  finding  it  at  length  useless  to  uphold 
the  discredited  descent,  they  coolly  abandoned  it  as 
a  matter  "  of  little  interest  to  genealogists  "  !  My 
readers  may  be  left  to  draw  their  own  conclusion, 
and  to  estimate  from  this  the  value  of  pedigrees 
'  proved  and  registered '  in  the  Lyon  Office. 

We  shall  have,  however,  to  wait  till  Mr.  Foster 
resumes  the  publication  of  his  c  Peerage  '  for  a 
trustworthy  account  of  Lord  Tweedmouth's  de- 
scent, '  Burke  '  having  altered  it,  it  is  true,  but 
only  in  matters  of  detail.  The  founder  of  the 
family,  Joseph  Marjoribanks  of  Edinburgh,  mer- 
chant burgess,  is  still  made  the  grandson  of  a 
Lord  Clerk  Register  "  of  that  ilk  and  of  Ratho," 
although,  as  Mr.  Foster  has  proved,  his  parentage 
has  not  been  traced.1 

The  Marjoribanks  pedigree  reminds  us,  by  the 

1  Mr.  Foster's  article  (Collectanea  Genealogua^  I.  94-107) 
may  be  recommended  to  those  interested  in  the  subject  as  a 
brilliantly  destructive  criticism  of  official  genealogy. 

88 


THE   PEERAGE 

way,  that  there  are  several  problems  of  Scottish 
genealogy  for  light  on  which  we  turn  in  vain, 
as  ever,  to  the  pages  of '  Burke.'  We  still  read  of 
Lord  Polwarth  that  "  by  failure  of  the  male  heirs 
of  Sir  Robert  Scott  of  Murthockstone  (from  whom 
derives  the  noble  house  of  Buccleugh),  his  lordship 
claims  the  chieftainship  of  all  the  Scotts  in  Scot- 
land"; and  yet,  under  'Napier  and  Ettrick,'  our 
accommodating  editor  traces  the  male  heirs  of 
Sir  Robert,  through  the  Scotts  of  Howpaisley 
and  Thirlestaine,  and  duly  assigns  them  the  Scott 
coat  with  the  Murdochstone  bend.  Turning  to 
another  coveted  heirship,  the  male  representative 
of  the  Stewards  (Stuarts)  of  Scotland,  we  find 
Lord  Galloway's  undoubted  ancestor,  Sir  William 
Stewart  of  Jedworth  (executed  in  1402),  asserted 
to  be  the  son  of  Sir  John  c  of  Jedworth/  whose 
father  was  slain  at  Falkirk  in  1298.  But  there  is 
well  known  to  be  no  proof  that  Sir  William 
was  the  son  of  this  Sir  John  ;  the  missing  link  has 
still  to  be  found,  and  even  a  generation,  it  may 
be,  is  omitted.  It  is  unfortunate  also  that  the 
c  Peerage '  opens  with  a  characteristic  passage 
(under  c  Abercorn ')  where,  instead  of  frankly 
deriving  the  Hamiltons  from  Walter  Fitz  Gilbert, 
who  first  appears  on  the  '  Ragman  Roll '  of 
homage  (1296),  'Burke'  temporizes  after  its 
wont.  It  discreetly  drops  the  time-honoured 
legend,  originating  in,  or  commemorated  by,  the 
crest  of  the  family  ;  but,  while  declining  "to  trace 
the  exact  descent  of  the  illustrious  Scottish  house 
of  Hamilton  from  the  great  and  powerful  stock 

89 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

of  the  ancient  de  Bellomonts  (sic],  Earls  of 
Leicester,"  the  editor,  as  did  his  father,  still  leaves 
it  to  be  supposed  that  somehow  or  other  the 
Hamiltons  did  descend  from  that  "  magnificent 
Norman  race."  And  he  persists  in  beginning  their 
definite  pedigree  a  generation  too  soon. 

From  Scottish  pedigrees  I  pass  to  two  Scottish 
titles.  I  hope  my  readers  will  not  be  alarmed 
by  the  name  of  the  earldom  of  Mar,  suggesting, 
as  it  does,  Lord  Palmerston's  dictum  on  the 
Schleswig-Holstein  question,  that  only  one  man 
really  understood  it,  and  that  he  went  mad.  I  shall 
not  enter,  of  course,  into  the  merits  of  the  original 
decision  by  the  House  of  Lords  (1875),  which,  as 
Lord  Selborne  and  the  Lord  Chancellor  observed 
in  the  1877  debate,  "must  be  considered  as  final, 
right  or  wrong,  and  not  to  be  questioned."  Nor 
shall  I  discuss  the  wild  pretension  that  an  existing 
earldom  was  created  "before  1014,"  for  it  is 
admitted  that  the  first  undisputed  earl  of  the 
house  died  about  1 244.*  My  remarks  will  here 
be  confined  to  the  'Restitution  Act'  of  1885, 
based  as  it  is  on  what  one  of  its  ardent  advocates 
has  described  as  "  a  hypothesis  which  can  with 
difficulty  be  apprehended — even  as  a  legal  fiction 


1  Genealogist  [N.S.],  IV.  181.  It  is  uncertain  whether  he 
inherited  the  earldom  through  his  father  or  his  mother,  nor  can 
the  connection  of  either  with  the  previous  holders  be  established 
(Ibid.  II.  68-9  ;  IV.  178-180).  The  idiotic  anachronism, 
"creation,  before  1014,"  still  appears  in  Bur  he's  Peerage,  but 
G.  E.  C.,  in  his  Complete  Peerage,  sensibly  treats  a  '  Ruadri '  who 
appears  in  1115  as  the  first  bearer  of  the  title. 

QO 


THE   PEERAGE 

— by  a  Scottish  historical  antiquary."1  At  the 
commencement  of  this  great  controversy,  it  had 
been  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  there  was  but 
one  earldom  of  Mar,  the  dignity  which  figured 
on  the  Union  Roll  and  which  was  undoubtedly 
vested  in  the  earl  of  Mar  and  Kellie  who  died 
in  1866.  At  his  death  that  dignity  was  "  assumed 
by  Mr.  Goodeve-Erskine  [WGoodeve],  sister's  son 
and  next  of  kin,  or  heir-at-law,  to  the  deceased 
earl  " — to  quote  the  words  of  his  champion,  Lord 
Crawford  —  as  a  dignity  of  medieval  origin, 
descending  to  heirs  of  line.  But  it  was  sub- 
sequently claimed  by  Lord  Kellie,  as  the  late 
earl's  heir-male,  on  the  ground  (to  quote  the  same 
writer)  that  it  was  "  a  new  creation  by  Mary, 
Queen  of  Scots,  in  1565  .  .  .  descendible  .  .  . 
to  the  heirs-male  of  the  body  of  the  patentee." 
The  question  at  issue  was  thus  clear  ;  and  the 
House  decided  in  favour  of  Lord  Kellie,  on  the 
avowed  grounds  (as  Lord  Crawford  admitted)  that 
"  the  earldom  of  Mar  which  now  exists  on  the 
Roll  of  Scottish  Peers,  and  which  was  held  by 
the  earl  of  Mar  and  Kellie  who  died  in  1866,  was 
a  new  creation  by  queen  Mary,  and  not  the 
restitution  by  her  of  an  ancient  dignity ;  and 
[that]  the  new  dignity  created  by  queen  Mary 
was  limited  to  heirs-male  of  the  body,  and  not 
descendible  to  heirs-general." 

In  any  other  case  this  would  have  settled  the 
question.  But  Mr.  Goodeve-Erskine,  having 
assumed  the  title,  declined  to  drop  it,  though 

1  Genealogist  [N.S.],  III.  22. 
91 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

the  House  of  Lords,  holding  rightly  "  that  his 
assumption  was  without  warrant  "  (as  Lord  Craw- 
ford wrote),  had  ordered  him  to  drop  the  title 
when  appearing  before  them.  This  raises  the 
whole  question  of  the  assumption  of  Scottish  titles, 
and,  as  strenuous  efforts  have  been  made  to 
represent  the  Restitution  Act  as  the  sanction  of 
this  assumption,  it  is  important  to  observe  that, 
on  the  contrary,  it  styled  Mr.  Goodeve-Erskine 
by  that  name  throughout,  thereby  denying  the 
validity  of  his  assumption  (1866-1885),  and 
involving  the  corollary  that  but  for  this  Act  he 
would  not  be  earl  of  Mar. 

And  now  for  the  Act.  As  it  was  impossible 
to  undo,  at  least  in  form,  what  the  Lords  had 
done,  it  was  resolved  by  Lord  Mar's  supporters 
to  resort  to  what  his  own  champion  termed  "  an 
equivocation  on  the  facts  of  the  case."  The  letter 
of  the  Lords'  resolution  was  accepted,  while 
repudiating  the  rationes  on  which  alone  it  was 
based.  All  that  was  needed  was  to  assume  that 
the  earldom  of  Mar  could  not  possibly  have 
been  created  in  1565  (which  was  precisely 
what  the  Committee  decided,  teste  Lord  Crawford, 
it  had  been),  and  that,  consequently,  Lord  Kellie 
had  been  awarded  a  dignity  which,  as  G.  E.  C. 
(one  is  sorry  to  see)  puts  it,  was  "  apparently 
a  creation  by  the  Committee  for  Privileges  in 
1875."  Although  this  language  betrays  the 
absurdity  of  the  position  (the  Committee  of  course 
awarding  an  existing,  not  creating  a  new,  dignity), 
it  was  treated  as  a  brilliant  discovery  that  the 

92 


THE    PEERAGE 

e  ancient '  earldom  of  Mar  was  vested  in  Mr. 
Goodeve-Erskine,  and  on  this  daring  petitio  principii 
the  Act  of  c  Restitution '  was  based.1  As  might 
be  expected,  a  measure  which  avowedly  repre- 
sented an  c  equivocation '  failed  to  satisfy  either 
party,  because,  while  virtually  revoking  the 
decision  of  1875,  it  pretended  to  do  nothing  of 
the  kind.  Hence  protests  at  Holyrood,  hence 
debates  at  Westminster,  and  all  because  clamour 
and  agitation  had  been  allowed  to  render  ridi- 
culous a  decision  which  they  could  not  reverse. 

The  Mar  case,  apart  from  the  points  of  law 
involved,  evoked  a  good  deal  of  false  sentiment, 
owing  to  the  apparent  injustice  of  a  title  which 
had  come  to  the  Erskines  "  through  a  lass,"  being 
retained  by  them  as  heirs-male  instead  of  passing 
to  the  heir-general.  But  the  peculiarities  of  the 
Scottish  system  have  wrought  in  other  cases  the 
same  or  greater  injustice,  without  protest  being 
made.  Another  Erskine  title,  the  earldom  of 
Buchan,  although  nominally  the  old  earldom  or 
1469,  has  been  held,  since  1695,  by  a  branch 
of  the  family  which,  as  G.  E.  C.  observes,  is 
"  in  no  way  connected  with  any  of  the  previous 

1  I  would  particularly  invite  attention  to  the  fearful  confusion 
and  contradiction  into  which  counsel,  '  Lyon,'  and  even  law 
lords  plunged,  when  the  pedigree  was  'proved,'  before  the 
Committee  for  Privileges  in  1885.  This  was  demonstrated  by 
me,  in  an  article  on  "Janet  Barclay  wife  of  Sir  Thomas 
Erskine"  (Genealogist  [N.S.],  IX.  131-137),  to  which  no  reply 
has  been,  or  can  be,  attempted,  for  it  is  based  throughout  on 
the  official  "  Minutes  of  Evidence,  Mar  Restitution  Bill " 
themselves. 

93 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

earls,"  to  the  detriment  of  their  descendants  and 
heirs-general.  This  case,  therefore,  is  even 
stronger  than  that  of  Mar,  to  which  Moray, 
however,  is  a  good  parallel.  The  earldom  of  that 
name  came  through  an  heiress  to  the  family 
who  now  possess  it,  but  they  diverted  its  descent 
in  favour  of  their  heirs-male.  It  is  alleged  that 
this  was  done  by  a  re-grant  of  the  '  comitatus,' 
upon  resignation,  in  1 6 1 1  ;  but  when  the  right  to 
the  title  came  incidentally  (not  on  a  remit)  before 
the  House  of  Lords  (1790-1793),  the  decision 
in  favour  of  Lord  Moray  was  based,  it  is  virtually 
known,  not  upon  this  charter  (1611) — which 
according  to  the  Sutherland  decision  (1771) 
could  not  have  carried  the  honours — but  upon  the 
same  principles  as  the  Mar  decision  (1875) 
itself.  And  indeed,  apart  from  those  principles, 
the  construction  of  these  charters,  at  the  very 
period  of  transition,  is  notoriously  a  moot  point. 
The  parallel  is  carried  further  by  the  fact,  that 
however  the  charter  might  operate  on  the 
honours,  it  undoubtedly  vested  the  estates  in  the 
heir-male.  In  England,  owing  to  the  absence 
of  the  system  of  resignation  and  re-grant,  such 
cases  do  not  arise,  the  only  successful  attempt  in 
that  direction  being  the  special  Arundel  entail 
of  1627.  Yet,  through  the  whole  of  the  I7th 
century,  the  main  issue  in  peerage  cases  was  the 
famous  doctrine  that  an  earldom  '  attracted '  a 
barony  in  fee  ;  that  is,  diverted  its  descent  in 
favour  of  the  heirs-male.  c  The  British  Solomon,' 
I  may  add,  curiously  justified  that  name  by  divid- 

94 


THE   PEERAGE 

ing  the  contested  dignity  in  such  cases  as  Aber- 
gavenny  (1604),  Roos  (1616  and  1618),  and 
Offaley  (1620),  awarding  a  barony  to  the  heir- 
male  and  another  to  the  heir-general.  Thus, 
he  divided  the  barony  of  Roos  into  those  of 
c  Roos '  and  c  Roos  of  Hamlake.'  Yet  in  this  he 
only  followed  the  precedent  which  gave  us  such 
twin  dignities  as  Dacre  of  the  North  and  Dacre  of 
the  South  ;  and  it  is  practically  the  same  illogical 
and  bewildering  compromise  which  has  given  us 
in  our  own  day  two  earls  of  Mar.  And  yet  it  was 
James  himself  who  gave  us  the  sound  maxim  that 
"  it  cannot  stand  with  the  ordour  and  consuetude 
of  the  countrie  to  honnour  two  earlis  with  ane  title." 
My  next  Scottish  dignity  is  the  barony  of 
Ruthven  of  Freeland.  Now  this  is  a  subject  of 
some  delicacy,  on  which  it  is,  unhappily,  neces- 
sary to  speak  plainly.  This  dignity  is  on  a 
different  footing  from  any  other  in  the  Peerage, 
and  is  the  greatest  of  all  its  curiosities.  For, 
wrongfully  assumed  in  the  first  instance,  it  has 
been  wrongfully  borne  ever  since.  This  fact,  I 
hasten  to  add,  is  no  new  discovery  :  Riddell,  to 
whom  Sir  Bernard  appealed  as  "  the  most  eminent 
of  Scottish  Peerage  lawyers,"  went  into  this  matter 
in  his  Remarks  on  Scotch  Peerage  Law  (1833); 
and  though  denouncing  the  '  apologies '  for  the 
assumption  of  the  title  as  "  too  trivial  and  flimsy 
for  criticism,"  he  condescended  to  expose  them 
in  all  their  absurdity.  They  have  also,  we  have 
seen,  been  rejected  by  Mr.  Foster  and  by  G.E.C. 
and  called  in  question  by  '  Debrett.' 

95 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

The  facts,  apart  from  these  c  apologies,'  are  few 
and  simple  enough.  The  barony  is  said  to  have 
been  created  "  in  1651,"  but  even  the  date  of  the 
patent  is  unknown.  The  original  document  has 
long  been  lost — it  is  not  proved  how  or  when — 
and,  as  it  was  never  registered,  nor  a  copy  made 
of  it,  and  as  moreover  there  is  no  "  docquet  or 
sign-manual  thereof,"  its  contents  are  wholly 
unknown.1  Under  these  circumstances  there  is 
unconscious  satire  in  the  motto  of  the  family  : 
"  Deeds  show."  For  there  is  no  adminicle  of 
evidence  to  show  what  the  limitation  of  the 
dignity  really  was. 

When  this  is  the  case,  as  is  well  known,  the 
law  presumes  a  limitation  to  heirs-male  of  the 
body,  this  being,  as  Lord  Cranworth  observed  in 
the  Herries  case  (1858),  "a  settled  rule  of  law." 
This  would  agree  with  the  only  clue  we  possess 
to  the  terms  of  the  patent  ;  namely,  a  contem- 
porary MS.  in  the  Advocates'  Library,  which 
states  that  the  limitation  was  to  c  heirs-ma/e.'  On 
the  extinction,  however,  of  the  direct  male  line 
in  1701  or  1704  (for  even  this  date  is  uncer- 
tain) the  title,  though  described  as  '  extinct '  in 
Crawfurd's  Peerage  of  Scotland  (1716),  seems  to 
have  been  tentatively  and  fitfully  assumed  by  the 
last  lord's  youngest  sister,  who  had  succeeded  to 
his  estates.  At  her  death  the  estates  passed  to 

1  It  is  very  singular  that  if,  as  alleged,  it  was  preserved  for 
a  hundred  years,  no  attempt  was  ever  made  to  set  its  terms  on 
record,  as  was  done  in  the  similar  case  of  Rollo,  a  barony 
created  the  same  year  (1651). 


THE   PEERAGE 

their  nephew,  Sir  William  Cunningham,  who, 
already  heir  of  line,  became  thereby  heir  of 
tailzie  as  well  to  the  last  lord.  Yet  he  did  not 
assume  the  title.  But  his  cousin  and  heir,  Mrs. 
Johnston,  tentatively  revived  the  assumption,  and 
— receiving  a  summons  to  the  coronation  of 
George  II. — "in  a  jesting  way,"  according  to  Lord 
Hailes,  "  she  said  that  this  was  her  patent,  and 
that  she  would  preserve  it  as  such,  in  her  charter- 
chest."  It  was  not,  however,  till  1764  that 
Douglas — "a  most  indifferent  peerage-writer,"  says 
Riddell,  "  and  little,  indeed,  to  be  ever  trusted  " — 
gave  a  half-hearted  recognition  to  this  curious 
assumption.  And  now  comes  the  striking  point. 
In  order  to  homologate  the  assumption  and  present 
a  consistent  story,  the  pedigree  had  to  be  falsified 
by  cutting  out  both  '  Baroness '  Jean  and  Sir  Wil- 
liam Cunningham,  and  passing  straight  to  'Baroness' 
Isabel  !  The  existence  of  the  two  former  being 
a  fatal  flaw  in  the  case,  they  were  carefully  kept 
out  of  sight  by  Douglas,  Wood,  and  '  Burke '  in 
turn  down  to  1883.  But  by  that  time  the  terrible 
Mr.  Foster  had  unearthed  these  individuals,  and 
had  openly  impugned  the  assumption.  Accord- 
ingly, Sir  Bernard  had  to  shift  his  ground  ;  and, 
in  his  'Peerage'  for  1884,  the  account  of  the 
assumption  was  entirely  re-written,  and  the  old 
'  apologies J  for  it  revived,  thereby  revealing  the 
fact  that  apology  was  needed.  I  need  only  print 
side  by  side  the  two  versions  of  the  critical  period 
in  order  to  prove  my  point  : — 

97  H 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

BURKE'S  PEERAGE,  1883.  BURKE'S  PEERAGE,   1884. 

DAVID,  2nd  baron,  a  lord  DAVID,  2nd  lord, 
of  the  Treasury,  died  without  He  entailed  his  estates,  etc.  etc. 
issue  in  1701,  when  the  barony  .  .  .  Dying  unmarried 
devolved  upon  his  niece,  THE  1701,  he  was  succeeded  by  his 
HON.  ISABELLA  RUTH VEN,  as  ist  youngest  sister  JEAN,  who  as 
baroness.  BARONESS  RUTHVEN  made  up 

her  titles  to  the  estates,1  and 
whose  right  to  the  peerage  was 
unchallenged  in  her  lifetime. 
She  d.  unm.  1722,  and  the  next 
holder  of  the  title  was  her  niece 
ISABEL,  BARONESS  RuTHVEN.2 

But  even  now  the  intervention  of  Sir  William 
Cunningham  between  the  two  '  Baronesses  '  is  care- 
fully ignored. 

I  cannot,  of  course,  enter  here  into  all  the  de- 
tails, but  must  refer  the  editor  of  '  Burke/  or 
anyone  else  desirous  of  really  learning  the  truth,  to 
the  elaborate  article  I  wrote  on  the  subject  in  Part 
XIII.  (pp.  167-186)  of  Mr.  Foster's  Collectanea 
Genealogica  (1884),  where  all  the  'apologies'  are 
discussed  seriatim^  and  clearly  shown  to  be  inept.3 
The  Complete  Peerage  refers  throughout  (VI.  457- 
462)  to  this  article  as  dealing  "  exhaustively  "  with 
the  case  and  as  "  amplifying  Riddell's  crushing  de- 
molition of  the  '  apologies '  for  such  assumption." 
Its  editor  asserts  that  "  On  the  death  of  the  second 

1  Yet  it  was  only  as  "  Mrs.  Jean  Ruthven  "  that  she  petitioned 
the  Court  of  Session  to  record  the  entail,  1721. 

!  This  version  still  appears  (1900). 

3  Reference  may  also  be  made  to  papers  by  G.  E.  C.  and  myself 
in  Notes  and  Queries,  6th  S.  VII.  153,  168  et  seq.,  290,  389, 
etc. 

98 


THE    PEERAGE 

Lord  the  title  was  arbitrarily  assumed/'  and  he 
refuses  to  accept  any  of  those  who  have  assumed  it 
since  1701  as  entitled  to  do  so. 

This  title,  in  fact,  is  a  solitary  survival  of  those 
assumptions  of  Scottish  dignities  which  formed  in 
the  last  century  so  grave  a  scandal  that  repeated 
but  unsuccessful  efforts  were  made  to  check  it. 
Owing  to  the  peculiar  Scottish  system  these  assump- 
tions passed  '  unchallenged  '  unless  a  counter-claim 
brought  the  question  to  an  issue,  or  votes  tendered 
in  respect  of  them  turned  the  scale  at  an  election. 
This  was  frankly  admitted  by  the  Lord  Clerk 
Register  in  his  evidence  before  the  Select  Com- 
mittee of  1882: — "As  the  law  now  stands,  the 
title  may  be  held  for  generations  by  persons  who 
have  never  taken  any  steps  whatever  to  establish 
their  claim "; l  while  even  Lyon,  though  devoted 
to  the  system,  conceded  that  "  in  Scotland  there  are 
individuals  as  to  whom  it  may  be  matter  of  dispute 
as  to  whether  they  are  Peers."1  Even  in  England, 
though  the  intervention  of  the  writ  of  summons 
offers  a  safeguard  against  such  assumptions,  there  is 
no  such  check  in  the  case  of  a  Baroness  ;  and  it  is 
a  most  remarkable  fact  that  there  were  at  least 
three  wrongful  assumptions  of  that  dignity  during 
the  last  century.  '  Baroness  Cromwell/  by  whom 
that  title  was  erroneously  assumed  from  1687  to 
1709,  actually  walked  as  a  Peeress  at  the  funeral  of 
queen  Mary  and  the  coronation  of  queen  Anne  ; 
'Baroness  Dudley'  assumed  that  title  from  1757 
to  1762;  and  'Baroness  le  Despencer,'  as  Lady 
1  'Minutes,'  71.  *  Ibid.  185. 

99 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Austen  styled  herself  from  1781  to   1788,  was  also 
a  title  erroneously  assumed.     All  three  cases  will 
be  found  in  the  admirable  work  of  G.E.C.,  where 
the  origin  of  the  error   in  each  case  is  explained. 
The  whole  subject  of  dignities  assumed,  recognised, 
and  even  created  in  error,  is  one  of  curious  interest. 
Thus  the  Scottish  Barony  of  Lindores  was  success- 
fully assumed,  like  that  of  Ruthven,  from  1736 — 
and  those  who  assumed  it  allowed  to  vote — till  the 
accident  of  the  vote  being  challenged  at   a  close 
election  led  to  the   assumption    being  stopped    in 
1793.*     So  the  Barony  of  Willoughby  of  Parham 
was  actually  held  from  1679  to  1765  by  a  younger 
son,  summoned  in  error,  and  his  descendants.     But 
this  being  an  English  barony,  it  is  held  that  the 
writ  of  summons,  though  issued  in  error,  created  a 
dignity  ;  and  the  same  famous  doctrine  of  the  c  en- 
nobling of  the  blood,'   by    (rightly    or  wrongly) 
sitting  in  the  House,  is  responsible  for  the  existence 
of  three  baronies — Clifford  (1628),  Strange  (1628), 
and  Percy    (1722) — created  by  writs  of  summons 
issued  under  a  misapprehension.     With  these  we 
may    perhaps   compare   the   Irish  Barony   of  '  La 
Poer,'  allowed  to  Lady  Waterford  and  her  heirs  in 
1767,  although  it  was  limited  to  heirs-male  by  the 
creation    of    1535.      It    would    thus    be    virtually 


1  On  this  important  case  I  follow  Riddell  (The  Law  and  Prac- 
tice in  Scottish  Peerages,  pp.  777—9)  *  "In  this  case,  the  assumption 
of  the  honour,  from  1736  to  1790  ...  a  period  of  fifty- 
four  years,  with  voting  at  Elections  of  the  Sixteen  Peers,  were 
held  to  go  for  nothing,  which  bears  upon  the  law  as  to  prescription 
in  honours." 

100 


THE    PEERAGE 

parallel  to  the  cases  of  Cromwell  (1687)  and  Percy 

(I722).1 

Passing  from  Scotland  to  Ireland,  we  observe 
with  satisfaction  that  G.  E.  C.  dwells,  in  his  pre- 
face, on  our  imperfect  knowledge  of  its  peerage,  of 
which  "  no  comprehensive  account  exists."  The 
subject  has,  indeed,  been  strangely  neglected,  and, 
when  investigated  by  a  competent  scholar,  will 
yield  extremely  interesting  and  somewhat  surpris- 
ing results.  But  although  so  well  informed  on  the 
peerage  of  modern  times,  G.  E.  C.,  as  I  have  said 
before,  is  not  at  home  in  the  feudal  period.  He 
has  therefore  found  himself  dependent  partly  on  a 
worthless  and  misleading  list  of  the  early  peerage 
in  the  Liber  Hibernie,  and  partly  on  the  works  of 
Mr.  Lynch,  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,  was  so  poor  an  advocate  of 
the  opposite  view,  that  we  cannot  wonder  at 
G.  E.  C.  following  Lynch  throughout.  But  this 
is  a  matter  that  cannot  be  narrowed  to  a  question 
of  decisions  and  precedents.  A  broader  view  will 
take  us  deep  down  among  the  roots  of  Anglo-Irish 
difficulties.  The  native  tribal  principle,  invincibly 
in  favour  of  agnates,  strove,  here  as  elsewhere, 
against  the  principles  of  English  law.  I  imagine 
that  at  first  the  latter  prevailed,  especially  within 

1  See  further,  upon    this    subject,  the  paper  below  on   "The 
Barony  of  Mowbray." 

JOI 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

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 — Bourke  (Mac- 
William),  Berminghanv(MacPhioris),  FitzMaurice 
(MacMorrish),  for  instance — or  at  least  elaborately 
entailed  their  estates  upon  heirs-male.  Thus  there 
arose,  in  practice,  a  system  of  male  succession, 
although,  in  my  opinion,  it  had  not  prevailed  at 
first.  It  is  largely  due  to  this  development  that 
the  houses  of  the  conquistador es  present  so  long  and 
illustrious  a  descent  in  the  male  line,  instead  of 
merging  in  heiresses,  as  in  England  would  have 
been  their  fate. 

G.  E.  C.  adopts  for  his  sheet-anchor  the  ranking 
of  the  Irish  peers  at  Windsor,  when  summoned 
there  by  Henry  VII.  (1489),  combining  it  with 
the  ranking  by  the  c  Lords  Commissioners  '  in  1615. 
From  these  rankings  he  endeavours  to  determine 
the  probable  antiquity  of  their  dignities.  But  here 
we  have  the  old  mistake  of  trusting  to  secondary 
and  late  evidence  instead  of  investigating  the  facts 
for  oneself.  The  enemy  of  peerage  history  is 
peerage  law.  We  are  confronted  under  '  Athenry  ' 
with  the  difficulties  to  which  it  leads.  The  right 
order  of  precedence  was  Athenry,  Kingsale,  Kerry, 
upon  which  G.  E.  C.  remarks  : — 

As  the  Lords  Commissioners  (in  1613  \rectl  1615])  admitted  that 
"  the  FitzMaurices,  Lords  of  Kerry  and  Lixnaw,  proved  their 
possession  of  that  dignity  to  be  as  ancient  as  the  Conquest "  (i.e. 
1172),  and  as  "the  same  Lords  Commissioners  adjudged  the 
antiquity  of  the  Lords  Courcy  of  Kingsale  to  be  still  greater  than 

102 


THE   PEERAGE 

that  of  the  Lords  Fitzmaurice  of  Kerry,"  it  follows  that  the  anti- 
quity of  the  Barony  of  Athenry,  which  immediately  precedes  that 
of  Kingsale,  cannot  be  later  than  1172  ;  in  which  same  year 
(according  to  their  Lordships'  authority)  we  must  suppose  the 
Barony  of  Kingsale,  as  well  as  that  of  Kerry,  to  have  been  also 
created,  for  certainly  no  such  Baronies  could  have  been  created 
before  the  Conquest  above  named. 

The  writer  fails  to  perceive  that  what  really 
'  follows '  is  the  reductio  ad  absurdum  of  the  Lords 
Commissioners'  ruling.  Under  c  Kerry  '  he  repeats 
his  dilemma,  again  observing  that  "29  May,  1223, 
which  date  is,  in  all  probability,  that  of  the  origin 
of  the  peerage  of  Kingsale,"  is  incompatible  with 
the  above  conclusion.  The  origin  of  the  difficulty 
is,  I  would  suggest,  that  while,  in  England,  the 
c  creation '  of  a  barony  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,  though  pressed  upon  them,  has  always 
been  rejected  by  our  own  House  of  Lords,  so  that 
the  apparent  superior  antiquity  of  Irish  over  Eng- 
lish baronies  has  no  foundation  in  fact.1 

The  most  famous,  probably,  of  early  Irish  digni- 
ties is  the  celebrated  barony  of  Kingsale.  Who 
has  not  heard  of  its  thirty  lords  descended  in  direct 
male  succession  from  that  John  de  Courci,  c  Earl  of 

1  It  is  only  right  to  mention  that  the  editor  of  the  Complete 
Peerage,  always  anxious  to  improve  his  work  and  bring  it  up  to 
date,  has  cited  the  above  criticisms  on  his  views  (which  appeared 
in  my  Quarterly  Review  article)  in  his  Corrigenda  (vol.  VIII.  p. 

' 

103 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Ulster,'  whose  wondrous  deeds  procured  for  them 
the  right  of  remaining  covered  in  the  presence  of 
the  king  ?  But  it  is  not  only  'butter  and  patriots  ' 
that  are  produced  in  county  Cork  :  it  has  also 
given  us  in  the  Courci  myth  the  wildest  of  peerage 
fictions.  It  is  certain,  from  the  testimony  of 
Giraldus,  that  John  de  Courci  left  no  heir  ;  it  is, 
further,  certain  that  his  wondrous  geste^  so  elabor- 
ately related  in  Burke 's  Peerage  is  sheer  and  im- 
possible fiction  ;  and  it  is,  lastly,  certain  that  the 
alleged  privilege  of  remaining  covered  in  the  royal 
presence  is  an  even  later  addition  to  this  late 
legend.1  And  yet  '  Burke  ' — though  it  now  admits 
that  John  de  Courci  probably  died  childless — 
continues  to  inform  us  that  "Lord  Kingsale  enjoys 
the  hereditary  privilege  (granted  by  king  John  to 
De  Courcy,  Earl  of  Ulster)  of  wearing  his  hat  in 
the  royal  presence."  No  instance,  I  believe,  is 
known  of  this  c  right '  being  exercised  before  the 
days  of  William  III.,  although  it  had  become 
familiar  by  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  when 
Montagu  wrote  to  Horace  Walpole,  of  the  new 
Lord  Kingsale  (1762),  that  "our  peers  need  not 
fear  him  assuming  his  privilege  of  being  covered, 
for  till  the  King  gives  him  a  pension  he  cannot 
buy  the  offensive  hat."  G.  E.  C.  waxes  merry 
over  what  he  terms  the  '  hat  trick/  but  it  was  not 
he  who  detected  the  flaws  in  the  Courci  legend, 

1  See  my  articles  on  "  John  de  Courci,  Conqueror  of  Ulster," 
in  Antiquarian  Magazine  and  Bibliographer^  February  1883,  and 
subsequent  numbers  ;  also  my  life  of  John  de  Courci  in  Dictionary 
of  National  Biography. 

104 


THE    PEERAGE 

nor,  we  shall  find,  when  left   to   himself,  has  he 
escaped  disaster. 

In  spite  of  what  Planche  described  as  their 
"  worthless  and  unmannerly  "  privilege,  and  of  the 
falsehood  of  its  alleged  origin,  the  Lords  Kingsale 
were  undoubtedly  seated  in  their  baronial  territory 
of  c  Courcy 's '  from  the  days  of  Henry  III.,  and 
possess  a  peerage  dignity  of  great  antiquity.  But 
what  their  title  really  was  no  one  seems  to  know. 
It  has  bewildered  G.  E.  C.,  who  sets  forth  its 
various  forms,  but  himself  adopts,  all  through,  that 
of c  Baron  Kingsale  and  Ringrone.'  c  Burke/  on 
the  other  hand,  adopts  the  incongruous  style,  '  Lord 
Kingsale,  Baron  Courcy  of  Courcy,  and  Baron  of 
Ringrone.'  The  true  title,  however,  was  not 
'  Kingsale '  but  '  Courcy,'  and  so  late  as  1613  the 
then  peer  sat  in  Parliament  as  '  Lord  Courcy  ot 
Ringroane.'  In  the  list  drawn  up  preliminary  to 
that  Parliament  he  is  styled  c  the  Lord  Baron 
Cursie  '  ;  and  '  Lord  Courcy,'  simply,  was  the  style 
by  which  these  peers  had  always  been  known. 
The  creation,  however,  of  a  Viscount  Kingsale,  in 
1625, was  resented  by  Lord  Courcy  as  an  encroach- 
ment on  his  own  territory,  and,  in  1627,  he 
obtained  from  Royal  Commissioners  a  misleading 
report  "  that  the  Lord  Courcy  was  not  only  Lord 
Courcy,  but  Baron  of  Kingsale  and  also  of  Ring- 
rone."  In  1634  the  Lords'  Journals  still  style  him 
c  Lord  Courcy  '  in  their  list,  but  eventually  c  King- 
sale  '  in  lieu  of  c  Courcy  '  was  adopted  as  the  title 
of  their  peerage  dignity,  which,  however,  continues 
to  be  but  one. 

105 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

What  is  the  date  of  its  creation  ?  My  readers 
might  imagine  that  if  anyone  knew  the  date  of  the 
Premier  Barony  of  Ireland,  it  would  have  been 
Ulster  King-of-Arms.  Not  so.  It  used  to  be 
alleged  (and  is  still,  I  believe,  in  some  popular 
*  Peerages  ')  that  the  barony  of  c  Kingsale  *  dates 
from  1 1 8 1 .  This  date  Sir  Bernard  abandoned, 
although  his  Peerage  still  asserts  that  John  de 
Courci  "  was  created  in  1 1 8 1  (being  the  first 
Englishman  dignified  with  an  Irish  title  of  honour) 
Earl  of  Ulster."  The  objection  to  this  date,  as  an 
Irishman  might  say,  is  that  John  was  never  created 
earl  of  Ulster  at  all.  But,  as  to  the  barony,  we  are 
now  told,  both  in  the  narrative  and  at  its  foot,  that 
its  'creation'  was  in  '  1223.'  Now,  in  this  case, 
G.  E.  C.  is  in  complete  accord  with  '  Burke.'  He 
repeatedly  traces  c  the  peerage  of  Kingsale '  to  a 
grant  by  Henry  III.,  2gth  May,  1223,  which  he 
treats  as  a  fixed  point  bearing  upon  other  dates. 
In  my  experience  an  exact  date  is  hardly  ever 
an  invention  :  it  has  an  origin  somewhere.  But 
this  date  long  baffled  me.  Its  actual  origin  is  a 
marvel.  Lodge  had  writen  in  his  Irish  '  Peerage,' 
that 

King  Henry  [III.]  conferred  on  him  [Miles,  son  of  John  de 
Courci]  the  Barony  of  Kingsale,  to  hold  per  integrant  Earoniam^ 
and  confirmed  all  the  lands  of  Ulster  to  Lacie  by  patent,  dated 
29  May,  1223,  7  of  his  reign. 

This  date,  obviously,  refers  to  the  grant  of  Ulster 
to  c  Lacie,'  but  has  been  carelessly  read  as  applying 
to  c  the  Barony  of  Kingsale.'  There  is,  however, 

1 06 


THE    PEERAGE 

no  such  grant  of  Ulster  on  that  date.  What  is  the 
solution  of  the  mystery  ?  Simply  that  a  genuine 
grant  of  7  John  (1205)  has  been  stupidly  given  as 
of  7  Henry  III.  (1223).  Therefore  the  date 
should  be  1205,  not  1223,  and  has,  moreover, 
nothing  to  do  with  the  Courcys  or  with  Kingsale  ! 

And  with  this  imaginary  date  everything  goes 
by  the  board.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Henry 
III.  granted  a  c  Barony  of  Kingsale/  no  evidence 
that  it  ever  belonged  to  Miles  de  Courcy  c  the  first 
lord,'  no  evidence  that  he  was  the  father  of  that 
Patrick  de  Courci  who  is  the  first  of  the  family  on 
record.  The  whole  story  has  been  patched  to- 
gether to  connect  this  fatherless  Patrick  with  John, 
the  conqueror  of  Ulster. 

It  is  not  alleged  that  any  Courcy  actually  sat  as 
a  peer  in  Parliament  till  1339-1340,  a  date  (if 
genuine)  inferior,  of  course,  to  that  of  several 
English  baronies  ;  and,  whatever  the  family's  status 
was,  it  required,  we  learn  from  '  Burke,'  to  be 
"  confirmed  by  patent  1 397."  G.  E.  C.  assigns  this 
confirmation  to  "1396-97,  20  Ric.  II.,"  and  both 
writers  clearly  copy  from  Lodge's  statement  that 
the  then  lord,  "  by  the  letters  patent  of  the  king, 
received  a  confirmation  of  the  honours  and  titles  of 
Baron  of  Kingsale  and  Ringrone."  But  here  again 
they  get  their  date  by  misreading  Lodge,  who 
does  not  supply  one.  As  the  earliest  patent  for  an 
Irish  barony  is  assigned  to  1462,  the  terms  of  this 
Courcy  patent  would  be  of  extreme  interest,  and 
it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  Lodge  did  not  quote 
them.  Possibly  they  implied  a  creation  de  novo,  and 

107 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

would  thus  have  been  distasteful  to  his  patrons. 
In  any  case,  so  long  as  it  is  kept  in  retentis,  a  doubt 
must  surround  this  document,  and  I  expressed,  in 
1893,  t^ie  h°Pe  tnat  Ulster  King-of-Arms  would 
give  us  the  terms  and  the  exact  date  either  from 
the  patent  itself  or  from  its  enrolment. 

The  above  criticisms  on  this  barony,  which 
appeared  in  my  Quarterly  Review  article,  have  been 
frankly  accepted  by  G.  E.  C.  in  the  '  Corrigenda ' 
to  his  Complete  Peerage  (vol.  VIII.  pp.  435-6).  He 
also,  on  his  own  account,  caused  search  to  be  made 
for  the  mysterious  alleged  patent  of  20  Ric.  II.  ; 
but  no  trace  of  it  could  be  found  either  in  Ireland 
or  in  England  (Ibid.  pp.  436-7).  In  striking  con- 
trast with  his  zeal  for  the  truth  is  the  fact  that 
'Burke  '  (1900)  continues  to  repeat  all  the  absurd- 
ities I  have  here  exposed,  thus  illustrating  its 
editor's  conception  of  "  a  more  thorough  revision 
than  usual." 

But  really,  as  to  dates  of  creation,  what  can  be 
said  of  the  extraordinary  carelessness  in  a  matter 
most  keenly  discussed,  with  which  '  Burke,'  year 
after  year,  treats  the  barony  of  Hastings  ?  In 
Garter's  Roll,  which  is  given  in  the  work,  Lord 
Mowbray  is  ranked  above  Lord  Hastings  ;  while 
in  his  own  "  relative  precedence,"  Sir  Bernard, 
when  I  wrote  (1892),  took  upon  himself  to  reverse 
this  ranking,  apparently  on  the  ground  that  Hastings 
dates  from  c  1264,'  which  was  indeed  the  date 
assigned  to  its  creation  at  the  foot  of  his  account  of 
that  barony.  Now,  however,  the  confusion  is 
worse  than  ever.  For,  although,  in  its  table  of 

108 


THE    PEERAGE 

relative  precedence  (p.  1657)  c  Burke '  now  ranks 
Mowbray  above  Hastings,  it  there  still  assigns  to  the 
latter  the  date  '  1264,'  though,  under  'Hastings,' 
it  gives  the  creation,  at  the  foot  of  its  account, 
as  c  19  Dec.  1311,'  while  actually,  in  narrating  the 
determination  of  its  abeyance,  speaking  of  it  (in 
that  same  account)  as  "  created  by  Edward  I.  in 
1290  "  !  The  latter  date,  I  may  add,  is  the  right 
one,  as  there  is  proof  of  the  first  lord's  sitting  in 
that  year,  and,  though  the  writ  is  not  extant,  Lord 
Cottenham  presumed,  and  the  House  accepted,  its 
existence  from  the  sitting.  So  Burke  s  Peerage^ 
in  this  instance,  flatly  contradicts  itself. 

The  mention  of  Mowbray  naturally  leads  me  to 
glance  at  those  Howard  titles  from  which  that 
barony  has  been  severed.  The  guidance  of 
Burkes  Peerage  is  here  most  untrustworthy. 
The  duke  of  Norfolk  is  Earl  Marshal  under  a 
'creation/  not  of  1483,  but  1672  ;  he  is  earl  of 
Arundel,  not  '  by  possession  of  Arundel  Castle 
only,'  but  under  the  special  entail  of  the  dignity, 
created  by  Act  of  Parliament  in  1627  ;  finally,  he  is 
duke  of  Norfolk,  whatever  any  one  may  say, 
under  the  '  creation '  of  1514,  not  under  that  of 
1483.  Even  'Burke'  speaks  of  his  ancestor  as 
"created  duke  of  Norfolk "  in  1514,  and  that 
creation  by  Henry  VIII.  naturally  ignored  the 
Yorkist  creation  of  1483,  which  perished  with 
Richard  III.  Nor,  even  apart  from  creation, 
is  1483  the  date  of  the  precedence  implied. 
Moreover,  the  final  act  of  restoration  (which 
has  modified,  we  shall  find,  the  limitation  of 

109 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

the  dignity)  was  passed,  not  (as  c  Burke '  states)  in 
c  1664,'  but  in  1660,  being  confirmed  in  1661. 
The  restored  duke,  by  the  way,  was  a  lunatic  living 
at  Padua.  As  an  instance  of  the  extraordinary 
carelessness  prevailing  in  these  matters,  I  may  add 
that  Mr.  Fleming,  that  most  eminent  Peerage 
counsel,  in  opening  the  case  for  Lord  Stourton, 
asserted  that  this  "  restoration  extended  by  express 
words  to  all  who  could  claim  under  the  first  duke 
of  Norfolk  "  (Proceedings  on  the  Mowbray  Peerage 
Claim,  joth  May,  1876,  p.  6),  and  that  the  Com- 
mittee allowed  this  assertion  to  pass  unquestioned. 
But  the  Act,  as  I  read  it,  excludes  the  Effingham 
line  (as  they  are  also  excluded  from  the  dignity  of 
Earl  Marshal)  ;  so  that  only  those  who  can  claim 
under  the  '  fourth '  duke  are  now  in  remainder  to 
either  dignity.1 

My  original  criticism  of  Burke  s  Peerage^  writ- 
ten shortly  before  the  death  of  the  late  Ulster 
King  of  Arms,  closed  with  these  words  : — 

We  trust  that  what  we  have  said  may  be  of  service  to  Sir 
Bernard  Burke,  by  enabling  him  to  correct  still  further  what  may 
be  fairly  described  as  our  standard  work  upon  the  Peerage.  Nor 
is  it  only  correction  that  is  needed.  The  sense  of  proportion  is 
at  present  wanting,  some  families  being  assigned  undue  space  and 
importance  relatively  to  others.  .  .  .  But  what  we  would 
specially  press  upon  him  is  that  he  should  follow  the  example  set 
him  by  G.  E.  C.  in  honesty  and  fidelity  to  fact.  Let  him  not 
wait  till  critics  or  rivals  have  compelled  him  to  reluctantly  abandon 
his  legends  one  by  one.  Let  him  remember  that  his  official 

1  The  views  I  have  expressed  on  the  Howard  titles  are  all,  I 
believe,  virtually  accepted  by  G.  E.  C.  (Complete  Peerage^  VI. 
45-48,  59). 

no 


THE   PEERAGE 

position  invests  his  book,  in  the  eyes  of  the  public,  with  a  quasi- 
official  character,  which  lays  on  him  a  grave  responsibility  for  the 
statements  it  contains.  We  hope  that,  as  an  earnest  of  his  desire 
for  accuracy,  he  will  investigate  the  Ruthven  assumption  and 
state  the  facts  more  fairly  ;  and  if  he  should  hesitate,  from  kind- 
ness of  heart,  between  the  desire  to  avoid  offence  and  the  wish 
to  let  the  truth  be  known,  we  commend  to  him  the  words  of 
Aristotle  :  —  'A/A(f>ow  <$i\olv  OVTOIV,  oviov  irpori^av  TTJV  a\ij6eiav.1 


Those  who  have  perused  the  present  article  will 
agree,  I  think,  with  me  that  the  result  of  this 
appeal  has  been  singularly  disappointing.  It  would 
seem  that  only  Mr.  Freeman's  lash,  wielded  with  a 
fierceness  of  which  I  have  not  ventured  to  illustrate 
the  full  measure,  could  extort  from  the  editors 
of  '  Burke  '  any  real  or  substantial  reform.  The 
means  of  amendment  placed  at  their  disposal 
are  persistently  rejected  or  ignored,  while  the 
"  thorough  revision  "  to  which  the  work,  as  the 
public  is  assured,  has  been  subjected  is  found  to 
involve  the  introduction  or  revival  of  fictions  of 
the  worst  type. 

And  yet  the  '  Peerage  '  is  by  no  means  the  most 
misleading  of  the  books  which  appear  beneath  the 
name  and  the  official  insignia  of  the  late  Ulster 
King  of  Arms.  Five  and  thirty  years  ago  there 
appeared  a  pungent  work  on  Popular  Genealogists  : 
the  art  of  Pedigree-making^  which  is  known  to 
have  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  a  well-known 
officer  of  arms.  It  was  pointed  out  in  that  volume 
that  — 

while  the  c  Peerage  '   may  be  to  a  slight  extent  improving  from 

1  Quarterly  Review,  as  above. 
Ill 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

year  to  year,  the  '  Landed  Gentry '  is  deteriorating.  The  succes- 
sive editions  are  marked  by  a  gradual  disappearance  of  families 
of  status  and  historical  repute,  while  their  places  are  to  a 
large  extent  filled  by  persons  whose  sole  connexion  with  land 
arises  from  their  having  been  purchasers  of  a  few  acres  in  a 
county  where  their  very  names  are  unknown. 

The  immense  majority  of  the  pedigrees  in  the  '  Landed  Gentry,' 
including  more  especially  the  Scottish  pedigrees,  cannot,  I  fear,  be 
characterized  as  otherwise  than  utterly  worthless.  The  errors  of 
the  '  Peerage '  are  as  nothing  to  the  fables  which  we  encounter 
everywhere.  .  .  . 

The  reader  who  has  followed  me  thus  far  will  probably  be  of 
opinion  that  the  works  which  we  have  been  examining  are  in  no 
respect  worthy  of  the  present  condition  of  genealogical  science. 
It  is  a  remarkable  circumstance  that  side  by  side  with  the  laborious 
and  critical  genealogists,  there  should  have  sprung  up  a  set  of 
venal  pedigree-mongers,  whose  occupation  consists  in  garbling 
truth  and  inventing  falsehood, — a  calling  which  they  pursue  with 
the  most  untiring  assiduity.  But  it  is  unfortunate,  indeed,  that 
the  easy  credulity  of  Sir  Bernard  Burke  should  allow  him  to 
be  led  blindfold  by  these  obscure  persons,  whose  most  palpable 
fictions  he  seldom  shows  the  least  hesitation  in  adopting.  State- 
ments which  would  never  otherwise  have  obtained  a  moment's 
credit  have  been  allowed  to  go  forth  with  the  imprimatur  of  the 
chief  herald  of  Ireland,  on  the  strength  of  which  they  are  relied 
on  by  a  large  section  of  the  public  .  .  .  both  his  '  Peerage ' 
and  *  Landed  Gentry  '  are  profusely  quoted  in  books  circulating  on 
the  Continent  as  well  as  in  Britain.  Year  by  year  new  fictions, 
belonging  not  to  respectable  legend,  but  to  regular  imposture,  are 
obtaining  general  acceptance  on  their  authority  ;  it  is,  therefore, 
high  time  that  the  public  should  be  disabused  of  their  faith  in 
these  works. 

One  would  hesitate  to  repeat  these  words  if  matters 
had  improved  since  they  were  written,  but  their 
caution  to  the  public  is,  unhappily,  even  more  im- 
peratively needed  now.  As  a  mere  record  of  the 
Landed  Gentry,  the  work  which  bears  their  name 
has  gone  from  bad  to  worse  ;  the  acreage  and  the 

112 


THE    PEERAGE 

real  social  standing  of  the  *  landed  '  families  now 
admitted  would  amaze  the  public  if  it  were 
known  ;*  and,  as  observed  in  the  above  extract, 
the  longest  pedigrees  are  sometimes  those  of 
families  with  the  least  claim  to  figure  in  the 
work  at  all.  Happily  a  project  is  now  on 
foot  to  issue  an  absolutely  truthful  and  in 
every  way  trustworthy  record  of  the  real 
landed  families  of  standing,  with  their  history 
and  the  acreage  they  hold.  It  will  be  curious,  in- 
deed, to  see  how  many  of  Burke's  '  Landed  Gentry  ' 
will  be  able  to  make  good  their  claim  to  admission 
within  the  select  covers  of  the  first  really  exclusive 
and  absolutely  straightforward  work  that  it  has 
been  attempted  to  produce.2 

It  is  still,  unfortunately,  true  that,  as  observed 
by  the  above  writer,  "  the  errors  of  the  Peerage 
are  as  nothing  to  the  fables  which  we  encounter  " 
in  other  works  bearing  the  name  of  '  Burke.'  For 
proof  of  this  assertion  we  may  turn  to  an  abso- 
lutely crushing  review  of  one  of  the  latest  of  these 
productions,  Burke  s  Colonial  Gentry?  Its  writer 
ventures  to  express  his  regret  that — 


1  As  an  amusing  instance  in  point,  one  gentleman  in  business, 
who    is  not  a  landowner  at  all,   is  actually  credited  with   two 
*  seats '  (not  mere  <  residences '),  one  of  which  he  used  to  rent,  and 
the  other  of  which  (within  the  walls  of  a  town)  he  rents  at  the 
present  time.     And  his  family  is  described  as  '  of  '  the  former. 

2  I  refer  to  the  great  series  of  volumes  on  our  county  families 
in    connection    with    the    Victoria    History    of   the  Counties  of 
England  (Archibald  Constable  &  Co.). 

3  Genealogist   [N.S.],   XII.   (1896),   66-71. 

113  I 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Sir  Bernard  Burke's  sons  deem  it  consistent  with  their  reputa- 
tion to  issue  to  the  public  works  of  this  character,  in  which  the 
same  loose  statements,  the  same  unbridged  chasms,  the  same  apocry- 
phal legends,  sometimes,  it  is  true,  tempered  with  the  qualifying 
"  It  is  said  "  or  "  It  is  probable,"  appear  in  edition  after  edition. 

Instance  after  instance  is  then  given  of  statements 
such  as  even  Burke  s  Peerage  would  hardly  now 
venture  to  admit.  Whether  we  approve  or  not 
of  Mr.  Freeman's  strong  language,  it  would  really 
seem  that  nothing  less  can  move  the  editors  of 
c  Burke,'  or  open  the  eyes  of  the  public  at  large  to 
the  worthless  nature  of  the  statements  which  it  has 
been  led  to  accept  and  repeat  on  the  strength  of 
their  appearance  in  edition  on  edition  of  works 
appearing  beneath  the  agis  of  a  herald  and  bear- 
ing the  name  of  a  King  of  Arms. 


114 


II 

The  Origin  of  the  Stewarts 

OF  the  problems  upon  which  new  light  is 
thrown  by  my  Calendar  of  documents  in  France 
relating  to  English  history,  none,  probably,  for 
the  genealogist,  will  rival  in  interest  the  origin 
of  the  Stewarts.  It  has  long  been  known  that  the 
Scottish  Stewarts  and  the  great  English  house  of 
Fitz  Alan  possessed  a  common  ancestor  in  Alan, 
the  son  of  Flaald,  living  under  Henry  the  First. 
This  was  established  at  some  length  by  Chalmers 
in  his  Caledonia  (1807)  on  what  he  declared  to  be 
"  the  most  satisfactory  evidence."  *  According  to 
him,  "  Alan  the  son  of  Flaald,  a  Norman,  acquired 
the  manor  of  Oswestrie,  in  Shropshire,  soon  after 
the  Conquest,"  and  "  married  the  daughter  of 
Warine,  the  famous  sheriff  of  Shropshire."  Mr. 
Riddell,  the  well-known  Scottish  antiquary,  fol- 
lowed up  the  arguments  of  Chalmers,  in  1843, 
with  a  paper  on  the  "  Origin  of  the  House  of 
Stewart," 2  in  which  he  accepted  and  enforced 
the  views  of  Chalmers,  including  his  theory  that 
Walter  Fitz  Alan  brought  with  him  to  Scotland 
followers  from  Shropshire  and  gave  them  lands 

1   Vol.  I.  pp.  572-575.  2  Stewartiana,  pp.  55-70. 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

there.  But  research  has  hitherto  been  unable  to 
determine  the  origin  of  Flaald  father  of  Alan,  or 
even  to  find,  in  England,  any  mention  of  his  name. 
No  less  an  authority  on  feudal  genealogy  than 
the  late  Mr.  Eyton  devoted  himself  to  a  special 
investigation  on  the  subject  of  Alan  "  Fitz  Flaald," l 
and  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that,  after  all,  he  was 
a  grandson  of  "  Banquo,  thane  of  Lochaber,"  whose 
son  "  Fleance  "  fled  to  England.  "  My  belief  is," 
Mr.  Eyton  wrote,  "  that  the  son  of  Fleance  was 
named  Alan  .  .  .  and  that  he  whom  the 
English  called  Alan  Fitz  Flaald  was  the  person 
in  question." 2  He  admitted,  however,  of  the 
priories  of  Andover,  Sele,  and  Sporle,  cells  of 
the  Abbey  of  St.  Florent  de  Saumur,  that  he 
could  "  show  a  connection  between  Alan  Fitz 
Flaald  or  his  descendants  and  each  of  these  cells,3 
which  suggested  an  Angevin  origin,  and  for  which 
he  could  not  account.  But  where  he  really  ad- 
vanced our  knowledge  was  in  showing  that  Alan 
Fitz  Flaald  married,  not  (as  alleged)  a  daughter  of 
Warine  the  sheriff,  but  Aveline  daughter  of  Ernulf 
de  Hesdin,  a  great  Domesday  tenant.  I  have  now 
been  able  to  trace  Ernulf  to  Hesdin  (in  Picardy) 
itself,  in  connection  with  which  his  daughter 
'  Ava '  also  is  mentioned.4  In  1874,  an  anony- 


1  History  of  Shropshire  (iS$$),  VII.  211-232. 

2  Ibid.  p.   227.      It  is  essential  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  old 
Scottish    writers    made    Walter,    the    first    Steward,    a    son    of 
'Fleance,'    wholly    ignoring  Alan    his    real    father  (see    p.    119 
below).     This  invalidates  their  whole  story. 

5  Ibid.  219.         4  See  Preface  to  my  Calendar,  p.  xlvii. 

116 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    STEWARTS 

mous  work,  The  Norman  People,  approached  the 
problem  from  the  foreign  side,  and  adduced  evi- 
dence to  prove  that  Flaald  was  a  brother  of  Alan, 
seneschal  of  Dol.  But  there  was  still  not  forth- 
coming any  mention  of  Flaald  in  England,  while 
the  rashness  and  inaccuracy  which  marred  that 
book  resulted  in  his  being  wrongly  pronounced  a 
"  son  of  Guienoc."  The  great  pedigree  specially 
prepared  a  few  years  ago  for  the  Stuart  exhibition 
by  Mr.  W.  A.  Lindsay  (now  Windsor  Herald) 
still  began  only  with  Alan  son  of  Flaald,  to  whom  a 
daughter  of  Warine  the  sheriff  was  assigned  as  wife. 
Moreover,  in  the  handsome  work  on  The  Royal 
House  of  Stuart  (1890),  which  had  its  origin  in  that 
exhibition,  Dr.  Skelton  could  only  tell  us  that 
"  there  was  (if  the  conclusions  of  Chalmers  are 
to  be  accepted)  an  Alan  son  of  Flathauld,  a 
Norman  knight,  who  soon  after  the  Conquest 
obtained  a  gift  of  broad  lands  in  Shropshire " 
(p.  5).  Alan,  we  shall  find,  was  not  a  Norman; 
the  lands  he  was  given  were  widely  scattered ; 
and  he  did  not  obtain  them  "  soon  after  the 
Conquest." 

The  latest  authoritative  statement  on  the  subject 
is  that,  it  would  seem,  of  Sheriff  Mackay  in  the 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography  (i%<)6}.1  He  tells 
us,  of  the  House  of  Stewart,  that 

1  This  passage  is  found  in  the  biography  of  the  first  Stewart 
king,  so  that  I  only  lighted  upon  it  after  this  paper  was  written. 
It  gave  me  the  clue  to  Mr.  Hewison's  book,  of  which  I  had  not 
previously  heard,  but  which  I  have  now  read  just  in  time  to  add 
his  results  to  this  paper  (24th  Jan.,  1 900). 

117 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Its  earlier  genealogy  is  uncertain,  but  an  ingenious  and  learned, 
though  admittedly  in  part  hypothetical,  attempt  to  trace  it  to 
the  Banquho  of  Boece  and  Shakespeare,  Thane  of  Lochaber,  has 
been  recently  made  by  the  Rev.  J.  K.  Hewison  (Bute  in  the 
Olden  Time  [vol.  II.]  pp.  1-38,  Edinburgh, 


Mr.  Hewison's  volume  opens  with  the  words  :  — 

The  origin  of  the  royal  house  of  Stewart  has  long  remained  a 
mystery,  perplexing  historical  students,  who  feel  tantalized  at 
knowing  so  little  concerning  the  hapless  victim  of  the  jealousy  of 
King  Macbeth  —  Banquo,  round  whom  Shakespeare  cast  the  glamour 
of  undying  romance,  and  to  whom  the  old  chroniclers  of  Scot- 
land traced  back  the  family  of  Stewart. 

The  author's  '  glamour  '  augurs  ill,  and  in  spite 
of  the  unique  advantage  he  enjoyed  in  having 
access  to  the  late  Lord  Crawford's  MS.  collections 
on  the  subject,  we  soon  find  ourselves  wandering, 
alas,  with  Alice  in  Wonderland. 

It  may  be  concluded  that  Walter,  the  son  of  Fleadan,  son  of 
Banchu,  is  identical  with  Walter,  son  of  [A]llan  (or  Flan),  son  of 
Murechach  of  the  Lennox  family,  if  not  also  with  Walter,  son 
of  Amloib,  son  of  Duncan  of  the  other  genealogy.  Chronology 
easily  permits  of  the  equation  of  Murdoch,  the  Maormor  of  Leven 
.  .  .  with  Banchu  .  .  .  who  might  have  survived  even 
his  son  Fleance  —  we,  meantime,  only  assuming  that  Fleance  was 
slain  in  Wales.  Ban-chu,  the  pale  warrior,  would  be  his  compli- 
mentary title  ;  the  old  surname  of  his  family  .  .  •  also 
descended  to  his  son,  Flan-chu,  the  red  or  ruddy  warrior,  known 
to  his  Irish  kinsmen  as  Fleadan. 

We  are  surely  coming  to  the  Man-chu  dynasty. 
But  no. 

This  Irish  form  of  the  name  Fleadan  tan  (i.e.  either  Fleadan 
the  Tanist  or  Fleadan  the  younger)  imports  a  significant  idea  — 

1  Vol.  XL  VIII.  p.  344. 
118 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   STEWARTS 

namely,  flead  ...  a  feast,  which  corresponds  in  signification 
with  Flaald.  .  .  . 

Then  there  bursts  upon  us  yet  another  dis- 
covery : — 

Fleanchus  ...  is  the  Latinised  form  of  Flann-chu,  the  Red 
or  Ruddy  Dog  .  .  .  and  is  also  a  sobriquet — the  Bloodhound. 
.  .  .  This  nomenclature  is  evidently  a  reminiscence  of  the  dog- 
totem  or  dog-divinity,  etc.,  etc. 

There  remains,  however,  the  standing  puzzle1 
why  Walter  the  first  Stewart  was  made  by  the 
old  romancers  a  son  of  Fleance  son  of  Banquo, 
though  his  father  was  indisputably  Alan  son  of 
Flaald.  One  solution  offered  by  our  author  is 
that  "  Ailin  or  Allan  may  have  become  the  family 
name  "  ;  but  his  own  view  is  that 

The  native  name  of  Banquo's  son  would  be  the  common 
Goidelic  one  Flann^  which  signifies  rosy  or  fair,  and  has  an 
equivalent  in  Aluinn,  beautiful,  fair,  to  which  the  word  Alan, 
both  in  Britanny  and  Ireland,  may  be  traced. 

Thus  it  was  that  '  Flann  '  would  become  '  Alan  '  in 
Britanny,  "  more  especially  when,  in  the  vulgar 
tongue  of  Dol,  the  former,  denoting  a  pancake, 
would  sound  like  a  nickname."  And  if  we  should 
still  have  our  doubts,  is  there  not,  at  Dol,  to  this 
day — 

an  imposing  edifice,  built  of  granite,  in  the  purest  Norman 
style  of  architecture  of  the  twelfth  century,  which  tradition  names 
'La  maison  des  Plaids,'  and  avers  was  the  revenue  office  and 
court-house  of  the  archbishops.  This  name,  "  the  House  of  the 

1  See  p.  1 1 6,  note  2,  above.  It  will  be  seen  that  to  assert, 
as  here,  that  Alan  and  c  Fleance '  were  the  same  will  not  over- 
come this  difficulty. 

119 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Plaids,"  is  touchingly  significant  of  Fleance  with  the  royal  wearers 
of  the  tartan.  .  .  . 

But  I  really  cannot  pursue  further  these  "  in- 
genious and  learned "  new  lichts.  A  dreadful 
vision  of  dog-totems,  arrayed  in  the  Stewart 
tartan,  and  feasting,  with  fiery  visage,  on  pan- 
cakes in  the  streets  of  Dol,  warns  me  to  leave 
this  realm  of  wonders  and  turn  to  the  world  in 
which  we  live.  From  "  the  House  of  the  Plaids  " 
I  flee.1 

Fortunately  Flaald  is  a  name,  for  practical  pur- 
poses, unique  ;  and  we  need  not,  therefore,  hesitate 
to  recognise  in  "Float  films  Alani  dapiferi  "  who 
was  present  (No.  1136)  at  the  dedication  of  Mon- 
mouth  Priory  (noi  or  1102)  the  long-sought 
missing  link.  We  thus  connect  him  with  the 
fourth,  the  remaining  cell  of  St.  Florent  de 
Saumur  in  England.  But  we  have  yet  to  account 
for  his  appearance  as  a  '  baron '  of  the  lord  of 
Monmouth,  William  son  of  Baderon.  The  best 
authority  on  Domesday  tenants,  Mr.  A.  S.  Ellis, 
confessed  that  he  had  failed  to  trace  the  lords  of 
Monmouth  in  Britanny.2  The  key,  however,  to 
the  whole  connection  is  found  in  the  abbey  of  St. 
Florent  de  Saumur  and  in  its  charters  calendared 
in  my  work.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  eleventh 
century  many  Bretons  of  noble  birth  were  led  to 

1  It  is  positively  the  fact  that  the  author  so  renders  the  name 
of  the  <  Maison  des  Plaids,'  where  the  (Arch)bishops  are  supposed 
to  have  held  their  pleas  ("  plaids  "). 

8   Domesday  Tenants  of  Gloucestershire,  p.  46. 

120 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    STEWARTS 

take  the  cowl.  Among  them  was  William,  eldest 
son  of  that  Rhiwallon,  lord  of  Dol,  whom,  on  the 
eve  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  Duke  William  and 
Harold  of  England  had  relieved  when  he  was 
besieged  by  his  lord.  Rhiwallon's  son  William, 
who  was  followed  by  his  brother  John  (No. 
1116),  entered  the  abbey  of  St.  Florent  de 
Saumur,  and  became  its  abbot  himself  in  1070. 
Zealous  in  the  cause  of  the  house  he  ruled,  he 
clearly  urged  its  claims  at  Dol,  receiving  not  only 
local  gifts,  but  also,  as  its  chronicle  mentions,  the 
endowments  it  obtained  in  England.  Of  the  two 
families  with  which  we  are  concerned  the  lords 
of  Monmouth  can,  by  these  charters,  be  traced 
to  the  neighbourhood  of  Dol,  for  William  son  of 
Baderon  confirms  his  father's  gifts  at  Epiniac  and 
La  Boussac  (No.  1 134),  which  places  lay  together 
close  to  Dol.  The  presence  among  the  witnesses 
to  these  charters  of  a  Main  of  La  Boussac  and  a 
Geoffrey  of  Epiniac  affords  confirmation  of  the 
fact.  Guihenoc,  the  founder  of  the  house  in 
England  (probably  identical  with  "  Wihenocus 
films  Caradoc  de  Labocac),"1  undoubtedly  became 
a  monk  of  St.  Florent,2  and  resigned  his  English 
fief  to  his  nephew  William  (son  of  his  brother 
Baderon),  who  is  found  holding  it  in  Domes- 
day. 

Some  charters  were  specially  selected  by  me 
from  the  Liber  Albus  of  St.  Florent  (Nos.  1 152-4) 
to  illustrate,  about  the  end  of  the  Conqueror's  reign, 

1  Lobineau,  Histoire  de  Bretagne,  II.  219. 

2  Calendar,  Nos.  1117,  1133. 

121 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

the  little  group  of  Dol  families  who  were  about 
to  settle  in  England.1  Among  the  witnesses  to  one 
of  them  are  Baderon  and  his  son  the  Domesday 
tenant.  But  the  one  family  we  have  specially  to 
trace  is  that  which  held  the  office  of  "  Dapifer " 
at  Dol.  "  Alan  Dapifer  "  is  found  as  a  witness, 
in  1086,  to  a  charter  relating  to  Mezuoit2  (a  cell 
of  St.  Florent,  near  Dol).  He  also,  as  "  Alanus 
Siniscallus,"  witnessed  the  foundation  charters 
of  that  house  (ante  1080)  and  himself  gave  it 
rights  at  Mezuoit  with  the  consent  of  "Fledal- 
dus  frater  ejus,"  the  monks,  in  return,  admitting 
his  brother  Rhiwallon  to  their  fraternity.3  He 
appears  as  a  witness  with  the  above  "  Badero  "  in 
No.  1152,  and  in  1086  as  a  surety  with  Ralf  de 
Fougeres  (No.  1154).  Mentioned  in  other  St. 
Florent  documents,4  he  is  styled  in  one,  "  Dapifer 
de  Dolo.6  And  it  is  as  "  Alanus  dapifer  Dolensis  " 
that  he  took  part  in  the  first  crusade,  log/.6  This 
style  is  explained  in  a  charter  of  1095,  recording  a 
gift  to  Marmoutier  by  Hamo  son  of  Main,  with 
consent  of  his  lord  "  Rivallonius  dominus  Doli 
castri,  filius  Johannis  archiepiscopi,"  in  which  we 
read  : — 

1  It  would,  no  doubt,  be  a  rash  conjecture  that  the  "  Herveus 
botellarius"  of  these  charters  (Nos.  1153,  1154)  was  the  ancestor 
of  those  Herveys,  from  whom  the  Butlers  of  Ireland  are  descended. 
But  if  it  should  eventually  prove  to  be  no  mere  coincidence,  the 
Butlership  of  Ireland  would  have  had  an  origin  curiously  parallel 
to  the  Stewardship  of  Scotland.  2  Lobineau,  p.  250. 

8  Ibid.  137,  138,  collated  by  me  with  the  Liber  Albus  at  Angers. 

4  Ibid.  232,  234.  6  Ibid.  310. 

6  Ordericus  Vitalh  (Soci£t£  de  Thistoire  de  France),  vol.  III.  507. 

122 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   STEWARTS 

Hoc  donum  factum  est  per  manum  Guarini  monachi  nostri  de 
Lauda  Rigaldi  tune  temporis  prioris  Combornii,  testibus  his  : 
Alano  siniscalco  Rivallonii  predict!,  etc.1 

His  brother's  son,  Alan  fitz  Flaald  (ancestor,  as  has 
been  seen,  of  the  Stuarts)  also  occurs,  in  these 
Breton  documents,  as  releasing  his  rights  in  the 
church  of  "  Guguen  " 2  to  Bartholomew  abbot  of 
Marmoutier  ;3  while  two  charters  of  Henry  I. 
confirming  the  foundation  of  Holy  Trinity  Priory, 
York,  as  a  cell  of  Marmoutier,  and  prior  to  1 108, 
contain  his  name  as  a  witness  (No.  1225).  Again, 
a  charter  of  donation  to  Andover  Priory  reveals 
him  as  present  in  the  New  Forest  with  William 
son  of  Baderon  and  "  Wihenocus  monachus " 
(William's  uncle)  early  in  the  reign  of  Henry  I.4 
It  was  Alan  also  who  founded  Sporle  Priory,  Nor- 
folk (No.  1 149),  on  land  he  held  there,  as  another 
cell  of  St.  Florent,  the  Bretons  who  witness  his 
charter  further  attesting  his  origin.  Among  them 
is  seen  Rhiwallon  "  Extraneus,"  the  founder  of  the 
Norfolk  family  of  Le  Strange,  which,  more  than 
five  centuries  later,  was  so  ardent  in  its  loyalty  to 
Alan's  descendants,  the  Stuart  kings  of  England.5 

It  will  have  been  observed  that  "  Float  filius 
Alani  dapiferi "  is  assumed  above  to  have  been  the 

1  Transcripts  from  (Bretagne)  cartulary  of  Marmoutier  in 
MS.  Baluze  77,  fo.  134,  and  in  MS.  lat.  5441  (3)  fo.  323.  Alan 
is  also  brought  into  conjunction  with  this  Hamo  son  of  Main 
in  No.  1152.  2  Cuguen,  near  Dol. 

3  Lobineau^    II.    310  ;   MS.   lat.    5441    (3)  fo.  235. 

4  Mm.  Ang.  VI.  993. 

5  His  name  has  hitherto  remained  doubtful,   and  is  given  as 
Roland  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 

123 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

brother,  not  a  son,  of  the  crusader.  This  assump- 
tion is  based  upon  the  facts  that  the  crusader's  gift 
at  Mezuoit  was  c  conceded '  by  his  brother 
'  Fledald/  who  was,  therefore,  his  heir  at  the  time, 
and  that  his  office  of  "  dapifer  "  at  Dol  was  after- 
wards held — a  fact  hitherto  unsuspected — by 
descendants  of  Alan  fitz  Flaald.  The  crusader,  it 
must  therefore  be  inferred,  left  no  heir. 

The  sudden  rise  of  Alan  fitz  Flaald  and  his  evi- 
dent enjoyment  of  Henry's  favour  from  the  early 
years  of  the  reign,  were  thought  by  Mr.  Eyton  to 
be  due  to  his  (fabulous)  Scottish  origin.  But  it 
might,  with  some  probability,  be  suggested  that  his 
Breton  origin  accounts  for  the  facts.  When  Henry 
was  besieged  in  Mont  St.  Michel,  he  is  known  to 
have  had  Breton  followers  ("aggregatis  Britonibus  ") 
and,  after  his  surrender,  "  per  Britanniam  transiit, 
Britonibus  qui  sibi  solummodo  adminiculum  con- 
tulerant,  gratias  reddidit "  (Ordericus).1  Dol  was 
his  nearest  town  in  Britanny,  and  Alan  may  thus, 
like  Richard  de  Reviers,  have  served  him  across 
the  sea,  when  he  was  but  a  younger  son. 

It  would  seem,  indeed,  although  the  fact  has 
been  hitherto  overlooked,  that  a  group  of  families 
whom  Henry  had  known  when  lord  of  the  Cotentin 
were  endowed  by  him  when  king  with  fiefs  in 
England.  In  addition  to  Alan  Fitz  Flaald,  founder 
of  the  house  of  Stewart,  and  to  Richard  de 


1  Elsewhere,  Orderic  observes  that  Henry,  "  dum  esset  junior 
.  .  .  ut  externus,  exterorum,  id  est  Francorum  et  Eritonum 
auxilia  quaerere  coactus  est." 

124 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    STEWARTS 

Reviers,  ancestor  of  the  earls  of  Devon,1  the  Hayes 
of  Haye-du-Puits  were  given  the  Honour  of 
Halnaker  (Sussex),  the  Aubignys,  afterwards  earls 
of  Arundel,  obtained  from  him  a  fief  in  Norfolk  ; 
the  two  St.  John  brothers,  from  St.  Jean-le-Thomas, 
were  granted  lands  in  Oxfordshire  and  Sussex,  and 
founded  another  famous  house  ;2  while  the  family 
of  Paynel  also,  sprung  from  the  Cotentin,  owed  to 
Henry  lands  in  England. 

Among  the  documents  calendered  in  my  volume 
are  Papal  bulls  to  the  abbey  of  St.  Florent,  ranging 
from  1146  to  1187  (Nos.  1124-9),  which  suggest 
that  Alan's  son  William,  who  acquired  by  marriage 
Clun  castle,  must  have  bestowed  its  church  of  St. 
George,  with  all  its  dependent  churches,  on  Mon- 
mouth  Priory,  a  fact  hitherto  unsuspected.  Mr. 
Eyton  thought  that  the  gift  of  this  church  to 
Wenlock  Priory  by  his  widow  (temp.  Ric.  I.) 
represents  the  first  occasion  on  which  it  is  men- 
tioned. 

Alan  fitz  Flaald  has  hitherto  been  credited  with 
two  well-known  sons,  William  and  Walter,  ances- 
tors respectively  of  the  Fitzalans  and  the  Stewarts.3 

1  He  is  found,  seemingly,  in  Domesday,  holding  a  single  lord- 
ship. 

2  See  my  paper  on  "The  Families  of  St.  John  and  of  Port"  in 
Genealogist,  July,  1899,  p.  I.     And  compare  p.  66  above. 

3  A  third  son,   "  Simon,"   is  claimed   as  the  ancestor  of  the 
Boyds,  and  is  assigned  to  him,  with  William  and  Walter,  in  Mr. 
Lindsay's  great  Stewart  pedigree,  the  standard  authority  on  the 
subject.     But  although  a  Simon  c  brother '  of  Walter  occurs  as 
a  witness  in  the  Paisley  cartulary,  his   name   is  very  low  on  the 
list,  and  he  may  have  been  only  a  uterine  or  even  a  bastard 

125 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

He  had,  however,  another  son,  who  needs  to  be 
specially  dealt  with.  This  was  Jordan,  his  heir  in 
Britanny,  and,  apparently,  at  Burton  in  England. 
Mr.  Eyton  knew  of  his  existence,  but  could  state 
little  about  him.  In  No.  1220  we  find  him,  as  a 
"  valiant  and  illustrious  man,"  making  restitution 
to  Marmoutier  in  1130,  with  his  wife  Mary  and 
his  sons  Jordan  and  Alan.  In  the  same  year  we 
detect  him  entered  on  the  English  Pipe  Roll  in 
several  places,  though  one  of  the  entries  suggests  his 
Breton  connection.1  He  may  safely  be  identified 
with  that  "  Jordanus  dapifer "  who  witnessed  a 
charter  to  Mont  St.  Michel  in  1 128-9  (No.  722) ; 
and  consequently  he  held  the  family  office.  We 
find  him  also  in  a  St.  Florent  charter,2  and  in  one 
of  Marmoutier.3  Of  his  sons,  Jordan  restored  to 
the  priory  of  St.  Florent  at  Sele  the  mill  at  Burton 
given  it  by  Alan  fitz  Flaald,4  but  was,  probably, 
soon  succeeded  by  his  brother  Alan,  who  confirmed 
to  a  priory  of  Marmoutier  (No.  1221)  another 
gift  of  his  grandfather,  Alan  fitz  Flaald,  at  Burton, 
mentioning  his  wife  Joan  and  his  son  Jordan.5  This 

brother.  The  Empress  Maud's  bastard  brothers  are  styled  her 
*  brothers '  in  her  charters,  nor  was  this  unusual. 

1  Rot.  Pip.  31  Hen.  I.,  p.  n. 

2  Lobineau,  II.  232.  3  Ibid.  146. 

4  "Jordanus   films   Jordani    filius   Alani    hominibus    suis    de 
Burt[ona].      Sciatis  me  reddidisse  monachis  S.  Florentii  de  Sal- 
mur  molendinum   de   Burt[ona]   sicut   habuerunt  tempore  Alani 
filii  Flealdi  et  tempore  Jordani   patris  mei "   (original  charter  at 
Magdalen  College). 

5  It  was  either  this  Jordan  or  his  grandfather  who,  as  "  Jor- 
danus filius   Alani    siniscalli,"    confirmed   a    gift    to    Combourg 
(MS.  lat.  5441  [3]  437). 

126 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE   STEWARTS 

Alan,  who  meets  us  also,  as  his  father's  son,  in  a 
Savigny  charter  (No.  824),  is  identical  with  that 
"  Alanum  filium  quondam  Jordani  Dolensem  senes- 
callum,"  who  confirmed  the  grant  of  his  grand- 
father Alan  (fitz  Flaald)  at  Cuguen,  and  himself 
added  the  church  of  Tronquet1  about  n6o.2  We 
have  further  in  No.  1013  the  confirmation  by 
Alexander  III.  of  his  gifts  to  the  abbey  of  Tiron, 
including  the  church  of  Sharrington  and  three 
others  in  England.  He  attested  a  charter  of  the 
lord  of  Dol  in  ii45,3  anc^>  m  or  about  1165,  a 
royal  charter  at  Winchester  concerning  a  release  by 
his  fellow-countryman  Geoffrey  son  of  Oliver  de 
Dinan.4  He  also  leads  the  list  of  witnesses  in  a 
dispute  about  the  abbey  of  Vieuville  (in  the  parish 
of  Epiniac)  in  1167,  as  "  Alanus  filius  Jordani 
dapifer."6  His  wife  Joan  and  daughter  Olive  were 
benefactors  to  the  abbey  of  Vieuville  for  his  soul.6 
With  this  clue  we  return  to  England,  and  detect 
the  heiress  of  the  Stewards  of  Dol  in  that  Olive, 
daughter  of  Alan  "filius  Jordani,"  who  in  1227 
was  impleaded  by  one  of  her  Breton  tenants, — his 
father  Iwan  had  been  enfeoffed  by  her  own  father 
Alan, — at  Sharrington,  Norfolk.  The  record  of 

1   MS.  lat.  12,878,  fo.  248^.,  and  Lobineau,  II.  310. 

!  The  gift  is  wrongly  assigned  in  Gallia  Christiana  (XIV. 
1074)  to  1133-1147,  as  being  made  before  Hugh  archbishop 
of  Tours.  The  prelate  was  Hugh  "  archbishop  "  of  Dol,  whose 
date  was  1155-1161  (Ibid.  1050). 

3  LobineaU)  II.  147.  4  Mon.  Ang.,  VI.  486. 

5  Lobineau,  II.  308  ;   MS.  lat.  5476,  fo.  98^. 

6  "  Johanna  uxor  Alani  dapiferi  de  Dolo  et  filia  ipsius  Oliva." 
Lobineau^  II.  310  ;   MS.  lat.  5476,  fo.  91. 

127 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

the  suit  gives  us  the  name  of  Alan's  mother, 
Mary,  mentioned,  as  we  have  seen,  in  No.  I22O.1 

In  the  middle,  therefore,  of  the  I2th  century, 
this  family  flourished  simultaneously  in  Scotland, 
England,  and  Britanny. 

A  short  pedigree  (see  page  129)  will  make  the 
descent  clear. 

A  chronological  difficulty  is  created  by  Mr.  Ey- 
ton's  statement  that  Alan  Fitz  Flaald  was  "  dead  ante 
1 1 14,"  for  his  son  (it  will  be  seen)  the  Steward  of 
Scotland  lived  till  1 177.  It  is  desirable,  therefore, 
to  examine  his  authority  for  this  date.  Dugdale 
was  acquainted  with  a  confirmation  by  Sybil,  lady 
of  Wolston  (Warwickshire),  of  a  gift  by  her 
mother  Adeliza  to  Burton  Abbey  of  land  in  Wol- 
ston. In  his  History  of  Warwickshire  (p.  33)  he 
held  that  she  was  probably  a  daughter  of  Alan 
Fitz  Flaald,  because  Alan  was  "  enfeoft  of  this  Lord- 
ship "  before  her.  Mr.  Eyton  accepted  Dugdale's 
f  conclusion,  and  therefore  identified  her  mother 
c  Adeliza  '  as  that  c  Avelina  '  de  Hesdin,  whom  he 
had  so  skilfully  shown  to  be  the  wife  of  Alan. 
Further,  as  the  land  ex  hypothesi  belonged  to  Alan 
himself,  and  yet  was  given  by  her,  she  must,  he 
held,  have  been  a  widow  at  the  time  of  the  gift  ; 
and  as  the  abbey  was  already  in  possession  at  least 
as  early  as  1114,  Alan,  he  concluded,  must  have 
been  dead  before  that  date.2  These  conclusions 

1  Bractorfs  Note-book,   III.  620.       Compare    'Feet  of  Fines' 
(Pipe  Roll  Society),  II.  160. 

8   History  of  Shropshire,  VII.  221-223,  228. 

128 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   STEWARTS 


ALAN 
Dapifer  [Dolensis] 


I 

ALAN 

Dapifer  Dolensis 

occurs  in  Britanny 

ante  1080  and  in 

1086  ;  a  leader  in 

first  Crusade 

1097 


FLAALD 

occurs  at 

Monmouth 

noi  or  1102 

*  frater '  (et 

4  filius ')  Alani 

Dapiferi 

ALAN 
FITZ  FLAALD 

Founder  of  Sporle  Priory 


RHIWALLON 

Monk  of 

St.  Florent 


JORDAN 
FITZ  ALAN 
occurs  1129-30 
Benefactor  of 

Sele  Priory 
Occurs  also  in 

Britanny  as 
"  Dapifer     (Dolensis) 


WILLIAM 
FITZ  ALAN 


Founder 
-mond 
ob. 


Monmou 


of  Haugh 

Priory 

1160 


(?  Benefactor  or 


I 

WALTER 
FITZ  ALAN 
"  Dapifer  Regis 
Scotis  " 
ob.  1177 


Foun 


th  Priory)  Paisley 


der  of 
Abbey 


ALAN 

THE  STEWARD 
"  Senescallus 

Regis 
Scotis  " 


Ill          I 

ALAN       JORDAN    ALAN  WILLIAM 

FITZ  JORDAN  ob.  infans  FITZ  ALAN 

Dapifer  Dolensis  1  a  quo  Fitz 

Founder  of  Tronquet  Alan,  Earl 

1155-1161  of  Arundel 
living  1167 

1  Among  the  obits  at  Dol  we  find  that  of  another  daughter  of 
Alan  fitz  Jordan  :  "  Kal.  Sept.  obiit  Alicia  uxor  G[uillelmi] 
Espine  filia  Alani  Jordanis  quae  dedit  episcopo  et  capitulo  Dol 
.  .  .  pratum  senescalli,"  etc.  (Gaigneres'  Transcript  of  Car- 
tulary, MS.  lat.  5211  C).  A  charter  of  her  husband  William 
Spina,  son  of  Hamo,  confirms  the  donations  made  to  Vieuville 

129  K 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

created  difficulties,  but,  on  Mr.  Eyton's  great 
authority,  they  have  been  duly  accepted.1  Yet  the 
whole  edifice  rests  on  Dugdale's  careless  reading  of 
a  document  in  the  Burton  Cartulary.2  That  docu- 
ment does  not  connect  Alan  Fitz  Flaald  with 
Wolston. 

The  facts  are  these.  In  Domesday  the  three 
Warwickshire  manors  of  Church  Lawford,  Wol- 
ston, and  Stretton-on-Dunsmore  are  entered  to- 
gether (fo.  239)  as  held  of  Earl  Roger  (of  Shrews- 
bury) by  that  '  Rainaldus,'  whom  the  historian  of 
Shropshire  so  brilliantly  identifies  with  Renaud  de 
Bailleul.3  We  find  him,  accordingly,  as  "  Rainal- 
dus de  Bailoul,"4  confirming  in  No.  578  the  gifts 
at.Wolston  and  Church  Lawford  of  his  own  under- 
tenant, a  certain  Hubert  Baldran.  Another  of  the 
charters  in  my  Calendar  (No.  579)  proves  that  this 
Hubert  (not  Alan  Fitz  Flaald),  was  the  father  of 
Sybil,  lady  of  c  Wlfrichestone '  (Wolston),  from 
whom  we  started.  Thus  Adeliza,  mother  of  Sybil, 
and  wife  of  Hubert  Baldran,  was  quite  distinct 
from  "  Avelina  "  wife  of  Alan  Fitz  Flaald,  with 


"de  feodo  Aeliz  uxoris  mee  filie  Alani  Dolensis  senescalli  .  .  . 
concedente  Alano  filio  nostro"  (MS.  lat.  5476,  fo.  85).  His 
father  Hamo  Spina  occurs  immediately  after  "  Alan  films  Jordanis 
dapifer"  in  the  above  letter  of  1167  (Ib.  fo.  98^).  As  we  read 
of  "  Gaufridus  Spina  Doli  senescallus"  (Ib.  fo.  gid)  it  would 
seem  that  the  Dol  office  was  inherited  by  the  Spina  family,  and 
the  English  estates  by  the  other  daughter. 

1  Burton   Cartulary,   Ed.  Wrottesley  (Salt  Arch.  Collections, 
1884),  pp.  32,  33.  2  Ibid.  p.  33  bis. 

3  History  of  Shropshire,  VII.  206  et  seq. 

4  See  my  Calendar,  p.  202. 

130 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   STEWARTS 

whom  Mr.  Eyton  rashly  identified  her.1  Alan 
may  have  lived,  and  probably  did,  beyond  1114; 
and  his  gift  at  Stretton  to  Burton  Abbey  was  made 
after  he  was  placed  in  the  shoes  (as  Mr.  Eyton  has 
shown)  of  Renaud  de  Bailleul. 

We  have  thus  seen  how  a  single  charter  may 
prove  of  great  importance,  not  only  in  establishing 
the  true  facts,  but  in  demolishing  erroneous  con- 
clusions with  the  corollaries  based  thereon. 

Within  the  last  few  weeks  there  has  unex- 
pectedly been  revived  that  view  of  the  origin  of 
the  Stewarts  which  had  long,  one  thought,  been 
abandoned.  As  the  whole  story  is  most  curious, 
and  has,  moreover,  an  important  moral,  I  propose 
to  discuss  it  in  some  detail.  The  pedigree  of 
the  Stuarts  "of  Hartley  Mauduit,"  who  hold  a 
baronetcy  dating  from  1660,  began  in  Burkes 
Peerage,  so  recently  as  last  year,  with  Sir  Nicholas 
Stuart  the  first  baronet,  "  son  of  Simeon  Stuart, 
Esq."  But  now,  in  this  year  of  grace  1900, — 

A  more  thorough  revision  than  usual  has  been  possible. 
To   the    laborious  researches   and    experienced    counsel    of    my 
brother,  Mr.  H.  Farnham  Burke,  Somerset  Herald,  the  genea- 
logical and  heraldic  value  of  this  work  is   much    indebted  and 
is  gratefully  acknowledged  (sic). 

The  "  laborious  researches  "  of  Somerset  Herald 
have  indeed  developed  the  Stuart  pedigree,  thanks 

1  She  has  been  even  further  promoted  in  the  British  Museum 
Catalogue  of  Stowe  MSS.,  where,  in  the  abstract  of  the  original 
deed  (Stowe  charter  103),  she  is  strangely  identified  with  queen 
Adeliza,  widow  of  Henry  I. 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

to  those  "  invaluable  documents  the  Heralds'  Visi- 
tations, documents  of  high  authority  and  value." 1 

The  illustrious  ancestry  of  this  family  is  given  fully  in  the 
Visitations  of  Cambridge  (sic),  1575  and  1619,  in  which  is  traced 
their  descent  from  the  Royal  Stuarts. 

ANDREW  STUART,  younger  son  of  Alexander  Stuart,  2nd  son  or 
Walter  Stuart,  seneschal  of  Scotland,  great-grandson  of  Walter, 
ist  high  steward  of  Scotland,  grandson  of  Banquo  Lord  of 
Lochaber.  He  m.  the  daughter  of  James  Bethe,  and  had  an 
only  son. 

ALEXANDER  STUART,  to  whom  Charles  VI.  of  France  granted 
an  honourable  augmentation  of  his  arms. 

And  so  the  pedigree  proceeds  through  another  eight 
generations  down  to  the  first  baronet. 

Dear  old  c  Banquo/  "  whom  we  miss  "  ! 2  What 
a  pleasure  it  is  to  welcome  him  back  among  us  once 
more,  and  to  know  that  he,  and  not  Flaald,  was 
the  founder  of  the  house  of  Stuart  on  the  un- 
impeachable authority  of  the  Heralds  and  their 
c  Visitations '  !  It  is  true  that,  according  to  the 
"  Royal  Lineage  " 3  contained  in  the  same  volume, 
it  was  not  descended  from  Banquo  at  all,  and  that 
the  "  above  Alexander  Stuart,  2nd  son  of  Walter 
Stuart,"  had  no  existence  ;  but  these  are  details 
which  the  editor,  doubtless,  will  see  to  in  his  next 
edition.  It  is  also  true  that  the  new  pedigree 
would  at  once  make  Sir  Simeon  Stuart  heir-male 
of  "  the  Royal  Stuarts,"  an  honour  foolishly 
claimed  by  sundry  Scottish  families.4  Let  us  hope 
that  Somerset  Herald  will  inform  Lyon  King  of 

1  Preface  to  Burke's  Landed  Gentry,  Ed.  1898.          2  Macbeth. 
3  Burke  s  Peerage,  1900,  pp.  cliii.-cliv.  *  Sec  p.  89  above. 

132 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    STEWARTS 

Arms  that  his    "  laborious    researches  "    have    de- 
cided this  long-contested  question. 

But,  seriously  speaking,  what  is  the  origin  of 
the  new  descent,  which,  this  year,  makes  its  ap- 
pearance in  Burke'  *s  Peerage  ?  Well,  the  story  is, 
or  ought  to  be,  familiar  to  all  genealogists.  For, 
owing  to  Oliver  Cromwell's  mother  having  been 
a  member  of  this  family,  his  Stuart  descent  was 
alluded  to  by  Carlyle,  which  has  given  genealo- 
gists the  opportunity  of  making  merry  at  his 
expense.  The  alleged  descent  was,  for  several 
years,  discussed  in  the  recognised  organ  of  genea- 
logical research  ;  l  but  of  this  discussion  Somerset 
Herald  is,  no  doubt,  ignorant.  So  far  back,  in- 
deed, as  1878  the  very  interesting  heraldic  glass 
of  which  I  am  enabled  to  give  an  illustration  was 
exhibited  to  the  Archaeological  Institute,  and  that 
well-known  Scottish  authority,  Mr.  Joseph  Bain,2 
discussed  the  whole  story  thereon  before  it.  He 
then  observed  of  the  alleged  grant  by  "  Charles 
VI.  of  France,"  to  which  Somerset  Herald  ap- 
peals :  — 

In  M.  Michel's  Les  Ecossais  en  France,  published  in  1862,  he 
gives  a  drawing  of  this  very  design,  and  the  text  of  the  asserted 
grant  by  Charles  VI.  of  France  in  the  fifth  year  of  his  reign, 
conferring  the  strange  coat  of  arms  on  Sir  Alexander  Stuart  on 
account  of  the  merits  of  his  father  Andrew.  .  .  .  M. 
Michel  says  that  c  it  is  enough  to  cast  the  eye  on  these  pretended 

lThe  Genealogist   [N.S.],  vols.   I.   (1884),  II.,  III.,   VIIL,  X. 


2  Editor  of  the  '  Calendar  of  documents  relating  to  Scotland,' 
the  c  Hamilton  Papers,'  the  '  Calendar  of  letters  and  papers  re- 
ferring to  the  Borders,'  etc.  etc. 

133 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

letters  of  concession,  to  recognise  the  patois  or  an  Englishman 
little  familiar  with  the  language  spoken  at  Paris  at  the  end  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  and  to  doubt  the  fact  asserted  by  the  writer ' — 
an  opinion  which  will  be  shared  by  anyone  moderately  versed  in 
Old  French.1 

The  alleged  grant  only  exists  in  the  form  of  a 
transcript  in  a  private  MS.  of  the  i6th  century  ;2 
but  we  shall  see  below  that  not  only  deeds,  but 
even  sealed  deeds,  were  among  the  fabrications  of 
those  who  concocted  false  pedigrees.3 

That  well-known  critical  genealogist,  Mr. 
Walter  Rye,  set  himself,  a  few  years  later,  to  destroy 
the  alleged  descent  and  all  its  wondrous  tales  in  the 
Herald's  "  Visitation  "  and  elsewhere.  The  con- 
clusion at  which  he  arrived  was  that  the  "  Sty- 
wards,"  as  these  alleged  descendants  of  the  Scottish 
Stuarts  wrote  their  name,  were  simply  "  a  Norfolk 
family,  probably  of  illegitimate  descent,  and  cer- 
tainly of  no  credit  or  renown,  which  had  been 
settled  at  Swaffham  long  before  the  alleged  Scottish 
ancestor  is  supposed  to  have  landed  in  England 
with  his  royal  master  and  kinsman."  4  He  further 
held  that  three  other  deeds,  in  Norman-French, 
found  in  the  above  cartulary,  were  forgeries,  and 
that  Augustine  Steward,  a  lawyer,  to  whom  we 
owe  the  cartulary,  was  "  the  vagabond  who,  I 
suspect,  concocted  the  whole  pedigree  in  1567." 
No  one  attempted  to  challenge  Mr.  Rye's  conclu- 
sion ;  but  Mr.  Bain  wrote  that  "  Augustine 

1  Archaeological  Journal,  XXXV.  302-3,  399. 

2  Add.  MS.   15,644. 

3  See  the  paper  on  "  Our  English  Hapsburgs." 

4  Genealogist  [N.S.],  II.   34-42. 

134 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   STEWARTS 

Steward's  pedigree  of  the  Stewards  prior  to  John 
is  an  absurd  fiction  ;  that  [portion]  subsequent  to 
him  has  been  treated  according  to  its  deserts  by 
Mr.  Rye."1 

I  have  satisfied  myself,  however,  that,  in  details, 
Mr.  Rye's  conclusion  is  somewhat  crude  and  is 
based  on  an  insufficient  knowledge  of  the  above 
cartulary  and  other  documents.  The  concoction 
was  of  earlier  date  than  he  supposed,  and  more 
than  one  member  of  the  family  was  concerned  in 
the  matter.  In  the  Genealogist 2 1  was  able  to  show 
that  Robert  Welles  alias  Steward,  last  Prior  and 
first  Dean  of  Ely,  had  far  more  to  do  with  the 
matter  than  the  above  critics  had  known.  It  is 
recorded  in  Wharton's  Anglia  Sacra  that 

Decanatum  adeptus,  nomen  gentilitium  Stewarde  homo  ventosus 
deinceps  adhibuit ;  et  nobilitatis  suae  opinione  inflatus,  familiae 
suse  genealogiam  scriptis  commendavit  (I.  685). 

The  whole  descent,  set  forth  by  himself,  is,  luckily, 
there  preserved,  and  is  alleged  to  be  "  breviter 
extracta  e  rotulis  Heraldorum  anno  MDXXII." 
The  heraldic  tastes  of  Robert  are  confirmed  by  the 
armorial  drawings  found  in  his  MSS.,3  and  the  dean 
of  Ely  has  been  so  kind  as  to  verify  for  me 
Wharton's  statement  and  to  examine  personally  the 
MS.  return  of  the  Prior's  possessions  made  by  this 
Robert  to  Henry  VIII.,  now  in  the  muniment 
room  at  Ely.4  On  the  vellum  title-page  is  found 

1  Ibid.  III.  in.     2  [N.S.],  vol.  X.  1 8.     3  Anglia  Sacra,  I.  xlvii. 

4  It  is  headed  "  Annuus  valor  omnium  terrarum  et  possessionum 
Prioratus  de  Elye  anno  Henrici  Regis  Octavi  tricessimo  secundo  " 
[i.e.  1540-1541]. 

135 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

the  coat  as  now  borne  by  the  family,  that  is,  the 
arms  of  "  the  Royal  Stuarts  "  with  "  le  lion  ruge 
batty  de  baston  node  d'or,"  as  an  augmentation  of 
honour,  in  an  inescutcheon  of  pretence.  And  this 
coat,  I  observe,  hangs  from  a  ragged  staff  (as  in 
Add.  MS.  15,644),  this  being  the  staff  with  which 
the  feat  depicted  in  the  window  was  performed. 
The  Dean  informs  me  that  the  same  coat  is  found 
elsewhere  in  the  volume  and  that  it  is  also  de- 
picted on  the  cover  with  "  1549  "  and"  Steward  " 
below  it.1  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  whole 
story  can  be  carried  back  some  twenty  years  further 
than  Mr.  Rye  supposed,  and  that  it  began  with  this 
Robert,  last  Prior  of  Ely. 

A  short  chart  pedigree  will  show  the  connection 
of  the  members  of  the  family  concerned.2 


NICHOLAS 

SIMEON 

STEWARD 

I 

STEWARD 

1 

I 

I 

NICHOLAS               ROBERT 

AUGUSTINE 

ROBERT 

STEWARD         Prior  and  Dean 

STEWARD 

STEWARD 

of  Ely.     The 

the  "  vagabond  " 

died  in  1570. 

compiler  of  the 

thought  by  Mr. 

Monument  to 

1522  pedigree. 

Rye  to  have 

him  in  Ely 

WILLIAM              Died  1557 

concocted  the 

Cathedral 

STEWARD 

pedigree  in 

"  who,  in  1574, 

1567 

had  the  glass 

window  made" 

(see  frontispiece) 

1  The  Dean  has  further  been  good  enough  to  send  me  sketches 
of  the  arms.  2  See  also  my  paper  in  Genealogist  [N.S.],  X.  18-19. 

136 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   STEWARTS 

In  1817  Mr.  William  Stevenson  produced  a 
supplement,  with  notes,  to  Bentham's  History  of 
Ely,  in  which  he  complained  of  Wharton  charging 
the  dean  of  Ely  with  "  vanity,"  and  offered  this 
"  apology  in  excuse  of  his  vanity  "  : — 

If  the  pride  of  ancestry  be  allowable  and  commendable  in  any- 
one, and  if  the  genealogy  of  Dean  Steward  is  to  be  depended 
upon,  we  believe  very  few  can  vie  with  him,  or  justly  blame  him 
on  that  score  ;  for  an  office  copy  of  his  pedigree,  giving  an  history 
of  the  family,  the  patents,  and  grants  of  their  arms,  with  their 
marriages  into  the  first  families  of  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  Cambridge- 
shire, etc.,  shows  that  he  was  descended  in  a  direct  line  from 
Banquo,  King  of  Scotland,  in  1048.  .  .  .  The  account  is 
continued  to  the  year  1576  (p.  121). 

The  "  office  copy  "  in  Mr.  Stevenson's  posses- 
sion must  have  been  supplied  by  the  Heralds' 
College,  and  the  date  he  names  (1576)  is  of 
importance  ;  for  it  points  to  the  Visitation  of 
Cambridgeshire  in  1575.  This  Visitation  was 
made  by  the  notorious  Cooke  c  Clarencieux,' 1  and 
it  was  to  Cooke  that  Augustine  Steward  had 
shown  the  alleged  grant  by  Charles  VI.  of  France.2 
We  have  now  seen  that  (as  indeed  Somerset 
Herald  implies) 3  the  official  recognition  of  this 
family's  descent  from  "  the  Royal  Stuarts  "  dates 
at  least  from  the  Visitation  of  1575.  Bearing  this 
date  in  mind,  we  may  turn  to  the  two  stately 
monuments  erected  in  Ely  Cathedral  to  Robert 
Steward  (d.  1570)  and  his  brother  Sir  Marcus 
Steward  (d.  1603),  who  were  cousins  of  the  dean 

1  Gutch's  Collectanea  Curiosa. 

2  See  p.  143  below.  3  See  p.  132  above. 

137 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

of  Ely.  The  latter  bears  a  long  inscription,  setting 
forth  the  whole  story,  together  with  a  coat  of  arms 
of  twenty-three  quarterings  ; 1  but  the  other,  I 
observe,  has  but  nine  quarterings  on  the  tabard 
borne  by  the  effigy  and  on  the  two  shields  below 
it,  and  the  famous  coat  of  the  Stewarts  is  not 
among  them.2  The  fact  that  the  shield  above  the 
effigy  displays  eleven  quarterings,  including  the 
Stewart  coat,  suggests  to  me  a  subsequent  addition 
as  in  the  case  of  the  monument  erected  to  Sir 
Robert  Spencer  (d.  1522)? 

It  is  needless  to  repeat  the  absurd  stories  which 
embellish  the  concocted  pedigree  ;  but  something 
must  be  said  of  the  glass  window  represented  in 
the  frontispiece.  It  has  been  well  observed  that 
as  this  window  was  set  up  by  Oliver  Cromwell's 
grandfather,  it  was  probably  a  familiar  object  to 
the  future  Protector  in  his  youth.  He  there  saw 
his  maternal  ancestor,  bearing  on  his  shield  the 
pure  arms  of  the  head  of  the  house  of  Stewart, 
smiting  with  a  ragged  staff, — for  his  sword  had 
broken, — "  le  faux  et  fatise  usurpeur  et  coart  Lion 
de  Balliol,"  while  the  hand  of  the  French  king, 
extended  from  above,  bestows  on  him,  in  memory 
of  his  exploit,  the  "  honourable  augmentation  "  of 
"  le  lion  ruge  batty  de  baston  node  d'ore."  This 
'  striking '  scene,  within  the  royal  double  tressure, 

1  A  coat  with  the  same  number  is  found  on  the  monument  of 
another  brother  (d.  1603)  in  Norfolk.     Compare  p.  86  above. 

2  See    the    illustrations   of    these    monuments    in    Bentham's 
History  of  Ely. 

3  See  paper  below  on  "  The  Rise  of  the  Spencers." 

138 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   STEWARTS 

was  surrounded  by  a  genealogical  tree,  not  of 
Jesse,  but  of  "  Banquho." * 

This,  then,  is  how  it  comes  to  pass  that  Sir 
Simeon  Stuart,  at  the  present  day,  bears  for  arms 
"  Or,  a  fess  chequy  arg.  and  az.,  on  an  escutcheon 
of  pretence  arg.  a  lion  rampant  gu.  debruised  by 
a  bend  raguly  or," — that  is  to  say,  the  very  coat 
which  is  conferred  in  the  apocryphal  grant  by 
Charles  VI.  of  France,  and  which  is  depicted,  as 
so  conferred,  in  the  frontispiece  to  this  volume. 
This  coat,  it  should  be  observed,  is  that  of "  the 
Royal  Stuarts,"  pure  and  undefiled,  with  the  addi- 
tion of  an  augmentation  of  honour,  such  as  is 
granted,  in  modern  times,  to  a  victorious  general. 

We  need  not  discuss  the  ingenious  speculation 
of  Mr.  Walter  Rye  that  the  whole  story  origi- 
nated in  the  Norfolk  Sty  wards  bearing  a  "  bend 
sinister  "  over  a  rampant  lion,  as  a  mark  of  illegiti- 
macy.2 It  will  be  found  that  a  similar,  though 
less  artistic  story,  was  invented  to  connect  the 
Feilding  arms  with  those  of  the  House  of  Austria,3 

Viewing  the  evidence  as  a  whole,  I  arrive  at 
the  following  conclusion.  The  family,  as  they 
rose  in  the  world,  were  eager,  as  in  certain  other 
cases  ancient  and  modern,  to  claim  connection 

1  The  centre  piece  is  carefully  depicted  twice  in  the  margin 
of  Augustine  Steward's  cartulary  (Add.  MSS.  15,644). 

2  Genealogist  [N.S.],  II.  40-41.     It  is  significant  that  on  the 
monument  of  Robert  Steward  (1570),  the  lion  debruised   by  a 
ragged  staff  is  still  found  as  his  own  coat ;  and  the  concocted 
grant  by  Charles  VI.  seems  to  me  to  be  so  worded  as  to  account 
for  the  awkward  fact  that  these  arms  were  used. 

3  See  the  paper,  below,  on  "  Our  English  Hapsburgs." 

139 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

with  some  great  house  of  the  same  or  of  similar 
name.  With  singular  audacity  they  seized  on  the 
reigning  house  of  Scotland.  Their  own  name,  it 
is  true,  was  c  Styward '  ;  they  were  of  obscure 
Norfolk  origin  ;  and  the  arms  they  bore  were  as 
different  as  they  could  be  from  those  of  the  house 
of  Stewart.  The  first  difficulty  they  overcame  by 
representing  the  Scottish  Stewarts  as  being  rightly 
'  Stywards '  ; l  to  meet  the  second  they  concocted 
evidences  to  connect  certain  members  of  the 
Scottish  house  with  Norfolk  ; 2  the  heraldic 
obstacle  only  evoked  still  greater  daring.  They 
had  to  account  for  the  awkward  fact  that  they 
did  not  bear  the  Stewart  coat,  but  one  wholly 
different.  They  invented,  therefore,  the  story  of 
the  French  king's  grant ;  but  as  an  ordinary 
"  augmentation  of  honour  "  would  not  be  sufficient 
for  their  purpose,  they  introduced  a  special  clause 
which  gave  them  the  option  of  bearing  "  d'argent 
ov  le  lion  ruge  batty  de  baston  node  d'ore,  sole- 
ment^  comme  son  escu  de  guerre."  Having  thus 
accounted  for  their  discontinuing  to  bear  the 
Stewart  coat,  and  for  their  bearing  in  its  place  the 
lion  coat  alone,  they  further  forged  (in  my  opinion) 
a  confirmation  by  Garter  Wriothesley,  purporting 
to  be  granted  I4th  Sept.,  1520,  to  Robert 
'  Steward '  of  Ely,  clerk,  in  which  he  officially 
certified  from  his  '  Registers '  that  "  thancestors 
of  the  said  Robert  for  their  first  cote  did  bere  in 

1  They  are  actually  so  entered  in  the  Cambridgeshire  Visitation 
(Ed.  Harl.  Soc.). 

2  Mr.  Rye  has  dealt  with  this  part  of  the  story. 

140 


THE  ORIGIN    OF   THE   STEWARTS 

gould  a  fesse  chekey  of  silver  and  azure,1  being  in 
truth  proper  to  their  bloud  and  name,  quartered 
with  a  red  lyoun  offended  of  a  ragged  staff  bend- 
wise,"  but  that  sometimes  this  latter  coat  had  been 
borne  as  the  first  quarter,  and  sometimes  as  an 
escutcheon  of  pretence.  To  make  a  good  job  of 
the  concoction  while  they  were  about  it,  they 
further  made  Garter  certify  that  their  ancestors 
had  borne  a  crest  based  on  the  story  told  in  the 
picture  : — 

And  there  I  also  find  the  auncient  cognizance  used  with  the 
armes  to  be  a  ragged  staffe  standing  upon  a  broken  sword  crossed 
saltirewise.2 

It  was  here,  we  shall  find,  that  they  overreached 
themselves  ;  but  the  question  of  the  crest  seems 
to  have  escaped  previous  critics.  I  do  not  say 
that  Garter  Wriothesley  was  not  capable  of  any- 
thing. He  himself  claimed  descent  from  a  family 
with  which  he  was  in  no  way  connected  on  the 
strength  of  a  pedigree  which  the  late  Mr.  Eyton, 
the  learned  historian  of  Shropshire,  has  styled  "  a 
tissue  of  falsification  and  forgery,"  containing  at 
least  one  deliberately  falsified  document  and  one 
"  detestable  forgery."  Still  his  alleged  confirma- 
tion is  so  demonstrably  untruthful,  and  supplies  so 
exactly  what  the  family  required,  that  I  place  it  in 
the  same  boat  with  the  French  king's  grant. 

Armed    with    these    evidences  and    with    their 
alleged   deeds,  the  family  approached  the  heralds 

This  was  what  they  coveted — the  pure  Stewart  coat. 
2  Add.  MS.  15,644,  fo.  i.     Compare  p.  136  above. 

141 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

seeking  their  acceptance  of  the  story,  and  evidently 
hoping  to  "  resume"  (as  it  is  termed  in  these  cases) 
the  coat  of  their  alleged  ancestors.  The  result,  at 
first,  was  not  encouraging.  Augustine  Steward 
transcribed  in  his  cartulary  a  confirmation  by 
William  Harvie,  Clarencieux  King  of  Arms,  i 
May  1558  (4  and  5  Philip  and  Mary),  granted 
at  the  request  of "  Symeon  Stewarde  of  Laking- 
heathe,  in  the  Countye  of  Suffolke,  Esquyer." 
Clarencieux  certified  that 

I  coulde  not  without  theire  greate  Iniurye  assigne  unto  him 
any  other  armes  then  those  which  from  the  begynninge  did 
apperteyne  and  belonge  to  that  howse  and  famylye,  whereof  he 
is  descended. 

And  as  he  found  no  crest  assigned  to  the  family, 
he  granted,  "  by  waye  of  encrease,"  for  crest,  "  a 
Roo  bucke  in  his  proper  collers,"  etc.  etc.1  It  is 
evident  from  the  sequel  that  Clarencieux  refused  to 
recognise  the  crest  alleged  to  have  been  confirmed 
by  Wriothesley,  and  that  he  did  not  allow  the 
Stewart  coat.  The  next  document  transcribed 
(fos.  63  et  seq.),  is  a  detailed  certificate,  in  Latin, 
by  the  same  Clarencieux,  27  June  1558,  for 
Robert  c  Stywarde '  of  Ely,  son  of  the  above 
Symeon,  setting  out  the  whole  descent  from 
Banquho  and  reciting  the  grant  by  the  French 
king.  But  he  refuses  to  recognise  the  crest 
claimed,  and  mentions  that,  on  this  account,  he 
had  granted  a  new  one.  Then  follows  (fo.  70)  a 
document  of  9  May  1564  (6  Eliz.),  in  which 

1  Add.  MS.  15,644,  fo.  62. 
142 


THE  ORIGIN    OF   THE   STEWARTS 

the  same  Harvie  Clarencieux  certifies  that  Augus- 
tine c  Stewarde '  of  the  inner  Temple,  gentleman, 
"  port  dargent  un  lion  rampant  gueles  debruse  dun 
baston  noue  dore  et  sur  son  healme  un  capriole 
proper,''  etc.1  Poor  Augustine,  therefore,  was 
"no  forwarder."  Lastly  (fo.  71)  comes  the  con- 
firmation by  Cooke  Clarencieux  in  English,  14 
February  1573  (15  Eliz.),  reciting  textually  and 
exemplifying  the  alleged  grant  "by  Charles  the 
Frenche  kinge,"  and  setting  forth,  at  the  request 
of  "  Augustine  Stywarde  gent.,"  the  whole  descent 
from  "  Walter  of  Dundevayle,"2  "  because  of  itself 
the  manifestation  of  trewthe  is  a  vertuous  and 
lawdable  thinge,  to  the  settinge  forthe  and 
avauncement  whereof  all  men  are  of  dutie  bounde." 
I  do  not  think  that  this  heraldic  Chadband  thereby 
confirms  to  the  family  the  Stewart  coat,  though 
Mr.  Bain  appears  to  have  formed  that  impression. 
It  is  not  till  we  come  to  the  Cambridgeshire 
Visitations  that  we  obtain  at  last  heraldic  authority 
for  the  coat  now  borne  by  the  family — "  or,  a 
fess  chequy  az.  and  ar.3  on  an  escutcheon  of  the 
third  a  lion  rampant  gu.  debruised  by  a  baston 
raguly,  or."  This  is  the  first  or  nine  quarters, 
and  it  heads  a  pedigree  of  great  magnificence 
deduced  from  Banquo,  on  one  side,  to  James  I. 

This  document  is  in  Latin. 

2  This  odd  form,  which  recurs  throughout,  is  surely  a  mis- 
reading of  *  Dundonal'[d],   which  seems  to  be  the  relative  form 
in  Boece. 

3  So    printed.     And    Burke  s    Peerage    (backed    by    Somerset 
Herald)  so  blazons  it.     But  Mr.  Fox-Davies'  Armorial  Families 
(backed  by  Richmond  Herald)  blazons  it  ar.  and  az. 

143 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

of  England,  and  on  the  other  to  the  Cambridge- 
shire Stywards,  now  Stuarts.1  In  this  instance  the 
evasive  plea  that  these  are  not  the  true  Visitations 
cannot,  as  it  happens,  be  urged,  for  it  is  precisely 
to  those  Visitations  that  Burke' s  Peerage,  assisted,  we 
have  seen,  by  Somerset  Herald,  appeals  for  the 
above  pedigree.  They  must,  therefore,  contain  it. 

The  point  on  which  one  has  to  insist  is  that 
here  is  "  a  Norfolk  family,  probably  of  illegitimate 
descent,  and  certainly  of  no  credit  or  renown," 
duly  authorized  by  the  heralds  themselves  to  bear, 
with  "  an  honourable  augmentation,"  the  arms  of 
"  the  Royal  Stuarts,"  with  whom  they  were  in  no 
way  connected.  It  will  not  avail  to  plead  that  the 
arms  were  merely  an  imitation  granted,  as  such,  to 
a  family  bearing  a  similar  name ;  for  they  were 
allowed,  as  indeed  is  seen  in  Burke  s  Peerage 
for  1900,  in  right  of  a  spurious  descent  from  the 
house  to  which  they  belonged.  The  case,  we 
shall  find,  is  on  all  fours  with  that  of  the  Spencers 
of  Althorpe,  who  were  similarly  allowed  an  old 
coat  on  the  strength  of  their  alleged,  but  spurious, 
descent  from  the  feudal  house  of  Despencer. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  gauge  aright  the 
denunciation,  in  certain  quarters,  of  those  who 
break  "  the  Laws  of  Arms "  and  disregard  the 
heralds.  We  read,  for  instance,  in  the  Preface  to 
Burke's  Landed  Gentry  (1898)  : — 

1  Visitations  of  Cambridgeshire,  1575  and  1619.  (Ed. 
Had.  Soc.),  pp.  7-11.  2  See  p.  134  above. 

144 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   STEWARTS 

Unfortunately,  the  laws  of  arms  have  been,  in  these  later  days, 
very  frequently  set  at  naught,  and  the  well-known  ensigns  of  our 
historic  families  have  been  assumed  by  strangers  in  blood  if  not 
in  name,  though  by  their  own  act  they  have  but  erected  a  per- 
manent memorial  to  the  obscurity  of  their  origin. 

Again,  in  The  right  to  bear  arms^  '  X '  exclaims  as 
the  champion  of  the  College, — 

Better  modern  gentility,  better  even  raw  new  gentility,  if  it 
be  genuine,  than  a  bogus  claim  to  ancient  ancestry.  ...  Is 
it  not  contemptibly  snobbish  to  proclaim  yourself  to  be  related  to 
some  noble  family  of  your  name,  when  even  the  name  of  your 
grandfather  is  perhaps  unknown  to  you  ?  Yet  this  is  done  every 
day  (pp.  xii.— xiii.). 

Mr.  Fox-Davies  goes  further.  Greatly  daring,  he 
tells  us  that  the  heralds  did  their  best  to  check 
these  frauds,  which  were  the  work  of  the  "painter- 
fellows." 

Centuries  ago  the  heralds  deplored  and  tried  to  keep  in  check 
the  vagaries  and  usurpations  of  these  "  painter-fellows,"  as  they 
then  described  them.  .  .  .  Had  these  handicraftsmen  stopped 
their  hands  at  these  legitimate  limits,  little  abuse,  comparatively 
speaking,  could  have  crept  in,  but  they  did  not ;  they  hankered 
after  the  fees — in  their  eyes  veritable  flesh-pots  of  Egypt — of  the 
official  heralds.  Then,  as  now,  the  true  position  and  authority  of 
the  Officers  of  Arms  was  not  properly  known  or  understood. 
Then,  as  now,  these  "  painter-fellows  "  encroached,  and  then,  as 
now,  they  profited  by  the  lack  of  heraldic  knowledge  current 
among  the  general  public,  and  they  purposed  to  grant,  confirm, 
and  assign  Arms  .  .  .  which  were  perfectly  legitimate, 
and  which  belonged  to  ancient  families,  which  legitimate  coats- 
of-arms  these  "  painter-fellows  "  assigned  to  other  families  bearing 
the  same  or  similar  names,  without  the  ghost  of  a  pretence,  and 
without  the  shadow  of  a  possibility  of  establishing  a  descent  from 
the  bona  fide  holders.  That  was  how  the  abuse  began  centuries 
ago.  At  the  present  time,  at  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century, 

145  L 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

this  same  abuse  runs  riot,  and  now,  as  then,  it  is  in  the  forefront, 
and  the  most  prominent  of  all  heraldic  follies.1 

Surely,  it  is  only  "  the  lack  of  heraldic  knowledge 
current  among  the  general  public "  that  could 
enable  such  statements  to  be  made  with  any 
chance  of  acceptance.  It  was  the  heralds  them- 
selves who,  "  centuries  ago,"  provided  the  Russells 
and  the  Spencers,  we  shall  find,  with  spurious 
pedigrees  "  without  the  shadow  of  a  possibility  of 
establishing "  the  descent  ;  it  was  they  who 
authorized  the  Norfolk  Stywards,  on  the  strength 
of  a  '  bogus  '  grant,  to  bear  the  coat  of  "  the  Royal 
Stuarts  "  with  an  augmentation  of  honour  ;  and  it 
is  they  who,  at  the  present  time,  grant  to  '  new ' 
families  such  close  imitations  of  the  arms  belong- 
ing "  to  other  families  bearing  the  same  or  similar 
names,  without  the  ghost  of  a  pretence  "  of  a  con- 
nection, that  the  public  is  deceived  into  the  belief 
that  such  a  connection  exists.  Let  the  pirating  of 
arms,  by  all  means,  be  denounced  as  strongly  as  it 
deserves  ;  but  let  it,  at  least,  be  denounced  by 
those  who  have  not  shown  the  way. 

1  Preface  to  Armorial  Families  (1899). 


146 


Ill 

The  Counts  of  Boulogne  as  English  Lords 

WHEN,  towards  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury, Eustace  "  aux  Grenons "  count  of  Boulogne 
married  c  Goda '  daughter  of  ^Ethelred  and  sister 
of  Edward  the  Confessor,  "  this  prince,  whom," 
Mr.  Freeman  writes,  "  English  history  sets 
before  us  only  in  the  darkest  colours,"  laid  the 
foundation  of  a  close  connection,  which  lasted 
more  than  a  century  and  a  half,  between  his  heirs 
and  the  English  realm.  That  he,  like  other 
Frenchmen,  enjoyed  king  Edward's  favour  is 
manifest  from  the  warmth  with  which  the  king 
supported  him  in  his  quarrel  with  the  men  of 
Dover.  But  whether  he  was  given  lands  in 
England  is,  to  say  the  least,  doubtful.  His  wife, 
indeed,  as  "  Goda  comitissa,"  is  entered  in  Domes- 
day, Mr.  Freeman  observed,  as  having  held  land 
in  Sussex,  Surrey,  Dorset,  Middlesex,  Bucks, 
Gloucestershire,  and  Notts  j1  and  it  is  his  conjecture 
that  "Eustace  succeeded  to  the  lands  of  his  wife" 

1  I  have  grave  doubts  whether  it  was  she  who  held  in  all  these 
counties,  as  I  think  there  has  been  confusion,  especially  in  Sussex, 
with  the  mother  of  Harold. 

147 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

at  her  death,  in  1056  or  earlier,  and  held  them  till 
he  was  forfeited  by  William  for  "  his  treason  in 
I067."1 

The  reader  is  invited  to  observe  the  difficulties 
which  surround,  at  the  very  outset,  such  inquiries  as 
that  upon  which  I  am  now  about  to  enter.  Though 
the  daughter  and  the  sister  of  an  English  king, 
and  the  mother  of  a  possible  successor,  in  Mr. 
Freeman's  view,  to  their  throne,  Coda's  matri- 
monial career  is  involved,  he  will  find,  in  doubt. 
Whose  widow  was  she  when  Count  Eustace 
married  her  ?  Who  was  the  father  of  her  son  ? 

We  have  to  make  our  choice  between  three 
versions.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Art  de  verifier  les 
dates  makes  her  marry  (i)  Drogo  count  of  the 
French  Vexin,  by  whom  she  had  several  children, 
(2)  Walter  count  of  Mantes,  (3)  Eustace  count 
of  Boulogne.  Our  ablest  writer  on  the  Domesday 
tenants,  Mr.  A.  S.  Ellis,  adopts  the  same  version, 
in  dealing  with  "  Harold  son  of  Earl  Ralf,"  Coda's 
grandson,  and  a  Gloucestershire  tenant-in-chief. 
"  Earl  Ralf,"  he  writes,  "  was  the  elder  son  of  the 
Countess  Coda  sister  of  king  Edward,  by  her  first 
husband,  Drogo  count  of  the  French  Vexin,  who 
died  ...  in  June,  1035  .  .  .  She 
married,  secondly,  Walter  II.,  count  of  Mantes, 
dead  1051,  and  thirdly  Eustace";2  and  no  less 
eminent  an  authority  on  these  subjects  than  Mr. 

1  See,  for  all  this,  the  Appendix  on  "  the  possessions  of  Count 
Eustace  "  in  The  History  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  vol.  IV. 

2  Bristol  and  Gloucestershire  Archaeological  Transactions,  vol.  IV. 
Mr.  Ellis  appends  a  chart  pedigree  based  on  this  version. 

148 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

Eyton  himself  adopted,  in  full  detail,  the  same 
version.1 

Second,  there  is  William  of  Malmesbury's  ver- 
sion : — 

Eustachius  erat  comes  Bononiae,  pater  Godefridi,  etc.  .  .  . 
habebatque  sororem  regis  Godam  legitimis  nuptiis  desponsatam, 
quae  ex  altero  viro  Waltero  Medantino^  filium  tulerat  Radulfum 
qui  eo  tempore  erat  comes  Herefordensis  (Gesta  Regum). 

This  misled  Mr.  Freeman  into  inadvertently 
terming  earl  Ralf  of  Hereford,  "  Ralf  the  Timid, 
the  son  of  Walter  and  Godgifu."  2 

The  third  version  is  that  of  Mr.  Freeman  him- 
self, who  elsewhere  ignores  Walter  of  Mantes  as 
a  husband  of  Goda  (c  Godgifu  ')  and  makes  Drogo 
her  only  husband,  before  Eustace,  and  the  father  of 
her  children.  This  is  the  right  version,  as  we 
learn  from  Orderic,  who  writes  (1063)  : — 

Walterius  Pontesiensium  comes,  filius  Drogonis  comitis,  qui 
cum  Rodberto  seniore  Normannorum  duce  in  Jerusalem  ierat  et  in 
illo  itinere  peregrinus  obierat.  Drogo,  ut  dicitur,  erat  de  prosapia 
Caroli  Magni  regis  Francorum,  eique  sepedictus  dux  Rodbertus  in 
conjugium  dederat  consobrinam  suam,  Godivam,  sororem  Edwardi 
regis  Anglorum,  ex  qua  orti  sunt  Radulfus  et  Gauterius  Comites 
et  venerandus  Fulco  praesul  Ambianensium. 

The  interest  of  determining  the  true  origin  of 
earl  Ralf  of  Hereford  consists  in  the  fact  that  his 
descendants  in  the  direct  male  line  continued  to  our 
own  time  in  the  ranks  of  the  peerage,  and,  indeed, 
still  exist.  The  splendour  of  such  a  pedigree  as 
this,  covering  a  thousand  years,  attracted  Mr. 

1  Key  to  Domesday  :  Dorset,  p.   79. 

2  Norman  Conquest,  vol.  II.  (2nd  Ed.),  p.  562. 

149 


PEERAGE  STUDIES 

Freeman's  special  interest,1  as  indeed  it  may  enlist 
our  own. 

We  have  now  seen  that  Eustace  aux  Grenons 
married  Goda  or  Godgifu,  sister  of  Edward  the 
Confessor,  and  widow  of  Drogo  count  of  the 
French  Vexin,  who  died  1035.  The  whole  con- 
fusion, I  expect,  has  arisen  from  William  of 
Malmesbury  speaking  of  Drogo  as  Walter^  which 
was  the  name  of  his  son  and  successor.  As  the 
French  Vexin  contained  Mantes  and  Pontoise,  its 
count  might  be  styled  from  those  towns,  as,  in 
England,  the  earl  of  Sussex  was  also  styled,  under 
Stephen,  earl  of  Chichester  or  of  Arundel.2  Thus 
was  evolved  Goda's  imaginary  husband,  "  Walter 
count  of  Mantes." 

The  next  point  that  we  have  to  determine  is  the 
devolution  of  Goda's  estates,  as  her  husband  Count 
Eustace  long  survived  her.  Mr.  Freeman,  holding 
that  she  probably  died  before  1056,  argued  that 
Eustace  seems  to  have  "  succeeded  to  the  lands  of 
his  wife,  that  they  were  confiscated  by  William 
after  his  treason  in  1067,  and  that  the  estates  which 
Eustace  afterwards  held  were  later  grants  after 
his  reconciliation." 3  But  Goda,  who  had  no 
children  by  Eustace,  had  left,  we  have  seen,  a  son 
and  grandson  as  her  rightful  heirs  ;  and  there  is 
nothing  to  show,  or  even  to  suggest,  that  Count 
Eustace  obtained  her  lands.  Mr.  Freeman,  how- 

1  See  his  article  on  "  Pedigrees  and  Pedigree-makers,"  in  Con- 
temporary Review ,  XXX.  24. 

2  See  my  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  p.  320. 

3  'Norman  Conquest,  IV.  746. 

150 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

ever,  urged  that  the  above  view  was  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that 

three  lordships  in  Dorset  (85)  were  held  at  the  time  of  the 
Survey  by  Ida  the  second  wife  of  Eustace,  which  she  is  also  said 
to  have  held  T.R.E.  This  looks  as  if  Eadward  had  made 
grants  to  the  second  wife  of  his  friend,  which  were  not  confiscated 
by  William  along  with  the  lands  of  her  husband.1 

Domesday,  unfortunately,  records  most  explicitly 
(85)  of  these  three  lordships,  that  "  Hasc  tria  man- 
eria  tenuit  U/veva  T.R.E.,"  so  that  the  statement, 
with  the  argument  based  on  it,  falls  at  once  to  the 
ground.  Oddly  enough,  on  the  opposite  page,  Mr. 
Freeman  wrote  of  "  Wulfgifu,  who  was  also  Ida's 
predecessor  in  some  (sic)  of  her  Dorset  lands "  (p. 
747).  He  had  simply  read  his  Domesday,  as  in 
some  other  cases,  hurriedly  and  without  care. 

The  last  point  that  we  have  to  deal  with  is  the 
identity  of  the  Count  Eustace  with  whom  we  meet 
in  Domesday.  Here  Mr.  Freeman  was  misled, 
not  unnaturally,  by  the  usually  accurate  Ellis.  We 
find  him  writing  (pp.  745-6) : — 

Sir  Henry  Ellis  (I.  385,  416)  quotes  a  charter  in  which  his 
second  wife  Ida  is  described  as  'venerabilis  Ida  tune  vidua'  as 
early  as  1082. 

Ellis  refers  us  to  Gallia  Christiana  (X.  1594), 
where,  however,  we  only  read  that,  according  to 
the  editors — 

Quippe,  post  annum  1082,  adveniens  illuc  venerabilis  Ida  tune 
vidua,  piissimi  Gerardi  Taruannensis  episcopi  assensu  consilioque 
roborata,  etc.  etc. 

It  seems   clear  to   me    that  the  editors  got   their 

1  Ibid. 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

date  "after  1082  "  from  the  name  of  the  bishop, 
for  they  say  (X.  1 541)  that  he  was  appointed  "  anno 
1083  aut  saltern  1084."  His  assent,  therefore, 
must  have  been  given  "after"  1082.  The  bishop's 
name  gives  us  the  limit  1083-4 — 1096  for  Ida's 
appearance  as  a  widow,  which  is  quite  compatible 
with  her  husband  living,  as  stated  in  the  Art  de 
verifier  les  dates ',  till  1093,  and,  at  any  rate,  with 
his  being  the  Domesday  count  of  1086.  Mr. 
Freeman,  however,  held,  on  the  above  mistaken 
ground,  that 

The  count  Eustace  of  Domesday  is  not  Eustace  the  Second  or 
Boulogne,  who  plays  so  important  a  part  in  our  history,  but  his 
son  Eustace  the  Third  (IV.  745). 

"  Sainte  Ide,"  as  the  French  call  her,  brought  to 
her  husband  Bouillon,  from  which  her  famous  son 
Godfrey,  the  crusader  king,  was  named.  Through 
her  the  counts  of  Boulogne  traced  their  descent 
from  "  the  Knight  of  the  Swan,"  and  the  town  of 
Boulogne,  from  the  same  source,  bears  to-day 
the  swan  for  its  cognisance.  At  Feversham 
Abbey,  founded  by  Stephen  and  his  wife,  the 
heiress  of  Boulogne,  the  legendary  tale  was  on 
record.1 

The  more  prosaic  record  of  Domesday  shows  us 
Ida  as  holding  five  manors  in  England.  All  five 
found  their  way  into  the  hands  of  religious  houses. 

1  See  the  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer ,  pp.  753-4,  where  the 
Feversham  book  is  quoted.  The  swan-drawn  knight  appears  be- 
neath the  walls  of  Bouillon,  rescues  its  beleaguered  heiress,  marries 
her,  and  becomes  the  father  of  Ida.  Ida  in  turn  marries  "  magnus 
comes  Boloniae  Eustacius  [as  Gernuns]." 

152 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

Nutfield  ("  Notfelle  "),  Surrey,  was  bestowed  on 
the  canons  of  St.  Wulmer  de  Boulogne  ;  Kings- 
weston  ("  Chinwardestone"),  Somerset,  on  Ber- 
mondsey  Priory  ;  and  the  three  Dorset  manors  on 
another  Cluniac  priory,  that  of  Le  Wast  in  the 
Boulonnais.  These  three  last  manors,  Winter- 
bourne  Monkton,  Bockhampton  in  Stinsford,  and 
Eightholes  in  Swanage,  became  one  as  Winter- 
bourne- Wast,  the  Priory  from  which  they  took  the 
name  retaining  them  far  on  into  the  fourteenth 
century.  The  record  of  a  case  in  Trinity  term 
1227  shows  us  the  prior  of  Le  Wast  producing  in 
court  the  charter  of  "  Count  Eustace  "  by  which 
he  "  gave  "  the  Priory  this  manor,  together  with 
the  Kentish  churches  of  Westerham  and  Boughton 
Alulf.1  So  the  actual  gift  seems  to  have  been  made, 
not  by  "  Saint  Ide,"  but  by  her  son.  The  monks 
of  Le  Wast  were  excused  Danegeld  on  1 1  hides, 
in  Wiltshire,  in  1 1 30 ; 2  but  the  i  ii  hides  of  the 
Dorset  manor  seem  to  be  assigned  to  Stephen, 
whose  wife  was  Ida's  heir.3  The  interesting 
incident  in  the  history  of  the  manor  was  its 
seizure  by  John,  in  grim  irony,  as  a  reward  for 
Eustache  le  Moine,  who  fought  for  him  against 
Boulogne.4 

Turning  now  to  Ida's  husband,  Eustace  ("  aux 
Grenons")  count  of  Boulogne,  I  have  elsewhere 
shown  that  he  first  appears,  after  William's  victory, 
in  a  very  unexpected  quarter.  As  "  Eustace  eorl " 

1  Bractorfs  Note  Book  (Ed.  Maitland),  II.  216. 

2  "  Monachis  de   Sancto  Michaele  de  Wasto "  (Pipe  Roll  or 
1130,  p.  22).          3  Ibid.  p.  1 6.          4  Testa  de  Nevill,  p.  164. 

153 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

he  is  addressed,  with  bishops  Herman  and  Wulfstan, 
in  an  English  writ  of  William,  which  I  assign  to 
the  beginning  of  1067. 1  The  document  implies 
that  he  already  held  an  official,  or  at  least  a  high, 
position  in  the  counties  of  Wiltshire  and  Glouces- 
tershire. But  it  was  not  in  this  region  that  he 
received  his  great  possessions.  Mr.  Freeman  held 
that  "the  Domesday  holdings  of  Eustace  were  grants 
later  than  his  reconciliation  with  William  "  after 
his  condemnation  and  forfeiture  "  by  the  Gemot  " 
at  the  close  of  1067. 2  It  must  be  remembered, 
however,  that,  on  his  own  hypothesis,  the  Domes- 
day holder  was  not  this  Count  Eustace,  but  his  son. 
In  one  of  those  fine  passages  in  which  we  see  him 
at  his  best,  he  wrote  of  Eustace  : — 

He  himself  was  dead  at  the  time  of  the  Survey,  but  his  widow 
and  son  appear  there  as  holders  of  lordships,  both  in  various  other 
shires  in  those  western  lands  which  on  the  day  of  his  sentence 
were  still  unconquered.  The  names  of  Ida  and  Eustace,  the 
widow  and  the  son  of  the  coward  of  Boulogne,  the  mother  and 
the  brother  of  the  hero  of  Jerusalem,  are  found  as  owners  of 
English  soil  on  spots  which  would  have  a  strange  propriety  if  we 
could  deem  that  they  were  ever  honoured  with  the  sojourn  of  the 
mightiest  of  the  foes  of  Paynimrie.  One  of  the  western  posses- 
sions of  the  house  of  Boulogne  lies  nestling  at  the  foot  of  the 
north-western  crest  of  Mendip,  where  the  power  of  evil  of  the  old 
Teutonic  creed  has  left  his  name  in  Count  Eustace's  lordship  of 
Loxton.  Another,  Kenwardston,  the  dowry  of  the  widowed 
Countess,  crowns  the  wooded  height  which  looks  full  on  that  in- 
land mount  of  the  Archangel  which  shelters  the  earliest  home  of 
Christianity  in  Britain.3 

1  Feudal  England,  pp.  422-425. 

2  For  his  raid,  in  William's  absence,  on  Dover,  from  Boulogne, 
earlier  in  that  year. 

3  Norman  Conquest,  vol.  IV.     I  must  not  be  understood  as  com- 

154 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

It  is  in  these  descriptive  passages  that  Mr.  Free- 
man's pen  excelled. 

The  six  or  seven  Somerset  manors  held  by  the 
counts  of  Boulogne  were  an  outlying  portion  of  their 
fief.  With  the  exception  of  a  manor  apiece  in 
Oxfordshire  and  Hants,  the  rest  of  their  estates 
were  in  the  east  of  England,  and  the  bulk  of  them 
lay  in  Essex.  These  estates  were  partly  those  of  a 
number  of  English  c  predecessors,'  and  partly  repre- 
sented the  lands  acquired  by  Ingelric  the  priest. 
This  man,  it  would  seem,  was  one  of  those  useful 
officials  who  enjoyed  the  favour  of  William  as  well 
as  the  favour  of  Edward.1  He  was  dean  of  St. 
Martin's-le-Grand,  a  house  of  secular  canons,  and 
this  connection  led  to  trouble  between  Count 
Eustace,  as  his  successor,  and  its  canons.  His 
lands  were  not  confined  to  Essex,  but  extended  into 
Hertfordshire  and  Suffolk.  Count  Eustace  secured 
them  all,  including  those  which  Ingelric,  in  the 
Domesday  Survey,  is  charged  with  seizing  wrong- 
fully under  William  ;  and  he  also  obtained  lands 
in  Kent,  Surrey,  Bedfordshire,  Cambridgeshire, 
Huntingdonshire  and  Norfolk.  Thus  was  formed 
the  great  fief  which,  for  some  centuries 


mitting  myself  to  the  view  that  the  <  Lochestone '  (Loxton)  of 
Domesday  derives  its  name  from  Lok,  "  the  power  of  evil  "  ;  or 
that  the  countess  was  widowed  at  the  time  and  held  Kenwardston 
in  dower ;  or  that  Glastonbury  was  "  the  earliest  home  of  Chris- 
tianity in  Britain." 

1  See  my  paper  on  "  Ingelric  the  priest "  in  the  Commune  of 
London  and  other  studies  (pp.  28—36)  ;  also  English  Historical  Re- 
view, XL  740,  and  History  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  vol.  IV. 

155 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

after,  was  known  as  c  the  Honour  of  Boulogne.' 1 
On  this  fief  Domesday  shows  us  three  interesting 
tenants.  Four  of  its  Somerset  manors  were  held 
by  Alvred  de  '  Merleberg  '  (Maryborough),  lord  of 
the  castled  mound  at  Ewias  on  the  Welsh  border. 
It  would  seem  to  have  escaped  notice  that  Alvred, 
an  important  tenant-in-chief  in  1086,  was  already 
established  in  England  under  Edward  the  Confes- 
sor,2 as  was  his  uncle  Osbern 3 — probably  Osbern 
'  Pentecost.' 4  His  successor  was  that  Harold  from 
whom  Ewias  takes  its  name,  Harold  the  son  of 
Earl  Ralf,  and  the  grandson  of  Goda,  countess  of 
Boulogne.5  And  this  is  why  '  Harold  of  Ewias '  is 
found  among  the  knights  of  count  Eustace  under 
Henry  I.,  and  why  his  heir,  Robert  de  Tregoz  was 
a  tenant  of  the  '  Honour '  under  John.  In  Bed- 
fordshire and  Cambridgeshire,  Ernulf  de  Ardres,  a 
follower  from  the  count's  own  country,  was  en- 
feoffed  by  him  in  six  estates.6  In  Essex,  no  fewer 
than  eleven  estates  were  obtained  by  another  of  his 
followers,  "  Adelolf  de  Merc."  Deeper  than  the 
counts  themselves  or  than  any  other  of  their 


1  The  memory  of  its  double  origin  was  preserved  in  its  posses- 
sion of  two  feudal  courts,  one  of  which,  it  is  interesting  to  note, 
was  that  of  St.  Martin's-le-Grand.     (See  Morant's  Essex,  I.  309, 
where  an  Inq.  p.m.  of  1333  is  quoted.)     The  monthly  court  of 
the  Honour  was  held  at  Witham. 

2  See  Domesday,  fo.  175,  where  he  is  entered  as  having  then 
held    an     important    Worcestershire    manor    under   St.    Mary's, 
Worcester.  3  Ibid.  fo.  186. 

4  See  my  Feudal  England,  pp.  322-4.  6  See  above,  p.  148. 

6  See  my  paper  on  "  The  Lords  of  Ardres  "  in  Feudal  England, 
(pp.  462-464). 

156 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

vassals,  have  Adelolf  and  his  heirs  stamped  their 
name  on  the  East-Saxon  land.  This  younger 
branch  of  the  vicomtes  of  Marck,  near  Calais,  which 
was  at  that  time  in  the  Boulonnais,  is  commemo- 
rated in  the  parish  of  Marks  Tey,  as  in  the 
manor  of  Merks  or  Marks  in  Dunmow,  which 
was  held  by  Adelolf  himself  in  1086,  by  his  heir 
Enguerrand  de  Merc  in  1258,  and  by  the 
same  family  in  1340.  Mark  Hall,  in  Latton, 
is  another  of  the  manors  which  takes  its  name 
from  this  family,  and  was  held  by  Adelolf,  its 
founder,  in  1086.  His  descendants  increased  and 
multiplied  in  the  land  :  Fulc  de  Merc  and  M.  de 
Merc  attended  the  count's  feudal  court,  in  Essex, 
before  1 120  ;  *  Geoffrey  and  Enguerrand  de  Merc 
of  Essex  are  found  on  the  Pipe  Roll  of  1130  (p. 
57)  ;  Henry  and  Simon  de  Merc  are  recorded  as 
holding  lands  on  the  Boulogne  fief  in  the  days  of 
John.2  As  we  have  mention  of  a  Eustace  de 
"  Oeys,"  son  of  Henry  de  "  Merc,"  in  connection 
with  the  manor  of  East  Donyland,  on  the 
Boulogne  fief,  and  as  Oye  adjoined  Marck  in  the 
Calaisis,  and  was  connected  with  it,  we  have  here 
further  evidence  of  the  true  origin  of  the  names. 
Among  the  witnesses  to  this  last  document  (which 
must  belong,  from  the  names  of  the  leading  ones, 
to  1 190—1 193)  are  John  and  William  de  Merc.3 
Although  the  enfeoffment  of  Boughton,  Kent, 

1  See  below. 

2  Testa  de  Nevill.     This  family  is  also  found   in  Northants  in 
the  i 2th  century. 

3  Colchester  Cartulary  (Roxburghe  Club),  p.vs6. 

157 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

was  effected  by  the  counts  later  than  Domesday, 
we  may  note  that  its  name  of  Boughton  '  Alulf/ 
derived  from  one  of  its  holders,  preserves  a 
Christian  name  then  common  in  the  Boulonnais.1 
Keeping,  however,  for  the  moment  to  Domesday, 
we  find  Count  Eustace  holding  the  great  manor  of 
Tring  in  Hertfordshire,  which  paid  him  £22  a 
year  of. assayed  money,  "ad  pensum  ejusdem 
comitis."2  From  this  we  learn  that  the  count  had 
introduced  a  standard  of  his  own  into  England  for 
weighing  the  money  due  to  him. 

Among  the  tenures  created  on  the  fief  later  than 
1086,  it  is  interesting  to  find  two  c  serjeanties,'  one 
of  them,  at  Boughton  Alulf,  being  that  of  acting  as 
'  veauttor,' c  veltrarius,'  or  '  falconarius '  to  the  count, 
and  the  other  that  of  serving  as  his  cook.3  It  might 
hardly  be  supposed  that,  in  the  i2th  and  I3th 
centuries,  the  connection  with  the  Boulonnais  was 
so  close  that  its  seigneurs  could  still  be  holding  lands 
in  the  east  of  England.  Yet  this  was  actually 
the  case.  The  hamlet  of  Austruy,  in  the  Bou- 
lonnais, gave  name  to  one  of  its  pairies,  the  here- 
ditary constableship  of  the  comte.  In  England,  the 
lord  of  Austruy  was  enfeoffed  in  five  knight's  fees, 
partly  at  Shopland  and  Chich  (St.  Osyth)  in  Essex, 
and  partly  at  Cowley  near  Oxford.4  When,  in  the 

1  Willelmus  de    Bouton  cum  Elya  herede   Alulfi  de    Bouton 
.     .     et  est  de  honore  Bolonie  (Testa,  p.  216). 

2  Domesday,  fo.  137. 

3  Testa  de  Nevi/t,  pp.  216,  217. 

4  "  Baldewinus  de  Osterwic  [i.e.  Austruy]  v.  milites,  scilicet,  in 
Schopiland  ii.  mil.  et  dim.  et  in  Chicche,  quam  abbas  tenet,    et 

158 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

reign  of  Henry  I.,  the  great  Augustinian  Priory  ot 
St.  Osyth  had  been  founded  at  Chich,  we  read  that, 
under  Stephen,  there  was  bestowed  "  ex  dono  Bal- 
dewini  constabularii  et  ex  confirmatione  comitis 
Stephani  et  Matildis  uxoris  suas  et  Willelmi  comitis 
[Bolonise]  et  heredis  eorum  tenementum  de  Chiche 
quod  est  de  feodo  Boloniae."  It  was  thus  the  con- 
stable of  Boulogne  himself,  and  not  a  cadet  of  his 
house,  who  held  these  lands  in  England.  A  later 
constable  of  the  same  name  was  among  the 
prisoners  captured  by  John,  during  the  struggle 
with  the  barons,  in  Rochester  Castle  (30  Nov. 
1215)  and  had  to  pay  £120  for  his  ransom  ; 1  but 
after  the  war  we  find  Shopland  recovered  by  him 
as  Baldwin  d'Austruy,  he  being  styled  its  rightful 
heir.2 

Another  baronial  family  of  the  Boulonnais,  that 
of  Doudeauville,  held  estates  in  Huntingdonshire 
by  the  service  of  five  knights  to  the  Count, 
while  a  family  which  took  its  name  from  Wissant 
("  Whitsand  ")  held  lands  of  the  count  at  Parndon, 
Essex,  by  knight-service.3 

But  the  greatest  of  the  barons  of  the  Boulonnais, 

in  Covel,  quam  Templarii  tenent  secus  Oxoniam  ii.  milites  et 
dim."  (Testa  de  Nevit/,  p.  274).  The  entry  is  omitted  in  the 
parallel  list  on  p.  273,  and  confused  with  a  wholly  different  one 
in  the  Liber  Rubeus  (p.  576). 

1  Calendar  of  Patent  Rolls,  2  and  19  May  1216. 

2  "  Schopelaund     .     .     .     post  guerram  recuperavit  Baldewy- 
nus  de  Ostrewic     .     .     .     sicut  rectus  heres  et  tenet 
per  servicium  duorum  militum  "  (Testa  de  Nevill,  p.  268). 

3  Testa  de  Nevill,  as  above.     Wissant   was  the  predecessor  or 
Calais  as  the  landing  place  from  England  in  the  Middle  Ages. 

159 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

in  the  twelfth  century,  in  England  was  Feramus 
or  Pharamus  seigneur  of  Tingry,  whom  I  have 
made  the  subject  of  a  monograph.1  Known  in 
England  as  Faramus  "  of  Boulogne/'  he  was  the 
son  of  a  William  "  of  Boulogne,"  who  held  land 
in  Surrey  and  Northamptonshire  under  Henry  I., 
and  a  grandson  of  Geoffrey  son  —  presumably 
natural  son — of  Count  Eustace  II.  Maternally, 
Faramus  was  a  grandson  of  a  Domesday  tenant- 
in-chief,  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  ancestor  of  the 
earls  of  Essex.  A  charter  of  his  in  the  British 
Museum,2  recording  an  agreement  between  him 
and  a  great  citizen  of  London,  has  among  its 
witnesses  several  Boulonnais,  three  of  whom  took 
their  names  from  Hesdigneul,  one  from  Quest- 
reques,  and  another  from  Liembronne.  Their 
names  show  that  Faramus  was  already  in  posses- 
sion of  the  Tingry  fief  at  a  date  not  much  later 
than  1130.  He  was  prominent  under  Stephen  in 
England  as  a  supporter  of  the  king  and  queen,  but 
Henry  II.,  after  his  accession,  gave  him  lands,  in 
Buckinghamshire,  at  Wendover  and  Eton.  It  is 
just  possible  that  these  were  given  as  compensation 
for  the  constableship  of  Dover  Castle,  which  may 
have  been  entrusted  to  him  by  Stephen.  He  was 
also  a  witness,  about  this  time,  to  three  charters 
of  Count  William  of  Boulogne,  Stephen's  sur- 
viving son,  and  the  count  bestowed  on  him  the 
manor  of  Martock,  in  the  county  of  Somerset, 
which  then  belonged  to  the  honour  of  Boulogne. 

1  Genealogist  [N.S.],  XII.  145-151. 

2  Add.  Cart.,  28,  345. 

160 


THE   COUNTS   OF   BOULOGNE 

He  was  thus  a  holder  of  land  in  three  English 
counties.  But,  in  addition  to  this,  he  held  lands  of 
the  Honour  of  Boulogne  in  three  other  counties, 
Essex,  Hertfordshire,  and  Cambridgeshire,  for  which 
he  owed  the  count  the  service  of  six  knights. 

All  these  lands  descended,  with  Sibyl,  his  daughter 
and  heiress,  to  his  son-in-law  Enguerrand  de  Fiennes, 
another  baron  of  the  Boulonnais,  who  was  killed 
at  (St.  Jean  d')  Acre  in  1189.  Thus  the  chdtelains 
of  Fiennes  inherited  valuable  estates  in  England 
together  with  his  fief  at  Tingry. 

I  have,  however,  denied  in  my  last  book1  that 
they  were,  as  has  been  always  supposed,  constables 
of  Dover  Castle  from  the  time  of  the  Norman 
Conquest.  The  Constable's  Tower  preserves  their 
name,  but  the  legend  seems  to  be  of  late  growth. 
It  is  the  sort  of  tale  that  one  would  naturally 
assign  to  some  Elizabethan  herald.  The  family, 
I  may  add,  were  not  forgetful  of  their  I2th 
century  ancestor,  as  we  are  reminded  by  the 
wondrous  name  of  the  Rev.  Pharamus  Fiennes, 
who  lived  in  the  days  of  Charles  the  Second. 

From  the  families  of  the  Boulonnais  I  turn  to 
those  of  its  religious  houses  which  were  then  con- 
nected with  England.  Of  these  there  were  more 
than  has  been  known.  As  we  have  seen,  St.  Wul- 
mer  de  Boulogne  obtained  from  c  Sainte  Ide '  Nut- 
field  in  Surrey,  while  the  priory  of  Le  Wast 
secured  her  three  Dorset  manors  as  one  estate, 

1   The  Commune  of  London  and  other  studies  (Constable  &  Co.), 
pp.  279-282. 

l6l  M 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

which  became  known  thence  as  Winterbourne 
"  Wast/'  It  was  not  till  300  years  after  the 
Conquest  (1370)  that  the  prior  of  Le  Wast 
finally  parted  with  this  estate,  to  which  a  Count 
Eustace  had  added  the  churches  of  Westerham 
and  Boughton  Alulf  in  Kent.1  To  the  priory  of 
Rumilly-le-Comte  Eustace  III.i  had  given,  in  his 
last  illness,  £10  a  year  from  his  English  manor  of 
Fobbing  (Essex),  while  it  held  at  least  one  church 
on  the  count's  English  fief,  that  of  Coggeshall, 
before  Stephen  there  founded  an  abbey  for  monks 
of  Savigny.  From  Fobbing  also  £20  a  year  was 
paid  "  to  the  monks  of  St.  Wulmer,"  2  that  is  St. 
Wulmer  de  Samer,  to  which  abbey  also  Stephen, 
when  count  of  Boulogne,  gave  the  church  at  Fob- 
bing as  well.  The  same  house  possessed  tithes  at 
Rivenhall,  Essex,  a  Boulogne  manor.  The  abbey 
of  St.  Josse  was  given  by  Count  Matthew  (Stephen's 
son-in-law)  £10  a  year  from  Norton;  the  abbey 
of  La  Capelle  is  said  to  have  held  English  churches 
named  in  a  bull  of  Pope  Pascal  (28  Oct.  nio), 
and  the  abbey  of  Licques  received  a  small  endow- 
ment at  Caenby,  Lincolnshire.  Of  other  houses, 
the  '  Maladrerie  '  de  Boulogne  received  from  Count 
Eustace  £20  a  year  payable  from  his  manor  of 
Boughton  Alulf  in  Kent,  and  this  gift  was  con- 
firmed by  Stephen  as  count  of  Boulogne  before  he 
became  king  of  England.  The  hospital  of  Wis- 
sant  received  before  1 156  £5  a  year  payable  from 

1  See  p.  153  above. 

*  '  Monachis  de  Sancto  Wlmero '  (Liber  Rubeus  de  Scaccario\ 
p.  501. 

162 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

crown  lands  in  Buckinghamshire  and  Bedfordshire, 
and,  shortly  afterwards,  Henry  II.,  when  visiting 
St.  Omer,  bestowed  an  endowment  on  the  hospital 
of  Santingefeld.1 

Apart  from  endowments,  there  was  a  close  con- 
nection through  two  religious  houses,  the  abbey 
of  Licques,  which  through  its  daughter-house  at 
Newhouse,  Lincolnshire,  became  the  mother-house 
of  the  Order  of  Premontre  in  England,  and  the 
abbey  of  Arrouaise.  Both  in  England  and  in  the 
Boulonnais,  there  were  several  houses  of  Augus- 
tinian  canons  owing  allegiance  to  Arrouaise  and 
bound  to  attend  its  chapter.2 

Let  me  now  speak  of  the  fief  held  by  the  Counts 
in  England.  This  was  augmented  under  Henry  I., 
for  he  and  Count  Eustace  the  younger  had  both 
married  daughters  of  king  Malcolm  of  Scotland, 
and  they  were  on  friendly  terms.  The  Queen's 
sister,  the  countess  of  Boulogne,  who  died  1 8  April 
1118,  was  buried  at  Bermondsey  Priory,  a  house 
belonging  to  that  Order  of  Cluni,  which  was  always 
in  high  favour  with  the  house  of  Boulogne.3 

It  has,  so  far  as  I  know,  been  hitherto  unsus- 
pected that,  on  the  death  of  Eudo  Dapifer  (the  son 
of  Hubert  of  Rye),  early  in  1120,  some  of  his 
estates  were  given  by  the  Crown  to  Count  Eustace 


1  On  these  somewhat  confused  grants,  see  much  information 
in  Cobbe's  Luton  Church  (1899),  a  work  of  great  erudition. 

2  For   much  local  information    on   the  families   and  religious 
houses  of  the  Boulonnais,  I  have  to  thank  my  friend,  M.  V.-J. 
Vaillant  of  Boulogne,  Officier  d' Academic. 

3  See  MonasticoHy  V.  94,  for  her  epitaph. 

163 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

of  Boulogne.  This  is  proved  by  the  Colchester 
Cartulary.1  The  count's  statement  is  confirmed 
by  the  return  of  the  tenants  of  the  Honour  of 
Boulogne  in  the  time  of  king  John,  in  which  all 
these  manors  are  named  as  held  of  the  Honour. 

The    list  of  witnesses    to  his  charter    deserves, 
from  its  interest,  to  be  quoted  : — 

Testpbus]  ejusdem  Comitis  Eustachii  filiis  Radfulfo]  scilicet 
et  Eustachio,  Baldwino  constabulario,2  Heroldo  de  Ewias,  Roberto 
filio  ejus,  Rogero  de  Sumeri,3  Baldwino  filio  Widonis,4  Eustachio 
de  Merc,5  Willelmo  de  Curtone,6  Eustachio  de  Pauc'be,  Baldwino 
de  Wizant,7  Ernulfo  de  QQuecultrQ,8  Willelmo  camerario, 
Huberto.9 

Ralf   and   Eustace,   c  sons '   of  the    Count,   are,    I 

1  In  the  possession  of  Earl  Cowper  (now  privately  printed  for 
the    Roxburghe    Club),    which    contains    (p.    47)    a   charter   of 
"  Eustachius  Dei  gratia  Bolonie  comes,"  confirming  to  St.  John's 
Abbey,  Colchester,  the  gift  of  Eudo   "de  decimis  maneriorum 
suorum  que  mihi  rex  donavit "  (fo.  1 9).     The  six  manors  named 
are  :— <  Lillechurch  '  (Kent),  <  Gamelegeia '  (Cambs.),  <  Neuselle ' 
(Herts),    'Roinges'    (Essex),    'Widham'    (Essex),    'Ereswelle' 
(Suffolk). 

2  This  would  be  Baldwin  d'Austruy  (the  fief  of  the  constables 
of  the  counts)  represented  under  John  by  Baldwin  "  de  Osterwic  " 
(Austruy). 

8  "  Rogerus  de  Sumeri  "  was  the  Domesday  tenant  of  Elmdon. 

4  Wido  held  of  the  count  at  Finchingfield  and  Little  Chishall 
in  Domesday. 

5  Adelolfus  de  Merc  was  one  of  the  count's  largest  Domesday 
tenants  (see  above,  p.  157,  and  Feudal  England,  pp.  463-4). 

6  '  Ogerus  de    Curtun '   is  found  holding  of  the  Honour  in 
Tend  ring,  Fifield,  and  Donyland  temp.  John. 

7  Represented  under  John  by  William  de  Witsand,  who  held 
a  fee  at  Parndon  of  the  Honour  (see  p.  159). 

8  This  name  is  read,  in  the  printed  text,  "  Grauecultura." 

9  Probably  the    Huberto  'armigero'    or    'scutario'    of  other 
charters. 

164 


-. 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

believe,  unknown.  One  can  only  suppose  that, 
like  that  Geoffrey  "  filius  comitis  Eustachii  "  who 
figures  in  Domesday  Book,1  they  were  not  of 
legitimate  birth.  The  second  may  well  have  been, 
it  seems  to  me,  the  father  of  that  "  Eustacius  filius 
Eustacii  filii  comitis"  who  is  charged  10  marcs 
for  his  relief,  under  Essex  and  Herts,  on  the  Pipe 
Roll  of  ii  Henry  II.  (1165).  By  far  the  most 
interesting  of  the  other  witnesses  are  Harold  of 
Ewias  and  Robert  his  son,  whose  appearance 
among  the  count's  tenants  is  accounted  for  above 
(p.  156).  The  return  temp.  John  shows  us  Robert 
de  Tregoz,  who  married  the  heiress  of  their  house, 
holding  of  the  Honour  by  knight  service.2 

Of  the  six  manors  named  in  the  charter,  Lille- 
church  is  specially  to  be  noted,  because  its  true 
descent  is  proved  by  this  evidence,  and  the 
positive  statement  of  Hasted  shown  to  be  with- 
out foundation.  As  "  Hecham "  (Higham  in 

1  See  my  "  Faramus  of  Boulogne  "  in  the  Genealogist  (as  on 
p.  1 60  above). 

2  For  our  knowledge  of  the  "  Honour  of  Boulogne,"  and  of 
the  manors  of  which  it  was  composed,  we  are  largely  indebted  to 
this  return,  which  is  found  in  two  versions,  both  of  them  corrupt, 
in  Testa  de  Nevill,  pp.  273-275  (compare  p.  265   for  the  record 
of  its  scutage).     The  first  of  these  is  also  found  in  the  Red  Book  of 
the  Exchequer,  pp.  575-583,  and  the  other  in  the  Black  Book  of  the 
Exchequer  (Ed.   Hearne).     It  seems  probable  that  both  versions 
are  derived  from  a  common  original  return,  and  in  any  case  (as 
I  have  shown  in  my  Studies  on  the  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer)  the 
editor  of  the  Red  Book  is  mistaken   in  asserting  (p.  575)  that 
the  Black   Book  version  represents  a   return  of  "earlier  date," 
and  is  also  mistaken  in  speaking  of  it  as  "  hitherto  unknown,"  for 
it  was  duly  printed  by  Hearne  in  his  well-known  edition  of  the 
Black  Book. 

165 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Kent)  this  manor  had  been  held  in  Domesday 
by  "  Adam "  of  the  bishop  of  Bayeux.  On  the 
bishop's  forfeiture  his  tenants  had  become  tenants- 
in-chief,  and  "  Adam "  (the  son  of  Hubert)  thus 
obtaining  the  manor,  was  succeeded,  clearly,  by  his 
brother  Eudo  "  Dapifer."  Eudo  gave  some  tithes 
there  (as  at  "  Lillecherch  ")  to  his  abbey  at  Col- 
chester, which  must  also  have  obtained  the  church,1 
for  we  find  the  convent  granting  it  to  the  nuns  of 
Lillechurch,  at  the  request  of  Stephen  and  Matilda, 
and  receiving,  in  compensation,  from  the  queen, 
land  at  East  Donyland  belonging  to  her  Honour 
of  Boulogne.  Meanwhile,  they  had  need,  for  the 
abbey  they  founded  at  Faversham,  of  the  manor  of 
Faversham,  which  had  been  granted  by  them  to 
William  of  Ypres.  He,  therefore,  gave  it  back  to 
them,  receiving  in  exchange  the  manor  of  Lille- 
church  (Higham).2  This  is  destructive  of  Hasted's 
assertion  that  the  manor  had  reverted  to  the  Crown 
on  the  death  of  Bishop  Odo,  and  had  thus  come  to 
Stephen  as  royal  demesne. 

The  Colchester  Cartulary  also  contains  the  con- 
firmation of  the  Count's  charter  by  Stephen,  his 
son-in-law  and  successor. 

Stephanus  comes  de  Moret'     .     .     .     Sciatis  quod  ego  et  mea 


1  Morant,  in  his  account  of  the  Abbey,  took  it  by  mistake  for 
the  church  of  Higham,  Suffolk. 

2  "  Dedimus  ego  et  Mathildis  regina  mea  Willelmo  de  Ipra  in 
excambium   pro    manerio  de  Favresham  Lillechirch   cum  perti- 
nentiis  suis  de   haereditate  reginae "   (Mon.  Ang.^  IV.    573).     It 
was  of  her  inheritance  because  Count  Eustace,  her  father,  had 
acquired  it  as  above. 

166 


THE   COUNTS   OF   BOULOGNE 

conjux  Matildis  concessimus  monachis  *  .  .  .  sicut  illi 
monachi  umquam  tenuerint  plenius  et  liberius  de  Eudone  dapifero 
et  de  comite  Eustachio,  ita  ego  et  uxor  mea  Matildis  con- 
cedimus,  etc.  .  .  . 

Testes  isti  concessionis  fuerunt  Robertas  de  Salkavilla,  Galfridus- 
camararius,  Willelmus  camararius,  Warnerius  frater  ejus,  Willel- 
mus  filius  Hervei,  Hubertus  scutarius,  Walterus  Mascherel,2 
Wlfgarus  de  Cokeshale,3  Eurardus  de  Colcestra,  Galfridus  nepos 
abbatis,  Gilebertus  et  Osbertus  frater  ejus,  Osbernus  palmarius. 

When  the  whole  fief  was  complete,  the  counts 
received  from  that  portion  of  it  which  they  had 
granted  out  to  tenants  the  service  of  more  than 
120  knights.4  It  became  known  afterwards  as 
"  the  Honour  of  Boulogne,"  which  was  specially 
named  in  Magna  Carta,  and  still  existed  in  name 
at  the  beginning  of  the  1 6th  century. 

The  existence  of  this  great  fief,  as  an  appendage 
of  the  comte  of  Boulogne,  leads  us  to  consider  a 
point  which  seems  to  have  been  overlooked  hitherto 
by  all  historians.  At  the  death  of  Henry  I.  his 
nephew  Stephen  was  not  only  count  of  Boulogne, 
in  right  of  his  wife,  and  in  Normandy  count  of 
Mortain  (a  very  important  comte] ,  by  grant  from 
his  uncle,  but  was  also,  perhaps,  the  greatest  land- 
owner in  England  itself.  For  he  there  possessed 
at  least  : — 

(i)   The  whole  Boulogne  fief. 

(a)   The  forfeited  fief  of  Robert  Malet  ("  the 

1  The  church  of  <  Lillecherch '  is  included  in  this  grant. 

2  Founder  of  the  Benedictine  nunnery  at  Wix,  Essex. 

3  Coggeshall,  Essex. 

4  Testa  de  Nevill,  p.  275.     But  perhaps  the  right  total  should 
be  rather  smaller. 

167 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Honour  of  Eye"),  containing  over  250 
manors,  and  supplying  over  90  knights. 

(3)  The  forfeited  fief  of  Roger  "  de  Poitou " 

(son  of  Earl  Roger  de  Montgomeri),  con- 
taining about  400  manors,  and  comprising 
"  the  Honour  of  Lancaster." 

(4)  Certain  crown  lands,  which  had  been  granted 

him  (as  had  the  two  above  fiefs)  by  his 
uncle  Henry  I.1 

We  find,  accordingly,  in  the  Pipe  Roll  for  1130 
entries  of  remission  of  Danegeld  on  his  lands  in 
seventeen  counties,  although  the  returns  for  several 
counties  are  wanting. 

Now  the  wealth  and  influence  conferred  by  the 
possession  of  these  vast  fiefs  must  have  greatly 
assisted  Stephen  in  obtaining  the  throne,  as  they 
also  did,  after  he  was  king,  in  providing  for  his 
greedy  followers.2  I  hope  to  show  that  they  were 
also  to  some  extent  the  cause  of  his  agreeing  to 
the  succession  of  Henry  II.  in  the  place  of  his 
own  son.  For  his  younger  son  William,  who 
became  his  heir  on  the  death  of  his  brother 
Eustace  (10  Aug.  1153),  ^ad  himself  married  the 
greatest  heiress  in  England,  the  daughter  of  the 
earl  de  Warenne.  She  brought  him  the  castles  of 

1  See  my  Feudal  England^  pp.  202-3,  21 1. 

2  Some  instances  of  this  are  given  in  my  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville. 
The  possession  of  the  Boulogne  fief  had  also  enabled  him  to  found 
the  abbey  of  Coggeshall,  while  that  of  *  the  Honour  of  Lancaster  ' 
had  placed  at  his  disposal  endowments  for  the  abbey  of  Furness. 
Both  these  houses,  of  which  the  latter  was  founded  before  his 
accession,  were  affiliated  to  the  order  of  Savigny,  with  which,  as 
count  of  Mortain,  he  had  doubtless  been  brought  in  contact. 

1 68 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

Lewes  (Sussex),  Castle-Acre  (Norfolk),  and  Conis- 
borough  (Yorkshire),  together  with  a  whole 
"  Rape  "  of  Sussex  and  more  than  200  manors  in 
other  counties.  This  vast  increment  would  render 
his  private  possessions  even  greater  than  his  father's. 
But,  even  in  addition  to  this,  his  father  had  given 
him  large  estates  in  England,  so  that  it  might  well 
seem  better  for  the  young  count  of  Boulogne,  as 
he  was  already  styled,  to  have  these  estates  secured 
to  him  by  Henry  of  Anjou  than  to  claim  a  con- 
tested crown.  Moreover,  Henry,  as  duke  of  Nor- 
mandy, was  in  actual  possession  of  the  Warenne 
inheritance  in  Normandy,  and  of  the  comte  of 
Mortain.  As  part  of  the  bargain,  therefore,  he 
offered  to  give  all  this  to  William,  and,  in  addi- 
tion, further  lands  in  England  itself  if  he  was 
allowed  to  succeed  peaceably  to  the  crown. 

Thus  it  was  that  the  terms  secured  by  the 
young  count  of  Boulogne  occupied  a  very  large 
place  in  the  treaty  arranged  between  Stephen  and 
Henry  in  the  autumn  of  1153.  Count  William 
obtained  a  confirmation  of  all  that  his  father  had 
given  him,1  together  with  fresh  grants  as  part  of 
the  bargain,2  including  the  castle  of  Pevensey  and 

1  "  Incrementum  etiam  quod  ego  Willelmo  filio  meo  dedi  ipse 
Dux  ei  concessit,  castra  scilicet  et  villas  de  Norwico  cum  septin- 
gentis  libratis  terre  et  totum  comitatum   de  Nordfolk 
praeter  ilia  quae  pertinent  ad  ecclesias,"  etc.     This  addition  to  the 
Warenne  fief  in  East  Anglia  and  the  great  Honour  of  Eye  placed 
the  whole  region  in  his  power. 

2  u  Item  ad  roborandam  graciam  meam  et  dilectionem,  dedit 
ei   dux   et    concessit  quicquid    Richerus    de    Aquila    habebat  de 
honore  Peneveselli,  et  preter  hec  castra  et  villas  Peneveselli,  et 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

the  c  Rape '  of  Sussex  adjoining  his  own.  But 
under  the  terms  of  this  treaty  the  count  of 
Boulogne  would  be  too  powerful  for  Henry's 
safety  as  king.  He  had  castles  in  the  south,  in 
the  east,  and  in  the  north  of  England,  in  the  east1 
and  in  the  west  of  Normandy  ;  his  estates  were 
absolutely  gigantic.  Henry,  even  after  mounting 
the  throne,  had,  for  a  time,  to  temporize. 
But  the  policy  he  kept  steadily  in  view  was  (i) 
to  reclaim  estates  alienated  from  the  Crown,  (2) 
to  obtain  possession  of  the  castles.  Accordingly, 
in  spite  of  the  solemn  treaty  of  1153,  the  count 
of  Boulogne  had  to  surrender  to  him,  in  1 1 57, 
all  his  castles,  together  with  all  the  additions  to 
his  inheritance  guaranteed  to  him  by  Henry  in 
H53.2  But  the  count  of  Boulogne,  Mortain, 
and  Warenne  (as  he  always  styled  himself3)  was 
allowed  to  retain  the  vast  estates  which  his 
father  Stephen  held,  we  saw,  before  his  acces- 


servitium  Faramusi    preter  castra    et  villas   de  Doure,    et  quod 
ad  honorem  Doure  pertinet."     (Compare  p.  160  above.) 

1  At  Bellencombre  and  Mortemer  near  Neufchatel. 

2  "  Guillelmus  films  Stephani  regis  qui  erat  comes  civitatis  Con- 
stantiarum,  id  est  Moritonii,  et  in  Anglia  comes  Surreiae,  id  est 
de  Warenna,  propter  filiam  tertii  Guillelmi  de  Warenna,  quam 
duxerat,    reddidit  ei  Penevesel  et    Norwith  et  quicquid  tenebat 
de  corona  sua  et  omnes  munitiones  proprias  tam  in  Normannia 
quam  in  Anglia  ;  et   rex  fecit  eum   habere  quicquid  Stephanus 
pater  ejus  habuit  in    anno  et  die    quo    rex   Henricus  avus    ejus 
fuit  vivus  et  mortuus  "  (Robert  of  Torigny  [abbot  of  Mont  St. 
Michel],  pp.  92-3  [Rolls  Series  edition]). 

3  The  omission  of  one  of  these  three  titles  (Mortain)  in  his 
very  fine  charter  exhibited  at  the  British  Museum  can,  I  think, 
be  explained. 

170 


THE    COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

sion,  together  with  those  of  his  wife  in  Eng- 
land and  Normandy.  There  is  evidence  that  he 
was  in  actual  possession  of  the  c  Honours '  of 
Lancaster,1  of  Eye,2  and  of  Boulogne,3  as  well 
as  of  the  comte  of  Mortain.4 

At  this  point  a  brief  chart  pedigree  may  enable 
the  reader  more  easily  to  grasp  the  descent  of  the 
Honour  and  of  the  accretions  it  received  (see  next 
page). 

When  in  1159  the  count  died  in  the  Toulouse 
campaign,  where  he  fought  in  Henry's  host,  his 
death  presented  a  great  temptation  to  the  English 
king.  The  sole  surviving  child  of  Stephen  was 
Maud  abbess  of  Romsey,  and  the  great  domains 
of  Count  William  were  doomed,  as  it  seemed,  to 
be  broken  up.  But,  as  her  namesake  and  great 

1  Cal.  Rot.  Chart.,  I.  (i)  28,  for  instance. 

2  Stephen's  possession  of  this  great  '  Honour '  is  proved  by  his 
charter,  as  king,  to  Eye  Priory,  confirming  its  possessions  as  held  in 
the  time    of  Robert  Malet,    "  et   tempore    meo  antequam    rex 
essem"  (Monasticon,  III.   406).      His    son's    tenure    is    similarly 
proved  by  his  charter  of  confirmation   to  that   same    house   as 
"  comes  Boloniae,  Warennae,  et  Moritonii  "  (Ibid.). 

The  fact  of  the  possession  of  this  Honour  by  Stephen  explains 
the  remission  to  him,  under  Suffolk,  in  1130,  of  nearly  £46  for 
Danegeld  (Rot.  Pip.  31  Hen.  I.  p.  99),  implying  that  his  lands 
in  that  county  were  assessed  at  the  vast  sum  of  some  460  hides 
(or  their  equivalent)  ;  and  it  accounts,  for  Fulcher  '  de  Pleiforda ' 
paying  to  have  his  case  tried  "  in  Anglia  in  curia  comitis 
Moriton',"  (Ibid.  p.  99).  For  Playford  (Suffolk)  belonged  to  the 
Honour  of  Eye,  and  Stephen,  before  his  accession,  had  confirmed 
the  gift  of  its  church  to  Eye  Priory  (Harl.  MS.  639  [D'Ewes' 
Transcript],  fo.  59^).  See  also  p.  176  below. 

3  See  the  important  charter  printed  by  me  in  "  The  Honour  Oi 
Ongar"  (Essex  Arch.  Trans.  [N.S.],  VII.  144). 

4  See  my  Calendar  of  documents  preserved  in  France,  p.  285. 

171 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 


EUSTACE 
Count  of  Boulogne 


STEPHEN 
Count  of  Mortain 

afterwards 

(1135-1154) 

KING  OF  ENGLAND 


MARY 
of  Scotland 


MATILDA 

Countess  of  Boulogne 

in  her  own  right 

d.  1152 


NSTANCE 

=  EUSTACE 

WILLIAM 

=  ISABEL  DE 

I 

MARY      =  MATHEW 

of 

"  Count  of 

Count  of 

WARENNE 

Countess  of 

of 

Vance 

Boulogne" 
d.  s.  p. 

"53 

Boulogne 
and  of 
Mortain 
d.s.p.  1159 

heiress  of  the 
earls  de 
Warenne 
(of  Surrey) 

Boulogne 
(on  death  of 
Count 
William) 

Flanders 

IDA 

Countess  of  Boulogne 


I 

MATILDA 


aunt,  "  the  good  queen  Molde,"  had  been  taken 
from  the  same  cloister,  some  half  a  century  before, 
to  become  the  king's  wife — though,  unlike  her, 
most  unwillingly — the  great  heiress  was  restored 
to  the  world,  by  special  permission  of  the  Pope, 
and  married  to  Mathew,  a  younger  son  of  the 
count  of  Flanders.  Becket,  like  Anselm  in  the 
previous  instance,  protested  vigorously,  but  in 
vain.  As  for  king  Henry  he  was  quite  willing 
that  the  comte  of  Boulogne  should  pass  to  a  son 
of  the  count  of  Flanders,  whose  cousin  and  friend 
he  was  ;  but  the  great  fiefs,  English  and  Norman, 
in  his  own  dominions  were  another  matter  ;  these, 
it  is  clear  to  me,  were  swept  into  the  royal  net.1 

1  The  vast  estates  of  the  Warenne  family  provided,  later,  an 
appanage  for  his  natural  brother  Hamelin,  who  received  them 
with  the  hand  of  the  count's  widow. 

172 


THE   COUNTS    OF    BOULOGNE 

Mathew,  however,  was  by  no  means  ready  to 
acquiesce  in  this  arrangement.  He  claimed  them 
all,  in  right  of  his  wife,  and  eventually  king 
Henry  "promised" — probably  in  1166 — to  give 
him  the  then  enormous  sum  of  £1,000  in  com- 
pensation.1 

But  the  bribe  was  insufficient.  In  1167  the 
king's  difficulty  was  the  count's  opportunity, 
and  the  absence  of  Henry  in  France  inspired  him 
with  the  daring  conception  of  an  armed  descent 
on  England  in  support  of  his  claim.  For  the 
mention  of  this  curious  episode,  which  seems  to 
have  escaped  notice,2  we  are  indebted  to  Gervase 
of  Canterbury,  who  wrote,  of  course,  with  local 
knowledge.  He  tells  us3  that  the  king  being  busy 
with  the  troubles  oversea,4  the  count  assembled 
a  fleet,  it  was  said,  of  six  hundred  ships,  which 

1  "  Ibi    enim   rex    mille   libras    Matthaeo   Comiti   Boloniae    se 
daturum  spopondit  "  (Materials  for  history  of  Thomas  Becket,  VI. 

73-4). 

2  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  most  elaborate  and  recent  history 
of  the  reign,  that  of  Miss  Norgate. 

8  "Mathaeus  etiam  comes  Boloniae,  frater  vero  Philippi  comitis 
Flandriae,  secentas  naves,  ut  fama  fuit,  Flandrensibus  armavit, 
juratus  in  Angliam  venire,  unde  motus  magnus  in  Anglia  factus 
est.  Subtraxerat  enim  ei  rex  quosdam  redditus  in  Anglia  quos 
dicebat  sibi  de  jure  antique  competere.  Quos  quia  prece  non 
potuit  armis  conatus  est  revocare.  Sumpsit  audaciam  suae  prae- 
sumptionis  eo  quod  rex  Angliae  transmarinis  dissentionibus  esset 
occupatus.  Verumptamen  conatus  ejus  inanis  efFectus  est, 
Ricardo  de  Luci  cum  Anglicana  militia  custodiam  procurante  " 
(Gervase  of  Canterbury  [Rolls  Series],  I.  203). 

4  Henry  was  in  Aquitaine,  this  year,  until  the  spring,  was  then 
fighting  the  French  king  in  the  north  till  August,  after  which  he 
had  to  quell  an  important  rising  in  Britanny  (Eyton). 

173 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

he  filled  with  Flemings,  swearing  that  he  would 
extort  his  rights  by  force  of  arms.  Much  alarm 
was  caused  for  the  time ;  but  the  famous  "  Richard 
de  Luci  the  loyal,"  who  had  charge  of  the  realm 
in  the  king's  absence,  kept  the  coast  with  the 
English  "  militia,"  and  the  count's  attempt  came 
to  naught.1  The  story  is  confirmed,  I  think,  by  the 
Pipe  Roll  of  the  year,  which  shows  us  that  Dover 
Castle  was  provisioned,  and  its  defences  strength- 
ened,2 that  weapons  were  sent  from  London  to 
the  coast,  precautions  taken  for  the  safety  ot 
Canterbury,  and  seven  ships  despatched  from 
Southampton  to  Dover  "  on  the  king's  service." 
Instead  of  revenging  himself  upon  the  count, 
Henry,  with  the  Becket  trouble  on  his  hands,  and 
with  war  and  rebellion  in  prospect,  came  to  terms 
with  Mathew,  bought  off  his  claim  to  his  wife's 
inheritance,  and,  in  1168,  secured  his  help  against 
the  French  king.3  The  price  he  had  to  pay  for 

1  Strangely  enough,  Richard  de  Luci's  own  castle  of  Ongar, 
the  head  of  his  newly-formed  Honour,  had  been  part,  with  its 
appurtenant  manors,  of  the  Boulogne  fief,  and  had  been  given 
him  by  Stephen   and  his    queen  (as  Count    and  Countess)  and 
confirmed  by  their  son  Count  William.     (See  my  paper  on  "  The 
Honour  of  Ongar"  in  Essex  Arch.  Trans.  [N.S.],  VII.  142-152). 

2  The  famous  keep  was  not  erected  till  some  years  later. 

3  "  Rex  vero  Henricus  caute  agens  cognatum  suum  Mathaeum 
comitem  Boloniae,  sibi   pacificavit,  spondens   ei    se   daturum  per 
annum  maximam  partem  pecuniae  pro  calumnia  relaxanda  comi- 
tatus  Moritonii.       Habebat  enim  filiam  regis  Stephani,  qui  fuerat 
comes  Moritonii.     Cum  autem  idem  Mathaeus  ad  auxilium  regis 
Anglorum,  domini  et  cognati  sui,  veniret,  Johannes  comes  Pontivi, 
non  permisit   eum  transire    per   terram  suam,   unde,  necessitate 
cogente,  navali  subvectione  ad  regem  cum  multis  militibus  accessit " 
(Robert  ofTongm  [Rolls  Ed.],  p.  238). 

174 


THE    COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

this  was  the  gift  of  a  fresh  fief  in  England  itself. 
It  can  be  positively  proved  from  the  Pipe  Rolls 
that,  although  the  count  did  not  obtain  the  Bou- 
logne fief,  or  even  part  of  it,  he  received  as  com- 
pensation over  three  hundred  "  librates  "  of  other 
land.  The  Roll  of  the  i4th  year  (Michaelmas 
1  1  68)  shows  that  the  count  was  then  drawing 
£200  "  blanch  "  a  year  from  Kirton-in-Lindsey, 
£65  from  Ixning,  Suffolk,  and  >T6i  from  Bamp- 
ton,  Oxon.  And  by  Michaelmas  1170  he  was 
drawing,  in  addition,  £60  from  Dunham,  Notting- 
hamshire, which  had  been  previously  received  by 
his  brother  the  count  of  Flanders.1  He  did  not, 
however,  long  retain  these  English  possessions, 
for,  on  joining  Henry,  "  the  young  king,"  he  was 
treated  as  having  forfeited  them  all  at,  or  soon 
after,  Easter  ii73-2  The  "consideration"  by 
which  he  had  been  won  to  the  cause  of  Henry's 
rebellious  heir  was  the  promise  of  the  coveted 
comte  of  Mortain,  with  a  confirmation  of  the 
important  manor  of  Kirton-in-Lindsey,  and  a 
grant  of  the  great  Honour  of  Eye,  which  had 
been  held  by  Stephen.3  Fighting  in  the  cause 


1  Pipe  Roll,  1  6  Hen.  II.     This  brought  up  the  total  to  nearly 
£400.     It  is  remarkable  that  we  find  Count  Mathew  bestowing 
the  church  of  St.  Nicholas  at  Droitwich  on  the  abbey  of  Fon- 
tevrault  for  the  local  nuns  of  Westwood  (Monastlcony  VI.  1006-7), 
and  his  successor  Ida  confirming  the  gift.     I  should  be  inclined 
to  connect  this  with  the  rights  at  Droitwich  that  are  entered  in 
Domesday  as  appurtenant  to  Bampton  (fo.  154^). 

2  Pipe  Roll,  19  Hen.  II. 

8  Hoveden,  II.  46.      But  the  Gesta  (I.  44)  says  that  the  Honour 
of  Eye  was  promised  to  Hugh  Bigot. 

175 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

of  "  the  young  king,"  he  was  mortally  wounded 
in  Normandy  (July  1173),  exactly  five  years,  as 
the  chronicler  observes,  after  he  had  solemnly 
sworn  fealty  to  Henry  II.1 

The  hereditary  claims  of  the  Countess  Mary 
passed  to  her  heirs  by  Count  Mathew,  their 
daughters,  Ide  and  Maud.  These,  in  1180,  were 
given  in  marriage  by  their  uncle  Philip,  count  of 
Flanders,  Maud,  the  younger,  becoming  the  wife 
of  Henry  "  the  Warrior "  duke  of  Lorraine. 
Some  sort  of  hereditary  claim  seems  to  have  been 
recognised  in  her  and  her  husband,  for  the  latter 
received  from  Richard  I.  the  great  Honour  of  Eye, 
which  had  been  held  by  Stephen,  and  by  his  son 
Count  William  after  him.2  But  the  geogra- 
phical position  of  the  Boulonnais  in  the  relations 
of  England,  France,  and  Flanders  during  the 
latter  half  of  the  I2th  century  made  the  succes- 


1  "  Quod  divino  judicio  factum  esse  pro  certo  cognoscimus.  Nam 
quia  propositis  et  tactis  sacrosanctis  reliquiis,  inter  quas  et  manus 
Sancti  Jacobi  praesentaliter  habebatur,  quinquennio  jam  transacto 
in  festo  Sancti  Jacobi  fidelitatem  patris  regis  juraverat,  et,  sicut 
modo  apparuit,  in  omnium  oculis  dejeraverat,  in  ultionem  tanti 
sceleris,  in  die  festo  Sancti  Jacobi  letali  vulnere  percussus  est  "    (R. 
Diceto,  I.  373).     This  statement  gives  us  the  date  of  their  pre- 
vious reconciliation,  namely,  25  July  1168. 

2  "  Et  tenuit  ilium  honorem  iij  annis,  qui  mortuus  fuit  in  servicio 
Regis  in  exercitu  de  Tulosa  [1159]    .     •     •     successit  Ricardus 
Rex  et  dedit  eundem  honorem  duci  Loeringie  cum  nepte  comitis 
predicti  Willelmi  que  erat  proxima  heres.    Et  Dux  Loheringie  tenet 
ilium  honorem  [1212]  sicut  hereditatem    uxoris  sue"  (Testa  de 
Nevill,  296).     It  had   then   90^  knight's  fees  (Red  Book  of  the 
Exchequer,  477).     It  was  *  restored '  to  Duke  Henry  so  late  as 
9  Hen.  III.  (1224-5). 

176 


THE    COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

sion  to  English  lands  which  had  been  held  by  its 
counts  a  matter  of  policy  rather  than  of  right. 

The  elder  sister,  to  whom  was  given  the  comte 
of  Boulogne,  brought  it  eventually  to  Reginald  de 
Dammartin,  son  of  a  Count  Aubrey  de  Dammar- 
tin,  who  himself  had  held  some  land  in  England.1 
In  conjunction  with  her  he  confirmed,  in  1201, 
to  the  Hospital  of  Austin  Canons  at  Cold  Norton, 
Oxfordshire,  the  gifts  of  his  predecessors.2  John, 
on  24  April  1200,  had  sanctioned  the  arrange- 
ment by  which  the  count  had  charged  on  Kirton- 
in-Lindsey  the  £5  a  year,  with  which  Count 
Mathew  had  endowed  St.  Mary  of  Longvillers,  in 
the  Boulonnais,  at  Norton.8  Becoming  John's  ally 
against  France  by  the  treaty  of  Chateau  Gaillard 
(18  August  1 1 99), 4  Count  Reginald  had  secured 
his  wife's  English  inheritance  at  Kirtbn,  Bampton, 
and  Dunham  ;6  and  nine  months  later  (9  May 
1200),  at  Roche  d'Orival  (that  is  at  Chateau  Fouet 
on  the  Seine),  he  obtained  from  John  the  curious 
grant  that  if,  in  the  course  of  the  war  between 
Philip  and  himself,  the  strife  should  reach  the 
Boulonnais,  the  count  might  come  to  England 
with  his  wife  and  daughter  and  reside  there 
freely,  and  that,  in  case  of  his  death,  his  daughter 
and  heiress  should  only  be  married  by  her  friends' 
advice,  and  "  according  to  the  custom  of  the 


1  In  East  Anglia  (Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  p.  60  ;  cf.  p.  128). 

2  Monasticon  Anglicanum,  VI.  421. 

3  Rot.  Chart.,  I.  (i)  47.     The  endowment  can  be  traced  at 
Kirton  in  later  times.         4  Ibid.  p.  30. 

5  Count  Mathew  had  alienated  to  followers  lands  at  Exning. 

177  N 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Boulonnais."  Reginald,  it  seems,  knew  his  John, 
and  he  did  not  trust  him  far.  The  alliance  was 
not  of  long  duration,  for  the  count  forfeited  his 
English  lands,  apparently  in  1203,  by  going  over 
to  Philip. 

In  1212  there  was  another  sharp  change.  The 
comte  of  Boulogne  was  confiscated  by  Philip,  and 
the  count  fled  to  Otho  and  Germany,  and  thence 
to  England.  Doing  homage  to  John  at  Lambeth, 
3  May  (1212),  he  received  a  grant,  the  next 
day,  of  an  annuity  of  £1,000  for  three  years, 
during  which  the  rights  of  his  wife  and  himself 
in  England  and  Normandy  should  be  ascertained. 
He  also  recovered  Kirton,  Dunham,  and  Bampton 
with  Norton  (Oxon.),  and  received  in  addition 
Norton  (Suffolk),  Ryhall  (Rutland),  and  Wrestling- 
worth  and  Piddington  (Beds.).2  These  three  last 

1  "  Quod  si  occasione  nostri  vel  werre  nostre  in  Buluneys'  werra- 
tum  fuerit,  et  quod  placuerit  illi  in  terram  nostram  Anglic  venire, 
ipsi  et  uxori  et  fitie  sue  salvum  venire  et  salvum  stare  et  salvum 
inde    recedere  Et    ipsum    securum       .     .     .      per 
cartam  nostram  et  per  barones  nostros  quod  sive  tempore  pacis  vel 
tempore  werre  nostre,  sicut  predictum  est,  illuc  venerint,  filiam 
suam    libere       ...       et  si    de  eo    humaniter  contigisset,  ad 
ipsam  maritandam  secundum  consuetudinem  de  Buluneis  per  consilium 
amicorum  suorum.     Si  vero    .     .     .     quod  absit,  interim  conti- 
gisset, barones  nostri  nichilominus  earn  libere  dimittent  ut  predic- 
tum est"  (Rot.  Chart.,  I.  (i)  p.  58). 

2  "  Sciatis  quod   reddidimus  Reginaldo  de  Dammartin   comiti 
Boloniae   Kirketon',   Dunham',  et  Norton*  quod  est  in  comitatu 
Oxon',  [Bampton],  et  praeterea  Norton'  quod  est  in  comitatu  Suff', 
Ridal',  et  Wrestlingehal'  et  Pedint'  cum  omnibus  pertinentiis  suis 
in  dominicis  feodis  et  serviciis  sicut  ea  tenuit  die  qua  ilia  cepimus 
in  manum  nostram.     Reddidimus  eciam  eidem  comiti    Boloniae 
Ixning  cum  pertinentiis  suis  salvis  militibus  et  libere  tenentibus 

178 


THE   COUNTS    OF   BOULOGNE 

manors  had  formed  part  of  the  Honour  of  Hunt- 
ingdon. A  recognition  so  splendid  as  this  bound 
the  count  closely  to  the  cause  of  John.  Next 
year  he  is  found  as  one  of  the  commanders  of  the 
king's  fleet  at  the  naval  victory  of  Damme,  and  in 
1214  he  fought  for  him  most  gallantly  at  the 
famous  but  disastrous  battle  of  Bouvines.  After 
himself  unhorsing  Philip,  he  was  taken  prisoner  by 
the  French,  and  carried  off  in  fetters  to  remain 
captive  till  his  death. 

There  is  something  pathetic,  when  his  fate  is 
remembered,  in  a  formal  entry  on  our  close  rolls, 
some  five  years  later  (15  July,  1219),  that  the 
count  is  to  be  given  Cold  Norton  and  Dunham,  as 
he  held  them  when  captured  in  Flanders,  in  John's 
service,  and  at  the  outbreak  of  war  between  John 
and  the  barons.1 

Thus  tragically  closed  the  long  but  chequered 
connection  of  England  and  the  counts  of  Boulogne. 
One  of  those  counts  had  invaded  England,  by  the 
side  of  Duke  William,  in  1066,  and  had  again 
invaded  her,  on  his  own  account,  in  1067. 
Another  had  landed  on  her  shores  in  1135,  and 
had  mounted,  and  held,  her  throne.  A  third  had 
endeavoured  to  invade  her  in  1 1 67,  lured  by  the 

feodis  et  tenementis  que  Matheus  pater  Ide  comitisse  Bolonie  uxoris 
sue  eis  dedit  per  servicium  quod  inde  debent  et  pro  defectu  aliarum 
terrarum  quas  exigit  tanquam  jus  suum  et  jus  uxoris  sue  predicte 
Ide  dabimus  ei  annuatim  mille  libras  sterlingorum  ...  a 
Pascha  anno  regni  nostri  quatuordecimo  usque  in  tres  annos 
proximo  sequentes  ut  interim  jus  suum  et  jus  uxoris  sue  possimus 
inquirere"  (Rot.  Chart.,  I.  (i)  p.  186). 
1  Rot.  Litt.  Claus.,  I.  396. 

179 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

hope  of  regaining  their  great  English  possessions. 
A  fourth,  fighting  by  sea  and  land,  in  the  cause  of 
her  tyrant  king,  died  a  captive  and  dispossessed, 
owning  nothing  but  the  land  which  he  held  within 
the  island  realm. 


180 


IV 

The  Family  of  Ballon  and  the  Conquest 
of  South  Wales 

AMONG  the  Norman  nobles  of  the  Conquest 
there  is  no  more  striking  figure  than  that  of 
William  Fitz  Osbern.  Son  of  the  loyal  guardian  of 
the  infant  Duke  William,  that  Osbern  who  had 
paid  for  his  fidelity  with  his  life  (1040),  William 
became,  in  Mr.  Freeman's  words,  the  Duke's 
"  nearest  personal  friend  .  .  .  the  Duke's 
earliest  and  dearest  friend,  the  son  of  the  man 
who  had  saved  his  life  in  childhood,  the  man  who 
had  himself  been  the  first  to  cheer  on  his  master 
to  his  great  enterprise."  *  In  another  place  Mr. 
Freeman  speaks  of  him  as  the  duke's  "  chosen 
friend  .  .  .  the  man  who  had  done  more 
than  any  other  man  to  bring  about  the  invasion 
of  England."  Lord  of  Breteuil,  seneschal  of  Nor- 
mandy, joint  regent  for  a  while  of  England  (1067), 
earl  of  Hereford  on  the  morrow  of  the  Conquest, 
and  lord  of  the  Isle  of  Wight,  he  was  entrusted  at 
one  time  with  the  castle  at  Winchester,  at  another 
with  the  "  tower  "  at  York,  and  yet  found  time 
within  the  four  years  which  covered  his  English 

1  Norman  Conquest,  vol.  III. 
181 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

life  "  to  make  some  fearful  inroads  "  on  the  Welsh 
neighbours  of  his  earldom.  Mr.  Freeman,  indeed, 
went  so  far  as  to  say  that  we  have  in  these  inroads, — 

the  beginning,  though  only  the  beginning,  of  that  great  Norman 
settlement  in  South  Wales  which  was  a  few  years  later  to  make 
Morganwg,  above  almost  every  other  part  of  the  Isle  of  Britain, 
a  land  of  Norman  knights  and  Norman  castles  ;  but  this  work 
was  to  be  done  by  other  hands  than  those  of  William  Fitz 
Osbern.1 

I  am  dealing  in  another  quarter  with  the  traces 
of  this  great  noble's  rule,  not  only  in  the  Isle  of 
Wight  but  in  Hampshire.2  Here  I  can  deal  only 
with  his  rule  in  his  border  earldom,  where  he 
played  the  part  of  a  petty  sovereign.  The  position 
of  Herefordshire  on  the  Welsh  border  was  one  of 
such  strategic  importance  that  the  district  had  to 
be  organized  on  a  quasi-military  system,  a  system 
which  left  its  traces  for  centuries  in  the  exceptional 
status  of  "  the  March  "  and  of  its  lords.  Edward 
the  Confessor  had  led  the  way  by  making  his 
French  nephew,  Ralf,  earl  of  Hereford,  and  en- 
trusting the  borough  and  the  shire  to  him  and 
to  his  foreign  knights.  Under  his  successor,  the 
same  task  was  taken  up  anew,  and  Domesday 
shows  us  Herefordshire  divided  by  William  Fitz 
Osbern  into  castleries,  each  of  which  must  have 
had  for  its  centre  the  moated  and  palisaded  mound 
which  formed  the  fortress  of  the  time.  It  was 
hardly  exaggeration  on  Mr.  Freeman's  part  to 
speak  of  Earl  William's  "  reign  "  in  the  feudal 

1  Norman  Conquest,  vol.  IV. 

2  See  Introduction  to  the  Domesday  Survey  of  Hampshire  in 
the  Victoria  Series  of  County  Histories. 

182 


THE    FAMILY    OF    BALLON 

principality  thus  created.  He  made,  indeed,  a 
special  law  on  behalf  of  the  warrior  knights  whom 
his  lavish  pay  attracted,  that  none  of  them  should 
pay,  for  any  offence,  a  higher  fine  than  seven 
shillings.  And  this  privilege  was  still  in  force 
when  William  of  Malmesbury  wrote  in  the  fol- 
lowing century.  Of  more  interest,  however,  was 
a  privilege,  to  which  Mr.  Freeman  did  not  allude, 
bestowed  by  him  on  the  French  burgesses  who 
had  settled  under  him  at  Hereford.  To  them  he 
granted  that,  like  their  fellows  clustered  round 
his  castle  of  Breteuil  on  the  edge  of  the  forest 
of  that  name,1  they  should  enjoy  certain  c  customs,' 
of  which  the  most  important  was  that  they 
should  not  be  fined  more  than  12  pence  for 
any  offence,  save  three  reserved  pleas. 

As  these  '  customs '  of  Breteuil  spread  from 
Hereford  to  other  English  towns,  it  seems  desir- 
able to  explain  a  matter  which,  hitherto,  has 
either  been  overlooked  or  been  misunderstood. 
In  accordance  with  my  standing  principle  of 
Domesday  interpretation,  I  here  collate  the  two 
passages  bearing  on  these  c  customs.' 

HEREFORD.  RHUDDLAN. 

Anglici   burgenses    ibi  man-          Ipsis  burgensibus  annuerunt 

entes  habent  suas  priores  con-  leges  et  consuetudines  que  sunt 

suetudines.     Francig[enae]  vero  in     Hereford    et    in     Bretuill, 

burgenses    habent    quietas    per  scilicet  quod  per  totum  annum 

xii  denarios  omnes  forisfacturas  de  aliqua   forisfactura  non   da- 

suas  preter  tres  supradictas  (pa-  bunt    nisi    xii    denarios    praeter 

cem  [regis]  infractam  et  hein-  homicidium  et  furtum  et  Hein- 

faram  et  forestellum) — I.  179.  far  praecogitata — I.  269. 

1  In  the  south-west  of  the  Department  of  the  Eure. 

183 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

I  cannot  find  any  mention  of  either  of  these 
passages  in  Professor  MaitlancTs  work,  Domesday 
Book  and  Beyond ;  nor  can  I  find  a  reference  to  the 
Rhuddlan  one  in  the  History  of  English  Law.1 
Still  less  can  I  discover  any  attempt  to  collate 
them,  although  they,  clearly,  illustrate  one  another. 
The  conclusions  that  I  draw  from  this  collation 
are  :  (i)  that  the  burgesses  of  Rhuddlan — which 
Domesday  speaks  of  as  a  "  new  borough  "  founded 
by  the  earl  of  Chester  and  Robert  of  Rhuddlan 
jointly2 — were  granted  the  c  customs '  of  Breteuil 
only  as  used  at  Hereford,  and  not  directly  from 
Breteuil  ;  (2)  that  these  '  customs '  had  for  their 
chief  feature  the  limitation  of  fines  to  1 2  pence  ; 

(3)  that  the  Domesday  record  of  such  limitation 
at  Hereford  represents  the  c  customs '  of  Breteuil ; 

(4)  that  this    limitation  was    granted  only  to   its 
burgesses  of '  French '  birth  ;   (5)   that  three  "  pleas 
of  the  Crown  "  were  excepted,  in  both  cases,  from 
this    limitation,  and  that  their  names   are  by  no 
means  the  same. 

The  above  laws  or  customs  enjoyed  by  the 
borough  and  the  shire  were  by  no  means  the  only 
lasting  traces  of  Earl  William's  rule.  The  abbeys 
he  had  founded  on  his  Norman  lands  at  Cormeilles 
and  La-Vielle-Lyre3  were  richly  endowed  from 
his  English  fief.  In  Herefordshire,  Hampshire, 

lEy  Profs.  Maitland  and  Sir  F.  Pollock,  1895.  See  vol.  II. 
pp.  452-3- 

2  Orderic  writes  that  "  Decreto  regis  oppidum  contra  Gallos 
apud  Rodelentum  constructum  est." 

3  Both  now  in  the  Department  of  the  Eure. 


THE    FAMILY    OF    BALLON 

Gloucestershire,  and  Worcestershire,  churches, 
tithes  and  lands,  were  theirs  by  the  gift  of  their 
pious  founder,  while  even  the  revenues  from  the 
boroughs  of  Hereford  and  Southampton  were 
charged  by  him  in  their  favour.  I  have  urged, 
in  dealing  with  the  Hampshire  Domesday,  that 
these  endowments  have  a  special  value  as  enabling 
us  to  trace  those  lands  which  had  been  held  by 
Earl  William  and  by  his  son  and  successor.  This 
value  is  no  less  evident  in  the  case  of  the  Here- 
fordshire Domesday,  where  the  frequent  mention 
of  the  Abbey  of  Cormeilles1  points  to  the  previous 
tenure  of  royal  manors  in  that  shire  by  Earl  Wil- 
liam Fitz  Osbern,  a  fact  at  which  Domesday  only 
occasionally  hints.  Therefore,  when  Pope  Alex- 
ander III.  is  found  confirming  to  the  Abbey  "  de- 
cimas  reddituum  villae  de  Munemuta,  de  Troy,"2 
we  may  safely  infer  that  Monmouth  (with  Troy) 
had  been  held  by  William  Fitz  Osbern.  For  when 
Wihenoc  and  his  nephew,  William  the  son  of 
Baderon,  were  installed  there  by  the  Conqueror, 
they  bestowed  all  the  endowments  they  could  on 
the  Abbey  of  St.  Florent  de  Saumur.3 

But  Earl  William's  power  did  not  extend  only 
beyond  the  modern  shire  to  the  castled  outpost  of 
Monmouth  ;  it  extended  down  the  border  of  South 
Wales  to  the  very  mouth  of  the  Severn.  Seizing 
the  great  manor  of  Tidenham,  which  belonged  to 

1  Especially  on  fo.  179^. 

2  In  1 1 68.     Monasticon,  VI.  1076-7. 

3  See  Domesday,  fo.  i8o£,  and  the  paper  on  "The  Origin  or 
the  Stewarts  "  above. 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Bath  Abbey,  he  obtained  the  important  angle  of 
land  formed  by  the  Severn  and  the  Wye,  while  by 
evicting  the  holders,  royal,  clerical,  and  lay,  of  the 
manors  of  Alvington,  Lydney,  and  Purton,  he  ex- 
tended his  territory  some  distance  up  the  right 
bank  of  the  Severn.1  From  this  district,  as  a  base 
of  operations,  he  pushed  across  the  Wye  into 
Wales,  raising  the  famous  castle  of  Strigul,  now 
Chepstow,  as  a  fortified  tete  de  pont  on  its  right 
bank.2  Having  thus  entered  the  land  of  Gwent 
(the  lowlands  between  the  Wye  and  the  Usk)  the 
indefatigable  earl  soon  reduced  it  to  subjection, 
portioning  out  some  of  it  in  ploughlands  for  his 
follower  Ralf  de  Limesi  and  other  Norman 
knights,3  while,  by  permission  of  king  William, 
he  allowed  king  GrufFyd  and  the  Welsh  to  hold 
the  rest,4  on  the  native  system,  the  grouped  frevs 
paying  in  kind  their  cows,  their  pigs,  and  their 
honey,  with  a  commutation  for  the  hawks.5 

All  this  Earl  William  had  accomplished  in  the 
course  of  his  "  short  reign."  At  the  close  of 
1070  he  left  England  for  Normandy,  having  con- 

1  See  the  Gloucestershire  Domesday  for  all  this. 

2  "  Castellum  de  Estrighoiel  fecit  Willelmus  comes  et  ejus  tern- 
pore  reddebat  xl    solidos  tantum  de  navibus  in  silvam  euntibus. 
Tempore  vero  comitis   Rogerii,  filii  ejus,  reddidit  ipsa  villa  xvi 
libras,  et  medietatem  habebat  Radulfus  de  Limesi." — Domesday, 
I.  162. 

3  "  In  eodem  feudo  dedit  Willelmus  comes  Radulfo  de  Limesi 
1  carucatas  terrae  sicut  fit  in  Normannia." — Domesday,  I.  162  (and 
see  the  entries  adjoining). 

4  "  Hos  misit  Willelmus  comes  ad  consuetudinem  Grifin  regis 
licentia  regis  Willelmi." — Ibid. 

5  Cf.  Seebohm's  English  Village  Community,  p.  207. 

186 


THE    FAMILY    OF    BALLON 

quered  within  those  four  years  Yorkshiremen  in 
the  north-east  and  Welsh  in  the  south-west.  From 
Normandy  he  soon  set  out  for  Flanders,  "  as 
though,"  says  Orderic,  "  to  sport,"  to  join  king 
Philip  in  the  conquest  of  Flanders,  and  to  win  its 
countess  as  his  bride.  And  there,  at  the  battle  of 
Cassel,  he  was  slain.  So  fell  one  who  "  had  ever 
been  the  man  whom  William  had  most  trusted, 
and  whom  he  had  ever  chosen  for  those  posts 
which  called  for  the  highest  displays  of  faithful- 
ness, daring,  and  military  skill." 1  Four  years 
more,  and  Roger,  his  son  and  successor,  forfeited 
all  the  great  possessions  won  by  his  father's  sword. 
The  fatal  c  bride-ale  '  at  the  wedding  of  his  sister 
with  the  earl  of  Norfolk  was  followed  by  his 
rising,  capture,  and  imprisonment  (1074),  and  the 
greatness  of  his  fall  proved,  we  shall  find,  a  text 
on  which  the  chronicler  could  moralize  to  his 
heart's  content. 

At  the  time  of  the  Domesday  Survey  (1086) 
changes  had  followed  on  his  fall.  Monmouth  was 
already  in  the  hands  of  the  father  of  its  Breton 
lords  ;  and  in  Gwent  Ralf  de  Limesi  had  been 
succeeded  in  his  lands  by  a  new  holder,  William 
de  Ou  (Eu),  himself  destined  to  forfeiture  for  trea- 
son under  William  Rufus.  But  the  land  was  still 
in  the  Norman's  grip.  Caerleon-upon-Usk  is 
mentioned  as  theirs,2  and  Caldecote,  then  or  later 
'  castled,'  was  in  the  hands  of  the  king's  sheriff. 
One  Norman  lord,  on  whom  we  have  to  keep  our 

1  Freeman's  Norman  Conquest.        2  Domesday,  I.  162. 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

eyes,  had  penetrated  even  beyond  the  Usk  into 
what  was  then  Gwenllwg. 

Turstin  the  son  of  Rolf  has  between  Usk  and  Wye  17 
plough-teams.  Four  and  a  half  of  these  are  on  his  demesne  ; 
the  others  are  (those)  of  his  men.  .  .  .  Of  this  land,  the 
king's  reeves  claim  five  and  a  half  plough  [lands],  saying  that 
Turstin  took  them  without  their  being  given  him. 

The  same  Turstin  has  6  carucates  of  land  beyond  Usk  ;  and 
there  his  men  have  4  plough-teams,  etc.,  etc.1 

Moreover,  I  have  a  strong  suspicion  that  this 
Turstin  was  already  established  at  Caerleon-on- 
Usk  itself.  For  the  Herefordshire  '  castlery '  or 
William  de  Scohies  is  most  unexpectedly  headed 
by  that  of  c  Carlion,'  where  there  were  eight 
"  carucates  of  land  "  (the  same  measure,  be  it  ob- 
served, as  in  the  above  entry),  together  with 
"three  Welshmen  living  under  Welsh  law  "  and  a 
render  of  honey.  And  all  this  was  held  of  him 
by  'Turstin.'2 

There  is  just  a  doubt  as  to  whether  this  Turstin 
Fitz  Rolf  was  the  ardent  warrior  of  that  name  who 


1  Domesday,  I.  162.     The  land  "between  Usk  and  Wye"  is 
now   East    Monmouthshire  ;    "  beyond  Usk "  lay  what  is  now 
the  western  portion  of  the  shire. 

2  "  Willelmus  de  Scohies  tenet  viiito  carucatas  terrae  in  Cas- 
tellaria    de    Carlion,   et    Turstin    tenet   de   illo.     Ibi    habet    in 
dominio  unam  carucam,  et   iii  Walenses  lege  Walensi  viventes 
cum  iii  carucis  et  ii  bordarii  cum  dimidia  caruca,  et  redd[i]t  iiii 
sextaria  mellis." — Domesday,  I.  185^. 

It  seems  to  me  not  improbable  that  the  Herefordshire  lands  of 
William  de  Scohies  were  given  him  for  the  support  of  this  Nor- 
man outpost  at  Caerleon,  in  which  case  its  acquisition  was  as  early 
as  the  days  of  William  Fitz  Osbern.  But  this  can  only  be  con- 
jecture. 

188 


THE    FAMILY    OF    BALLON 

bore  the  duke's  standard  at  the  battle  of  Hastings. 
Genealogists,  also,  have  been  baffled  hitherto  in 
seeking  to  trace  the  descent  of  his  lands  in  England 
and  South  Wales.1  For  when  we  close  Domesday 
Book,  a  thick  darkness  settles  down  on  Gwent  and 
its  Norman  lords. 

It  is  at  Abergavenny  that  this  darkness  is  first 
broken  by  gleams  of  light.  Dugdale  begins  his 
account  of  the  family  that  he  terms  c  Baalun '  with 
this  marvellous  passage  : — 

In  the  time  of  King  Edward  the  Confessor  Dru  de  Baladon 
(or  Balon)  had  issue  three  sons,  viz.  Hameline,  Wyonoc  and 
Wynebald,  as  also  three  daughters,  Emme,  Ducia,  and  Beatrix. 
Which  Hameline  came  into  England  with  William  the  Con- 
queror ;  and  being  the  first  lord  of  all  that  territory  in  Wales 
called  Over- Went,  built  a  strong  castle  at  Bergavenny,  where 
a  Gyant  called  Agros  had  raised  one  formerly. 

This  Hameline  also  founded  the  Priory  of  Bergavenny,  and 
departing  the  world  in  3  Will.  Rufi,  was  there  buried  ;  but, 
having  no  issue,  gave  that  castle  to  Briene,  son  of  the  earl  of  the 
Isle,  his  nephew  (commonly  called  Brientius  filius  Comitis)^  viz. 
son  of  his  sister  Lucie.1 

It  would  be  difficult  to  pack  more  errors  into  so 
small  a  space  ;  and  yet  Dugdale  copied  faithfully 
the  story  of  the  Abergavenny  monks,  who  had 
compiled,  after  the  manner  of  their  kind,  one  of 
those  "  histories  of  the  foundation  "  which  are  re- 
sponsible for  more  false  genealogy  than  any  other 
medieval  documents. 

I  shall  now  set  myself  to  prove  (i)  that  Hamelin 
and  Wynebald  were  two  brothers  who  took  their 

1  See  p.  194  below.  2  Baronage,  I.  453. 

189 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

name  from  Ballon  (near  Le  Mans)  in  Maine,  and 
were  benefactors,  in  England,  to  the  great  abbey  of 
St.  Vincent  at  Le  Mans  ;  (2)  that  they  were 
brought  over  by  William  Rufus  ;  (3)  that  they 
were  placed  in  the  valley  of  the  Usk,  Hamelin  at 
Abergavenny  and  Wynebald  at  Caerleon  ;  (4)  that 
Wynebald  at  least  was  provided  for  from  the  lands 
of  Turstin  Fitz  Rou  in  England  and  Wales. 
Lastly,  I  shall  trace  the  descent  of  their  fiefs  and 
shall  reveal  the  unsuspected  origin  of  the  later 
bearers  of  their  name. 

In  my  Calendar  of  Documents  preserved  in  France 
(pp.  367—9)  I  have  given  abstracts,  in  English, 
from  the  cartulary  of  the  abbey  of  St.  Vincent, 
of  the  charters  of  Hamelin  and  Winebaud  de 
Ballon  (Baladone))  the  former  of  whom  distinctly 
states  that  he  was  born  at  Ballon,  and  that  his  lands 
in  England  were  given  him  by  William  Rufus. 
Mr.  Freeman,  although  he  knew  nothing  of  the 
tale  I  am  now  unfolding,  dealt  in  great  detail  with 
the  Red  King's  campaigns  in  Maine  and  in 
Wales,1  campaigns  which  must  have  been  re- 
sponsible, between  them,  for  the  settlement  in  this 
country  of  Hamelin  and  Winebaud  de  Ballon. 

This  family  must  not  be  confused  with  that 
which  held,  and  took  its  name  from,  the  barony  or 
Bolam  in  Northumberland.  Dugdale  treated  them, 
quite  properly,  as  wholly  unconnected  (vol.  I.  pp. 
453,  680)  ;  but  in  the  Rolls  Series  edition  of  The 
Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer  the  editor  (Mr.  Hubert 
Hall)  treats  the  two  names  as  identical  and  jumbles 

1  See  his  Reign  of  William  Rujusy  passim. 
190 


THE    FAMILY    OF    BALLON 

up  the  two  families  (p.  1097).  And,  by  way  of 
further  confusing  the  pedigree,  he  assumes  (one 
cannot  imagine  why)  that  the  c  Roger  '  de  Baalun 
who  was  still  living  (if  indeed  he  was)  in  1 1 6 1  is 
identical  with  that  '  Reginald '  de  Baalun  who 
occurs  1 1 90- 1 20 1.1 

In  a  fine  passage  Mr.  Freeman  writes  as  follows 
of  Ballon,  when,  alone  among  the  fortresses  of 
Maine,  it  refused  to  admit  the  duke  of  the  Nor- 
mans (1088)  : — 

The  fortress  which  still  held  out,  one  whose  name  we  shall 
again  meet  with  more  than  once  in  the  immediate  story  of  the 
Red  King,  was  a  stronghold  indeed.  About  twelve  miles  north 
of  Le  Mans  a  line  of  high  ground  ends  to  the  north  in  a  steep 
bluff  rising  above  the  Cenomannian  Orne,  the  lesser  stream  of 
that  name  which  mingles  its  waters  with  the  Sarthe.  .  .  .2 
The  hill  forms  a  prominent  feature  in  the  surrounding  landscape  ; 
and  the  view  from  the  height  itself,  over  the  wooded  plains  and 
gentle  hills  of  Maine,  is  wide  indeed.  He  who  held  Ballon 
against  the  lord  of  Normandy,  the  new  lord  of  Le  Mans,  might 
feel  how  isolated  his  hill-fort  stood  in  the  midst  of  his  enemies. 
.  .  .  The  hill  had  clearly  been  a  stronghold  even  from  pre- 
historic times.  The  neck  of  the  promontory  is  cut  off  by  a  vast 
ditch,  which  may  have  fenced  in  a  Cenomannian  fortress  in  days 
before  Caesar  came.  This  ditch  takes  in  the  little  town  of 
Ballon  with  its  church.  A  second  ditch  surrounds  the  castle 
itself,  and  is  carried  fully  round  it  on  every  side. 

Although    Duke   Robert   succeeded    in    obtaining 

1  It  would  be  unnecessary  to  refer  to  the  fearful  confusion 
between  the  lords  of  Monmouth,  descendants  of  c  Baderon '  (see 
p.  1 20  above),  and  the  family  of  '  Balladon,'  named  "  from 
Baladon  a  castle  in  Anjou"  (!),  in  that  singular  work  The  Nor- 
man People  (pp.  148,  291),  were  it  not  that  it  is  freely  cited  in 
the  Duchess  of  Cleveland's  excellent  Battle  Abbey  Roll,  as  if  an 
authority.  2  William  Rufusy  I.  209-211. 

191 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

possession  of  Ballon,  it  was  betrayed  to  William 
Rufus,  ten  years  later  (1098),  by  the  same  com- 
mander, Payn  de  Montdoubleau,  who  had  held  it 
against  Duke  Robert.  William  placed  it  in  the 
hands  of  the  famous  Robert  of  Belleme,  by  whom 
it  was  successfully  defended  on  his  behalf. 

Returning  now  to  this  country,  we  find  Hamelin 
de  Ballon  giving  to  the  abbey  of  St.  Vincent,  not 
only  the  endowment  for  a  priory  at  Abergavenny 
itself,  but  "  all  the  tithes  of  all  Wennescoit,  both 
of  his  own  [demesne]  and  of  the  lands  which  he 
has  given  or  may  give  [in  fee].1  Here  "  Wennes- 
coit "  appears  to  stand  for  "  Gwent  Iscoed  "  (lower 
Gwent)  ;  but  as  his  territory  was  upper  Gwent,  it 
must  represent  Gwent  Uchcoed.  He  further  gives 
the  churches  of  '  Capreolum '  and  c  Luton,'  of 
which  we  are  only  told  that  they  were  in  England. 
Their  identification  proved  a  work  of  great  diffi- 
culty, but  from  later  evidence  I  have  satisfied  my- 
self that  they  were  Great  Cheverel  and  Great 
Sutton  in  Wilts.2 

As  an  instance  of  the  difficulties  often  found  in 

1  Calendar  of  Documents  preserved  in  France,  No.  1046. 

2  These  were  not  held,  in  1086,  by  Turstin  Fitz  Rou.     They 
are  identified  by  a  return  in  the  Testa  de  Nevill  (p.   151),  where 
the  Honour  "de  Mortelay  "  is,- we  shall  find,  that  of  Much  Marcle  ! 
From  the  Testa  also  we  learn  (pp.  135,  138)  that  Little  Cheverel 
was  held  by  the  earl  of  Salisbury,  which  proves,  as  he  was  a  suc- 
cessor of  Ernulf  de  Hesdin,  that  the  latter's  Domesday  '  Chevrel ' 
was  Little  Cheverel.     Mr.  Jones,  in  his  Domesday  of  Wiltshire^ 
thought  that  it  included  both  Great  and  Little  Cheverel,  but  the 
*  Cheverel '  on  fo.  64^,  which  he  did  not  identify,  may  possibly 
have  been  Great  Cheverel.     This  would  account  for   its  being 
at  the  Crown's  disposal. 

192 


THE   FAMILY   OF   BALLON 

identifying  the  names  in  these  charters,  and  of  the 
interesting  discoveries  to  which  their  solution  may- 
lead  us,  we  will  now  take  a  gift  by  Winebaud, 
the  brother  of  Hamelin,  to  the  same  abbey  of  St. 
Vincent  (?  circ.  noo).1     He  gives  it  the  churches 
of  '  Torteoda '   and   c  Augusta '    and    the   tithes   of 
'  Godriton '    and    c  Pedicovia,'    together    with    the 
tithes  of  his  lands  in  Wales.     The  difficulties  here 
are   (i)   that   there   is  no  clue  as   to  where  these 
places  are;    (2)   that  Winebaud   is    a   new-comer, 
and  not  the  heir  of  a  Domesday  tenant,  so  that 
Domesday  will  not  help  us  ;   (3)  that  the  names, 
as  is  so  often  the  case  in  foreign  cartularies,  may 
not  be  trustworthy.     What,  for  example,  can  be 
the    places    styled    c  Augusta  '    and     c  Pedicovia '  ? 
The  clue  is  found  in  c  Torteoda  '  alone.     This  was 
clearly  Tortworth,  Gloucestershire,  which  Domes- 
day shows  us  held  by  Turstin  son  of  Rou.     Fol- 
lowing this  clue,  we  discover  that  c  Pedicovia '  is 
the  c  Pidecome ' 2  which  is  found   at  the  head  of 
Turstin's  fief  in  Somerset  and  is  now   Pitcombe. 
But  the  other  two  manors  can  nowhere  be  found 
in    Turstin's    Domesday  fiefs.     Guided,  however, 
by  his  name,   we   discover   them   in   two   manors 
held    of    the    bishop     of    Worcester    by    him    in 
Gloucestershire,   namely    Aust    (the   c  Austreclive ' 
of     Domesday)     and     Gotherington     in     Bishop's 
Cleeve.      I   would   invite  special  attention   to  the 
fact  that  we  here  find  a  newcomer  obtaining  not 
merely    those  manors  which  Turstin  had  held  in 
capite  from  the  Crown,  but  also  those  which  he 

1  No.  1047.  2  "vi"  having  been  read  for  "m." 

193  o 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

held  from  others  as  a  mere  under-tenant.1  One 
would  like  to  learn  by  whom  Winebaud  was 
placed  in  the  latter  capacity  in  Turstin's  shoes. 

Keeping,  however,  to  the  main  point,  we  find 
that  Winebaud  de  Ballon  was  provided  for  in  Eng- 
land out  of  the  fief  of  Turstin  Fitz  Rou,  which 
had  come,  by  escheat  or  forfeiture,  into  the  hands 
of  the  Crown.  This  leads  us  to  the  interesting 
solution  of  a  problem  which  has  hitherto  puzzled 
the  experts.  Mr.  Ellis,  an  unsurpassed  authority 
on  the  tenants  in  Domesday  Book,  observes  that 
"the  fief  of  Turstin  fitz  Rou,  in  1166,  was  in 
the  possession  of  Henry  de  Newmarch,  but  in 
what  way  it  came  to  him  is  not  apparent."2  Sir 
Henry  Barkly  can  only  tell  us  that  "  Turstin  Fitz 
Rolfs  Domesday  barony  .  .  .  came  in  some 
way  to  the  ancestor  of  the  Newmarchs."  Here 
I  would  observe  that  Henry  de  Newmarch  held 
in  1 1 66  two  fees  from  the  abbot  of  Westminster 
in  Worcestershire  and  Gloucestershire.4  As  Tur- 
stin was  a  tenant  of  the  abbot  (1086)  in  both 
these  counties  it  is  evident  that  here  again  his 
under-tenancies  had  passed  to  those  who  obtained 
his  tenures  in  capite. 

The  heirship  of  Newmarch  to  Winebaud  is  ex- 

1  He  was  already  in  possession  of  them  in  1095,  for,  as  Wine- 
bald  de  Balaon,  he  is  found  among  the  tenants  of  the  bishop  who 
were  ordered  to  pay  relief  in  that  year  (Feudal  England,  p.  3°9)- 

2  "  Domesday  Tenants  of  Gloucestershire  "  (Bristol  and  Glou- 
cestershire Arch.  Tram.,  vol.  IV. 

3  «  Testa  de  Nevill "  (Ibid.  vol.  XIV.).    *  Newmarch'  was  the 
English  form  of  the  name  '  NeufmarcheV 

4  Liber  Rubeus  (Rolls),  p.  188. 

194 


THE    FAMILY    OF   BALLON 

plained  by  a  charter  which  Dugdale  had  seen,  but 
of  which  the  bearing  escaped  him.  He  read,  in 
a  cartulary  of  Bermondsey  Priory  (to  which  Wine- 
baud  de  Ballon  was  a  benefactor  in  1092)  that 
Henry  de  Newmarch  "  ratified  all  those  grants 
which  Winebald  his  grandfather ',  and  likewise  Roger 
and  Milo  sons  of  the  same  Winebald  had  given."1 
Moreover,  a  Tewkesbury  charter  clinches  the 
proof : — 

Carta  Henrici  de  Novoforo  qua  confirmat  manerium  de 
Amenel  ecclesiae  Theok*  quod  Winebaldus  de  Ealun  avus  suus  ex 
parte  dedit  et  ex  parte  vendidit  eidem  ecclesie  primo  anno 
Henrici  regis  primi,  etc.2 

The  place  was  Amney,  Gloucestershire,  held  as 
'Omenie'  by  Turstin  in  1086.  These  charters 
are  decisive,  and  give  us  the  following  pedigree  : — 


WlNEBAUD 

DE  BALLON 


ROGER         MILO         A  DAU.  =  NEWMARCH 

I 

HENRY 
DE  NEWMARCH 


If  further  confirmation  were  needed,  we  should 
find  it  in  a  gift  of  Winebaud  to  St.  Peter's,  Glou- 
cester, with  consent  of  "  Roger  his  son." 3 

The    very    considerable     barony    inherited    by 

1  Baronage,  I.  435.     (The  italics  are  mine.) 

2  Monasticon,  II.  73,  where  the  charter  is  followed  by  a  writ 
of  Henry  II.  in  connection  with  it. 

3  Cartulary  of  St.  Peter's,  Gloucester,  I.  61. 

195 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Henry  de  Newmarch  (over  1 5  knight's  fees  in 
1 1 66)  explains  his  grandfather  Winebaud's  de- 
scription of  himself  as  "  unus  de  magnis  regis 
Henrici  post  conquestum  primi  baronibus "  in  a 
charter  of  1 126.1  In  spite  of  this  position,  Wine- 
baud  is  scarcely  known,  while  the  name  of  his 
brother  Hamelin  is  fairly  familiar.  This  is  prob- 
ably due  to  the  fact  that  Hamelin  founded  a 
religious  house  at  his  stronghold  of  Abergavenny, 
and  was  consequently  commemorated  by  its  monks. 
Winebaud,  on  the  contrary,  scattered  his  benefac- 
tions. In  addition  to  those  to  Bermondsey  Priory 
and  to  St.  Peter's,  Gloucester,  set  out  in  Dugdale's 
Baronage,  he  bestowed  endowments  also  on  St. 
Vincent's  Abbey  at  Le  Mans  2  and  on  the  Cluniac 
Priory  of  Montacute,  Somerset.  His  patronage 
of  this  last  house  was  due,  doubtless,  to  the  fact 
that  he  held  a  considerable  portion  of  Turstin  Fitz 
Rou's  fief  in  Somerset.3  In  addition  to  Pitcombe, 
from  which  he  gave  an  endowment  to  St.  Vincent's, 
at  least  four  other  of  Turstin's  manors  must  have 
passed  to  him,  for  they  are  found  in  the  hands  of 
his  heir,  James  de  Neufmarche.  It  was  this  pos- 
session of  a  Somerset  fief  that  explains  his  presence 
at  the  bishop  of  Bath's  court  in  1120  or  ii2i.4 

1  Cartulary  of  St.  Peter's,  Gloucester,  I.  61. 

2  See  above,  and  my  Calendar  of  Documents  preserved  in  France. 

3  Mr.  Eyton  seems  to  have  been  unaware  of  this  (Domesday 
Studies :  Somerset),  for  he  only  mentioned  that  some  of  Turstin's 
manors  appear  to  have  gone  to  his  under-tenant,  Bernard  Pance- 
volt  and  his  heirs. 

4  Bath   Cartularies    (Somerset    Record  Society),   I.   50.      Also 
Bigelow's  Placita  Anglo-Normannica  (citing  Madox's  Exchequer), 

196 


THE    FAMILY    OF   BALLON 

His  gift  to  Montacute  consisted,  according  to  the 
cartulary  of  that  house,  of  "  the  mill  of  Cadebiri 
with  the  man  and  the  land  belonging  thereto,  and 
the  church  of  Karion."  The  mill  was  at  North 
Cadbury,  one  of  his  Somerset  manors,  but  the 
church  of  '  Karion '  requires  interpretation.  For 
that  interpretation  we  must  turn  to  the  Book  of 
Llandaff,  where  we  find  Pope  Honorius  (II.)  in- 
forming Urban  bishop  of  LlandafF  that 

Winebaldus  de  Baeluna  terrain  de  Cairlion  monachis  de  Montea- 
cuto  pro  animal  suae  remedio  dare  disposuit — 

and  that  he  is  to  give  them  possession  accordingly.2 
As  this  missive  is  dated  from  the  Lateran  i  June,3 
it  cannot  be  earlier  than  1125.  The  appearance, 
in  this  endowment,  of  Winebaud  at  Caerleon  is  of 
special  interest  because  it  is  probable,  as  I  said 
above,  that  his  predecessor  Turstin  Fitz  Rou  was 
there  already  in  1086. 

Winebaud  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Roger,  of 
whom  we  read  under  Somerset  (where  was  the 
caput  of  the  barony)  in  1 1 6 1  : — "  Rogerius  de 
Baelon  debet  xxii  marcas,  sed  debet  auferri."4 

p.  114.  The  document  is  dated  1121,  but  the  first  writ  must  be 
previous  to  the  king's  son's  death  in  1 1 20. 

1  Charter  of  Henry  II.  (Ed.  Somerset  Record  Society,  p.  127). 

2  Register  of  Llandaff.     Book  of  Llan  Dav  (1893),  pp.  30,  53. 
See  also  Monastlcon^  V.  167. 

3  In  the  text  on  p.  53  of  c  the  Book  of  Llan  Dav  '  it  is  *xvi 
kal.  Julii.' 

4  Pipe  Roll  7   Hen.  II.,  p.   50.     A  Roger  de  Baalon  joined 
with  his  wife,   Hawise    (de  Gournai)   in    giving  the   church  of 
Inglishcombe,    Somerset,    to    Bermondsey    Priory.     The    gift    is 
assigned  to  1 1 1 2,  but  Hawise  belonged  to  a  later  generation,  so 
that  there  seems  to  be  some  error. 

197 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

We  have  seen  above  how  this  baro;iy  passed, 
before  1166,  to  a  branch  of  the  house  of  Neuf- 
marche,  from  whom  it  descended  in  turn,  about 
the  close  of  John's  reign,  with  the  two  daughters 
and  co-heirs  of  James  de  Neufmarche,  of  whom 
one  married  Ralf  Russell  of  Kingston  Russell, 
thus  raising  that  family  to  baronial  rank,1  while 
the  other's  moiety  came  to  her  second  husband, 
Nicholas  de  Moels,  and  his  heirs. 

The  statements  that  Winebaud's  brother,  Hame- 
lin  de  Ballon,  died  "in  3  Will.  Rufi "  (1089-1090) 
and  that  he  had  "  no  issue  J>  are  alike  false.  Both 
brothers  are  found  at  the  court  of  Henry  I.  in 
1 10 1,  where  they  witness  as  "Ego  Winebaldus 
de  Baalun,  Ego  Hamelinus  frater  ejus."2  And 
Hamelin  is  a  witness  to  a  Monmouth  charter  in 
iioi  or  iioa,3  and  again  to  one  of  Henry  I., 
granted  between  1103  and  no6.4 

The  statement  that  he  died  without  issue  is 
similarly  derived,  we  saw,  from  the  mendacious 
narrative  of  the  Abergavenny  Priory  monks.  It  is 
absolutely  disproved  by  his  grandson's  carta  in 
1 1 66.  William  son  of  Reginald,  who  made  his 
return  of  knight's  fees  under  Herefordshire,  then 

1  See  below  :  "  The  Origin  of  the  Russells." 

2  Bath    Cartularies  (Somerset   Record  Society),   I.   44.       And 
see  on  p.   45   their  mention  in  a  charter  (noo)  of  Patrick  de 
Sourches,  whose    origin  (like   their  own)  from   Maine,  together 
with  the  true  form  of  his  name,  I  have  established  in  my  Calendar 
of  Documents  preserved  in  France,  p.  xlviii. 

3  See  the  same  Calendar,  p.  408.  4  Ibid.  p.  369. 

198 


THE   FAMILY   OF   BALLON 

certified  that  he  rendered  the  service  of  one  knight 
from  his  demesne,  and  that 

Hamelinus  de  Balun,  avus  suus,  feodatus  fuit  de  veteri  fefamento 
ad  servitium  predict!  militis  faciendum.  Deficit  ei  Cheverel, 
quae  est  in  praecepto  domini  Regis  et  honor  de  Bergeveni,  unde 
deberet  servitium  suum  domino  Regi  si  ei  placeret.1 

The  sequel  to  this  return  is  found,  I  venture  to 
say,  in  the  following  entry  on  the  Fine  Roll  of 
1207  : — 

John  de  Balun  dat  c  marcas  et  unum  palefridum  ut  finis  factus 
inter  Reginaldum  de  Balun  patrem  ipsius  Johannis  et  Gaufridum 
filium  Ace  et  Agnetem  uxorem  suam  de  terra  que  fuit  Hamelini 
de  Balun  unde  cirographum  factum  fuit  inter  eos  in  curia  Regis 
Henrici  patris  domini  Regis  teneatur.2 

The  only  clue  to  the  locality  is  that  the  Roll 
places  it  in  Wilts.  But  it  was  clearly  that  Great 
Cheverel,  which  Hamelin  had  held  as c  Capreo- 
lum,J  which  his  grandson  stated  he  had  lost 
possession  of,  and  which  John  c  de  Balon '  is 
found  holding  under  Henry  III.3  It  is  certain 
then  that  what  had  happened  was  that  Regin- 
ald de  Ballon,  the  successor  of  that  William 
who  had  made  his  return  in  1166,  recovered 
Cheverel  by  fine  before  the  death  of  Henry 
II.  This  Reginald  was  still  living  in  3  John, 
when  the  Pipe  Roll  shows  him,  under  Hereford- 
shire, holding  a  knight's  fee  "  quod  fuit  Willelmi 
filii  Reginaldi.4 

In  the  Testa  de  Nevill   (p.  151)  John  c  de  Balon ' 

1  Black  Book  text.          2  Fine  Roll,  9  John,  m.  n,  p.  382. 

3  Testa  de  Nevi//y  pp.  141,  145,  151. 

4  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer ,  p.  158.1 

199 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

is  said  to  hold  his  Wiltshire  fief  of  the  king  '  de 
honore  de  Mortelay.'  The  explanation  is  found 
on  page  68,  where  we  find,  under  Herefordshire, 
the  "Feoda  honoris  de  Martley,"  and  on  page  65, 
where  we  finally  discover  that  the  place  is  Much 
Marcle  (cMagna  Markele'),  where,  in  1243,  John 
c  de  Balun '  held  1 5  hides  by  the  service  of  one 
knight  "de  veteri  feoffamento."  It  was  for  this  fief 
that  the  return  was  made  in  II66,1  and  it  was 
here,  as  stated  therein,  that  Hamelin  de  Ballon 
had  been  enfeoffed.  We  may  now,  therefore, 
construct  this  pedigree. 

HAMELIN 
DE  BALLON 


living  temp. 
and  in 


William  II. 
1104 


WILLIAM 

i"  son  of  Reginald  " 

and  grandson  of  Hamelin 

living  1 1 66,  1 1 68 

* 
BALLON  OF  MUCH  MARCLE,  etc. 

At  this  point,  in  order  to  grasp  the  interest  of 
•the  genealogical  discovery  to  which  we  are  now 
(Coming,  we  must  return  to  •  our  starting-point, 
William  Fitz  Osbern.  His  great  but  brief  career, 
and  his  son's  tragic  fall,  had  impressed  vividly  the 
world.  "  Where,"  cried  Orderic  Vitalis,  "  is  that 
William  Fitz  Osbern,  earl  of  Hereford,  and  Vice- 
jroy2  (of  England),  steward  of  Normandy,  and 

1  JJnder  Herefordshire.          2  "  Regis  vicarius,." 

200 


THE   FAMILY    OF    BALLON 

leader  of  knights  ?  Truly  he  was  the  first  and 
greatest  oppressor  of  the  English.  .  .  .  But 
the  just  Judge  seeth  all  things.  .  .  .  Even  as 
he  butchered  many  with  the  sword,  so  hath  he 
himself  by  the  sword  perished  suddenly."  Then, 
speaking  of  his  son's  fall,  he  tells  us  of  the  latter's 
sons,  Reginald  and  Roger,  gallant  youths,  striving, 
as  he  wrote,  by  arduous  service — but  striving,  as 
it  seemed,  in  vain — to  gain  king  Henry's  favour. 
"  Thus,"  he  added,  "  William's  stock  has  been  so 
utterly  uprooted,  that  it  does  not  own  (unless  I  am 
mistaken)  a  yard  of  land  in  England."  *  After  this 
mention,  the  two  brothers  disappear  so  absolutely 
from  view  that  in  a  recent  genealogical  work  we 
read,  of  Earl  Roger,  that  his  "  issue  was  soon 
extinct." 2 

Let  us  turn,  however,  to  the  cartulary  of  God- 
stow,  now  in  the  Public  Record  Office.  Under 
the  heading  of  c  Etona '  we  find  three  charters 
showing  how  that  manor  was  bestowed  on  the 

1  "  Rogerius  vero  de  Britolio  comes  Herfordensis    .    .    .    secun- 
dum  leges  Normannorum  judicatus  est,  et  amissa  omni  hereditate 
terrena  in  carcere  regis  perpetuo  damnatus  est.     .     .     .     Rain- 
aldus  et  Rogerius  filii  ejus  optimi  tirones  Henrico  regi  famulantur, 
et  clementiam  ejus  (quae  tardissima  eis  visa  est)  in  duris  agonibus 
praestolantur.     .     .     .     Guillelmi  progenies  eradicata  sic  est  de 
Anglia  ut  nee  passum  pedis  (nisi  fallor)  jam  nanciscatur  in  ilia." 
(Ed.  Socie"te  de  Phistoire  de  France,  II.  264-5.)     M.  Delisle  con- 
siders that  the  '  book '   in  which  this  passage  occurs  was  written 
in  1 125,  a  date  of  importance  for  the  light  it  throws  on  Reginald's 
age,  half  a  century  after  his  father's  fall. 

2  Madan's  Gresleys  of  Drake  low  e  (1899),  p.  7.      So,  too,  in  the 
Complete  Peerage  we  read   that  "  his  issue   is  said  by  Ordericus 
Vitalis  to  have  been  (in  his  time)  extinct"  (IV.  211). 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

monastery.  Two  of  them  proceed  from  "  Regi- 
nald son  of  Roger  earl  of  Hereford  "  and  Emelina 
his  wife,  and  the  third  is  a  confirmation  by 
"  Reginald  de  Baelun  son  of  Reginald  son  of  the 
earl  "  ! 

(i) 

Episcopo  Lincolnie  et  omnibus  Sancti  Dei  ecclesiae  fidelibus, 
etc.  Reginaldus  filius  Rogeri  comitis  Herefordiae  et  Emelina 
uxor  sua  in  Christo  salutem.  Universitati  vestrae  notum  sit  me 
Reginaldum  praedicti  comitis  filium  et  uxorem  meam  Emelinam 
necnon  filios  et  filias  meas  Willelmum,  scilicet,  Reginaldum  et 
Hamelinum  necnon  Agnetem  et  Julianam,  dedisse  et  concessisse 
in  perpetuam  elemosinam  sanctimonialibus  de  Godestow  Eatonam 
manerium  meum  de  p[ropri]o  dominio  nostro  pro  salute  nostra 
et  remedio  peccatorum  meorum  necnon  pro  animal  Henrici  regis 
etc.,  et  quod  teneant  et  habeant  illud  bene  et  in  pace  sicut  nos 
melius  illud  habuimus  dum  in  manu  nostra  fuit,  tempore  regis 
Henrici,  et  postea  regis  Stephani.  Testes  :  Ricardo  de  Canvilla, 
Hugo  de  Berneriis,  Rogerio  Britone  milites  (sic)  regis.1 


Notum  sit  omnibus  me  Reginaldum  de  Baelun  Reginaldi  filii 
comitis  filium,  et  Emelinae  de  Baelun,  concessisse  et  confirmasse 
illam  donationem  quam  pater  meus  et  mater  mea  fecerunt  de 
manerio  suo,  scilicet  Eatona,  sanctimonialibus  in  Godestow  in 

1  This  and  the  following  charter  are  printed  in  the  Monasticon 
from  Glover's  collections  only,  so  that  the  text  is  not  perfect,  while 
the  interesting  witnesses  and  the  date  are  omitted.  The  third 
charter  in  the  cartulary  is  practically  the  same  as  the  one  above 
with  a  different  address.  The  charter  printed  above  contains, 
in  the  cartulary,  this  important  clause  :  "cujus  [i.e.  regis  Stephani] 
etiam  carta  hec  nostra  donacio  confirmata  est  anno  x  regni 
sui,  testibus  Alexandro  episcopo  Lincolniensi,  et  Roberto  episcopo 
Herefordensi,  et  Roberto  priore  Oxenfordie,  et  Waltero  archi- 
diacono  Oxenfordensi,"  etc.,  etc.  This  gives  us  a  date  (1145-6) 
for  the  many  witnesses  named,  including  Robert  (of  Cricklade) 
prior  of  St.  Frideswide's. 

202 


THE   FAMILY    OF   BALLON 

perpetuam  elemosinam  .  .  .  sicut  Reginaldus  pater  meus 
melius  tenuit  dum  in  manu  sua  fuit,  et  sicut  Hamelinus  de  Baelun 
avus  meus  melius  et  liberius  in  vita  sua  tenuit.  Hiis  testibus  : 
Hugone  Brit[one],  Hamelino  de  Baelun,'  etc. 

With  this  clue  we  can  now  identify  the  mys- 
terious "Raginaldus  filius  comitis"  who  was  excused 
Danegeld  on  26  hides  in  Wilts  in  1 130,^8  the  son 
of  Roger  earl  of  Hereford,  who  held  in  Great 
Cheverel  etc.  the  fief  of  his  father-in-law,  Hamelin 
de  Ballon.2  The  'Eatona'  of  these  charters  is  some- 
what difficult  to  identify,  as  Jones'  Domesday  for 
Wiltshire  does  not  help  us.  The  Record  Office,  in- 
deed, seems  to  have  been  baffled,  for,  in  its  recent 
Ministers'  accounts,  it  suggests  '  Yatton  Keynell,'  as 
the  equivalent  of '  Etone  monialium  '  (p.  340  and 
Index).  But  the  Hundred  Rolls,  together  with  a 
document  printed  in  the  Monasticon,  prove  that 
the  place  was  Eaton  in  Stapley  Hundred.3  Under 
the  Hundred  of  Stapley  we  read  in  the  former  (II. 
271):— 

Item  dicunt  quod  Johannes  de  Balun  tenet  I  feodum  militis  in 
manerio  de  Eton  de  Rege  in  capite  pertinens  ad  baroniam  suam. 

1  Pipe  Roll  31  Hen  I.,  p.  22. 

3  I  see  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  earl's  son  was  illegitimate. 
Mr.  Freeman  wrote  of  him  and  his  brother  striving  "  to  merit  the 
restoration  of  some  part  of  their  father's  possessions"  (IV.  592),  and 
Orderic's  words  imply,  surely,  that  they  were  his  disinherited 
children.  The  same  impression  is  conveyed  by  a  passage  in 
Heming's  Cartulary  (I.  2637)  :  "  filius  ejus,  paterne  hereditatis 
parvo  tempore  dominus,  pro  traditione  quam  regi  facere  voluit 
publica  custodia  mancipatus,  omne  vite  sue  explevit  tempus  ergas- 
tulo  religatus,  omnisque  ejus  progenies  ilia  hereditate  lege  publica  pri- 
vatus  est."  3  In  the  extreme  North-East  of  Wilts. 

203 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Et  Abbatissa  de  Godestouwe  tenet  dictum  manerium  de  dicto 
Johanne  in  elemosina  sed  nesciunt  quomodo  alienat'  nee  a  quo 
tempore.1 

We  may  now  briefly  recapitulate  what  we  have 
discovered  about  the  fief  held  by  Hamelin  de 
Ballon.  In  addition  to  Abergavenny  and  its  lord- 
ship, he  held,  in  Wiltshire,  Great  Cheverel,  Great 
Sutton,  and  Eaton.  It  is  this  Wiltshire  fief  which 
enables  us  to  trace  his  heirs  for  at  least  two 
centuries.  Opposite  is  the  most  remarkable  pedi- 
gree to  which  that  possession  leads  us. 

We  saw  above  (p.  199),  that  John  de  Ballon, 
living  in  1207,  was  son  of  a  Reginald  de  Ballon, 
who  was  living  under  Henry  II.  ;  so  that  the  only 
possible  question  is  whether  there  were  two  Regi- 
nalds, father  and  son,  living  under  Henry  II. 
Beyond  the  fact  that  the  fief  was  in  possession  of 
a  Reginald  de  Ballon  so  late  as  iaoi,2  there  is 
no  reason  to  presume  this,  nor  would  it  affect,  in 
any  way,  the  directness  of  the  descent.3  The 
head  of  the  Ballons'  barony,  we  have  seen,  was  at 
Much  Marcle,  Herefordshire,  and  was  so  at  least 
as  early  as  1 166.  As  it  was  held  of  'the  old  feofF- 
ment,'  it  must  have  been  given  by  the  Crown 
before  1135,*  but,  unfortunately,  there  is  nothing 
to  show  whether  it  was  given,  as  seems  probable, 
like  the  rest  of  the  fief,  to  Hamelin  de  Ballon, 

1  His  manor  of  Great  Sutton  is  entered,  as  half  a  fee,  on  p.  277. 

2  As  proved  by  the  Pipe  Rolls. 

3  When  the  later  Pipe  Rolls  are  in  print,  they  may  decide 
this  point. 

4  See  my   correction   of  Mr.  Oman,  on  this  most  important 
^late,  in  The  Commune  of  London  and  other  studies ,  pp.  5^~9- 

204 


OSBERN 

FlTZ    H  ERF  AST 

nephew  of  Duchess  Gunnor 

Dapifer  of  Normandy 

Guardian  of  Duke  William 

Murdered  circ.  1040 


ADELISA=   (i)  WILLIAM  =  (2)  RICHILDIS       OSBERN 
dau.  of       FITZ  OSBERN        widow  of     FITZ  OSBERN 

Roger 
de  Toeni 

Dapifer 
of  Normandy 
Earl  of  Hereford 
Lord  of  the 

Baldwin 
Count  of 
Flanders 

Bishop 
of  Exeter 
1074-1104 

Isle  of  Wight 
Slain  1071 

HAMELIN 
DE  BALLON 
Lord  of 

WILLIAM 
DE  BRETEUIL 
Heir  to  his 

Abergavenny 

father  in 

and  of  a 

Normandy 

Wiltshire  fief 

ob.  s.p.  leg. 

living 

circ.  noo 

IIO2 

ROGER 

EARL  OF  HEREFORD 

Lord  of  the 

Isle  of  Wight 

Forfeited  1074 


EMMA  =  RALF 

EARL  OF 
NORFOLK 


Livi 
prison 


ng  m 
1087 


WILLIAM 
DE  BALLON 

MATTHEW 
DE  BALLON 

EMMELINE  = 
DE  BALLON 
Heiress  to 
her  father 

=  REGINALD 
FITZ  COUNT 
held  the  Ballon  fief  in 
Wilts  1130  jure  ux. 
Living  1  145 

ROGER 


!                1             1 

WILLIAM          REGINALD     HAMELINE 

1 

AGNES 

FITZ  REGINALD    DE  BALLON 

Heir  to         confirm 

ed  his 

Hameline     parents' 
de  Ballon     Wilts)  to 
in  1  1  66     Held  the 

gifts  (in 
Godstow 
fief  1175 

JULIANA 

JOHN  DE  BALLON 
living  1207 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

or  was  bestowed  on  Reginald  '  Fitz  Count '  as  a 
small  possession  in  that  shire  over  which  his 
grandfather  and  father  had  reigned  as  sovereign 
lords. 

For   the    later   history  of  the  Ballons,  lords  of 
Much  Marcle,  reference  may  be  made  to  Cooke's 
continuation  of  Buncombe's  history  of  Hereford- 
shire,1 which  contains  an   elaborate  history  of  the 
manor.      It  would  be  difficult   to   compress   more 
errors  into   thirteen  lines  (pp.  2-3)  than  has   here 
been    done    in    the    early    history    of    the    Ballon 
family.     It    is    worse    than    worthless.     But,    as 
usual,  with  the  reign  of  John  we  emerge  into   the 
light  of  day.     John  de  '  Balun '  of  Much  Marcle 
joined  the  baronial  party  under  John,  was  deprived 
of  his  lands   accordingly  in   July    I2i6,2  but    re- 
covered   them  from    the    Crown  in   June    lai/.3 
The  last  name  on  the  list  of  barons  who  witnessed 
the  confirmation  of  the  charters  in  1225  is  that  of 
John  de  '  Baalun.'     The  barony  or  honour  of  John 
de  'Balun,'  in  1243,  included  Much   Marcle,  and 
Great    Cheverel    with    Great    Button,  Wilts.4     In 
1248-9  (33  Hen.  III.),  Auda,  wife  of  John  'Balun,' 
was  found  heir  to   William   Paynel   of  Somerset,6 
but,  as  she  died  childless,  her  lands  passed  away. 
Like  his  predecessor  John  '  de  Balun '  joined  the 
baronial  party  under  Henry  III.,  losing  his  lands 
in  consequence,  till  he  recovered  them  under   the 
'Dictum'  of  Kenilworth.     This  John  figures  in  the 

1  Vol.  III.  (1882),  pp.  i  et  seq.          2  Close  Rolls,  II.  278. 
3  Ibid.  p.  311.  4   Testa  de  Nevill. 

6  Calendarium  Genealogicumy  pp.  22,  23. 

206 


THE   FAMILY   OF   BALLON 

Hundred  Rolls  as  lord  of  Much  Marcle,  etc.,1  but 
was  succeeded  in  1275  by  his  next  brother 
Walter,  who  married  Isolde  daughter  of  Edmund 
de  Mortimer  and  wife  after  his  death  of  Hugh 
de  Audley.  Much  litigation  followed,  after  Wal- 
ter's death,  between  his  widow  and  his  next 
brother  and  heir,  Reginald.  There  is  preserved 
among  the  Lansdowne  MSS.  (No.  905,  fos.  80- 
89^)  a  series  of  transcribed  deeds  relating  to  Much 
Marcle  in  the  I3th  century,  which  throw  some 
further  light  on  the  Ballons.  There  are  also, 
at  the  British  Museum,  three  original  charters  of 
some  interest.  Of  these,  the  first  is  a  feoffment 
by  John  de  Balon  "  in  manerio  meo  de  Merke- 
lai,"  which  is  dated  by  the  name  of  Maurice  de 
Arundel,  archdeacon  of  Gloucester,  as  between 
1 2 10  and  I245.2  Another  mentions  the  land  of 
"dominus  Walterius  de  Balun"  in  Much  Marcle,3 
and  the  third  is  a  charter  of  "  Reginaldus  de  Balun 
Dominus  de  Magna  Markeleya,"  dated  12 94.* 
This  is  of  special  interest  on  account  of  its  armorial 
seal.  The  official  catalogue  blazons  the  coat  as 
"  3  bars  dancettees,"  but  I  think  it  is  a  barry 
dancetty  coat,  as  indeed  it  seems  to  be  blazoned  on 
the  old  Rolls  of  arms. 

It  is  needless  to  work  out  in  detail  the  later 
pedigree  of  the  family,  beyond  pointing  out  that  it 
ended,  at  Much  Marcle,  in  three  brothers,  John, 

1  See  above  p.  203.     The  Inquest  for  Stapley  Hundred  was 
taken  in  March  1275. 

2  Harl.  Cart.  111.  D.  18.     It  has  an  equestrian  seal. 

3  Eg.  Cart.  346.  4  Ibid.,  352. 

207 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Walter,  and  Reginald,  who  were  successively  its 
lords.  At  Michaelmas  1258  John  de  'Balun'  be- 
stowed an  annuity  of  £  i  o  a  year  on  Reginald  de 
'Balun'  and  his  heirs,1  and  Walter  de  'Balun,'  when 
in  possession,  leased  the  manor  for  three  years 
from  8  September  1285  to  Edmund  de  Mortimer 
(whose  daughter  he  had  married)  for  £60  a  year.2 
How  the  manor  was  lost  to  the  Ballons  is  not  quite 
clear.  Edmund  de  Mortimer,  however,  did  obtain 
possession  of  it,  and  bestowed  on  his  daughter  one- 
third  of  it  (which  she  was  holding  in  dower), 
known  afterwards  as  "  Purparty  Audley,"  from 
Audley,  her  second  husband.  The  remaining  two- 
thirds  was  known  as  "  Purparty  Mortimer."  In 
the  History  of  Herefordshire?  from  which  we  learn 
this,  it  is  stated  that  Reginald  de  Ballon  sold  the 
manor  to  Mortimer  for  £500.  On  the  other 
hand  there  is  an  entry  which  looks  as  if  Reginald, 
on  the  contrary,  had  redeemed  the  manor  for  £500 
in  I294.4  But  the  extraordinary  thing  is  that, 
nearly  two  hundred  years  after  they  had  lost  the 
manor  (1490),  we  find  "the  manor  called  '  Aude- 
leys'  in  Much  Marcle,  held  of  John  Balom,  service 
unknown. "£  The  tendency  of  the  name,  on  Eng- 

1  Lansd.  MS.  905,  fo.  83^.  2  Ibid.  fo.  84. 

3  Ed.  Cooke  ut  supra. 

4  "  Acquietancia  Edmundi  de  Mortuo  Mari  facta  Reginaldo  de 
Babun  (jjir)  domino  de  Magna  Markelea  pro  ccccc  libris  receptis 
per  ipsum  pro  redempcione  dicti  manerii  de   Markelea  "  (Abbre- 
viatio  placitorumy  p.  234). 

6  Calendar  of  Inquisitions :  Henry  VII. ,  vol.  I.  p.  46.  I  have  re- 
ferred to  the  original,  where  the  words  are  :  "  et  tenetur  de 
Johanne  Balom,  sed  per  quod  servicium  ignorant." 

208 


THE    FAMILY    OF   BALLON 

lish  lips,  to  become  corrupted  into  'Balom*  suggests 
that,  perhaps,  through  folk-etymology,  we  may 
have  in  some  obscure  c  Balaam '  the  heir-male  of 
the  body  of  the  great  Viceroy  of  England. 

That  male  descendants  of  these  Ballons,  in  all 
probability,  exist,  is  shown  by  the  mention  of 
cadet  lines.  Apart  from  a  certain  John  c  de  Balun,' 
a  small  holder  in  Much  Marcle,  who  was  hanged 
for  felony  at  the  close  of  Edward  I.'s  reign,1  we 
find  there  a  "  dominus  Reginaldus  de  Balun  "  and 
John  his  son  in  1290-1  (19  Ed.  I.).2  Now,  only 
three  years  earlier  (16  Ed.  I.),  a  John  "filius 
Reginald!  de  Balun"  occurs  in  a  good  position  in 
Dorset  ;3  and  we  find  that  he  was  an  under-tenant 
of  Colbury  and  Stokk,  in  Sturminster  Newton 
Castle,  Dorset,  and  that  these  were  held  by  John 
'  de  Balun '  under  Edward  II.4  Again,  in  Hamp- 
shire we  have  Maihel  c  de  Baalun '  occurring  as  a 
holder  of  land  in  n68,5  and  Roger  c  de  Baalun,' 
its  coroner,  deceased  shortly  before  27  Dec.  I225.6 
Here  too  we  have  'John  Balom '  named  in  the  list 
of  gentry  for  the  county  under  Henry  VI. 

But  the  most  interesting  younger  branch  is  that 
which  settled  in  Somerset.  In  1 166  we  meet  with 
Hamelin  c  de  Baalun  '  and  Mathew  c  de  Baalun  '  as 
tenants  by  knight-service  of  Henry  de  Neufmarche, 
grandson  and  heir  of  Winebald  de  Ballon  in  Som- 

1   Calendarium     Genealoglcum,    and     Calendar    of    Close    Rolls 
1307-1313,  p.  no.  2  Lansd.  MS.  905,  fo.  86£. 

3  Abbreviatio  rotulorum  originalium,  I.  58. 

4  Hutchins'  Dorset,  IV.  340. 

5  Pipe  Roll,  14  Henry  II.,  p.  186.          6  Close  Rolls. 

209  P 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

erset  and  elsewhere.1  In  1199-1200  William  de 
Neufmarche  grants  to  Hamelin  '  de  Balun,'  in  his 
court,  a  mill  and  land  at  Cadbury,2  where  Roger 
'  Balon '  seems  to  have  been  holding  under  Henry 
III.3  Their  Somerset  home,  however,  was  at  Dun- 
kerton,  some  four  miles  south  of  Bath,  which  was 
held  in  Domesday  by  our  old  friend  Turstin  Fitz 
Rou.4  Walter  '  de  Balun '  was  installed  there  in 
I256,5  and  Petronilla,  his  widow,  occurs  in  I295.6 
In  1316  John  c  Balon '  was  one  of  the  lords  of 
c  Dunkerton  cum  Cridelcote  '  (Credlington),7 — for 
they  went  together,  and  so  late  as  1417-8  (5  Hen. 
V.)  they  were  held  by  John  '  Balon.'-8  I  have  now 
given  sufficient  clues  for  those  who  may  be  inter- 
ested in  the  history  of  the  family,  after  it  had  sunk 
from  baronial  rank,  to  follow  out  its  fate  by  local 
research. 

We  may  return,  therefore,  to  the  fate  of  Aber- 
gavenny,  which,  we  have  seen,  did  not  descend  to 
the  heirs  of  Hamelin  de  Ballon.  Dugdale's  state- 
ment that,  having  no  issue,  he  "  gave  that  castle  to 
Briene,  son  to  the  earl  of  the  Isle,  his  nephew/'  is 
as  erroneous  as  it  can  be.  The  assertion  in  the 
valuable  Complete  Peerage*  that  Hamelin  was  suc- 

1  See  p.  195  above. 

2  See  p.  197  above.     The   record   is  a  Somerset  fine   in  the 
Somerset  Record  Society's  volume  of  them,  p.  4. 

3  Calendar  of  Close  Rolls,  1330-1333,  p.  514. 

4  See  p.  196  above. 

5  Bath  Cartularies  (Som.  Rec.  Soc.),  I.  71. 

6  Somerset  Fines  (Ibid.\  p.  294.          7  Nomina  villarum. 
8  Inq.  p.m.          9  Vol.  I.  p.  12. 

210 


THE   FAMILY    OF    BALLON 

ceeded  by  "Brientius  de  Insula  or  de  Wallingford, 
(his)  son  and  heir/'  is,  if  possible,  wider  of  the 
mark.  Brian — who  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
Isle,  but  was  a  natural  son  of  Count  Alan  of 
Britanny — obtained  Abergavenny  and  '  Overwent ' 
(the  appendant  district  of  Upper  Gwent)  from 
Henry  I.,  of  whom  he  was  a  trusted  officer,  and 
was  established  there  at  least  as  early  as  1119, 
when  we  find  him  named  by  Pope  Calixtus  among 
the  magnates  of  the  diocese  of  Llandaff.1  It  was 
as  governor  of  this  district  that,  as  late  as  1136, 
he  escorted  Richard  (Fitz  Gilbert)  de  Clare  on  his 
way  back  from- England  to  Cardigan.  Giraldus  Cam- 
brensis,  describing  his  approach  to  Abergavenny, 
from  Cardigan,  "through  that  narrow  wooded  [pass] 
known  as  the  evil  pass  of  Coit  Wroneu,  that  is  of 
the  wood  of  Gronwy,"  writes  : — - 

Contigit  autem  paulo  post  obitum  Anglorum  regis  Henrici 
primi,  nobilem  virum  Ricardum  Clarensem,  qui  cum  honore  de 
Clara  Kereticam  regionem  in  australi  Kambria  possidebat  ab 
Anglia  in  Walliam  hac  transire.  Et  cum  provinciae  illius  tune 
dominum,  Brienum  videlicet  Gualinfordensem,  cum  militibus 
multis,  usque  ad  passum  praedictum  socium  habuisset  et  deduc- 
torem,  tarn  ipsum  invitum  [tamen]  in  ipso  silvas  ingressu  cum  suis 
remisit,  quam  contra  ejusdem  monita  silvam  inermis  intravit.2 

Between  July  1141  and  December  1142  the 
empress  Maud,  to  whom  Brian  was  as  faithful  as 
he  had  been  to  her  father,  granted  at  his  request 
"  and  (at  that)  of  Maud  de  Wallingford  his  wife," 
that  Milo  earl  of  Hereford  should  hold  from  them 
the  castle  of  Abergavenny,  with  all  its  appurtenant 

1  The  Book  of  Llan  Davy  p.  93. 

2  Ed.  Rolls  Series,  VI.  47-8  (cf.  p.  118). 

211 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

"  Honour,"  by  the  service  of  three  knights.1  This 
Milo  had  already  acquired  the  lordship  of  Brecon, 
adjoining  Overwent  on  the  north-west,  by  his 
marriage,  in  1 1 2 1 ,  with  Sibyl,  the  daughter  of  its 
conqueror,  Bernard  de  Neufmarche.2 

In  the  meanwhile,  Chepstow,  with  the  lordship 
of  Nether-Gwent,  which  had  passed  into  the  hands 
of  the  Crown  in  IO74,3  had  been  bestowed  by 
Henry  I.  on  Walter,  a  son  of  Richard  de  Clare,4 
who  there  founded  Tintern  Abbey,  and  at  whose 
death  his  possessions  passed  to  his  nephew,  Gilbert 
de  Clare,  first  earl  of  Pembroke  or  of  '  Strigul ' 
(Chepstow).  The  part  taken  by  the  house  of 
Clare  in  the  conquest  of  South  Wales  has  never 
yet  been  worked  out,  although  it  was  of  great 
importance.  In  addition  to  the  grant  of  the  pre- 
sent Cardigan  to  Gilbert  the  head  of  the  house,6  a 
footing  was  established  in  Caermarthenshire,  under 
William  Rufus,  by  the  Devonshire  branch  of  the 
family.  This  most  interesting  fact  seems  to  have 
escaped  notice.  In  the  Brut  y  Tywysogion1  we  read, 
under  1096  ('  1094'),  that — 

William,  son  of  Baldwin  died,  who  founded  the  castle  of  Rhyd 

1  See  my  Ancient  Charters  (Pipe  Roll  Society),  p.  43,  where 
this  charter  is  fully  discussed  (pp.  44—5). 

2  Ibid.  pp.  8-9.  3  See  p.  187  above. 

4  He  heads,  as  'Walter  the  son  of  Richard,'  a  list  of  the 
magnates  of  the  diocese  of  Llandaff  in  Oct.  1119,  being  followed 
immediately  by  Brian  Fitz  Count  (Book  of  Llan  Davy  p.  93). 

6  See  Clare  pedigree  in  my  Feudal  England  (facing  p.  472),  and 
my  Commune  of  London  (p.  309),  and  my  article  on  "The  Family 
of  Clare  "  in  Archaeological  Journal  (LVI.  221-231). 

6  In  1 1 1 1 ,  it  is  said.  7  Rolls  Series. 

212 


THE   FAMILY   OF   BALLON 

y  Gors  by  the  command  of  the  king  of  England,  and  after  his 
death  the  custodians  left  the  castle  empty. 

Again,  under  1 104  ('  1 102  '),  we  find  this  entry  :• — 
Rickart,  son  of  Baldwin  stored  the  castle  of  Rhyd  y  Gors. 

Lastly,  we  are  told,  under  the  year  1 102  (c  1 100'), 
that  Henry  I.,  to  gain  over  the  Welsh  chieftain 
lorweth  son  of  Bleddyn,  promised  him — 

half  of  Dyved,  as  the  other  half  had  been  given  to  the  son  of 
Baldwin. 

Mr.  Freeman  appears  to  have  thought  that  the 
important  castle  of  Rhyd-y-Gors,  which  had  suc- 
cessfully resisted  a  Welsh  attack  before  1096,  was 
in  north-east  Wales  ;  for  he  wrote  that — 

Earl  Roger  meanwhile,  from  his  capital  at  Shrewsbury  and  his 
strong  outpost  at  his  new  British  Montgomery,  pushed  on  his 
dominion  into  Powys.  The  king  at  least  approved  if  he  did  not 
at  this  stage  help 'in  the  work;  the  castle  of  Rhyd-y-Gors  was 
built  by  William  son  of  Baldwin. 

[Note].  Was  this  William  son  of  that  Baldwin  from  whom 
Montgomery  took  its  Welsh  name  ? 1 

But  in  the  Brut  the  castle  is  associated  with  the 
valley  of  the  Towy  ('Tywi'),  and  Sir  James 
Ramsay  is  doubtless  right  in  placing  it  "  near  the 
town  of  Caermarthen." 2  Moreover,  the  note- 
worthy statement  that  "  half  of  Dyved  "  had  been 
given  to  "  the  son  of  Baldwin  "  must  refer  to  the 
lord  of  Rhyd-y-Gors  ;  and  Dyved  (Pembroke- 
shire) adjoined  Caermarthenshire. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  a  knowledge  of  Norman 

1  William  Rufusy  II.  97  (where  the  marginal  heading  is  "  North 
Wales").  2  Foundations  of  England,  II.  180. 

213 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

genealogy  comes  to  our  help  and  enables  us  to 
identify  those  sons  of  Baldwin  by  whom  the  above 
historians  were  puzzled.  It  was,  as  I  have  else- 
where observed,  the  habit  of  the  members  of  the 
house  of  Clare  to  distinguish  themselves  only  by 
the  Christian  names  of  their  fathers.  The  follow- 
ing pedigree  will  show  clearly  the  connection  of 
this  mighty  house  with  the  conquest  of  South 
Wales. 


RICHARD 

son  of  Gilbert. 

Of  Clare  and 

Tunbridge  in  1086 


BALDWIN 
son  of  Gilbert. 
Sheriff  of  Devon 
in  1086 


GILBERT 

WALTER 

WILLIAM 

RICHARD 

son  of  Richard 

son  of  Richard 

son  of  Baldwin 

son  of  Baldwin 

son  and  heir. 

Lord  of  Nether 

Sheriff  of 

Sheriff  of 

Lord  of 

Gwent 

Devon. 

Devon. 

Cardigan. 

IIII 

d.  s.  p. 

Held  Rhyd- 
y-Gors. 
Died  s.  p.  1096 

Held  Rhyd- 
y-Gors 
in  1  104 

RICHARD  GILBERT 

son  and  heir  succeeded 

Lord  of  Cardigan      his  uncle 

slain  1136  Walter  in 

Nether  Gwent 


It  is  possible  that  Richard  son  of  Baldwin,  who 
was  in  favour  with  Henry  I.  in  1102,  received 
from  him  "  half  of  Dyved  "  on  the  forfeiture  of 
Arnulf  de  Montgomery. 

214 


THE   FAMILY   OF   BALLON 

We  may  perhaps  find  another  hint  that  the 
Normans  invaded  Caermarthenshire  from  Devon 
in  the  fact  that  a  small  religious  house  at  St.  Clears, 
in  the  valley  of  the  Taf,  was  a  cell  of  St.  Martin 
des  Champs,  which  was  also  the  mother  house  of 
the  priory  at  Barnstaple  opposite.  It  may  be 
worth  noting  that  the  peninsula  of  Gower,  lying 
to  the  south  of  Caermarthenshire,  was  occupied, 
according  to  a  Welsh  authority,  by  "  Saxons  from 
Somerset  "  under  "  Harry  Beaumont."  It  is  quite 
true  that  this  Henry  (the  first  earl  of  Warwick) 
did  obtain  possession  of  it  ;  and  he  founded  there 
the  priory  of  Llangennith  as  a  cell  of  St.  Taurin  of 
Evreux.1  But  I  gather  from  the  charter  I  found 
at  Evreux  that  he  did  so  earlier  than  the  Brut 
implies,  perhaps  even  before  the  Conqueror's  death. 

To  complete  these  notes  on  the  conquest  of 
South  Wales,  I  may  point  out  that  "  Rickert  son 
of  Ponson,"  who  is  found  in  the  Brut  y  Tywysogion 
holding  Cantref  Bychan,  with  the  castle  of  Llan- 
ymddyvri  (Llandovery)  in  1115  ('1113'),  is  no 
other  than  the  ancestor  of  the  Cliffords,  Richard 
the  son  of  Pons,  who  held  that  district — East  Caer- 
marthenshire, lying  along  the  east  bank  of  the 
Towy,  between  it  and  Brecon — in  1121  and  circa 

I  I27.2 

1  See  my  Calendar  of  Documents  preserved  in  France,  No.  316. 

2  See  my  Ancient  Charters  (Pipe  Roll  Society),  pp.   8-9,  21. 
I  have   proved  on  the  latter  page  that    his  wife   was  a  sister  of 
another    of    the   Conquist adores,    Miles    of  Gloucester,    Lord    of 
Brecknock.    His  gifts  to  Malvern  of  the  church  of  Llandovery  (?) 
and  tithes  in  the  district  will  be  found  in  the  Monasticon,  III.  448. 

215 


Our  English  Hapsburgs :    a  Great 
Delusion 

ROMANTIC  in  its  story,  unique  in  its  splendour,  the 
descent  of  the  Feildings,  earls  of  Denbigh,  is  with- 
out a  rival  in  the  English  Peerage.  Their  earldom, 
comparatively  ancient  (1622)  though  it  be,  is, 
as  it  were,  but  a  creation  of  yesterday  by  the 
side  of  that  dignity  of  count  of  Hapsburg,  which 
they  have  held  for  centuries  in  the  male  line  as 
members  of  the  proudest  and  one  of  the  mightiest 
of  the  reigning  houses  of  Europe.  For  it  is  no 
mere  question  of  pedigree  that  is  involved  in  their 
illustrious  descent  :  the  earls,  according  to  Burke  s 
Peerage^  were  counts  of  Hapsburg,  Lauffenburg 
and  Rheinfelden  ;  an  eagle  of  Austria  bears  their 
arms,  which  are  surmounted  by  the  cap  of  a  count  of 
the  Empire  ;  and  the  name  of  Rudolph,  which  the 
heads  of  the  house  have  borne  now  for  two  genera- 
tions, keeps  before  our  eyes  a  descent  immortalized 
by  the  pen  of  Gibbon. 

Nor  is  it  only  in  Burke  s  Peerage  that  this  descent 
was  fully  recognised.1     In  Dugdale's  Warwickshire 

1  So,  in  Mr.  Shirley's  well-known  Noble  and  Gentlemen  of  Eng- 

216 


OUR    ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

and  in  his  Baronage  it  is  accepted  as  an  undoubted 
fact.  It  has  been  recognised,  one  may  say,  by  the 
English  Crown  in  the  patent  of  creation  for  the 
barony  of  St.  Liz  (1664)  :  it  is  said  to  have  been 
always  recognised  by  the  emperors  of  Austria  them- 
selves, and  is  at  least,  as  I  am  credibly  informed, 
admitted  by  the  reigning  sovereign.  Indeed,  I 
have  seen  it  stated,  on  what  ought  to  be  good 
authority,  that  an  earl  of  Denbigh  has  been  treated 
by  the  Imperial  Ambassador  at  Rome  "  in  all 
respects  as  a  member  of  the  Imperial  House,"  and 
"  as  if  he  was  one  of  the  Grand  Dukes." 

There  is  no  lack  of  documentary  evidence  in 
support  of  the  family  claims.  In  addition  to  the 
documents  given  by  Dugdale,  many  others  will  be 
found  in  the  elaborate  history  of  the  family,  com- 
posed for  its  head  in  1670  by  the  Rev.  Nathaniel 
Wanley,  and  printed  in  what  is  perhaps  the  best 
known  of  our  county  histories,  Nichols'  Leicester- 
shire.1 

The  story,  as  I  have  said,  is  somewhat  romantic. 
Geoffrey,  count  of  Hapsburg,  Laufenburg  and 
Rheinfelden  (d.  1271),  head  of  the  younger  line  of 

land  we  read  : — "  The  princely  extraction  of  this  noble  family  is 
well-known  ;  its  ancestor  Galfridus,  or  Geoffrey,  came  into  Eng- 
land in  the  twelfth  year  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III,  and  received 
large  possessions  from  that  monarch.  The  name  is  derived  from 
Rin  felden  in  Germany,  where,  and  at  Lauffenburg  were  the 
patrimonial  possessions  of  the  House  of  Hapsburg." 

1  Vol.  IV.,  Part  L,  pp.  273-290.  It  is  there  stated  that  there 
was  another  similar  history  of  the  family  executed  "  before  the 
year  1658,"  which  being  sent  to  London  by  command  of  George 
II.,  for  his  inspection,  "  unfortunately  perished  by  fire.'* 

217 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Hapsburg,  is  said  to  have  been  reduced  to  com- 
parative poverty  by  his  cousin  Rudolph  (afterwards 
the  first  Hapsburg  emperor)  and  to  have  sent  his 
son  and  namesake  Geoffrey  to  England,  temp.  Hen. 
III.  This  younger  Geoffrey  married  Maud  de 
Colville  over  here,  took  the  name  of  Feilding 
("  Felden  "),  and  had  issue  a  son  and  heir  Geoffrey, 
who,  by  his  wife  Agnes  de  Napton,  was  the  direct 
ancestor  of  the  earls  of  Denbigh.  Geoffrey,  the 
father,  returning  to  Germany,  was  refused  his  in- 
heritance for  having  married  Maud  de  Colville 
without  his  family's  permission  ;  and  Geoffrey  his 
son,  likewise  disinherited,  eventually  (1309)  ob- 
tained from  Count  Rudolph,  the  uncle  who  had 
supplanted  him,  a  sum  of  7,000  marcs  in  compen- 
sation for  his  claim  on  Rheinfelden.  The  deeds 
relating  to  this  transaction  are  carefully  preserved 
by  the  family. 

I  have,  for  some  time,  been  interested  in  this 
unique  story,  because,  unless  it  is  wholly  false,  it 
must  be  wholly  true,  in  which  case  it  is  difficult  to 
exaggerate  the  splendour  of  the  claim  it  involves. 
A  certain  John  Vincent,  of  whom  we  shall  hear 
again,  spoke  of  Feilding's  "  originall  from  that 
greate  German  family  of  Hapsburg,  that  hath  pro- 
duced so  many  emperors,  kings,  and  great  nobility, 
in  many  countries  of  Christendome,"  and  the 
worthy  Wanley  urged  their  right  "  to  claime  alli- 
ance with  the  godds,  meaning  crowned  kings." 

But  now  comes  the  strange  point  that  first  raised 
my  suspicion.  I  found  that  although  the  family 

1  Nichols  ut  supra,  278. 
218 


OUR    ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

had  come  here,  we  are  told,  under  Henry  III., 
their  earliest  assumption  of  the  German  dignities 
seems  to  have  been  under  Charles  II.  (i  675-1 685).1 

As  to  the  German  descent  it  first  appears  in  print, 
so  far  as  I  can  find,  in  Dugdale's  Warwickshire 
(i656).2  In  short,  as  was  observed  in  the  Quarterly 
Review?  it  was  only  after  their  lucky  rise,  through 
marriage  with  Buckingham's  sister,4  that,  "  in  due 
course,  the  family  revealed  a  fact  which  they  had 
hitherto  kept  to  themselves,  namely  that  they  were 
not  of  English  origin,  but  were  descended,  in  the 
male  line,  from  the  mighty  house  of  Hapsburg." 
Let  us  turn  for  proof  of  this  assertion  to  four 
sources  of  information  :  ( i )  the  family  monuments, 
(2)  a  glass  window  put  up  by  the  family  at  their 
seat,  (3)  the  family  pedigrees,  (4)  the  family 
patents. 

On  the  family  monuments  and  brasses,  of  which 
several  are  recorded,  we  find  neither  mention  of  the 
Hapsburg  descent,  nor  use  of  the  Hapsburg  arms.5 
To  the  family  window  of  painted  glass  I  attach 

1  This  is  the  date  of  the  third  earl,  in  whose  time  there  was 
executed    an    engraving  of  the   family  seat,   on   which   he   was 
assigned  the  style  of  "  Comes  de  Hapsburg,  Dom's  Loffenburg  & 
Rinfelden  in  Germania,  Baron  of  Newnham  Padox  and  Snt  Liz, 
Viscount  Feilding  &  Earle  of  Denbigh  in  England,"  etc.,  etc.      It 
is  probably  to    this    that    'Burke'    referred    when    it   said    that 
"  William,  third    Earl    of    Denbigh,    resumed   the   ancient    de- 
nomination  of  HAPSBURG,  which  his  descendants  still  use." 

2  In  Burton's  Description  of  Leicestershire  it  had  not  yet  appeared. 
(See  Nichols,  p.  251.)         3  Oct.   1893,  p.  390. 

4  See  Gardiner's  History  of  the  Civil  War  and  the  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography^  XVIII.   290. 

5  See  Dugdale's  Warwickshire  and  Nichols*  Leicestershire. 

219 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

considerable  importance.     It  may  be  remembered 
that    the    famous   imposture  by  which  the  Cam- 
bridgeshire Stewarts  were  derived  from  the  Royal 
Stuarts  of  Scotland  was  supported  by  a  similar  glass 
window,  which  was  made  to  confirm  the  descent. 
The  Feilding  window  was  put  up  (or  at  least  com- 
pleted), it    would   seem,   about   the   close    of  the 
sixteenth    century,    for    the  first  Lord    Denbigh's 
parents  are  the  last  members  of  the  family  that  it 
depicts.       Erected    ad  majorem  gloriam  gentis^   we 
might  fairly  expect  it  to  make  the  most  of  their 
pedigree,  especially  at  a  period,  in  these  matters,  so 
unscrupulous.     Yet  it  only  begins  with  Geoffrey 
Feilding,  who  married  Agnes  de  Napton,  an  heiress, 
under  Ed.   II.  or  Ed.   III.     Coming  now  to  our 
third  source — the  pedigrees,  we  find  the  Visitation 
Pedigree  of  1563  1  beginning  in  the  same  way  with 
this  Geoffrey  and  Agnes.     The  Visitation  of  1619 
raises  a  difficult  question.     The  copy  of  this  Visita- 
tion among  the   Harleian  MSS.   is  in  the  actual 
handwriting  of  Sampson  Lennard,  Bluemantle,  and 
bears  his  arms  upon  the  cover,  as  we  learn  from 
the  official  catalogue.     Now  he  was   one   of  the 
deputies  who  actually  took  this  Visitation  for  Cam- 
den.     We  may  therefore  claim  this  MS.   as  the 
very  best  authority.     Humphrey  Wanley,  to  whom, 
I  believe,  we  owe  the  long  note  on  it  in  the  official 
catalogue,  discusses  its  relation  to  the  College  copy 
(C.  7),  which  is  less  full,  and,  in  that  sense,  imper- 
fect.     This  discussion  is  worth  reading  by  all  who 
are  interested  in  the  genesis  and  modus  operandi  of 
1  Coll.  Arm.  G.  xi.,  fo.  46  ;  H.  xii.,  fo.  31. 

220 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

Visitations.  Now  the  Feilding  pedigree,  which  is 
duly  found  in  Bluemantle's  own  copy,1  is  here  car- 
ried back  for  two  generations  to  a  "John  Feldinge," 
but  an  alternative  descent  is  also  entered  as  "  out  of 
Mr.  Feilding's  pedigree."  This  carries  back  the 
descent  from  Geoffrey  and  Agnes  for  nine  genera- 
tions (!),  and  is  one  of  those  familiar  concoctions 
that  nobody  nowadays  accepts.  Its  only  value  lies 
in  its  witness  that  the  family  were  already  trying  to 
get  beyond  Geoffrey,  though  the  glorious  vision  of 
Hapsburg  had  not  yet  burst  upon  their  view. 

Turning  next  to  our  fourth  source,  a  comparison 
of  the  family  patents  of  creation  leads  us  to  the 
same  conclusion.  The  original  patent  for  the 
barony  (30  Dec.  1620)  recites  that  "  Willelmus 
Feilding  miles  genere  et  nomine  clarus  et  illustris 
ex  antiqua  Willingtoniorum  quondam  baronum 
hujus  regni  familia  per  multas  baronum  et  equitum 
auratorum  successiones  oriundus  est."2  This  claim 
can  scarcely  be  said  to  err  on  the  side  of  modesty, 
for  according  even  to  Dugdale,  the  panegyrist  of 
the  family,  the  new  peer's  ancestor  was  William 
Wellington,  "  a  wealthy  merchant  of  the  staple," 
who  bought  a  property  at  Barcheston,  Warwick- 
shire, 14  Sept.  23  Hen.  VII.,  "depopulated  the 
town"  in  the  following  year,  and  died  in  I555-3 

1  See  the  Harl.  Soc.  edition  of  the  Warwickshire  Visitation 
(1619).  2  Nichols,  289. 

3  See,  for  details  of  the  depopulation  (in  1509),  Mr.  Leadam's 
Domesday  of  Enclosures,  II.  416—7  : — "  quasi  totum  hamelettum 
de  Barcheston  desolatur  et  adnichilatur  .  .  .  et  24  persone 
de  suis  mansionibus  expelluntur  et  lacrimose  de  victu  et  opere, 
evitantur  et  sic  in  miseria  perducuntur." 

211 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

According  to  Dugdale,  he  was 

son  to  John  Wellington  of  Todnam  in  Gloucestershire,  and  he 
of  William  Willington  of  the  same  place,  son  of  another  John  ; 
descended,  as  'tis  probable,  from  that  Ralph  de  Wylinton,  who 
lived  in  E.  I  time,  of  which  line  /  conceive  that  John  de  Wylinton 
and  Ralph  de  Wylinton  were,  who  in  the  times  of  King  Edward  3 
and  Ric.  2  had  successively  summons  to  Parliament  amongst  the 
Barons  of  this  Realm.  * 

So  much  for  the  long  succession  of  barons  and 
equites  aurati  from  whom,  according  to  this  vera- 
cious patent,  Lord  Feilding  derived  his  descent. 
But  even  in  this  patent  there  is,  we  see,  no  trace 
of  the  Hapsburg  claim.  Nor  is  it  found  two  years 
later,  when  the  earldom  was  created  (1622).  But 
when  we  come  to  the  St.  Liz  patent  of  1664,  we 
read  : — 

Cum  Basilius  comes  Denbigh  a  celeberrima  et  antiquissima 
prosapia  comitum  de  Hapsburg  in  Germania,  per  Galfridum 
quondam  comitem  de  Hapsburg  oriundus,  etc.,  etc.2 

Having  thus  made  good  my  point  that,  in  Eng- 
land, this  splendid  descent  was  not  revealed  till 
about  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  I 
shall  now  show  that  on  the  German  side  the  alleged 
descent  has  not  been  recognised  by  historical  or 
antiquarian  authorities,  nor  even  by  the  House  of 
Austria  itself,  as  alleged,  in  the  past. 

I  select  for  this  purpose  three  typical  authorities 
from  the  seventeenth,  the  eighteenth,  and  the  nine- 
teenth centuries.  The  first  of  these  is  Francis 
Guilliman,  whose  Habsburgica  dedicated  to  the 
then  emperor  Rudolf,  was  published  in  1609.  I 

1  Warwickshire  (1730),  601.  2  Nichols,  291. 

222 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

have   quoted   from   the   revised    edition    of   1696. 
The  title  runs  :  — 

Francisci  Guillimanni  Habsburgisca 

sive  de  antiqua  et  vera  origine  domus  Austriae 
*  *  *  * 

Ad  Rudolfum  II 

Habsburgi  —  Austriacum  Imperatorem  semper  Augustum  (Editio 
nova,  a  plurimis  mendis  purgata). 

Ratisbonae  .  .  .   1696. 

The  subject  was  taken  up  where  Guilliman  left 
it  by  a  writer  of  unimpeachable,  because  official 
authority.  I  allude  to  the  great  work  of  Herrgot, 
the  Imperial  Historiographer,  based  on  original 
documents  throughout.  It  was  executed  for  and 
dedicated  to  the  emperor  Charles. 


Genealogia  Diplomatica  Augustas  gentis  Hapsburgicae, 
continentur  vera  gentis  hujus  exordia,  antiquitates,  propagationes, 
possessiones,  et  praerogativae,  chartis  ac  diplomatibus  maxima 
parte  ineditis  asserta  .  .  .  opera  et  studio  R.  P.  Marquardi 
Herrgot  .  .  .  sacrae  Gaesareae  Regiaequae  Catholicae  Majestatis 
Consiliarii  et  Historiographi  .  .  .  Viennae  .  .  .  1737. 

[Dedication] 

Augusto  Caesari  Carolo  Hapsburgensi  D.  Leopoldi  F.  patriae 
patri  optimo  maximo. 

Guilliman  devotes  his  seventh  book  to  the  counts 
of  Hapsburg  of  the  Laufenburg  line,  and,  combin- 
ing his  work  with  that  of  Herrgot,  the  pedigree 
runs  as  shown  on  the  next  page  :  — 

The  scene  of  our  story,  it  is  needful  to  explain, 
is  on  the  south  or  Swiss  bank  of  the  Rhine  from 
Basle  on  the  west  to  Constance  on  the  east. 
Ascending  the  river  eastwards  from  Basle,  we  first 
pass  the  town  of  Rheinfelden  —  of  which  more 

223 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 


RUDOLF 

("  the  taciturn  ") 
count  of  Hapsburg. 


1 

1 

I 

1         1         1 

ELIZABETH  =  GOTFRID, 

RUDOLF 

EBERHARD 

WERNHER 

f  Ochsen- 

count  of  Haps- 

bishop of 

count  of 

ob.  s.  p. 

stein]1 

burg  and  lord 

Constance, 

Kyburg, 

— 

of  Lauffenburg, 

d.  3  April 

jure  uxoris 

Otho,  ob.  s.  p 

d.  29  Sept. 

1293 

* 

— 

1271,  bur.  at 

HARTMAN* 

Wettingen 

ob.  s.  p. 

[GOTFRID, 

b.  puer,  bur.  with  his  father 
at  Wettingen] 


RUDOLF, 

count   of  Hapsburg,  lord  of  Lauffenburg 
and  jure  uxoris  of  Rapperschwyl,  d.  1314 


JOHN 

count  of  Hapsburg,  lord 
of  Lauffenburg. 


RUDOLF 

count  of  Hapsburg,  lord  of  Rapperschwyl, 
slain  at  Morgarten,  15  Nov.  1315. 


anon — then  Sackingen,  the  site  of  an  abbey,  with 
which  the  Hapsburgs  were  connected,  and  lastly 
Laufenburg,  the  "castle  of  the  rapids,"  the  pic- 
turesque and  ancestral  home  of  our  counts. 

Their  line  was  founded  by  Rudolf,  "  the  Taci- 
turn "  (d.  1249),  from  whose  elder  brother  de- 
scended the  Hapsburg  emperors  of  Austria.  With 
Gotfrid,  his  son  and  heir,  our  story  begins.  This 
Gotfrid  was  lord  of  Laufenburg,  which  he  held  of 
the  abbey  of  Sackingen.  In  one  document  he 
occurs  as  "comes  de  Laufenburg"  (1258)  ;  in  all 
others  as  "  dominus  Lauffenburgi,"  or  count  of 
Hapsburg  only.  Guilliman  assigns  him  Elizabeth 

1  In  Guilliman  only. 
224 


OUR    ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

Ochsenstein  as  a  wife  :  Herrgot  says  the  fact  rests 
on  Guilliman's  authority  alone.  By  the  latter  he 
is  assigned  two  sons,  Gotfrid  (the  Feildings'  alleged 
ancestor),  who,  dying  shortly  after  his  father,  was 
buried  at  Wettingen  in  the  same  grave,  and 
Rudolf, — both  of  them  left  in  ward  to  their  uncle, 
Bishop  Rudolf.1  Herrgot  ignores  Gotfrid  alto- 
gether (p.  236) — probably  from  his  dying  too 
young  to  be  mentioned  in  any  documents.  That, 
in  any  case,  he  cannot  long  have  survived  his 
father  is  shown  by  an  important  deed  of  1274, 
printed  by  Herrgot,2  from  the  archives  of  Wettin- 
gen,3 which  runs  :  "  per  legitimum  tutorem  aut 
tutores  Ruodolfi  domicelli  nostri,  filii  videlicet  bonas 
memorias  Comitis  Goetfridi." 

Herrgot  lays  special  stress  on  the  fact  that  this 
Rudolf  alone  continued  the  line  : — 

totam  progeniem  lineae  Lauffenburgo — Habsburgicae,  absque 
controversial,  Rudolpho  ejus  [Gotfridi]  filio,  de  quo  hie  agimus, 
esse  adscribendam. 

Rudolf  remained  in  ward  till  1288,*  and  we 
have  accordingly  a  deed,  of  5  June  1287,  printed 
by  Herrgot  "  ex  Archive  Wettingensi,"6  in  which 
the  bishop,  his  uncle  and  namesake,  styles  him- 
self— 

1  "Uxor  fuit  Elisabetha  Ochsensteinia.  Ex  qua  filii  Got- 
fridus,  qui  paullo  post  patrem  excedens,  eodem  tumulo  insertus 
est,  et  Rudolfus  :  uterque  sub  tutela  Rudolfi  praepositi  et  post 
episcopi,  patrui,"  p.  549.  2  p.  447. 

3  The  great  abbey   of   Wettingen,  the  burying-place  of  the 
family,  is  situated  on  the  line  from  Basle  to  Zurich,  considerably 
south  of  the  Rhine. 

4  Allgemeine  Deutsche  Blographie.  6  DCXLII.,  p.  533. 

225  Q 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

R.  dei  gratia  Constantiensis  episcopus,  tutor  pupilli  R[udolfi] 
Comitis  de  Hapsburg. 

and  refers  "  pradicto  R[udolfo]  Comiti  nostro 
nepoti."  This  long  minority,  Herrgot  observes, 
greatly  improved  the  family  estate. 

I  now  pass  to  my  third  authority,  representing 
the  results  of  the  latest  German  research  on  the 
subject  (1879).  This  is  the  article  on  the  house 
of  "  Hapsburg-Laufenburg "  in  the  Allgemeine 
Deutsche  Biographic  (vol.  X.  p.  284),  which  is 
based  on  the  monographs  of  Munch  in  Argovia, 
the  local  historical  organ,  supplementing  Herrgot's 
work.  The  pedigree  there  given  is  as  follows  : — 

RUDOLF 

the  Taciturn,  of  Laufenburg, 
d.  6  July,  1249 

GOTTFRIED 
of  Laufenburg, 
d.  1271 

RUDOLF,  of  Laufenburg  (and  afterwards  =  Elizabeth,  heiress  or 
of  Rapperschwyl,  jure  uxoris\  b.  15  July  Rapperschwyl,  widow 
1270,  in  ward  to  his  uncles  till  1288.  of  Ludwig  von  Hom- 

berg,  mar.  1296. 

It  is  here  positively  stated  that  Rudolf  was  the 
only  son  ("  der  name  H[apsburg]  L[aufenburg] 
blieb  jetzt  dem  einzigen  am  1 5  July  1270  geborenen, 
Sobne  Graf  Gottfrieds  I,  Rudolf  III").  The 
Feildings'  alleged  ancestor  is  wholly  ignored  ;  and 
Rheinfelden  is  not  included  in  the  possessions 
assigned  to  the  house.  The  date  of  Rudolf's  birth, 
which  this  article  gives  us,  explains  his  long 

226 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

minority  from  1271  to  1288.  Had  the  original 
concoctor  of  the  pedigree  known  of  these  dates, 
he  would  have  hesitated  to  make  Rudolf's  brother 
come  to  England  under  Henry  III.  (1216-72). 

Now,  bearing  in  mind  the  true  pedigree,  as 
given  by  the  German  authorities,  let  us  see  how 
the  original  concoctor  of  the  Feildings'  spurious 
pedigree  set  to  work.  He  had  to  affiliate  their 
undoubted  ancestor  and  founder  of  their  house, 
Geoffrey  Feilding,  husband  of  the  Napton  heiress, 
who  must  have  lived  under  Edward  II.  and  Edward 
III.  For  this  purpose  he  boldly  pitched  upon 
Gotfried,1  the  son  of  Count  Gotfried,  who  died, 
according  to  Guilliman,  just  after  his  father. 
Probably,  as  I  have  said,  he  was  unaware  that  Got- 
fried was  an  infant  at  his  father's  death  (1271)  and 
that  his  brother,  as  we  know  now,  was  only  born 
in  1270.  Wanley  had  read,  it  is  true,  in  Bucel- 
linus  : — "  Gotfridus  secundus  obiit  in  juventute  "  ; 
but  he  got  over  this  difficulty  by  holding  that  this 
"jwentus,  in  the  gradations  of  the  yeares  of  man, 
may  be  extended  to  the  period  of  fourty  yeares  "  ! 
This  enabled  him  to  assign  to  Gotfried  a  career  of 
which,  on  the  German  side,  there  is  no  trace. 
Bringing  him  to  England,  in  his  father's  lifetime, 
at  some  unspecified  date  in  the  reign  of  Henry  III. 
(1216-1272),  he  made  him  there  marry  Matilda 
de  Colville  and  have  children.  Then,  at  a  date 
equally  unspecified,  he  made  him  return  to  Ger- 
many, to  satisfy  the  authorities  who  say  that  he 
was  buried  at  Wettingen.  A  difficulty  faced  him, 

1  See  pedigree,  supra  p.  224. 
227 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

ot  course,  in  the  fact  that  in  all  the  English  docu- 
ments the  Christian  name  is  "  G^/fridus,"  and  in 
all  the  German  ones  "  Gtfrfridus."  The  two 
names  might  occasionally  be  confused,  but  such 
unanimity  as  this  cannot  be  explained  away.  He 
got  over  it,  however,  by  simply  converting  every 
"Gotfridus  "  of  the  house  of  Hapsburg  into  "Gal- 
fridus." ' 

But  the  chief  obstacle,  of  course,  in  his  way 
was  the  utter  absence  of  any  evidence  for  his 
story,  combined  with  the  utter  ignoring  of  it  by 
every  German  authority.  Now  I  shall  not  profess 
to  state  each  step  in  the  growth  and  development 
of  the  legend.  I  can  only  take  the  alleged  proofs 
as  they  stand.  First,  then,  in  an  evil  hour  for  him- 
self, the  concoctor  endeavoured  thus  to  explain  the 
name  of  Feilding  : — 

Memorandum  quod  Galfridus  Comes  Hapsburgicus  propter 
oppressiones  sibi  illatas  a  Comite  Rodolpho,  qui  postea  electus  erat 
Imperator,  ad  summam  paupertatem  redactus,  unus  ex  filiis  suis, 
nomine  Galfridus  militavit  in  Anglia  sub  Rege  Henrico  tertio. 
Et  quia  pater  ejus  Galfridus  Comes  habuit  pretensiones  ad  certa 
dominia  in  Lauffenburg  &  Rinfelden,  retinuit  sibi  nomen  de  felden^ 
Anglice  Filding. 

Dugdale,  who  printed  this  "  Memorandum  "  in 
his  History  of  Warwickshire?  declared  the  MS.  to 
be  "  written  about  K.  Edward  4  time/'  but, 
even  if  genuine,  the  style  of  the  handwriting,  it 
will  be  found,  is  of  the  time  of  Henry  VIII. 
We  shall  see  that  this  unlucky  derivation  has 

1  Compare  the  similar  conversion  of  the  Scottish  Stewarts  into 
Sty  wards  on  p.  140  above.  2  (2nd  Ed.)  I.  86. 

228 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

proved  fatal  to  the  whole  imposture.  In  the 
meanwhile,  we  may  note  that  the  excellent  Wan- 
ley  was  somewhat  puzzled  by  the  occurrence  of  a 
"Feilding"  at  Lutterworth  (their  abode)  before  the 
arrival  of  the  mysterious  German,  the  alleged 
founder  of  the  family  ;*  but  he  suggested  that 
perhaps  the  exile  adopted  Feilding  as  "  by  a 
double  reflection  the  fittest  surname  for  this 
family  "  ! 

Let  me  now  enumerate  the  deeds  and  docu- 
ments on  which  rests  the  alleged  descent  : — 

(a)  Six   German   deeds,   namely,  two    of  1307, 

two  of  1309,  and  two  of  I365.2 

(b)  Eleven  English  deeds  (as  I  reckon  them)  of 

the  fourteenth  century. 

(c)  Several    English   documents   or   memoranda 

(printed  in   Dugdale's  Warwickshire   and 

Nichols'  Leicestershire)  .3 

Taking  these  in  order,  I  begin  with  the  German 
deeds.  The  first  point  to  strike  the  expert  is  a 
strange  air  of  unreality,  a  sense  of  there  being 
"  something  wrong  "  ;  the  expressions  are  strange, 
the  language  unusual.  The  next  point  is  that 
their  concoctor  has  overdone  his  part  :  in  his 
extreme  anxiety  to  introduce  the  story  of  Count 
Geoffrey's  settlement  in  England,  in  his  eagerness 
to  connect  the  name  of  Feilding,  through  Felden, 
with  Rheinfelden,  he  has  shown  his  hand  too 
plainly  and  only  raised  our  strong  suspicions.  The 

1  Nichols,  pp.  278-9 

2  All  in  Nichols  (pp.  280,  281,  286). 

3  Two  in  Dugdale  (p.  86),  the  rest  in  Nichols. 

229 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

third  point  is  that  "  Germania  "  is  used  through- 
out for  Germany,  whereas  the  right  name,  in  deeds 
and  documents  of  the  time,  is,  of  course,  "  Ale- 
mania."  I  may  add  that,  as  we  might  expect, 
"family"  is  rendered  "  familia  "  ! 

Let  us,  however,  examine  in  detail  the  first  two 
charters.  Wanley  describes  them  as  being  "jointly 
in  one  deed,"  but  the  first  is  dated  at  Sackingen 
"  primo  kalend'  Junii"  (!)  1307,  and  the  second  at 
Rheinfelden  "  decimo  kalend'  Decembris,"  1307. 
In  the  first  of  these  documents,  John  "  de  Rot- 
bery,"  as  "  procurator  specialiter  delegatus "  for 
the  abbey  of  Sackingen,  testifies  that  John 
"  Steine,"  the  "  servus  familiaris  "  of  the  exiled 
noble's  son  and  heir,  has  come  to  claim  on  his  be- 
half "omnia  dominia,  feoda,  et  servitia  tarn  in 
comitatu  de  Rhynfelden  quam  in  diversis  aliis  locis 
in  Germania,"  and  that  the  Abbess  and  Convent 
can  only  pray  to  God  "  et  omni  curie  celestium 
animarum  "  (!) 

ut  exaltent  ilium  ad  dignitates  non  indignas  viro  tarn  alti  san- 
guinis,  ut  qui  a  longa  serie  comitum  et  principum  de  Hapsburg, 
tandem  a  primis  Francorum  regibus  genus  suum  deducens,  mereatur 
honorem  et  estimationem  in  illo  glorioso  regno  Angliae,  sicut  justum 
et  decorum  esse  videatur. 

This  extract  may  serve  as  a  sample  of  these 
ridiculous  documents,  of  which  the  dog-Latin  is 
at  times  exquisitely  funny.  But  their  concoctor 
might  at  least  have  avoided  introducing  into  those 
of  1307  the  clause  "  regnante  domino  Adolpho 
Imperatore,"  considering  that  the  Emperor  Adolph 
had  died  in  1298 — nine  years  before  ! 

230 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

The  hand  of  the  forger  stands  revealed. 

After  this  it  is  useless  to  waste  time  over  the 
deeds  of  1309,  of  which  the  first  has  the  seal, 
alas  !  "  broken  off  from  the  label."  This  reminds 
us  that  the  abbess  of  Sackingen  had,  we  are  told, 
reasons  of  her  own  for  not  affixing  her  seal  to  the 
first  of  these  deeds,  so  that  her  proctor  used  his 
own  by  her  orders  ("ex  ordine  suo").  So  with 
the  two  deeds  of  1365,  of  the  first  of  which  we 
read  that  "  the  bishop's  seal  was,  by  the  motions 
of  several  journeys  broken  off,  but  exactly  copied 
out  before."  The  last  of  these  documents  has, 
indeed,  the  seal  of  "  Sir  George  Hirschorn, 
knight,"  still  "  entire "  ;  but  this  proves  to  be 
only  a  fancy  rebus  on  his  name,  which  anyone 
could  invent.  It  is  singular  that  an  English  deed 
(2  Ed.  III.)  of  considerable  importance  for  the 
descent  "  had  the  seal  of  the  eagle  affixed  to  it, 
but  by  accident  broke  off"  (p.  284).  Another 
English  deed  (28  Ed.  III.)  was  "  so  defaced  as 
not  thought  fit  to  be  made  use  of  amongst  other 
evidences  whose  originals  remain  so  clear  and 
entire1  especially  since  the  seal,  which  had  the 
impression  of  a  lion  rampant,  in  its  passage  from 
London  into  Warwickshire,  was  unfortunately 
thrown  into  the  water  with  the  sumpter-horse, 
wherein  it  was  (as  also  by  the  motion  of  the 
horse)  broken  off  and  mouldered  to  nothing  ;  the 
type  of  which  seal  was  taken  long  before,  and 
remains  yet  in  the  earl  of  Denbigh's  Book  of 
Evidences."  How  provoking  these  seals  were  ! 

1  No  doubt ! 
231 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

There  was  a  deed  of  3  Ric.  II.  which  "  had  affixed 
to  it  the  seal  of  an  eagle,"  which  is  what  we  want, 
but — "  by  often  removals  broken  off,  though 
before  entered  into  the  earl  of  Denbigh's  Book 
of  Evidences"  (p.  285).  How  prescient  it  was 
to  enter  these  seals,  and  how  invaluable  are  the 
entries  now  ! 

But  to  return  to  the  German  deeds  or  "1365," 
which  are  respectively  dated  "  tertio  die  mensis 
Martii  "  and  "  tertio  Calend'  Martii  " — rather  an 
awkward  combination  (p.  286).  I  must  explain 
at  the  outset  that  though  they  are  composed  in 
the  same  queer  Latin  as  the  others,  they  ought 
to  be  in  old  German.  Herrgot  prints,  in  his  great 
work,  some  seventy  charters  for  the  period  1360- 
1390  ;  they  relate  to  the  same  parties  as  these  two 
documents,  the  duke  of  Austria,  bishop  of  Basle, 
counts  of  Hapsburg,  etc.,  etc.,  and,  without  one 
exception^  they  are  all  in  old  German.  But  doubt- 
less old  German  was  more  than  the  forger  could 
attempt.  The  story  these  deeds  tell  is  really 
rather  a  clever  one.  They  relate  to  "  William 
Filding,  Esq.,  of  Lutterworth,"  whom  they  trans- 
form into  "  Willielmus  de  Hapsburg,  natione 
Anglus  vocatus  autem  in  Anglia  Felden^  ex  antiqua 
prosapia  comitum  et  principum  de  Hapsburg  in 
Germania  oriundus."  According  to  them,  "  post 
multas  devastationes  ab  Anglicis  commissas  in 
Alsatia  et  aliis  partibus  Germaniae,"  this  William 
"in  illo  exercitu1  prefectus  equitum,"  was  taken 
prisoner,  "  fortiter  dimicans,"  near  the  Rhine,  by 

1  "  in  exercitu  Anglorum,"  in  the  other  deed. 
232 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

the  bishop  of  Basle's  men.  His  alleged  kinsman, 
Duke  Leopold  of  Austria,  heard  that  he  was 
undergoing  greater  hardships  "  quam  convenire 
poterit  dignitate  (sic)  Germanicas  gentis,  vel 
nataliis  ipsius  Willielmi,  qui  ab  antiquis  comitibus 
de  Hapsburg  originem  suam  deducit."  He  inter- 
vened, therefore,  to  help  him  in  his  distress  ("  in 
tempore  distressus  sui  "  !),  and  procure  his  libera- 
tion at  the  hands  of  the  bishop.  Now,  what,  it 
may  be  asked,  could  an  English  army  be  doing 
at  this  time  in  Alsace  ?  Well,  a  celebrated  leader 
of  the  time,  Enguerrand  de  Coucy,  Earl  of  Bed- 
ford, and  Knight  of  the  Garter,  son-in-law  of 
Edward  III.,  maternal  grandson  of  Duke  Leopold 
of  Austria,  and  son  of  the  proudest  baron  in 
Europe,  raised  an  army  to  enforce  his  claims, 
through  his  mother,  on  Austria,  in  which  was 
comprised  a  picked  force  of  6,000  Englishmen. 
Hence  this  army  was  known  as  the  "  English  " 
bands,  and  the  scene  of  its  defeat  between  Basle 
and  Lucerne  is  still  known  as  "  the  English 
Barrow."  Moreover,  it  actually  did  march  to 
the  banks  of  the  Rhine,  and — through  Alsace — 
into  Switzerland.  But,  alas,  all  this  took  place, 
not  in  1365,  but  in  1375,  and  the  ingenious 
forger  has  clearly  confused  it  with  the  raid  of 
Cernola's  French  freebooters  in  1365  !  This  is 
sad,  for  had  he  only  made  his  document  quite 
accurate,  it  would  have  gone  far  to  support  the 
Hapsburg  claim. 

Passing  to   the   English   deeds   and   documents, 
I  select,  as  the  simplest  test,  their  mention,  among 

233 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

the  family  dignities,  of  Rheinfelden.  The  best 
known,  probably,  of  these  evidences  is  that  letter 
of  attorney  of  1316  (9  Ed.  II.),  in  which  Geoffrey 
Feilding  (the  real  ancestor,  as  I  term  him)  styles 
his  grandfather  "  Comes  de  Hapsburg  et  Dominus 
in  Laufenburg  et  Rinfilding  in  Germania."  For, 
Dugdale  having  selected  it  for  insertion  in  his 
Warwickshire  and  his  Baronage^  it  found  its  way 
into  Collins'  Peerage^  etc.,  etc.  The  attempt  to 
make  the  name  of  the  place  approximate  to  that 
of  the  family  will,  of  course,  be  observed.  The 
same  form  recurs  in  a  deed  assigned  to  Geoffrey, 
his  alleged  father  (the  one  who  came  to  England 
temp.  Hen.  III.).1  There  are  several  other  of 
these  documents  in  which  the  name  is  found  ; 
and  in  two  of  them  at  least  the  style  runs,  not 
"  dominus,"  but  "  Comes  de  Hapsburg,  Laffenberg 
&  Rinfelden  " — which  is  that  used  by  the  Feilding 
family.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Hapsburgs 
of  Laufenburg  were  neither  lords  nor  counts  of 
Rheinfelden,  and  did  not  so  style  themselves,  these 
documents  are,  obviously,  forgeries.  I  turn,  there- 
fore, to  the  German  authorities  for  information  on 
the  subject. 

In    his   chapter    "  de    dominio   et   burggraviatu 

Rhinfeldensi,"2    Herrgot,    who    elsewhere    tersely 

says  :    "  in    nostris    monumentis    nullus    occurrit 

Comes  Rhinfeldensis,"  discusses  the   early  history 

of  Rheinfelden,   and   shows  that  the  town,  at  an 

early   period,   belonged  directly   to   the   Emperor. 

An    imperial    charter     of    1225     guaranteed    this 

1  Nichols,  277.  2  Lib.  I.  cap.  xi. 

234 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

position,  and  promised  that  the  town  should  not 
be  severed  from  the  imperial  domain.1  Accord- 
ingly in  June  1243  we  ^nc^  ^  administered  by 
Ulric  de  Liebenburg  "  Sacri  Imperii  Ministerialis 
et  Burgravius  in  Rinfelden."2  So  again  we  find 
the  emperor  Rudolf  granting  liberties  to  "  omnes 
nostros  de  Rinvelden "  (31  July  I2j6)?  It 
would,  therefore,  he  observes,  be  waste  of  time 
to  discuss  the  supposition  that  the  Laufenburg 
counts  had  any  connection  with  Rheinfelden. 
And  indeed  in  his  vast  collection  of  charters 
relating  to  the  family,  there  is  not  one  to  be  found 
in  which  they  occur  as  lords  of  it,  or  claim  any 
rights  over  it.  Guilliman  had  written  no  less 
positively : — 

De  Hapsburgi  Comitibus  qui  ad  avitum  prater  LaufFenberg 
dominium  nihil  tituli  addiderunt  .  .  .  Hapsburgi  comitum 
nomen  retinuerunt,  neque  ad  id  adjunxerunt  aliud,  quam  ex 
Lauffenbergo  oppido  Rheni  denominationem." 

Lastly,  the  Allgemeine  Deutsche  Biographic  (1879), 
enumerating  the  possessions  of  these  Hapsburg 
counts,  wholly  omits  Rheinfelden,  and  gives 
Laufenburg  as  their  residence,  till  their  marriage 
with  the  heiress  of  Rapperschwyl  made  them 
occasionally  reside  there  also.  This  point  is  the 
more  important  because  the  second,  third  and 
fourth  of  the  spurious  German  deeds  are  all  dated 
from  Rheinfelden,  an  obvious  attempt  to  introduce 
the  name  which  has  merely  increased  the  evidence 
against  them.4 

1  Vol.  II.  p.  231.  2  Ibid.  p.  269.  3  p.  269. 

4  I  mean  the  deeds  professing  to  be  German  in  origin,  not  in 
language. 

235 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  did  the  daring  con- 
coctor  come  to  make  Rheinfelden  the  keystone 
of  his  story  ?  This  raises  the  difficult  question 
whether  Rheinfelden  was  merely  introduced  to 
patch  together  a  connection  between  Feilding  and 
Hapsburg,  or  was  itself  the  origin  of  the  whole 
story  by  the  tempting  termination  Rhein/^/db?. 
In  either  case  he  had  clearly  got  hold  of  some 
foreign  work  which  assigned  Rheinfelden,  in 
error,  to  the  Laufenburg  Hapsburgs.  Exactly 
such  a  work  is  found  in  the  Basiltkon  of  Elias 
Reusnerus,  of  which  the  first  edition  was  pub- 
lished in  1592,  and  which  is  actually  referred  to 
throughout  by  Wanley.1 

Now  this  writer  gives  us  (p.  26)  the  following 
pedigree  (see  next  page)  : — 

But,  indeed,  even  Wanley  tacitly  rejects  this 
erroneous  pedigree,  and  points  out  that  Reusnerus 
had  confused  Gotfrid  [d.  1271],  who  fought 
against  Berne,  with  his  son.  Yet  it  is  to  such 
untrustworthy  writers  that  we  are  referred 
throughout,  and  when  appeal  is  made  to  the 
Annales  Murenses  for  confirmation,2  we  find  they 
do  not  include  Rheinfelden  among  the  family 
possessions. 

We  may  therefore  safely  reject  every  Feilding 
deed  or  document  in  which  Rheinfelden  occurs  ; 
and  difficult — almost  impossible — though  it  be  to 

1  His  general  reference  at  the  end  is  to  "  Hemminges,  Reus- 
nerus, Albicius,  Bucelinus,  and  all  the  German  writers  on  this 
subject  as  well  ancient  as  modern  "  (Nichols,  290)  ! 

2  Nichols,  265. 

236 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

RODOLPHUS  TACITURNUS  Comes  Habsburgius, 
facta  divisione  cum  fratre,  Lauffenburgi  et 
Khynfeldee  sortitus  est  comitatus,  cum  Advo- 
c.atia  Seckingensi  .  .  .  tandem  a  fra- 
truelo  Rudolpho  Cesare  *  pro- 

scriptus,  obiit  in  exilio. 


I  I  I 

EBERHARDUS,     GOTOFRIDUS  Comes  Hapsbur-     RUDOLPHUS  Epis- 

etc.,  etc.  gius  Dynasta  LaufFenburgi  &     copus      Constan- 

Rbynftld*.    Naturae  concessit     tensis,  etc.,  etc. 
1271.  Tumulatus  Wettingae. 


JOANNES  I.  Comes  Hapsburgius 
et  LaufFenburgius  in  caenobio 
Wettingensi  prope  fratrem  se- 
pultus.  Uxor  N.  Comitissa  a 
Niddar. 


JOANNES  II.  Comes  Hapsburgi 
et  Kiburgi. 


GOTOFRIDUS  II.  Comes  LaufFen- 
burgius et  Rhynfeldemis  Bernates 
.  .  .  bello  aggresus  aliquam- 
diu  quidem  afflixit,  sed 
arma  vertit  in  Rudolphum  Au- 
gustum  ...  In  quo  sane 
bello  occubuit.  Sepultus  in 
ccenobio  Wettingensi. 


RUDOLPHUS  II.  Comes  Lauf- 
fenburgi, Palatinus  Burgundiae 
.  .  .  [ob.]  1314. 


[To  show  how  wildly  erroneous  is  this  pedigree,  I  need  only 
print  its  outline  by  the  side  of  the  true  one  : — ] 


[TRUE]. 
GOTFRID 


[GOTFRID]          RUDOLF,  d.  1314 


JOHN 


RUDOLF 


[FALSE]. 
GOTFRID 


GOTFRID 


JOHN 
JOHN     RUDOLF,  d.  1314 


1  Rudolph,  of  course,  was  not  emperor  till  many  years  after 
the  count's  death. 

237 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

believe  that  all  these  evidences  were  forged  to 
prove  the  pedigree,  the  facts  leave  us  no  alternative 
to  this  astounding  conclusion. 

I  now  pass  from  the  pedigree  to  the  arms. 

Strenuous  efforts  were  made  by  those  who  were 
responsible  for  the  Hapsburg  descent  to  connect 
the  arms  of  Fielding  with  those  of  Hapsburg. 
The  former  are  "  Arg.  on  a  fess  Az.  three  lozenges 
Or,"  the  latter,  "  Or  a  lion  rampant  Gu."  (now 
"  ducally  crowned  Az.").  The  attempt  to  prove 
the  user  of  the  latter  having  virtually  failed,  an- 
other line  was  adopted.  The  arms  of  Austria — 
which  are  quite  distinct  from  those  of  Hapsburg 
and  are  now  borne,  separate,  by  their  side  on  the 
emperor's  shield — were  pressed  into  the  service. 
These  are  Gu.  a  fess  Arg.  It  is  needful  to  re- 
member that  the  Laufenburg  Hapsburgs  had  no- 
thing to  do  with  Austria,  and  of  course  (as  their 
seals  prove),  did  not  use  its  arms.  Undaunted, 
however,  the  bold  concoctor  produced  a  document 
"  Extract'  ex  antiquis  historicis  et  evidenciis  comi- 
tum  de  Hapsburg,"1  of  which  "the  handwriting 
cannot  be  of  lesser  antiquity  than  the  latter  end 
of  King  Henry  VI.,  or  the  beginning  of  King 
Edward  IV.  of  England."  This  precious  docu- 
ment narrates  that : — 

Galfridus  comes  de  Hapsburg  filius  Rodulphi  comitis,  cum 
ambiret  in  uxorem  Margaretam  viduam  et  haeredem  Austriae,  in 
signum  amorosi  obsequii  [!]  saepe  in  hidis  equestribus  et  in  sigillis 
usitare  solitus  erat  tramitem  cum  tribus  cuneis  ornatum,  postpositis 
armis  suis  gentilitiis,  scilicet  leone.2 

1  Nichols,  276. 

3  It  will  be  observed  that  this  story  is  curiously  parallel  to  that 

238  ' 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

Then  it  goes  on  to  say  how  he  sent  his  son 
Geoffrey,  "  tune  exutum  patrimonio  in  comitatu 
Rinfeldensi"  to  [England,  temp.  Hen.  III.  A  vari- 
ant (in  English)  of  this  document  is  quoted  by 
Nichols  (p.  251)  "from  a  MS.  written  about  the 
middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  " — a  significant 
date.  Wanley  follows  it  by  some  sapient  remarks, 
with  which  should  be  compared  those  he  makes 
on  p.  286.  As  to  the  palm  tree  crest  now  used 
by  the  family,  he  opines  (p.  275)  that  it  may 
refer  to  a  tournament  "  in  the  time  of  Frederick 
the  Second/'  at  which  their  ancestor  was  "  said  to 
carry  away  the  palme  "  ! 

I  do  not  undertake  to  identify  positively  the 
original  culprit  (or  culprits)  in  this  colossal  im- 
posture. According,  indeed,  to  Dugdale,  the  belief 
is  of  great  antiquity  :  but  where  the  whole  evi- 
dence is  so  tainted  with  forgery,  one  cannot  be 
blamed  for  looking  on  every  document  with  sus- 
picion. I  cannot  at  present  find  that  the  claim 
was  advanced  even  by  the  first  earl  of  Denbigh  ; 
but  when  we  come  to  his  son,  the  second  earl 
(1643-1675),  we  find  him  identified  with  it  at 
every  point.  It  was  by  his  command  that  Na- 
thaniel Wanley  drew  up  the  family  history  ;  it 
was  in  his  time  that  Dugdale  was  induced  to  pub- 
lish the  claim  for  the  first  time,  in  his  Warwick- 
shire and  Baronage  ;  it  was  he  who  obtained  the 
St.  Liz  Patent,  in  1664,  containing  a  formal  re- 

which  was  concocted  by  the  Cambridgeshire  Stywards  to  account 
for  their  bearing  a  lion  coat  instead  of  the  fess  of  their  alleged 
ancestors,  the  "royal  Stewarts"  (see  pp.  138-141). 

239 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

cognition  of  the  claim  ;*  it  was  he  who  put  up,  at 
his  family  seat,  a  window,  introducing  for  the  first 
time,  as  it  seems,  the  palm  tree  crest  ;2  it  was  he 
who  corresponded,  we  shall  find,  with  Ashmole 
(1670)  about  the  Hapsburg  claim;  it  was  he  (/ 
am  told]  who  subscribed  to  rebuilding  the  College 
of  Arms,  and  thus  secured  the  entry  in  the  book 
of  "  benefactors  "  of  his  Hapsburg  descent ;  and  it 
was  he  who  employed  John  Vincent,  that  "  needy, 
seedy "  man,  as  I  have  heard  him  described,  in  con- 
nection with  it.  For  we  find  an  entry  by  Vincent 
in  Lord  Denbigh's  Book  of  Evidence s>  concerning  a 
chimney-piece  he  had  seen  at  Lutterworth  in  1665, 
"  having  some  relation  to  the  renowned  family  of 
Hapsburg,  from  whence  the  right  eminent  family 
of  Feildings  thereabouts  (most  truly  and  clearely 
deriving  their  discent)  doe  very  frequently  use  a 
lyon  rampant  crowned  in  theire  scales."3 

Now  this  clue  is  worth  following  up,  for  John 

1  Ante,  p.  195.     This  title  represented  his  claim  to  descend  from 
St.  Liz,  earl  of  Northampton,  through  the  Seytons  (who  were 
alleged  to  be  "  alias  St.  Liz  ").     As  G.  E.  C.  points  out,  under 
Denbigh,  he  held  already  a  barony  of  earlier  date  (1620),  which 
renders  strange  his  desire  for  this  one.     But  besides  gratifying  his 
evident  craving  for  ancient  descent,  it  gave  him  (as  a  friend  has 
pointed  out  to  me)  the  opportunity  of  introducing  the  Hapsburg 
claim  into  the  patent. 

2  He  also  introduced  an  eagle  crest.     Dugdale  asserts  (War- 
wickshire, I.  87)  that  they  had  used  "for  their  crest  sometime  an 
Eagle,  and  at  other  a  Palm  Tree,  though  of  later  times  alterned." 
But  the  old  glass  window  and  the  Visitation  pedigrees  show  only 
the  true  crest,  a  nuthatch  with  a  fructed  bough. 

3  Nichols,  278.     This  makes  an   important  addition  to  the 
memoir  of  Vincent  by  Nicholas,  in  which  it  is  stated  (p.   100) 
that  "no  trace  has  been  found"  of  him  after  1653. 

240 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

was  the  son  of  Augustine  Vincent,  and  inherited  his 
heraldic  collections.  According  to  Noble, — 

John  Vincent  was  ...  a  good  genealogist,  herald,  and 
antiquary  ;  but  so  ill  an  economist  and  so  fond  of  liquor  that  he 
frequently  pawned  some  of  his  father's  literary  labours  to  pay 
tavern  expences.1 

This  character  may  be  derived  from  a  remark  by 
Anthony  a  Wood,  in  a  letter  of  14  October  1685, 
on  the  Sheldon  MSS.  (now  among  the  treasures  of 
the  College  of  Arms) : — 2 

John  Vincent,  the  sometime  owner  of  them,  had  pawned 
several  of  them  in  alehouses  before  he  died.3 

A  further  statement  of  Anthony  a  Wood  serves 
to  clinch  the  connection  : — 

You  must  know  that  John  Vincent  was  a  boone  companion 
and  a  great  company  keeper  with  noblemen,  especially  with  Basil 
Earl  of  Denbigh ,  and  being  always  inquisitive  and  happy  in  a  good 
manner  might  learn  these  things.4 

Have  we  then  in  John  Vincent  the  clever  forger, 
who — as  Meschini  in  Sanf  Ilario  forged  the  docu- 
ments for  Prince  Montevarchi — supplied  the  too 
ambitious  Earl  with  the  evidences  he  required 
We  cannot  say,  as  yet,  for  certain  ;  but  if  Mar- 
lowe died  in  a  tavern  brawl,  there  is  nothing, 
perhaps,  derogatory  in  the  thought  that  the  Haps- 
burg  evidences  may  have  been  concocted  to  pay 
for  pots  of  ale. 

1  History  of  the  College  of  Arms ,  p.  241. 

2  Nicolas  terms  it  "  that  unrivalled  collection." 

3  Nicolas,  Memoir  of  Augustine  Vincent l,  p.  99. 

4  HarL  MS.  1056,  fo.  44  (Nicolas,  p.  94). 

241  R 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Now  that  we  have  so  closely  identified  the 
second  earl  with  the  Hapsburg  claim,  we  can 
approach  the  very  remarkable  letter  he  wrote  to 
Ashmole,  26  June  1670  : — 

.  .  .  The  other  day,  ransacking  among  my  papers,  I  found 
three  letters  from  Prince  Thomas  of  Savoy  ;  one  of  them  I  send 
you  inclosed  to  be  restored  at  our  next  meetings,  wherein  hee 
stiles  me  his  cosen.  This  putt  me  in  minde  of  the  curious  serche 
Duke  Vittorio  Amadeo,  the  eldest  Prince  of  that  family,  made 
after  my  armes  and  descent  both  in  my  private  travells  and  when 
I  was  the  late  Kings  ambr  of  glorious  memory  with  his  highnesse, 
who  asking  me  which  were  the  cristen  names  of  my  ancestors,  I 
replied  Jeffrey,  John,  Everard,  Basill,  and  hee  presently  declared 
by  my  armes,  sirname,  and  these  Christian  names,  I  must  descind 
from  the  howse  of  Hapsburg,  with  whom,  espetially  the  Earles 
Geffrey  and  Everard,  his  ancestors  had  bene  engaged  against  in 
the  warrs  and  att  other  times  in  treaties  of  correspondence,  upon 
wch  occasion,  joynd  to  the  dignity  of  a  viscount  in  England,  hee 
treated  me  ever  in  his  letters  with  the  stile  of  his  cousen,  an  honor 
not  given  to  any,  as  I  was  told,  under  the  degree  of  a  duke  and 
peer  of  France.  That  Prince's  letters  I  cannot  yet  finde,  but  I 
am  certaine  they  are  amongst  my  papers.  Upon  the  same 
account  Monsieur  Bernegger  of  Strasburg,  a  great  historian  and 
antiquary  of  Germany,  gave  me  those  lights  wch  beefore  ware 
not  so  cleerely  discovered  to  mee,  nor  indeed  ware  my  studies  and 
inclinations  att  that  time  taken  upp  with  notions  of  this  kinde. 
For  that  reason  did  the  city  of  Basill  treat  me  with  great  honor 
and  respect  in  my  private  travells,  and  my  brother-in-law,  Duke 
Hamilton,  beeing  entered  into  Germany  with  a  great  army 
(1631)  to  second  the  King  of  Swedes  attempts  and  designs,  the 
Emperor,  then  Ferdinand  II.,  att  Ratisbone  thought  my  honor  a 
sufficient  tye  to  separate  me  from  all  other  interests  but  his  owne 
if  I  would  have  accepted  of  those  great  advantagious  offers  he 
made  me,  etc.,  etc.1 

It  is  not  pleasant  to  be  obliged  to  say  what  one 
thinks  of  this  letter.  In  the  first  place,  the  names 

1  Fourth  Report  on  Historical  MSS.,  I.  262. 
242 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

of  the  writer's  ancestors1  were  Geoffrey  (one),  John 
(one),  Everard  (one),  Basil  (two),  and  William  (foe). 
It  is  odd  that  he  should  have  omitted  the  chief 
one,  which  happens  not  to  suit  his  theory.  More 
serious,  however,  is  the  statement  that  the  Prince 
"  declared  by  my  armes,  sirname,  and  those 
Christian  names,  I  must  descend  from  the  house 
of  Hapsburg."  The  arms  of  Feilding  are  totally 
distinct,  we  have  seen,  from  those  of  Hapsburg  : 
the  sirname  of  "  Feilding "  cannot  possibly  have 
suggested  that  of  Hapsburg.  As  to  the  Christian 
names,  there  was  nothing  in  "Basil"  to  suggest 
the  Hapsburgs,  while  Geoffrey,  John,  and  Everard 
were  common  names  enough.  It  is  thus  abso- 
lutely certain  that  the  writer  must  here  have  been 
romancing.  We  must  therefore  doubt  what  he 
tells  us  about  "  the  city  of  Basill "  (the  spelling 
suggests  that  he  connected  its  name  with  his 
own)  ;  nor  can  we  believe  that  the  emperor's 
offers  were  connected  with  his  alleged  Hapsburg 
descent,  when  we  find  it  so  completely  ignored  in 
Herrgot's  great  work.  And,  for  my  part,  I  doubt 
"  Duke  Vittorio,"  in  the  seventeenth  century,  re- 
collecting and  taking  so  keen  an  interest  in  the 
Hapsburg  cadets  of  the  thirteenth.  The  letter  is, 
throughout,  that  of  a  man  trying  to  make  out  a 
case  for  the  descent  on  which  he  has  set  his 
heart. 

But  when  we  come  to  "  Monsieur  Bernegger," 

I  must  confess  that  it  looks  to  me  as  if  we  may 

have  in  him  the  ingenious  antiquary  who  supplied 

1  Visitation  of  1563,  and  the  glass  window. 

243 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

(or  gave  the  "  local  colour  "  for)  what  I  term  the 
"  German "  deeds.  The  name  of  "  Stein,"  for 
instance,  savours  of  a  local  knowledge  which 
even  the  "  inquisitive "  Vincent  is  scarcely  likely 
to  have  acquired.  And  the  story  told  in  the  deeds 
of  "1365"  might  well  have  occurred  to  a  Stras- 
burg  man.  Still,  they  are  rather  poor  imitations, 
and  "  a  great  historian  and  antiquary "  would, 
perhaps,  have  done  better. 

Strange  to  say,  such  a  man  as  was  required  was 
actually  engaged  on  a  similar  task,  in  the  same  part 
of  the  world,  perhaps  at  the  very  time  when  the 
Feilding  story  was  concocted.  Even  as  Basil,  Lord 
Denbigh,  claimed,  on  the  strength  of  these  deeds, 
a  Hapsburg  origin  for  his  house,  so  did  Jerome 
Vignier,  an  Oratorian  priest,  who  was  a  year  or 
two  his  senior,  claim  for  the  Hapsburgs  them- 
selves a  new  and  Alsatian  origin  on  the  strength  of 
a  manuscript  fragment  which  he  had  discovered  in 
Lorraine.  This  discovery  he  published  in  his  La 
veritable  origine  des  tres-illustres  maisons  a* Alsace,  de 
Lorraine ',  d'Austriche  (1649).  His  c  find  J  proved  as 
immediately  successful  as  Bertram's  manuscript 
"  Richard  of  Cirencester."  Even  as  Stukeley 
accepted  and  gave  its  vogue  to  the  latter,1  so 
Chiflet,  who  had  written  on  the  Hapsburgs, 
promptly  retracted  his  conclusions  and  accepted 
Vignier's  new  theory  in  his  Stemma  Austriacum 
annis  abhinc  millems  (1650).  Wanley  alludes  to 
this  in  his  history  of  the  Feilding  family  (1670)  : — 

1  See  a  letter  of  Stukeley  in  my  Calendar  of  the  Round  MSS. 
(i4th  Report  Hist.  MSS.  IX.  293-4), 

244 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

The  last  derivation  comes  from  the  princes  and  lantgraves  or 
Alsatia,  which  chevalier  Chiffletius  (a  worthy  and  gentile  writer) 
seems  to  fix  upon  in  his  last  volume,  though  in  his  former  he 
fell  upon  King  Sigebert.  This  latter  opinion  is  so  backed  with 
authority  and  proofes  that  I  refer  you  to  them  for  satisfaction.1 

Eccard  also  adopted  the  results  of  Vignier's 
discovery  in  his  work  on  the  Hapsburg  family 
(1721).  At  last  a  brilliant  French  scholar,  whose 
untimely  death  was  much  deplored,  I  mean  M. 
Julien  Havet,  pointed  out  that  Jerome  Vignier 
had  successfully  imposed  upon  the  world.  It  was, 
he  observed,  "  a  remarkable  circumstance"  that 
his  manuscript  fragment  "  was  full  of  genealogical 
details,  that  is  to  say,  exactly  what  he  wanted  in 
order  to  prove  his  theory."  This,  we  have  seen, 
was  also  a  feature  of  those  convenient  Feilding 
deeds.  M.  Havet  tersely  inferred  that 

II  est  clair  que  nous  avons  la  simplement  un  faux  de  plus  a 
enregistrer,  et  que  celui  qui  1'a  commis  est  le  me'me  auquel  on 
doit  imputer  le  faux  testament  de  Perpe"tue,  la  fausse  donation  de 
Micy  et  les  autres  falsifications  dont  il  a  6te"  question.2 

As  in  the  case  of  the  Shipway  pedigree,  only  the 
other  day,  Father  Vignier  had  discovered  just 
what  he  went  to  find.  There  is  nothing,  however, 
to  connect  him  directly  with  Basil  Lord  Denbigh. 
It  will  have  been  seen  that  two  questions  are 
raised  by  this  paper.  That  the  Hapsburg  descent 
is  an  absurd  fiction  has  been  abundantly  demon- 
strated, but  its  actual  author  and  the  date  of  its 
origin  cannot  be  so  surely  decided.  Everything 
points  to  Basil,  second  earl  of  Denbigh  (1643- 

1  Nichols'  Leicestershire,  IV.  (l),  p.  273. 

2  Bibliotheque  de  TEcole  des  Chartes,  XL VI.  267-8. 

245 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

1675)  ;  but  if  all  the  documents  were  concocted 
for  him,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  Dugdale  could 
speak  of  those  known  to  him1  as  "  authentique 
evidences  "  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury. Either  his  honesty  or  his  critical  power  is 
thereby  gravely  impugned.  If  on  the  other  hand 
some  of  these  "evidences"  were,  as  alleged,  of 
earlier  date,  they  could  not  have  been  concocted 
till  the  error  about  Rheinfelden  found  its  way  into 
England  about  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  or 
end  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Thus  in  no  case 
should  they  have  seemed  in  Dugdale's  days  "  au- 
thentique." Perhaps  the  great  Herald  looked 
with  partial  eyes  on  documents  produced  by  a 
peer  of  the  realm,  who  was  also  a  Warwickshire 
man. 

As  to  the  recognition,  whatever  it  may  be,  that 
this  claim  has  now  obtained  abroad,  it  is  suffi- 
ciently explained  by  the  natural  belief  that  a 
descent  recognised  by  the  English  Crown  and 
admitted  by  the  most  famous  of  all  our  officers  of 
arms,  could  not  be  a  sheer  invention,  and  must 
therefore  be  true.2  The  evidence  of  the  deeds 
proves  the  descent,  and  no  one  could  suppose  that 
a  noble  family  would  rely  for  its  pedigree  on  a 
pack  of  forgeries.  The  strange  thing  is  that  this 

1  Wanley  seems  to  have  had  access  in    1670   to  many  more 
than  Dugdale. 

2  In  vol.  XXV.  of  "  Johannes  von  Mttller  sammtliche  Werke, 
herausgegeben  von  Johann  Georg  Mttller  "  (Tubingen,  1817),  we 
find  it  recognised  on  Dugdale's  authority  only  "  Wenn  Dugdale's 
Briefe     ...     wen  diese  Schriften  ihre  Richtigkeit  haben." 

246 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

pretended  descent  should  be  coveted  by  such  a 
family  as  that  of  Feilding.  For  whether  the  an- 
tiquity of  their  earldom  be  considered,  or  that  of 
their  position  as  county  gentry,  they  must  rank 
high  among  what  in  England  is  deemed  ancienne 
noblesse.  It  is,  however,  only  right  to  add  that 
the  family  do  but  inherit  this  claim  from  their 
ancestors,  and,  though  it  has  been,  no  doubt, 
accentuated  by  the  introduction  of  the  name 
Rudolph,  they  are  wholly  guiltless  of  its  original 
concoction,  and  could  scarcely,  indeed,  be  expected 
to  abandon  it,  till  it  was,  as  now,  disproved. 

This  article,  when  first  published,  ended  here. 
Its  results  remain  to  be  told.  The  first,  naturally 
enough,  was  that  I  was  vehemently  assailed  ;  in- 
deed, I  am  told  that  the  British  Museum  contains 
a  reply  to  my  criticism  almost  libellous  in  its 
virulence.  The  question,  however,  had  to  be 
faced  by  the  author  of  Armorial  Families^  for  its 
avowed  object  is  to  make  it  clear  "  which  coats- 
of-arms  are  lawfully  and  legally  borne,"  and  which 
are  "  bogus."  The  way  he  dealt  with  it  was  this. 
In  his  first  edition  (1895)  he  ignored  the  claim, 
with  the  arms  and  titles  based  upon  it,  in  the  case 
of  Lord  Denbigh  himself  and  of  one  of  his  uncles ; 
but  in  the  cases  of  another  uncle  and  a  cousin  he 
recognised  the  claim,  without  question,  by  assign- 
ing to  each  "  the  cap  of  his  rank  as  Count  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire."  But  in  one  of  these  cases 
he  ignored  the  '  quarters '  borne  in  right  of  the 
above  claim,  and  gave  only  the  impossible  coat 

247  ' 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

"  Quarterly  i  and  4  " — which  is  a  description  as 
absurd  as  that  of  a  square  with  only  two  sides. 
In  the  other  case  he  blazoned  the  four  "  quarters  " 
in  full,  and  placed  the  whole  on  an  Austrian  eagle, 
of  which  he  gave  a  gorgeous  engraving.  But  he 
added  this  curious  note : — 

The  right  to  the  second  and  third  quarterings  and  to  the 
Austrian  eagle  has  not  been  formally  established  in  the  College 
of  Arms,  and  the  engraving  was  executed  under  the  mistaken 
supposition  that  it  was,  though  the  Editor  understands  it  is  capable 
of  proof. 

One  might  suppose  that  in  his  third  edition  (1899) 
Mr.  Fox-Davies  would  have  tried  to  put  matters 
right,  or,  at  least,  to  have  made  his  statements 
consistent.  But  this  is  not  so.  The  impossible 
coat  of  two  quarters  again  makes  its  appearance, 
and  the  engraving,  admittedly  executed  by  mis- 
take, is  now  more  conspicuous  than  ever,  that 
"  fearful  wild  fowl,"  the  Austrian  eagle,  being  here 
transferred  to  the  text  itself,  while  the  same  note 
as  before  is  appended  with  the  trivial  addition  of 
a  '  yet/1  On  what  possible  ground  does  he  blazon 
in  Roman  type  armorial  bearings  and  a  crest 
which,  he  admits,  are  still  not  "  formally  estab- 
lished," and  which,  accordingly,  in  other  cases,  he 
would  print  in  italics  as  "  bogus "  ?  This  ex- 
posure of  his  methods  and  of  his  self-contradic- 
tions should,  of  itself,  be  sufficient  to  destroy  any 
semblance  of  authority  in  his  work. 

Turning  to  Debrett,  now  probably  the  most 
accurate  of  the  peerage  books,  we  find  that  the 

1  "  not  yet  been  formally  established." 
248 


OUR   ENGLISH    HAPSBURGS 

whole  Hapsburg  claim  silently  disappeared  some 
time  ago.  The  absence  of  its  recognition  in  con- 
tinental books  has  always  been  so  marked  that  one 
is  not  surprised  to  find  the  Gotbaiscbes  Tascbenbucb 
der  Graflicben  Hduser  (1899)  ignoring  it  altogether, 
although  the  well-known  countship  of  the  Empire 
held  by  Lord  Arundel  of  Wardour  is  duly  recog- 
nised in  that  work.  But  Burke  s  Peerage  hardened 
its  heart,  and  continued  to  insert  every  year  the 
German  titles,  the  Hapsburg  arms,  the  Austrian 
eagle,  and  the  Count's  cap.  It  is  only  a  few 
weeks  ago  that  my  conclusions  were  accepted  even 
there;  in  Burke' s  Peerage  for  1900  the  whole 
story  has  disappeared,  lock,  stock,  and  barrel. 
The  inevitable  surrender  has  come  at  last :  Magna 
est  veritas  et  prcevalebit. 


249 


VI 

The  Origin  of  the  Russells 

IT  would  be  at  once  impertinent  and  superfluous 
to  insist  on  the  position  of  the  house  of  Russell 
among  "  the  great  governing  families  "  of  English 
political  life.  Whether  as  leaders  of  the  Whig 
party,  or  as  holders,  for  more  than  two  centuries, 
of  the  highest  rank  in  the  peerage,  its  chiefs 
have  occupied  a  foremost  place  in  the  eyes  of  their 
fellow-countrymen . 

As  is  matter  of  common  knowledge,  the  Rus- 
sells belong  to  that  group  of  families  which  rose 
to  wealth  and  power  on  the  ruin  of  the  monastic 
houses.  But  this  "  new  nobility "  of  the  Tudor 
reigns  was  by  no  means  all  of  parvenu  character. 
If  Paget,  Petre,  "  Wriothesley,"  and,  we  probably 
may  add,  Thynne,  were  of  humble  origin,  the 
Paulets  and  Seymours  were  knightly  houses,  and 
the  Cavendishes  and  Russells  were,  at  least,  already 
country  gentlemen.  Yet  the  sudden  access  of 
wealth  and  rank  was  accompanied,  in  these  as  in 
other  cases,  by  that  desire  for  a  longer  pedigree 
which  rarely  remains  unfulfilled.  It  would  cer- 
tainly not  so  remain  in  those  halcyon  Tudor  days, 

250 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   RUSSELLS 

when  the  reigning  house  itself  had  provided  a 
gorgeous  example,  and  when  heralds  were  always 
ready  to  give  reins  to  a  brilliant  imagination. 
The  real  difficulty,  however,  is  to  learn  when  and 
where  the  Russell  pedigree  first  makes  its  appear- 
ance. I  have  spent  much  time  and  toil  in  the 
effort  to  ascertain  this;  but,  although  I  can  find 
no  trace  of  it  in  the  volumes  of  Visitations  at  the 
British  Museum,  it  is  hardly  likely  that  the  earls 
of  Bedford  waited  till  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  to 
provide  themselves  with  this  appendage.  .  It  is, 
however,  we  shall  find,  at  about  the  beginning  of 
that  reign,  that  the  fully  developed  pedigree  was 
compiled.  This  is  the  "  authentic  pedigree "  of 
which  Jacob  speaks,  and  which  must  also  have 
been  seen  by  Mr.  Wiffen,  who  styles  it  the 
"genealogy  in  the  Bedford  Office."1  It  is  to  this 
last  writer  that  we  owe  the  clue  to  its  origin  and 
date.  He  wrote  that,  in  the  eleventh  century, 
"  Hugh  du  Rozel,"  patriarch  of  the  house, — 

in  variation  of  the  Bertrand  arms,  bore  argent,  the  lion  ram- 
pant gules,  uncrowned,  with  the  addition  of  a  chief  sable  ;  which 
arms  we  find  ascribed  to  him  in  a  descent  drawn  out  by  William 
Le  Neve,  York  Herald,  preserved  with  the  other  archives  of  the 
Russells,  dukes  of  Bedford.2 

It  is  quite  clear  that  this,  which  I  shall  call  the 
'  authentic  '  pedigree,  was  adorned  throughout  with 
coats  of  arms.3 

1  Memoirs  of  the  House  of  Russell,  I.  86,  153,  155,  156  (notes). 

2  Ibid.  p.  28. 

3  There    is    also,    Mr.    Wiffen    states,    "a    pedigree    in    the 
Herald's  Office,"  from  which  we  learn  "  that  the  shells  (on  the 

251 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Unfortunately,  this  pedigree  has  never  been 
published  exactly  as  it  stands.  So,  at  least,  I 
gather.  It  has  been  tinkered  here  and  there  by 
those  who  have  used  it  as  the  basis  of  their  ac- 
counts, so  that  one  never  knows  with  what  one  is 
actually  dealing.  In  fact,  the  attempt  to  pour,  as 
it  were,  new  wine  into  old  bottles  has  proved  as 
disastrous  as  usual.  And  it  affords  us  a  really 
excellent  example  of  how  a  pedigree  should  not 
be  constructed.  When  a  statement  in  a  herald's 
pedigree  is  actually  disproved  by  records,  it  is  use- 
less to  tinker  the  production  by  altering  it  here 
and  there;  we  have  to  face  the  fact  that  all  its 
statements  are,  when  unsupported,  thenceforth  un- 
reliable. 

The  "  authentic  "  pedigree  was  the  work,  as  I 
have  said,  of  William  Le  Neve,  York  Herald,  and 
must,  therefore,  have  been  compiled  between  1625 
and  1633.*  I  cannot  think  (see  above)  that  this 
was  the  first  attempt.  Indeed,  the  monument  to 
the  first  earl  (d.  14  March  1554-5)  implies 
that  it  was  not.  This  monument  was  erected  by 
the  second  earl  (1555-1585),  whose  own  monu- 
ment is  also  at  Chenies,  and  should  be  carefully 
compared  with  it.  According  to  Lipscomb's 
Bucks^  the  first  earl's  monument  bears  the  follow- 
ing coats :  (i)  Russell ;  (2)  a  tower  machicolated 
and  embattled  ;  (3)  3  barrulets,  a  crescent  for 

chief)  were  borne  by  Robert  de  Rosel,  the  son  of  Hugh  the  Second, 
so  early  as  the  tenth  year  of  King  Henry  I."  (Ibid.  p.  43,  note.) 

1  See  Mr.  Walter  Rye's  "Preface  to  Le  Neve  Correspon- 
dence" (1895),  p.  xviii. 

252 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   RUSSELLS 

difference ;  (4)  3  lucies  hauriant  in  pale  ;  (5) 
a  griffin  segreant ;  (6)  3  chevronels  ermine. 
These  coats  appear  to  represent  :  (i)  Russell  ; 
(2)  De  la  Tour;  (3)  Muschamp  ;  (4)  Herring; 
(5)  Godfrey;  (6)  Wyse.  When  we  turn  to  the 
monument  of  the  second  earl  (d.  1585),  we  find 
eight  coats  in  his  shield.  But  the  first  six  of  these 
coats  are  identical  with  those  in  his  father's  shield, 
with  one  significant  exception :  the  fifth  coat,  in- 
stead of  a  simple  griffin  segreant,  shows  us  "  a 
griffin  segreant,  arg.,  between  3  cross-crosslets 
fitche  of  the  second."  Now  this  was  the  coat  ot 
the  first  earl's  grandmother,  a  Froxmere  ;  and  it 
comes  here  in  its  right  place  between  that  of  his 
mother,  who  was  a  Wyse,  and  of  his  great  grand- 
mother, who,  we  shall  find,  was  a  Herring.  I 
suspect,  therefore,  that  the  Godfrey  coat  in  the 
first  earl's  shield  was  merely  a  mistake  for  that 
of  Froxmere.  It  will  have,  however,  to  be 
borne  in  mind,  because  we  shall  meet  with  it 
again.1 

The  two  really  important  coats,  however,  on 
these  monuments  are  those  of  De  la  Tour  and 
Muschamp.  The  whole  pedigree  will  be  found 
to  hang  on  a  marriage  with  a  De  la  Tour  heiress ; 
and  if  the  conclusion  I  have  reached  is  right,  the 
coats  both  of  Muschamp  and  of  De  la  Tour  indi- 

1  The  monument  to  the  second  earl's  son,  Lord  Russell  of 
Thornhaugh,  at  Thornhaugh,  Northants,  is  described  in  Bridges' 
Northamptonshire  (II.  598).  Here  the  De  la  Tour  coat  is  given 
as  "  Sable,  three  towers  argent";  and  the  "griffin  segreiant  argent" 
has  no  cross-crosslets  in  the  field. 

253 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

cate    that    heralds    had    already    found    a  baseless 
descent  for  the  family. 

Working  back  from  the  first  earl  we  come  to 
his  father,  James  Russell  of  Berwick  (or  Barwick) 
in  Swyre  (co.  Dorset),  Esq.,  who  married  Alice 
Wyse  of  the  Wyses  of  Sydenham,  Devon.  There 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  first  earl's  grandfather 
was  the  John  Russell  Esq.  who  died  in  1505  and 
was  buried  in  Swyre  church.1  Moreover,  we  can 
now  prove  this  John  Russell's  tenure  of  Berwick  as 
early  as  148  5.*  It  is  beyond  this  that  the  difficulty 
begins.  We  must  now,  therefore,  turn  to  the 
family's  "  authentic "  pedigree  and  see  what  its 
statements  are. 

As  this  pedigree  extends  from  the  Conquest  to 
the  days  of  Henry  VII.,  it  will  be  convenient  to 
divide  it  into  three  distinct  sections.  The  middle 
section  is  that  which  deals  with  the  "  baronial  " 
Russells,  and  extends  from  the  reign  of  John  to 
about  1340.  This  section  need  not  be  questioned. 
The  first  section  is  that  which  connects  the  "  baro- 
nial "  Russells  with  the  Conquest ;  and  the  third  is 
that  which  connects  them  with  the  owners  of 
Berwick.  These  are  the  two  questionable  sections, 
and  they  can  be  considered  separately. 

In  default  of  access  to  the  authentic  pedigree,  I 
append  the  early  section  from  Lipscomb's  Bucks 
(III.  248),  which  seems  to  represent  it. 

1  "beneath  a  plain  stone  inlaid  with  brass,  which  bears  above  a 
shield  of  arms,  Russell  impaling  Frocksmere,"  etc.,  etc.  (Wiffen, 

1. 174). 

3  See  Calendar  of  Inquisitions  post  mortem  :  Henry  VII. ,  vol.  I. 

254 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   RUSSELLS 

HUGH  DE  ROSEL,  1064 

HUGH 
temp.  Hen.  II. 

I 

HUGH 
ROBERT 

EUDO  or  ODO 
Rot.  Pat.  14  John 

JOHN 

Constable  of  Corfe 
Castle 

JAMES  =  ELEANOR 

dau.  of  John 
Tilly 


ISABEL  =  RALPH 
NEWMARCH  d.  29  Ed.  I. 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  almost  tallies,  down  to  John, 
with  the  version  in  a  little  work  published  under  the 
patronage  of  the  family  : — 

On  the  invasion  of  England  by  William  the  Norman,  in  1086, 
Hugh  de  Russell,  or  Rossel,  (who  took  that  name  from  his  estate 
in  Normandy,)  was  one  of  his  attendant  barons.  .  .  .  The 
portion  of  this  baron  was  in  Dorsetshire,  from  whence  he  and  his 
successors  assumed  the  title  of  Russells  of  Barwick.  His  two 
immediate  successors  were  of  the  same  name.  To  them 
succeeded  Odo,  whose  son  and  heir,  Sir  John  Russell,  married  the 
daughter  of  Lord  Bardolph.  .  .  .  Nothing  very  remarkable 
is  recorded  of  his  descendants  for  upwards  of  I  oo  years,  although 
one  of  them,  Sir  John  Russell,  was  twice  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Commons  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.1 

1  "  The  origin  and  genealogy  of  the  Russell  family  "  in  Dodd's 

255 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

In  his  cumbrous  peerage  (1766) l  Jacob  had  re- 
peated this  derivation  of  the  family  from  "  Hugh 
de  Rossel  or  Russel,"  but  makes  his  grandson 
"  Robert  Russell  of  Barwick  in  the  county  ot 
Dorset,  whose  son  Odo  was  living  and  in  possession 
of  the  estate  at  Barwick  in  the  fourteenth  of  King 
John."  But  he  was  so  perplexed  as  to  whether 
Odo's  alleged  son  John  married  "  the  sister  of  Doun 
Bardoffe"  or  "Jane,  a  daughter  of  John  Tilley," 
that  he  would  have  abandoned  the  point  in  despair, 
when,  "  by  the  favour  of"  the  duke  of  Bedford,  he 
was  "furnished  with  an  authentic  pedigree  of  the 
Russels,"  according  to  which  John's  "  son  James 
(omitted  by  Dugdale,  Collins,  Edmondson,  etc.) 
married  Eleanor,  daughter  of  Sir  John  Tilley, 
knight,  and  was  constable  of  Corfe  Castle,  in 
Dorsetshire,  A.D.  1221,"  and  father  of  Ralph 
Russell.  Here  the  "  authentic  pedigree "  is  de- 
monstrably  quite  wrong.  James  and  his  wife  are 
sheer  inventions.  Ralph  was  certainly  the  son  of 
John. 

Jacob  then  gives  us  the  later  pedigree  (see  next 
page),  presumably  from  the  "  authorized  pedigree." 
It  is  to  Jacob's  credit  that,  though  the  second  John 
was  "  said  to  have  been  speaker  of  the  house  of 
Commons  "  in  2  and  10  Hen.  VI.,  "there  is  not," 
he  observes,  "  sufficient  authority  to  clear  this  point 
against  those  who  insist  that  the  speaker  at  that 
time,  although  named  John  Russel,  was  of  another 
family"  (p.  216). 

History  of  Woburn  (1818),  pp.  72-3.     This  work   was  dedicated 
to  the  duke  and  duchess  of  Bedford.  l  Vol.  I.  p.  215. 

256 


THE  ORIGIN   OF   THE   RUSSELLS 

THEOBALD  =  (2)  ALICE  dau.  and  heir 


RUSSEL 
of  Kingston 
Russel 


of  John  de  la  Tour 


WILLIAM  = 
RUSSEL     MESCHAMP 


HENRY  = 

RUSSEL     GODFREY 

JOHN  =  ELIZABETH 


RUSSEL 

;  called  of  Kingston 
Russel " 


daughter  of 
John  Herringham 


SIR  JOHN    =   ALICE 
RUSSEL  Kt.  ^  FROXMORE 


But  we  must  keep  for  the  present  to  the  early 
pedigree,  and  see  what  Mr.  Wiffen  had  to  say 
about  it,  enjoying  access  as  he  did  to  all  the  avail- 
able materials,  including  the  "  authentic  "  pedigree. 
His  version,  though  somewhat  difficult  to  follow, 
works  out  as  given  on  the  next  page.  Mr.  Wiffen's 
own  contribution  to  the  early  history  of  the 
family,  namely,  that  the  first  Hugh  du  Rozel 
was  a  son  of  "  William,  baron  of  Briquebec," 
of  the  house  of  Bertrand,  need  not  detain  us, 
for  it  is  really  only  a  guess,  and,  as  Hutchins 
observed,  "  he  adduces  no  evidence  in  support  of 
this  statement,  which  seems  to  rest  merely  upon 

1  Vol.  I.  p.  1 8,  and  chart  pedigree  facing  p.  I. 

257  S 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

conjecture."  It  is  amusing,  however,  to  learn 
that 

Hugh  du  Rozel,  in  variation  of  the  Bertrand  arms,  bore  argent 
the  lion  rampant  gules,  uncrowned,  with  the  addition  of  a  chief 
sable,  which  arms  we  find  ascribed  to  him  in  a  descent  drawn  out 
by  William  Le  Neve,  York  Herald,  preserved  with  the  other 
archives  of  the  Russells,  dukes  of  Bedford  (I.  28). 

HUGH 

iDU  ROZEL 

of  Kingston-Russell 


1           1 

ROGER             RICHARD             Hi 
DU  ROZEL                                  DE  ! 
(Manche)                                   (Calv 
Lord  of 
Barneville 

1 

JGH             THEOBALD 
IOSEL 
ados) 

1              1              I 

ROBERT             JOSCELINE             HAMELINE             other 
DE  RUSSELL                                                                  children 
of  Kingston-Russell 

I              1              1             1 

ODO               RICHARD               WILLIAM             other 
DE  RUSSELL                                                                  children 
of  Kingston-Russell 

JOHN  DE  =  ROHESIA 
RUSSELL        sister  of 
(temp.  JOHN)    Doun  Bardolf 

SIR  RALF  RUSSELL 

Now  John  Russell,  temp.  John,  is  a  man  whose 
existence  is  well  established.  He  held  Kingston- 
Russell,  co.  Dorset,  by  serjeanty,  and  the  tenure 

1  Hutchins'  Dorset,  Vol.  II.  p.  780  (Ed.  1863). 
258 


THE  ORIGIN   OF   THE   RUSSELLS 

is  said,  in  a  'Testa  entry,  to  be  as  old  as  the  reign  of 
the  Conqueror.  But  John's  parentage  cannot,  so 
far  as  I  know,  be  proved.  This  seems  to  be 
admitted,  now,  in  Burke' s  Peerage,  where  we  read 
that 

the  first  whose  name  ?is  mentioned  is  RICHARD  RUSSELL,  who 
held  a  knight's  fee  in  Dorset  12  Hen.  II.,  and  who  was  living  in 
the  3  ist  of  that  reign.  He  was  succeeded  by  John  Russell,  Con- 
stable of  Corfe  Castle.1 

There  was  a  Robert  Russell  who  held  a  fee  in  1 2 
Hen.  II.,  but  no  '  Richard.5  The  narrative  in 
c  Burke,'  therefore,  starts  with  a  fiction. 

To  me  the  interesting  thing  is  to  discover  how 
the  pedigree  was  concocted  down  to  John  Russell  ; 
for  it  serves  to  illustrate  the  methods  of  a  herald 
at  that  date.  Such  pedigrees  were  by  no  means  the 
fruit  of  mere  invention.  As  in  the  great  genea- 
logy of  the  Westons  drawn  up  about  the  same  time 
(1632)  by  Garter  himself  (Segar),2  records,  public 
and  private,  were  adduced  in  support  of  the  state- 
ments made.  Unfortunately,  as  was  sometimes  the 
case  with  a  well-known  genealogist  of  our  own 
time,  if  the  evidences  themselves  were  true,  the 
pedigree  based  on  them  was  not.  In  the  case  of 
the  Russells,  York  Herald  first  provided  John  with 
a  father,  by  identifying  him  with  a  John  son  of  Odo 
Russell,  who  occurs  on  the  Patent  Roll  of  14  John. 
Then,  deeming  it  a  point  of  honour  to  carry 

1  A  footnote  adds  :  "  For  the  early  history  of  the  Russells  and 
their  presumed  descent  from  the  Du  Rozels  of  Normandy  refer  to 
Wiffins'  (sic)  Memoirs  of  the  House  of  Russell" 

2  Now  in  the  British  Museum  (Add.  MS.  31,890). 

259 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

back  his  patrons  to  the  Conquest,  he  gave  them 
for  a  patriarch  Hugh  de  Rosel,  whom  he  found  as 
a  witness  in  a  charter  of  the  Abbaye  des  Dames, 
Caen,  about  the  time  of  the  Conquest.  To  bridge 
the  gap  between  him  and  Odo,  he  had  only  a 
rather  suspicious  charter  to  Cannington  Priory, 
Somerset  ("  from  the  original  with  Mr.  Robert 
Treswell "),  which  gave  him  a  "  Robert  de  Russell," 
temp.  Stephen,  apparently.1  This  Robert,  how- 
ever, he  made  father  to  Odo  ;  and  then  he  dupli- 
cated (or  triplicated)  the  family  patriarch,  Hugh, 
so  as  to  "  let  him  down "  till  he  should  reach 
Robert.  And  that  is  how  the  trick  was  done. 

It  was  left  for  the  too  ingenious  Mr.  Wiffen 
to  clothe  this  skeleton  with  flesh.  "  Hugh  de 
Rosel  "  blossomed  out  into  "  Hugh  Bertrand,  lord 
of  Le  Rozel  "  ;  from  "  love  of  adventure  "  only,  for 
he  was  "  neither  greedy  nor  necessitous,"  he  "  sailed 
with  his  prince  and  fellow-barons  to  Pevensey, 
and  pitched  his  tent  (!)  upon  the  celebrated  field 
of  Hastings."  It  is  "  a  little  singular,"  Mr.  Wiffen 
admits,  that  this  potent  baron  cannot  be  found 
anywhere  in  Domesday  Book  ;  but  this,  of  course, 
he  explained  away.  A  more  serious  difficulty 
remained.  "  It  is  difficult,"  Mr.  Wiffen  tells  us, 
"  to  account  for  the  entire  obscurity  that  hangs 
over  the  life  of  Odo  de  (sic)  Russell.  Not  a  single 
act  of  his  has  come  to  light,  either  by  the  evidence 
of  public  records  or  by  reflection  from  domestic  or 
monastic  grants."  But  the  truth  is  that  John  son 


1  Wiffen,  I.  85-6. 
260 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE   RUSSELLS 

of  Odo  Russell,  who  occurs  on  the  Patent  Roll  of 
14  John,  is  found  there  only  as  the  presentee  to  a 
living  then  in  the  king's  hands  !  He  was,  there- 
fore, most  certainly  not  the  John  Russell  who 
flourished  during  that  reign  at  Kingston  Russell. 
This  was  "  nasty  "  for  Mr.  Wiffen,  but  he  glozed 
it  over  by  writing  that  the  king  conferred  on  John 
"  the  advowson  (!)  of  a  church  in  Gloucester- 
shire." l  Odo,  therefore,  like  all  before  him,  must 
be  swept  away  from  the  pedigree  of  the  house, 
which,  however,  perpetuated  his  memory  in  the 
late  Lord  Odo  Russell,  first  Lord  Ampthill. 

There  is  a  grim  irony  in  the  fact  that  Dugdale 
himself  bluntly  ignored  everything  before  John 
Russell's  appearance  on  the  Pipe  Roll  of  3  John 
(1201).  If  he  knew  of  the  gorgeous  pedigree 
constructed  by  York  Herald,  he  did  not  believe  a 
word  of  it. 

With  the  evidence  before  us  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  surname  Russell  was  territorial 
at  all.  There  were  persons  styled  "  de  Rosel," 
from  Rosel  now  in  the  Calvados  (which  had 
nothing  to  do  with  Le  Rozel,  Manche,  from  which 
Mr.  Wiffen  derived  the  race)  ;  but  the  name 
"  Rossellus,"  or  c*  Russellus,"  was  common  enough, 
and  represented  simply  "  Roussel  " — the  little  red- 
haired  man.  Mr.  Wiffen  scraped  together  all  who 
bore  that  name,  interpolated  freely  a  "  de  "  before 
it,  seized  upon  every  genuine  "  de  Rosel,"  and 
joined  the  whole  menagerie  in  one  connected 
pedigree. 

1  Vol.  I.  p.  100. 
261 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Let  us  now  pass  to  the  third  section,  the  most 
important  of  the  whole  pedigree  ;  namely  the 
links  connecting  the  earl  of  Bedford's  grandfather 
with  the  Russells  of  Derham  and  Kingston  Russell. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  "  authorized 
pedigree  "  was,  according  to  Jacob,  this  : — 

THEOBALD  (2)  =  ALICE 


RUSSEL 
of  Kingston 
Russel 


dau.  and  heir  of 
John  de    La 
Tour 


WILLIAM  = 
RUSSEL    |  MESCHAMP 

HENRY  = 

RUSSEL  |  GODFREY 

JOHN    =     ELIZABETH 
RUSSEL    |  dau.  of 

"  called  of  Kingston  I   John  Herringham 
Russel  " 

SIR  JOHN  =   ALICE 
RUSSEL  Kt.  ^   FROXMORE 
(grandfather 
of  John  ist  Earl 
of  Bedford) 

The  only  subsequent  alteration  of  importance  that 
has  been  made  in  this  pedigree  has  been  the  sub- 
stitution of  Eleanor  (or  Alianore)  for  "  Alice  "  as 
the  name  of  the  De  La  Tour  heiress,  in  deference 
to  records  which  prove  that  the  former  was  the 
name  of  Theobald  Russell's  widow.  With  the 
exception  of  this  alteration  and  of  the  name  'Mes- 
champ,'  which  has  been  variously  given,  Jacob's 

262 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    RUSSELLS 

pedigree  appeared  so  recently  as  1887  in  Worthy's 
Devonshire  Parishes  :l 

Upon  the  death  of  Eleanor  Gorges,  Theobald  Russell  took  to 
wife  Eleanor,  daughter  and  heir  of  John  de  la  Tour,  and  by  her 
he  had  William,  who  married  the  daughter  and  heir  of  Mustian, 
and  had  issue  Henry,  whose  son  John,  by  Elizabeth,  his  wife 
dau.  and  heir  of  John  Heringham,  was  the  father  of  Sir  John 
Russell,  Kt.,  who  was  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  the 
second  and  tenth  years  of  king  Henry  VI.,  and  who  married 
Alice,  daughter  of  Freuxmere. 

James  Russell,  son  and  heir  of  the  Speaker,  "  married  Alice, 
daughter  of  John  Wyse."  .  .  .  His  son  John,  mentioned 
in  the  will,  is  stated  to  have  been  born  at  Kingston  Russell,  the 
ancient  seat  of  the  family,  etc.,  etc. 

Mr.  Wiffen,  however,  here  as  elsewhere,  be- 
stowed upon  the  bare  pedigree  much  artistic 
decoration.  He  knighted  William  ;  he  knighted 
Henry,  and  made  him  serve  with  distinction  in 
France  ;  and  then  he  knighted  the  first  John,  and 
made  him  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
The  second  John  he  reduced  to  an  Esquire,  for  the 
inscription  on  his  tomb,  unfortunately,  so  describes 
him. 

The  difficulty  of  identifying  this  John,  who 
died  in  1505,  with  a  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Commons  in  1423,  has  been  always  felt  to  be 
serious.  Mr.  Wiffen  solved  it  by  transferring  the 
Speakership  (of  which  he,  obviously,  could  not  de- 
prive the  family)  from  the  younger  to  the  elder 
John.  Jacob,  we  have  seen  (p.  256),  had  admitted 
(1766)  that  the  Speaker  probably  belonged  to 

1  Vol.  II.  pp.  260-1.  Mr.  Worthy  spoke  of  "the  noble 
House  of  Russell,  descended  from  the  Du  Rozels  of  Normandy." 

263 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

another  family  ;  and,  in  Great  Governing  Families, 
it  is  questioned  whether  the  Bedford  Russells  can 
claim  him  as  an  ancestor.  But  in  Burke"  s  Peerage 
the  younger  of  the  two  Johns  in  the  pedigree  is 
annually  recognised  as  the  Speaker  ;  and,  stranger 
still,  the  whole  story,  as  concocted  by  Mr.  Wiffen, 
has  now  found  its  way  into  the  Dictionary  oj 
National  Biography,  where  the  elder  of  the  two 
Johns  is  identified  as  the  Speaker  : 

Sir  John  Russell,  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons,  was  son 
of  Sir  Henry  Russell,  a  west  of  England  knight  who  had  fought 
in  France  in  the  hundred  years'  war,  and  who  was  several  times, 
M.P.  for  Dorchester  and  once  for  Dorset,  and  who  married  a 
lady  of  the  family  of  Godfrey  of  Hampshire.  John  was  a 
member  of  Parliament  in  1423,  when  he  was  chosen  Speaker  of 
the  House  of  Commons.  .  .  .  The  Speaker  is  doubtfully 
said  to  have  had  two  sons,  John  and  Thomas.  John  .  .  . 
left  .  .  .  .  a  son  James  .  .  .  father  of  John  Russell, 
first  earl  of  Bedford.2 

Mr.  Archbold,  the  writer  of  this  article,  is  also 
responsible  for  that  on  the  first  earl  of  Bedford,3 
who,  we  read,  was  probably  born  in  1486. 
Further, — 

He  occupied  some  position  at  the  court  in  1497,  and  Andrea 
Trevisan,  the  ambassador,  says  that  when  he  made  his  entry  into 
London  in  1497,  Russell  and  the  Dean  of  Windsor,  'men  of 
great  repute,'  met  him  some  way  from  the  city. 

How  Russell  could  have  become  a  '  man  of  great 
repute '  at  the  age  of  eleven  I  do  not  profess  to 
understand. 

But  keeping  to  the  Speaker,  no  question  as  to 

1  By  Sanford  and  Townsend,  1865. 

2  Vol.  XLIX.  (1897),  pp.  441-2.  3  Ibid.  p.  444- 

264 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   RUSSELLS 

his  identity  can  arise.  He  was  clearly  the  John 
Russell  who  was  knight  of  the  shire  for  co.  Here- 
ford in  seven  consecutive  Parliaments,  1417-1423, 
and  again  in  five  consecutive  Parliaments,  1426- 
1433.  He  was  Speaker  in  that  which  met  in 
October  1423,  and  again  in  that  which  met  in 
May  1432.  John  Russell  of  Dorset  was  not  even 
born  at  the  former  of  these  dates. 

Having  thus  deprived  the  family  of  its  Speaker, 
I  shall  further  show  that  there  was  but  one  John 
Russell  of  Dorset,  the  grandfather  of  the  first  earl  of 
Bedford.  The  pedigree -makers  have  converted 
him  into  two  ;  they  have  made  the  first  half  of 
him  a  knight,  and  assigned  him  his  own  mother  as 
wife ;  and  then  they  have  discovered  that  he  filled 
the  post  of  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons 
several  years  before  he  was  born.  And  all  this  is 
reproduced,  year  by  year,  in  Burke' s  Peerage. 

From  John  I  turn  to  his  father  Henry,  the 
alleged  warrior  knight.1  Henry  Russell  really 
existed,  and  he  did,  as  Mr.  Wiffen  states,  endow 
a  foundation  at  Weymouth ;  but  he  was  not  a 
warrior,  nor  even  a  knight. 

With  this  Henry  Russell  of  Weymouth  we  are 
at  last  on  sure  ground.  It  was  he  who  in  1445 
was  part  owner  of  a  "barge"  called  the  "James 
of  Weymouth";2  it  was  he  who  was  returned 
as  burgess  for  Weymouth  in  1425,  1428,  1433, 
and  1442  ;  it  was  probably  he  whose  name  occurs, 
with  that  of  Stephen  Russell,  in  a  list  of  Dorset 
men  in  12  Henry  VI.  who  were  able  to  spend 

1  Wiffen,  I.  159-162.     2  Hutchins'  Dorset  (1863),  II.  421. 

265 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

£12  a  year  and  upwards;  and  it  was  he  who 
endowed  the  chantry  priest  of  the  gild  of  St. 
George,  Weymouth,  with  seventeen  messuages, 
etc.,  in  Weymouth,  (West)  Knighton,  Wootton 
Glanville,  Portland,  and  Wyke  Regis.  I  have 
examined  the  return  of  the  Inq.  quod  damnum? 
together  with  the  writ  commanding  it,  24  Feb- 
ruary 1454-5,  and  find  the  name  given  as  Henry 
Russell  "de  Weymouth."  No  relatives,  unfortu- 
nately, are  named ;  but  among  those  to  be  com- 
memorated are  Adam  Moleyns,  "lately  dean  of 
Sarum"  (who,  as  bishop  of  Chichester,  had  been 
murdered  at  Portsmouth  five  years  before),  and 
Henry  Shelford,  late  parson  of  the  church  of 
Wyke  Regis  (the  mother  church  of  Weymouth). 
It  is  clear  that  Henry  Russell  had  his  home  at 
Weymouth,  where  he  was  doubtless  a  wealthy 
townsman.  He  married  in  the  neighbourhood, 
his  bride  being  a  woman  of  good  family,  Elisa- 
beth, daughter  and  co-heir  of  John  Herring  of 
Chaldon  Herring  (East  Chaldon). 

This  marriage  is  of  great  importance,  not  only 
as  helping  us  to  the  true  pedigree,  but  also  as 
demolishing  the  false  one.  In  the  latter,  Henry 
Russell  is  made  to  marry  a  Godfrey,  while  Elisa- 
beth, daughter  of  John  "  Herringham,"  is  made 
the  wife  of  his  son  John  !  This  wild  blunder  has 
been  steadily  repeated  by  Jacob,  Collins,  Wiffen, 
etc.,  and  duly  figures  in  Burke  s  Peerage  for  1899. 
The  strange  thing  is  that,  in  Hutchins'  History  of 
Dorset  the  Herring  pedigree  correctly  gives  Henry 

1  Thursday  after  24  June  1455. 
266 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   RUSSELLS 


and  John  Russell  as  respectively  the  husband  and 
the  son  of  Elisabeth  Herring.1  The  true  pedigree, 
in  short,  is  this : 


HENRY 

RUSSELL 

of  Weymouth, 

M.P.  for  Weymouth, 

living  1455 


ELISABETH 

HERRING 

dau.  and 

co-h.  of  John 

Herring  of 

East  Chaldon,  Dorset. 
She  was  dead  in  1456 


JOHN 
RUSSELL,  Esq., 
of  Berwick  in 
Swyre,  Dorset 
(?  M.P.  for  Weymouth 
1450),  d.  1505 


=      ELIZABETH 
FROCKSMER, 
dau.  of  John 
Frocksmer, 
Esq. 


I 

JAMES 

RUSSELL,  Esq., 
of  Berwick  in 
Swyre,  Dorset, 

d.  1509 


ALICE 
WYSE 

dau.  of  John 

Wyse,  Esq., 

of  Sydenham. 


JOHN 
RUSSELL, 
ist  earl  of  Bedford. 

At  present  the  pedigree  cannot  be  carried  beyond 
Henry  Russell,  nor  is  it  probable  that  it  ever  will 
be.  But  there  is  at  least  a  fair  presumption  that 
he  was  descended  from,  or  related  to,  Stephen 
Russell,  a  bailiff  of  Weymouth  in  September  and 
October  I388,2  and  M.P.  for  the  borough  in 

1  Ed.  1862,  vol.  II.  p.  520. 

2  Ancient  Deeds  (P.R.O.),  C.  144  and  C.  2375. 

267 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

1395.  It  is  also  probable  that  William  Russell, 
returned  as  burgess  for  the  adjacent  borough  of 
Melcombe  Regis  in  14  Ed.  III.  (1340),  and 
Thomas  Russell  similarly  returned  in  8,  11,  and 
13  Ric.  II.  (1384,  1388,  1390),  belonged  to  the 
same  family.  It  was  doubtless  this  Thomas  who, 
in  1397,  was  one  of  those  presented  by  the  jurors 
of  Melcombe  Regis  for  depositing  dung  "at  the 
east  end  of  the  tenement  of  Thomas  Russell,  to  the 
nuisance  of  the  whole  vill."  1 

The  Inquisition  on  the  death  of  John  Herring 
(who  died  6  Oct.  34  Hen.  VI.)  makes  the  pedi- 
gree certain.2  Chaldon  Herring,  we  find,  was 
strictly  entailed,  the  remainder  being  "Johanni 
Russell,  filio  et  heredi  apparenti  Henrici  Russell 
de  Waymouth,"  with  remainder  over  to  his  brother 
William,  then  to  Joan  their  sister,  then  to  Christian, 
then  to  Isolda  Lynde.  John  Russell  is  described 
as  aged  "viginti  quatuor  annorum  et  amplius." 
This  would  imply  that  he  was  born  in,  or  shortly 
before,  the  year  1432.  He  would  thus  be  the 
John  Russell  who  died  in  1505,  and  the  father  of 
that  James  Russell  who  died  in  1509.  If  the  latter 
date  is  borne  in  mind,  it  will  be  clearly  seen  that 
there  is  no  room  for  more  than  one  John  Russell. 

It  must  be  explained  that  there  is  no  authority 
for  the  form  HerringAzw.  Mr.  Wiffen  found  it 
in  the  "  authentic  pedigree,"  and  consequently 
gave  what  he  termed  the  "  Lineage  of  Harange  or 

1  Borough  Records  of  Wey mouth. 

2  The  writ  was  issued  4  Feb.  34  Hen.  VI.,  and  the  Inquisition 
taken  25  Oct.  35  Hen.  VI. 

268 


THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE    RUSSELLS 

Heringham"  (I.  163-166),  although,  on  his  own 
showing,  the  family  name  was  Herring  (in  its 
various  forms). 

At  this  point  we  may  pause  to  consider  how  the 
pedigree  was  here  concocted.  York  Herald  —  if, 
as  it  would  seem,  he  was  the  guilty  party  —  must 
have  faced  the  problem  thus  :  "  I  have  to  connect 
the  genuine  ancestor,  Henry  Russell  of  Weymouth, 
who  was  living  under  Henry  VI.,  with  the 
baronial  Russells.  Now  I  find  there  was  a 
William  Russell  returned  for  Melcombe  Regis, 
which  adjoins  Weymouth,  in  14  Ed.  III.  I  shall 
claim  him  therefore  as  father  of  Henry  ;  but  as  he 
lived  too  early  for  the  purpose,  I  shall  throw  back 
Henry  a  generation  by  making  two  John  Russells 
out  of  one.  Keeping  the  Herring(ham)  heiress 
in  her  place,  I  must  now  find  respectable  wives 
for  the  two  men  at  the  head  of  my  tree.  I  find 
on  the  monument  of  the  first  earl  1  a  coat  which 
looks  to  me  like  that  of  the  Godfreys  of  Hamp- 
shire,2 after  that  of  Herring  ;  so  I  shall  say  that 
Henry  married  one  of  that  family.  I  also  find, 
before  Herring,  a  coat  which  I  take  to  be  Mus- 
champ  ;  this  will  give  me  a  wife  for  William. 
In  neither  case  shall  I  venture  on  particulars.  I 
shall  then  have  provided  a  pedigree  comprising  all 
the  coats  on  that  monument."  3 


1  See  p.  252. 

2  This  is  the  coat  which  I  hold  to  be  intended  for  Froxmere. 

3  But,  as  I  pointed  out  above  (p.  253),  the  'Godfrey'  coat 
follows    Herring,   and    must    be    intended    for    Froxmere,  which 
should  appear  in  that  position. 

269 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

All  this,  however,  turns  on  the  question  I  raised 
at  the  outset,  namely,  whether  the  coats  on  the 
monument  erected  by  the  second  earl  (d.  1585) 
do  not  imply  that  the  whole  of  this  section  of  the 
pedigree  was  concocted  at  an  earlier  date.  And 
this  question  is  specially  raised  by  the  coat  of  De 
La  Tour  which  figures  on  that  monument.  For 
the  masterstroke  of  the  whole  pedigree  was  to 
make  the  above  William  a  cadet  of  the  Derham 
Russells,  and  to  make  him  inherit  Berwick,  the 
seat  of  his  alleged  descendants,  from  his  mother, 
an  heiress  of  the  De  La  Tours,  to  whom  it  had 
previously  belonged.  As  the  wives  of  the  Derham 
Russells  were  known,  and  none  of  them  was  a  De 
La  Tour,  the  heiress  was  assigned  as  a  second  wife 
to  Theobald  Russell  of  Derham,  who  was  probably 
selected  as  her  husband  because  the  house  of  De 
La  Tour  disappears  from  view  at  about  the  time 
he  lived.  By  this  ingenious  arrangement  the  in- 
heritance of  Berwick  by  a  younger  son  of  the 
Russells  was  accounted  for. 

The  most  critical  link  in  the  whole  pedigree  is 
this,  which  connects  the  alleged  ancestor  of  the 
Bedford  Russells'  branch  with  the  parent  house  of 
Russell  seated  at  Kingston  Russell,  and  afterwards 
at  Derham.  It  needs,  therefore,  close  scrutiny. 
Now  "  the  authorised  version  "  originally  was  that 
given  by  Jacob,  namely  that  William  the  founder 
of  the  Bedford  Russells'  line  was  the  son  of  a 
Theobald  Russell  by  his  second  wife,  "  Alice, 
dau.  and  heir  of  John  de  la  Tour."  But  then 
the  tinkering  began.  As  the  name  of  this  Theo- 

270 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    RUSSELLS 

bald's  widow  is  proved  by  records  to  have  been, 
not  Alice,  but  Alianore,  the  pedigree  was  altered 
accordingly.  But  she  was  still  represented  as 
heiress  of  Berwick,  which  "  became  the  fixed  resi- 
dence of  the  branch "  of  the  Russells  descended 
from  her.1  Two  difficulties,  it  is  true,  arose ;  for 
her  brother  John  is  described  as  "  co-heir  with  " 
herself2  to  the  De  la  Tour  estates,  an  obvious 
impossibility ;  and  the  statement  that  "  the  greater 
portion  "  of  the  De  la  Tour  estates  came  ultimately 
to  her  heirs3  is  not  true.  She  cannot,  therefore, 
have  been,  as  alleged,  the  heiress  of  her  house. 
But  this  is  by  no  means  all. 

Let  us  see  how  the  pedigree  here  works  out  on 
Mr.  Wiffen's  own  showing. 


ELEANOR  (i) 


SIR  THEOBALD  (2)   =    ELEANOR 


GORGES 

RUSSELL 
d.  1341  "at 
age  of  32  " 

the  early 
(p.  140) 

DE    LA    TO! 

I 

RALPH 

i 

WILLIAM      THEOBALD 

1                          1 
ELEANOR         WILLI 

"  the  yoi 
son  of 

Theobald 
Russell,"  M.P. 
Melcombe  1339 
(P-  157)-   ' 

That  is  to  say,  William  "  the  youngest  son  of  Sir 
Theobald  "  (by  a  second  wife)  was  returned  to  Par- 
liament when  bis  father  was  only  thirty  years  old  !4 

1  Wiffen,  I.  157.  2  Ibid.  156.  8  Ibid. 

4  Sir  Theobald,  as  a  fact,  seems  to  have  been  37  (not  32)  at 
his  death,  but  this  makes  little  difference. 

271 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Let  us  take  another  test.  According  to  Mr. 
Wiffen,  Sir  Theobald  was  born  in  1304,  for  he 
was  "but  seven  years  of  age  "  in  1311  (p.  133), 
and  his  minority  terminated  in  1325  (p.  135). 
Yet  we  read  that  "  Sir  "  John  de  la  Tour,  father  of 
Eleanor  his  second  wife,  "died  so  early  as  1272" 
1  (P-  15S)-  She  must  therefore  have  been,  at  least, 
more  than  thirty  years  older  than  her  husband, 
and  scarcely  less  than  sixty  when  she  married  him, 
as  above,  and  became  the  mother  of  William  the 
duke  of  Bedford's  ancestor ! 

Having  now  discovered  the  difficulties  that  here 
surround  the  pedigree,  let  us  boldly  examine  the 
alleged  link  and  ask  not  merely  whether  it  is  true, 
but  whether  it  cannot  be  proved  to  be  false. 

The  alleged  marriage  of  Theobald  Russel  to 
Alice  de  la  Tour,  as  his  second  wife,  is  of  vital 
importance  to  the  pedigree.  For,  in  the  first  place, 
it  is  from  this  match  that  the  Bedford  Russells 
claim  descent  ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  it  is  as 
heirs  of  Alice,  heiress  of  the  De  la  Tours  of 
Berwick,  that  they  account  for  their  ancestors' 
possession  of  Berwick  as  their  seat.  What  then  is 
the  evidence  for  this  marriage  ?  None  whatever  is 
vouchsafed.  The  facts  of  the  case  are  these. 
Theobald,  it  is  admitted,  married  Alianore 
Gorges.  It  is  certain  that  his  widow  was 
named  Alianore,  and  it  is  no  less  certain  that  she 
bore,  on  her  own  seal,  the  Gorges  arms.  Who 
then  could  she  be  but  Alianore  Gorges,  Theo- 
bald's so-called  c  first '  wife  ?  In  that  case,  his 
c  second  '  wife  is  a  sheer,  deliberate  invention. 

272 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    RUSSELLS 

But  let  me  prove  the  seal.  Mr.  Wiffen  actually 
described  and  depicted  it,1  and  admitted  that  its 
arms  were  Russell  of  Derham  impaling  Morville 
or  Gorges.2  But  as  he  had  c  dodged  '  the  difficulty 
of  c  Alianore '  instead  of  c  Alice,'  so  he  did  with 
her  use  of  the  arms  of  Gorges  instead  of  De  la 
Tour.  His  feeble  suggestion  that  these  arms  were 
"  perhaps  considered  more  appropriate  to  a  deed 
relative  to  lands  which  she  held  in  dowry  of  the 
lords  of  Derham,  than  her  own  ancestral  arms" 
will  be  found  in  his  note  upon  the  seal.  I  have 
myself  examined  the  seal  and  deed,3  which  is 
granted  by  "  Alianora  que  fuit  uxor  Theobaldi 
Russel,"  and  in  which  we  read  :  "  in  cujus  rei 
testimonium  presentibus  sigillum  meum  apposui." 
As  for  the  seal,  I  had  better  quote  from  the  official 
Catalogue  of  Seals  (III.  461),  British  Museum  : — 

"  Alianora  widow  of  Theobald  Russel  of  co. 
Somers.  (dau.  of  Ralph  de  Gorges). 

"  13,167  [A.D.  1356]  .  .  .  originally  fine 
.  .  .  [Cott.  Chart.,  XXIX.  37]. 

"  A  shield  of  arms  :  per  pale  dex.,  on  a  chief 
three  bezants4  Russell  ;  sin.  lozengy  Gorges. 
Betw.  four  small  lozenge-shaped  shields  of  arms  : 
the  two  at  the  sides  (1.  h.  side  wanting)  Russell, 
the  two  at  top  and  bottom,  Gorges." 

I  claim,  therefore,  to  have  now  shown  that  the 

1  p.  156  and  plate  V. 

2  Gorges,  he  thought,  had  adopted  the  Morville  arms,  having 
married  an  heiress  of  that  house    (Ibid.   pp.    136—7).     But  the 
assumption  of  "lozengy,  or  and  az."  by  the  father  of  Alianore 
Gorges  seems  to  be  unconnected  with  the  Morville  coat. 

3  Cotton  Chart.,  XXIX.  37.          4  Misprinted  <  lozants.' 

273 x  T 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

match  on  which  the  pedigree  depends  is  a  sheer 
invention. 

But  the  seal  takes  us  further.  Mr.  Wiffen 
asserted  of  Ralf,  Theobald's  eldest  son,  that — 

By  way  of  distinction  from  the  old  ancestral  arms  that  con- 
tinued to  be  borne  by  his  half  brother,  the  son  of  Eleanor  de  la 
Tour,  he  assumed  a  new  coat,  viz.  argent,  on  a  chief  gules,  3 
bezants  or  "  (p.  142). 

But  this  most  improbable  story  is  at  once  disposed 
of  by  our  seal,  which  shows  that  these  were  the 
arms  of  his  father,  that  is  of  Russell  of  Kingston 
Russell.  Nor  do  we  stop  even  here.  "Planche's 
Roll  of  Arms/'  which  the  late  Mr.  James  Green- 
street  published  in  the  Genealogist,  can,  according 
to  him,  "  be  pretty  safely  assigned  to  the  close  of 
the  reign  of  king  Henry  III."  *  In  this  roll  we 
find  "  Raufe  Russell "  assigned  "  Arg.,  on  a  chief 
Gu.  three  roundles  Or."3  Now  it  was  precisely 
at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  that  Ralph 
Russell  of  Kingston  Russell  flourished.3 

The  arms,  therefore,  of  the  Bedford  Russells, 
with  their  rampant  lion  gules  and  their  escallop 
shells  argent  on  a  chief  sable,  are  not  "  the  old 
ancestral  arms,"  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  new  coat, 
evidently  granted  to  distinguish  them  from  the 
house  from  which  they  claim  descent. 

Mr.  Wiffen  held  that  the  Russell  lion  was 
originally  that  of  Bertrand  (p.  13  and  plate  II.), 
and  that — 

1   Genealogist  (N.S.),  III.  149.  2  Ibid.  V.  176. 

3  He  died  early  in  the  reign  of  Edward  I.  (Wiffen,  I.  117). 
He  was  jure  uxoris  of  baronial  rank. 

274 


THE   ORIGIN    OF   THE    RUSSELLS 

Hugh  [Bertrand]  du  Rozel,  in  variation  of  the  Bertrand  arms, 
bore  argent,  the  lion  rampant  gules,  uncrowned,  with  the  addition 
of  a  chief  sable  ;  which  arms  we  find  ascribed  to  him  in  a  descent 
drawn  out  by  William  Le  Neve,  York  Herald,  preserved  with  the 
other  archives  of  the  Russells,  dukes  of  Bedford  (p.  28). 

This  patriarch  first  appears,  he  held,  in  1066, 
and  was  father  of  "  Hugh  II.  de  Rosel,"  who, 
"  probably  in  token  of  his  return  as  a  victorious 
palmer  from  Jerusalem  .  .  .  added  to  the 
lion  of  his  father's  shield  the  three  escallop-shells 
which  are  borne  by  his  descendants"  (I.  42-3). 
In  proof  that  this  was  so,  we  read  : — 

It  appears,  by  a  pedigree  in  the  Herald's  Office,  that  the  shells 
were  borne  by  Robert  de  Rosel,  the  son  of  Hugh  the  Second,  so 
early  as  the  tenth  year  of  King  Henry  I.  (I.  43,  note). 

If  so,  one  can  only  say,  '  so  much  the  worse  for 
the  Heralds'  College  '  ! 

The  c  variation  '  of  "  or  a  lion  rampant  vert, 
langued  and  unguled  gules^  crowned  argent"  (p.  13) 
into  "  argent^  a  lion  rampant  gules ^  on  a  chief  sable^ 
three  escallops  of  the  first,"  is,  indeed,  a  curiosity 
of  heraldry,  apart  from  the  fact  that  it  all  took 
place  before  armorial  bearings  were  even  in  exis- 
tence. 

\ 

Of  all  those  who  have  been  concerned  in  this 
egregious  imposture,  Mr.  Wiffen  was,  I  fear,  the 
worst.  For,  though  living  in  an  age  of  greater 
enlightenment  and  of  freer  access  to  authorities,  he 
deliberately  and  largely  added  to  the  fictions  pre- 
viously existing  ;  he  set  himself  to  explain  away 
the  flaws  he  could  not  but  perceive  ;  and  he  then 

275 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

ultroneously  proclaimed  that  his  researches  were 
"  based  always  upon  authentic  records,"  and  had 
enabled  him  "to  complete,  in  an  unbroken  line,  the 
chain  of  family  descent,  and  to  ascertain  the  pre- 
cise spot  whence  the  House  derived  its  surname." 
On  his  own  showing  (p.  xi.),  the  initiative  was 
his  ;  and  it  was  not  till  he  had  spent  two  years 
upon  the  work  that  the  then  duke  was  approached 
by  him,  and  fell,  not  unnaturally,  a  victim.  His 
Grace's  "  liberality,"  we  read,  charged  him  with 
a  mission  to  Normandy  ;  nor  do  we  read  with  any 
surprise  :  "  I  went  upon  a  tour  of  four  weeks — I 
stayed  as  many  months."  This  is  by  no  means,  I 
believe,  an  uncommon  experience  with  those  who 
charge  these  gentlemen  with  similar  missions. 
Mr.  Wiffen,  indeed,  was  so  loth  to  leave  the 
pleasant  Norman  land  that  his  grief  broke  forth 
in  verse,  which  the  ducal  liberality  enabled  him 
to  embalm  in  print  : — 

But,  hark — the  snorting  steeds  that  prance 
To  whirl  me  on  my  homeward  way  ! 

Farewell  to  Fancy's  musing  trance — 
Adieu  each  loved  and  lorn  Abbaye. 

Now  break  the  cup  !  the  spell  is  past — 
The  guest  gone  by — the  banquet  o'er  ; 

'Tis  vain  !  'tis  vain  !  the  fragments  cast 
Yet  brighter  lights  than  beam'd  before.  * 

Poor  Mr.  Wiffen  !  He  had  at  least  served  his 
ducal  patron  with  '  butter  in  a  lordly  dish.'  Even 
the  enterprising  gentleman  who  discovered  Colonel 
Shipway's  ancestors  would  not  have  ventured  to 

1  Appendix  to  vol.  I. 
276 


THE    ORIGIN    OF   THE    RUSSELLS 

begin  the  pedigree,  about  the  year  600,  with  "Olaf 
the  sharp-eyed,  king  of  Rerik." 

When  an  author  sends  forth  his  work  "to  under- 
go the  same  frank  ordeal  of  opinion,  which  I  my- 
self have  exercised,"  and  to  be  received  with  his 
own  "  candour,"  he  compels  the  critic  to  observe 
that  the  evidence  is  c  doctored '  throughout  with  the 
very  reverse  of  candour.  The  territorial  "  de  " 
is  interpolated  where  it  is  not  found ;  fancy  knight- 
hoods are  bestowed  on  those  who  did  not  enjoy 
the  honour  ;  and,  at  every  step,  the  evidence  is 
distorted  ad  majorem  gloriam  gentis.  Thus,  for 
instance,  an  entry  on  the  Rolls  which  is  vouched 
for  the  statement  that  "  John  Russell  Esquire " 
took  part  "  in  public  affairs "  as  "  keeper  of  the 
royal  artillery  in  Carisbrook  Castle,"  1  proves,  on 
verification,  to  refer  to  an  ordinary  soldier,  whose 
wages  were  threepence  a  day. 

But  I  have  now  sufficiently  exposed  the  true 
character  of  the  work.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  strangest 
part  of  the  story,  and  not  the  least  instructive,  that 
the  present  century  should  have  brought  to  perfec- 
tion a  legend  on  which  Dugdale  himself  remained 
ominously  silent.  Though  giving  his  pedigree  of 
the  later  family  "  ex  relatione  Willelmi  comitis 
Bedf.,"  he  stopped  short  with  William  Russel  of 
Kingston  Russell  temp.  Edw.  I.  and  guardedly  pro- 
ceeded : — 

Touching  the  descendants  of  this  William,  considering  they 
stood  not  in  the  ranks  of  peers  of  this  realm,  I  have  no  more  to  say 
until  I  come  to  John  Russel  Esq.  whose  residence  was  at  Barwick.2 

1  Vol.  I.  p.  170.          2  Baronage,  II.  377-8. 
277 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

He  then  takes  up  his  tale  anew  with  the  first  earl 
of  Bedford. 

Shirley  in  his  famous  Noble  and  Gentle  men,1  fol- 
lowed Wiffen  and  '  Brydges'  Collins/  writing  : — 

Although  this  family  may  be  said  to  have  made  their  fortune  in 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  .  .  .  yet  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  the  Russells  are  sprung  from  a  younger  branch  of  an 
ancient  baronial  family  of  whom  the  elder  line  .  .  .  were 
barons  of  Parliament  in  the  time  of  Edward  III. 

But,  in  their  Great  Governing  Families  (1865),  San- 
ford  and  Townsend  dismissed  the  story  with  these 
sceptical  words  : — 

They  may  possibly  have  an  old  pedigree.  Immense  labour  has 
been  expended  in  tracing  it  by  genealogists  dependent  on  the 
family,  and  it  now  lacks  nothing  except  historic  proof  (II.  25). 

It  was,  however,  hardly  fair  to  assert  that,  be- 
yond 1509,  "all  is  genealogical,  i.e.  more  or  less 
plausible  guesswork."  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
the  pedigree  up  to  Henry  Russell,  returned,  as  we 
have  seen,  for  Weymouth,  under  Henry  VI.  The 
association,  therefore,  of  the  Russells  with  the 
House  of  Commons,  can  be  carried  back  at  least 
four  and  a  half  centuries,  while  it  is  quite  possible 
that  men  of  their  race  represented  in  Parliament 
their  fellow-burgesses  five  hundred  years  ago.  It 
was  thus  appropriate  enough  that  this  great  Whig 
name  should  have  been  so  closely  connected  with 
the  passing  of  the  first  Reform  bill,  which  placed 
the  balance  of  political  power  in  the  hands  of  that 
very  class  from  which  the  Russells  originally 
sprang. 

1  3rd  Ed.,  1866. 
278 


VII 
The  Rise  of  the  Spencers 

THAT  quaint  old  work  Lloyd's  State  Worthies  is 
responsible  for  this  sketch  of  the  first  Lord 
Spencer  : — 

He  was  the  fifth  knight  of  his  family,  in  an  immediate  succes- 
sion, well  allied  and  extracted,  being  descended  from  the  Spencers, 
earls  of  Gloucester  and  Winchester.  In  the  first  year  of  the 
reign  of  king  James  [1603],  being  a  moneyed  man,  he  was 
created  baron  of  Wormeleiton  in  the  county  of  Warwick.  He 
had  such  a  ready  and  quick  wit,  that  once  speaking  in  parliament 
of  the  valour  of  their  English  ancestors  in  defending  the  liberty  of 
the  nation,  returned  this  answer  to  the  earl  of  Arundel,  who  said 
unto  him  :  "  Your  ancestors  were  then  keeping  of  sheep "  ;  "  If 
they  kept  sheep,  yours  were  then  plotting  of  treason." 

This  'scene/  which  made,  at  the  time,  no  small 
stir,  took  place  on  8  May  1621.  It  is  somewhat 
differently  recorded  by  Dr.  Gardiner,  on  the 
authority  of  a  State  Paper.  According  to  him  it 
was  Lord  Spencer  who  first  reminded  Arundel  that 
two  of  his  ancestors  had  been  condemned  to  death, 
upon  which  Arundel,  "  stung  by  the  retort  .  .  . 
replied,  with  all  the  haughty  insolence  of  his 
nature  "  : — 

I  do  acknowledge  that  my  ancestors  have  suffered,  and  it  may 

279 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

be  for  doing  the  king  and  the  country  good  service,  and  in  such 
time  as  when,  perhaps,  the  lord's  ancestors  that  last  spoke,  were 
keeping  sheep. 

An  interesting  biography  of  this,  the  first  Lord 
Spencer,  is  contained  in  Colvile's  Warwickshire 
Worthies  (pp.  712-721),  the  information  being 
brought  together  from  a  number  of  sources. 
From  Arthur  Wilson's  Life  of  James  is  quoted  the 
panegyric  : — 

Like  the  old  Roman  dictator  from  the  farm,  he  made  the 
country  a  virtuous  court,  where  his  fields  and  flocks  brought  him 
more  happy  contentment  than  the  various  and  mutable  dis- 
pensations of  a  court  can  contribute  ;  and  when  he  was  called  to 
the  Senate  he  was  more  vigilant  to  keep  the  people's  liberties 
from  being  a  prey  to  the  encroaching  power  of  monarchy,  than 
his  harmless  and  tender  lambs  from  foxes  and  ravenous  creatures.1 

The  wealth,  the  hospitality,  and  the  high 
character  of  this  Lord  Spencer  were  spoken  to  by 
divers  writers,  Camden  terming  him  "  a  worthy 
encourager  of  virtue  and  learning." 2  He  seems  to 
have  inherited  the  tastes  of  his  ancestors,  with 
whom  Lord  Arundel  taunted  him,  and,  like  '  Coke 
of  Holkham,'  in  later  times,  to  have  devoted  himself 
to  farming  and  breeding  stock.  Thus  it  was  that 
Fuller,  himself  a  Northamptonshire  man,  tells  us, 
writing  about  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, that  Warwickshire  was  famous  for  its  sheep, 
to  which  the  Spencers  had  owed  their  rise.  They 
were 

.     .     .     most   large  for  bone,  flesh,  and  wool  about   Worm- 

1  This  passage  is   also  quoted   in   Collins1   Peerage  (1779),  I. 

357-  *  «**• 

280 


THE    RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

leighton  [the  Spencers'  seat].  In  this  shire  the  complaint  of 
J.  Rous  [d.  1491]  continueth  and  increaseth  that  sheep  turn 
cannibals,  eating  up  men,  horses,  and  towns ;  their  pastures  make 
such  depopulation.1 

The  first  lord's  grandfather  and  namesake,  who 
died  in  1586,  had  "employed  his  thoughts  on 
husbandry  as  of  most  skill  and  profit  to  his  country; 
for  at  his  death  he  had  numerous  flocks  of  sheep 
and  other  cattle  in  his  grounds  and  parks  of 
Althorp  and  Wormleighton."  2 

The  haughty  words  of  the  head  of  the  Howards 
referred  to  a  fact  of  much  interest,  which  'was  then, 
probably,  notorious.  Alone,  perhaps,  among  the 
English  nobility,  the  Spencers  owed  their  riches 
and  their  rise,  neither  to  the  favour  of  a  court,  nor 
to  the  spoils  of  monasteries,  nor  to  a  fortune  made 
in  trade,  but  to  successful  farming.  That  a  fortune 

1  Fuller's    Worthies.       Compare    the    testimony    of   Dugdale 
below,  p.  285.     Fuller  seems  to  be  referring  to  Rous'  Historia 
Regum  Anglie  (Ed.  Hearne,  1745),  pp.  120-137,  where  the  writer 
denounces  to  Henry  VII.  the  destruction  of  townships  in  East 
Warwickshire.     It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Hodnell  and  Rad- 
bourne  are  among  those  he  names. 

2  Collins  ut  supra.     Harrison  had  complained  about  this  time 
of  the  "enormity"  of  the  aristocracy  dealing  with  "such  like 
affairs  as  belong  not  to  men  of  honour,  but  rather  to  farmers  or 
graziers  ;  for  which  such,  if  there  be  any,  may  well  be   noted 
(and  not  unjustly)  to  degenerate  from  true  nobility,  and  betake 
themselves  to  husbandry."     A  case  in   point  is  that  of  Thomas 
Lord  Berkeley  (1523-1533),  styled  by  Smyth,  the  historian  of  his 
house,  "Thomas  the  Sheepmaster."     This  bearer  of  a  famous 
title  is  described  by  him  as  "  living  a  kind  of  grazier's  life,  having 
his  flocks  of  sheep  sommering  in  one  place  and  wintering  in  other 
places  as  hee  observed  the  fields  and   pastures  to  bee  found  and 
could  bargaine  best  cheape." 

281 


PEERAGE  STUDIES 

could  then  be  made  by  a  pursuit  which  now  spells 
ruin,  may  seem  at  first  sight  strange  ;  but  there 
was  a  time  in  England,  under  the  early  Tudors, 
when  sheep-farming  meant  a  road  to  fortune,  as  it 
did,  in  our  own  time,  for  Australia's  "  shepherd 
kings."  Those  were  days  when  a  sheep's  wool 
proved  indeed  a  "  golden  fleece."  l 

The  trend  of  historical  study,  of  late,  towards 
economics  and  social  evolution,  has  caused  much 
attention  to  be  given  to  the  great  development  of 
pasture,  at  the  cost  of  arable,  resulting  from  the 
large  profits  derived  from  the  growth  of  wool.2 
For  more  than  a  century  the  face  of  the  country 
was  undergoing  a  vast  change,  and  its  economic 
conditions  being  profoundly  modified,  by  the  de- 
population of  the  rural  districts,  where  the  highly 
profitable  growth  of  wool  was  ousting  the  labours 
of  the  plough.  In  vain  did  Henry  VII.  and 
Henry  VIII.  alike  endeavour  to  check  this  great 
movement  by  acts  of  parliament  and  other  mea- 
sures, backed  though  they  were,  in  Mr.  Corbett's 
words,  "  by  all  the  preachers  and  thinkers  of  the 
day."  John  Spencer  was  one  of  those  ordered  by 
Wolsey  to  destroy  his  enclosures,  and  restore  his 
land  to  tillage,  in  1518  or  1519,  but  we  find  an 
act  of  parliament  in  1534  still  denouncing 

.  .  .  "divers  persons  to  whom  God  in  His  goodness  hath  disposed 
great  plenty,"  studying  "  how  they  might  accumulate  into  few 

1  Harrison  (circ.    1580)   wrote,  of  "our  great  sheepmasters," 
that  sometimes  one  owned  20,000  sheep. 

2  See,   for   instance,   Mr.   Leadam's   Domesday  of  Inclosures  (2 
vols.),  published  by  the  Royal  Historical  Society, 

282 


THE   RISE  OF   THE   SPENCERS 

hands,  as  well  great  multitude  of  farms  as  great  plenty  of  cattle, 
and  in  especial  sheep,  putting  such  land  to  pasture  and  not  tillage, 
whereby  they  have  not  only  pulled  down  churches  and  towns,1 
but  enhanced  the  prices  of  all  manner  of  agricultural 
commodities  almost  double  ...  by  reason  whereof  a  marvellous 
number  of  the  people  of  this  realm  .  .  .  be  so  discouraged 
with  misery  and  poverty  that  they  .  .  .  pitifully  die  for 
hunger  and  cold." 

Indeed  some  fifty  years  later,  in  the  lifetime  of  his 
grandson,  Sir  John  Spencer  (p.  281  above),  the 
complaints  were  as  loud  as  ever. 

Husbandman.  .  .  •  where  threescore  persons  or  upwards 
had  their  livings,  now  one  man  with  his  cattle  has  all, 
which  is  not  the  least  cause  of  former  uproars.  .  .  .  Ye 
raise  the  price  of  your  lands,  and  ye  take  farms  also,  and 
pastures  to  your  hands,  which  was  wont  to  be  poor  Men's 
livings,  such  as  I  am. 

Merchant.     On  my  soul  ye  say  truth. 

Husbandman.  Yea,  those  sheep  is  the  cause  of  all  these  mis- 
chiefs.2 

It  was,  as  ever,  useless  to  fight  by  legislative  enact- 
ment against  land  being  put  to  the  most  profitable 
use,  however  unpopular  the  change  might  be. 
The  grazing  farms  of  Connaught,  at  the  present 
time,  are  denounced  by  the  small  tenants,  who 
would  have  them  parcelled  out ;  but  they  have 

1  As  villages  were  then  termed. 

2  A  compendium  and  brief  examination  of  certain  ordinary  com- 
plaints of  divers  of  our  countrymen  in   these  our  days.     By  W.  S., 

1581.  Harrison  observes,  about  the  same  time,  that  "where  in 
times  past  many  large  and  wealthy  occupiers  were  dwelling  with- 
in the  compass  of  some  one  park.  .  .  .  some  owners,  still 
desirous  to  enlarge  those  grounds,  as  either  for  the  breed  and  feed- 
ing of  cattle,  do  not  let  daily  to  take  in  more,  not  sparing  the 
very  commons,  whereupon  many  townships  now  and  then  do 
live." 

283 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

proved  to  be  the  best  use  to  which  that  land  can 
be  put.  It  is,  however,  doubtless  true  that,  like 
all  great  economic  changes,  the  conversion  of  arable 
into  pasture  dislocated  rural  life,  and  involved  suffer- 
ing and  loss  to  individuals  if  not  to  classes.  And 
therefore,  although  wholly  consistent  with  the 
laissez  faire  principles  of  the  old  Liberal  party,  it 
figures  among  the  sins  in  English  history  with 
which  the  owners  of  land  are  so  often  charged 
by  the  present  Radical  factions.1  But  the  founder 
of  the  Spencers  was  shrewd  enough  to  seize  the 
opportunities  of  his  time.  As  he  is  stated  to  have 
been,  maternally,  a  nephew  of  Richard  Empson,  the 
famous  (or  infamous)  official  employed  by  Henry 
VII.  to  fill  his  treasury,  his  evidently  rapid  acqui- 
sition of  wealth  may  not  have  been  unconnected 
with  the  fact  that  Empson  was  in  power  at  the 
time.2  But,  so  far  as  the  known  evidence  takes  us, 
it  was  by  stock  farming  that  he  made,  as  he  said, 
"  his  lyvyng." 

1  By  the  irony  of  fate  we  have   lately  witnessed  exactly  the 
same  phenomena,  namely,  the  conversion  of  arable  into  pasture 
(or  now,  sometimes,  into  waste),  ruined  and  deserted  farmsteads, 
and  rural  depopulation, — as  the   direct  result  of  that   policy  of 
which  Cobden  secured  the  adoption  by  the  false  assurance  that 
such  result  could  not  possibly  follow  it.     And  the  Radicals,  in 
their  hatred  of  the  landed  interest,  rejoice  in  its  present  result. 

2  i.e.  till  1509. 

3  It  may  seem  strange  that  a  *  grazier '  could  acquire  sufficient 
wealth  to  purchase  Wormleighton  and  Althorpe,  and  could  even 
become  high  sheriff  of  his  county.     But  we  learn  from  Harrison 
(p.  324  below),  in  this  century,  that  such  men  "live  wealthily, 
and  with  grazing     ...     do  come  to  great  wealth,"  and  buy 
gentlemen's    estates.     Nor    was   a    rapid  social  rise  any  strange 

284 


THE    RISE   OF   THE    SPENCERS 

In  this  paper,  however,  the  subject  I  propose  to 
discuss  is  that  of  the  Spencer  pedigree  and  arms. 
For  theirs,  it  will  be  found,  is  a  typical  case  of  the 
Heralds'  College  providing  a  family,  when  it  has 
acquired  wealth,  with  arms  to  which  it  is  not 
entitled,  on  the  strength  of  a  pedigree  concocted 
for  the  purpose.  I  lay  the  guilt  at  the  heralds' 
door,  not  at  that  of  the  family  itself,  because  its 
founder,  John  Spencer,  the  purchaser  ofAlthorpe 
and  Wormleighton,  made,  we  shall  see,  no  claim 
to  any  other  than  his  true  origin  ;  while  its  first 
peer, — although  "  for  his  skill  in  antiquities,  arms, 
alliances  it  was  singular," — desired,  in  his  will,  to 
be  buried  "  not  in  the  pompous  traine  of  Heraulds 
and  glorious  Ensignes,  nor  in  dumbe  ceremonies, 
and  superfluous  shewes,  but  in  a  decent  and 
Christian  manner,  without  pomp  or  superfluities." 

It  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century 
that  this  family  of  Spencer  first  emerged  from 
obscurity ;  and  it  is  quite  evident  that  they  were 
then  wealthy  graziers,  living  in  the  south-east  of 
Warwickshire,  on  the  Northamptonshire  border. 
Their  true  pedigree  was  as  given  on  the  next  page. 
Hodnell  and  Radbourne  lay  together  just  to  the 
north  of  Wormleighton.  When  Dugdale  wrote 
(1640),  Hodnell,  which  had  "been  antiently  well 

phenomenon  in  the  days  of  the  Tudor  kings.  But,  indeed, 
grazing  could  still  lead  to  it  two  centuries  later ;  for  Nash  writes 
of  Tredington,  in  S.E.  Worcestershire  :  "  Here  lived  Mr.  Snow, 
an  eminent  butcher  and  grazier,  who  by  extensive  dealing  and 
great  integrity  raised  a  very  considerable  fortune  :  he  was  high 
sheriff  of  the  county"  in  9  George  II.  (Worcestershire,  II.  427). 

285 
I 


PEERAGE  STUDIES 

WILLIAM  JOHN 

SPENCER  SPENCER 

(said  to  have  been)  of  Hodnell, 

of  Radbourne,  War-  Warwickshire 


Sept.  1496 
25  Jan. 


wickshire  will  dated  15 

j proved  C.P.C. 

|  |  He  d.  4  Jan.  1496-7 

JOHN  THOMAS      Inq.  p.  m.    5  Nov.  1499 

SPENCER  SPENCER 

exor.  to  his  uncle  John,       mentioned  in  THOMAS 

1496,  being  then  "of    uncle's  will  1496  ;        SPENCER 
Snitterfield."  included  in  the         of  Hodnell. 

Removed  to  grant  of  arms  1504. 

Hodnell,  1497. 
Had  grant  of  arms 

26  Nov.  1504. 
Purchased  Wormleigh- 

ton,  3  Sept.  1506. 
Purchased  Althorpe  1508. 
High  Sheriff  of  " 
Northants  1511. 
Knighted  in  or  after  1519. 


inhabited,  and  had  a  church,  whereof,  now,  the 
ruines  are  scarce  to  be  seen,"  had  shrunk  to  in- 
significance, as  had  Radbourne,  which,  "from  a 
village  of  divers  inhabitants,  and  having  a  church, 
is  now  by  depopulation  shrunk  into  one  dwelling." 
It  was  the  fate  of  such  villages  as  these  that  had 
stirred  Sir  Thomas  More  to  his  outburst  against 
"  the  noblemen  and  gentlemen,  yea,  and  certain 
abbots,  that  lease  no  ground  for  tillage ;  that  en- 
close all  into  pasture,  and  throw  down  houses ; 
that  pluck  down  towns,  and  leave  nothing  standing, 

1  4  Home. 
286 


THE    RISE    OF   THE   SPENCERS 

but   only   the   church,  to   be   made  into   a   sheep 
house."  x 

The  social  position  of  John  Spencer,  the  future 
purchaser  of  Althorpe,  when  living  at  Hodnell 
after  his  uncle's  death,  is  proved  by  a  deed  now 
preserved  among  the  British  Museum  manuscripts,2 
which  is  dated  26  Nov.  1497.  Tin8  deed  is  also 
of  interest  from  its  mention  of  his  neighbour, 
William  Graunte,  "  husbondman "  ; 3  for  he  him- 
self, according  to  his  monument,  had  married  a 
daughter  of  Walter  Graunt,  of  Snitterfield,  as  had 
his  uncle  also. 

Noverint  universi  per  presentes  nos  Johannem  Spenser  de 
Hodenhill  in  Com.  Warr.  Grasier,  Willelmum  Graunte  de 
Priours  Herdewyk  in  Com.  Warr.  husbondman,  Rogerium 
Belcher  de  Gyldesburgh  in  Com.  Northt.  husbondman,  et 
Thomam  Lawney  de  Maydeford  in  Com.  Northt.  husbondman, 
teneri  et  firmiter  obligari  Thome  Haselwode  armigero  in  decem 
libris  sterlingorum.  .  .  .  Dat'  vicesimo  sexto  die  mensis 
Novembris  anno  regni  Regis  Henrici  Septimi  tercio  decimo. 

1  Compare  the  words  of  Fuller  above,  p.  280,  and  those  of 
Harrison  (arc.  1580): — "It  is  an  easy  matter  to  prove  that 
England  was  never  less  furnished  with  people  than  at  this  present ; 
for  if  the  old  records  of  every  manor  be  sought,  ...  it 
will  soon  appear  that,  in  some  one  manor,  17,  18,  or  20  houses 
are  shrunk.  I  know  what  I  say  by  my  own  experience  .  .  . 
of  towns  pulled  down  for  sheep-walks,  and  no  more  but  the  lord- 
ships now  standing  in  them.  ...  I  could  say  somewhat  ; 
.  ,  .  Certes,  this  kind  of  cattle  is  more  cherished  in  England 
than  standeth  well  with  the  commodity  of  the  commons  or 
prosperity  of  divers  towns,  whereof  some  are  wholly  converted  to 
their  feeding."  2  Add.  Chart.  21,448. 

3  As  William  Graunt  '  de  Haidewyke '  he  entered,  with  Alice 
his  wife,  in  1493,  the  Knowle  Guild,  which  was  joined  by  his 
neighbour  John  Spencer  in  1495. 

287 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

It  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  seals  affixed  by 
the  parties  to  this  deed  are  not  armorial.  On  the 
death  of  John  Spencer,  his  uncle  and  namesake, 
the  future  purchaser  of  Althorpe  went  to  reside  at 
Hodnell,  doubtless  to  carry  on  the  grazing  business 
as  his  uncle's  executor.  When  his  cousin  came  of 
age,  he  had  to  leave  Hodnell,  and  he  had  bought 
Wormleighton,  according  to  his  own  account,  to 
provide  himself  with  a  home. 

All  this  we  learn  from  his  own  interesting 
petition  to  Henry  VIII.,  against  being  forced  to 
restore  to  tillage  his  pastures  at  Wormleighton. 
We  owe  the  text  of  this  document  to  the  industry 
of  Mr.  Leadam,  who  has  printed  it  from  the 
original,  among  Lord  Spencer's  MSS.,  in  his  Domes- 
day of  Inc/osures.1 

John  Spencer  of  Wormeleighton  .  .  .  bought  the  seid 
lordship  of  the  seid  William  Coope  .  .  .  wherupon  he 
made  hym  a  dwelling  place,  where  he  had  noon  to  inhabit  hym- 
self  in  his  countrey  where  he  was  borne,  for  at  Hodnell  where 
he  dwelt  byfore  he  had  yt  no  longer  but  during  the  nanage  of  his 
unkyls  son,  which  now  there  dwellith  and  hathe  doone  this  iij 
yeeris,  and  so  this  iij  yeris  the  seid  John  Spencer  hathe  be  in 
bylding  in  Wormeleighton  to  his  great  cost  and  charge.2 

Mr.  Leadam  assigns  this  petition  to  1519.  In 
it  John  Spencer  goes  on  to  plead  that  to  restore 
the  land  to  tillage  would  be  "  to  his  uttour  un- 
doyng  " — 

for  his  lyvyng  ys  and  hathe  byn  by  the  brede  of  cattell  in  his 
pastures,  for  he  ys  neythir  byer  nor  seller  in  comon  markettes  as 
other  grasyers  byn,  but  lyvyth  by  his  own  brede  of  the  same 

1  Issued  by  the  Royal  Historical  Society.        2  Vol.  I.  pp.  485-6. 

288 


THE    RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

pastures,  and  sold  yt  when  it  was  fatt  to  the  citie  of  London  and 
other  places  yerely  as  good  chepe  in  all  this  v  or  vj  yeris  past  as 
he  dyd  in  other  yeres  when  they  were  best  chepe  within  ijs.  in  a 
beste  and  ijd.  in  a  shepe.1 

In  1512  the  same  energetic  man  had  acquired, 
by  exchange,  Wicken,  in  Northamptonshire,  and 
had  promptly  extended  its  park  and  turned  arable 
into  pasture.2  Even  before  his  purchase  of  Worm- 
leighton — which  had  cost  him,  he  claimed,  first 
and  last,  two  thousand  pounds — John  Spencer  had 
felt  himself  in  sufficiently  good  circumstances  to 
aspire  to  a  grant  of  arms.  Accordingly,  on  26 
Nov.  1504,  "  Richemount,  otherwise  Claren- 
cieux,"  granted  to  John  and  Thomas  Spencer,  sons 
of  William  Spencer  of  the  county  of  Warwick, 
az.  a  fess  erm.  between  six  sea-mews'  beads  erased 
arg.,  as  a  coat. 

There  seems  to  have  prevailed  a  doubt  among 
those  who  have  written  on  the  family  as  to  whom 
this  coat  was  granted  to.  Sir  Egerton  Brydges 
did  not  know,  and  Baker  guessed  that  it  must  have 
been  obtained  by  the  father  of  the  actual  grantees, 
William  Spencer.  It  was  granted,  however,  as 
above.  One  could  hardly  conceive  a  coat  differing 
more  widely  from  that  of  the  baronial  Despencers  ;3 
and  it  is  equally  to  the  credit  of  John  Spencer  and 
of  the  herald  who  made  the  grant  that  this  should 

1  Vol.  I.  p.  487. 

2  "et  quatuor  persone  que   ibidem  nuper  manentes  et  labo- 
rantes  (sic)  abinde  penitus  in   magnum    suum  dampnum   reces- 
serunt  et  vagarunt "  (Ibid.  pp.  285,  286). 

3  Quarterly  arg.  and  gu.  in  the  2nd  and  ^rd  quarters  a  fret  or, 
over  all  a  bend  sable. 

289  u 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

have  been  so.  The  coat,  also,  of  the  Bedford 
Russells  differed  widely,  we  saw,  from  that  of  the 
baronial  Russells.  In  both  cases  the  practice  of 
the  heralds  at  this  period  of  their  history  appears 
to  very  great  advantage  by  the  side  of  that  which 
they  adopted  later  and  which  prevails  at  the 
present  day.  I  propose  to  return  to  this  subject 
below. 

The  grant  of  this  coat  in  1504  is  obviously 
hostile  to  the  claim  that  the  family  was  already 
entitled  to  the  arms  of  the  baronial  Despencers. 
For  if  it  had  been,  John  Spencer  was  hardly  likely 
to  apply  for  new  ones  before  the  Heralds'  Visitations, 
with  their  coercive  powers,  had  begun ;  and  he 
was  even  less  likely  to  change,  as  has  been  sug- 
gested, the  coat  to  which  he  was  entitled  for  a 
new  one  pointedly  implying  that  he  was  not  of 
the  Despencer  stock.  When  the  Heralds'  Visita- 
tions began,  the  Spencers  were  satisfied  with  this 
coat  and  with  John,  who  obtained  it,  as  their 
ancestor.  Nay,  they  were  using  it  at  least  as  late 
as  1576;  for  Sir  John  Spencer  of  Althorpe  and  his 
son  Thomas  were  parties,  in  that  year,  to  a  deed 
to  which  they  affixed  their  seals,  bearing  only  the 
coat  granted  in  I5O4.1 

Moreover,  the  head  of  their  other  house, 
Thomas  Spencer  of  Everdon,  obtained  a  fresh 
grant  of  arms  so  late  as  circ.  1560.  Descended  as 

1  Add.  Chart.  21,996  (in  British  Museum).  The  official 
catalogue  of  the  Museum  seals  describes  the  coat  as  "  a  fess  be- 
tween six  pigeons'  heads  erased " ;  but  the  heads,  even  to  the 
naked  eye,  are  clearly  those  of  seamews. 

290 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

he  was  from  an  uncle  of  John,  the  purchaser  of 
Althorpe,  he  did  not  come  within  the  limitation 
of  the  1504  grant.  The  coat  assigned  him,  in  the 
language  of  the  day,  was  "  Sables,  on  a  fece  golde 
betw.  3  bezantes  3  lions  heads  razid  of  the  field  " 
— with  a  very  complicated  crest.  He  evidently 
made  no  claim  to  be  entitled  to  a  Despencer  coat, 
or,  for  the  matter  of  that,  to  any  arms  at  all.1 

Baker    indeed    asserts,  of  the    first    Spencer    or 
Althorpe,  that — 

The  arms  of  his  great  grandfather,  Henry  Spencer,  which  had 
been  disused  for  several  generations,  were  resumed  by  Sir  John 
Spencer,2  as  is  evident  from  their  being  blazoned  on  his  monu- 
ment, and  that  they  were  not  deemed  "  a  late  assumption  where 
the  want  of  authority  is  fatal  to  the  right,"  needs  no  other  proof 
than  the  simple  fact  of  their  having  been  uninterruptedly  borne 
by  his  noble  descendants  under  the  sanction  of  the  college  of 
arms.3 

With  the  value  of  this  "  sanction "  I  shall  deal 
in  due  course  ;  for  the  present  I  have  to  point 
out  that  the  above  monument  has  been  "  faked." 
Whether  it  was  erected  on  Sir  John  Spencer's 
death  (1522),  or  somewhat  later,4  this  effigy  dis- 
plays on  its  tabard  no  other  coat  than  that  which 
was  granted  in  1504.  The  first  effigy  on  which 
is  found  the  differenced  coat  of  the  baronial 

1  This  is  not  mentioned  by  Baker,  and  seems  to  be  a  new 
fact. 

2  To  whom,  on  the  contrary,  the  new  coat  had  been  granted 
in  1504.  3  History  of  Northamptonshire,  I.  106. 

4  It  speaks  of  his  eldest  son  as  a  knight  ;  and  Collins*  Peerage 
states  (on  the  authority  of  Cotton  MS.  Claud.  C.  3),  that  he  was 
not  knighted  till  1529.  But  Mr.  Metcalfe's  book  gives  Sir  James 
Spencer  as  then  knighted. 

291 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Despencers  is  that  of  the  Sir  John  Spencer  who 
died  in  I586.1  As  we  found  this  Sir  John,  in 
1576,  using  the  coat  granted  in  1504,  we  might 
suppose  that  the  change  was  made  between  1576 
and  1586. 

But  was  this  monument  erected  at  the  time  or 
his  death  ?  It  was  not.  This  I  can  prove  from 
the  evidence  of  the  inscription  itself.  It  speaks  of 
one  of  his  daughters  as  "  married  to  George  Lord 
Hunsden  "  (who  did  not  succeed  to  that  barony 
till  1596).  The  monument,  therefore,  cannot 
have  been  erected  before  1596. 

At  this  point  of  the  enquiry  we  may  turn  to  the 
invaluable  testimony  of  one  who  was  himself  a 
member  of  the  College,  Mr.  Townsend,  Windsor 
Herald.  From  him  we  learn  the  true  genesis  of 
the  pedigree  deriving  the  Althorpe  house  from 
the  famous  baronial  Despencers.2 

The  family  of  Spencer  of  Wormleighton  and  Althorpe  re- 
corded its  pedigree  at  the  Heralds'  Visitation  of  the  County  of 
Northampton  in  1564  (H.  IV.  in  Coll.  Arms)  beginning  with 
Sir  John  Spencer  of  Hodnell,  in  the  County  of  Warwick  Kt 
who  died  in  1521.  At  that  time  no  pretension  was  made  to  a 
descent  from  the  Despencers  or  of  any  relationship  to  the  earls  of 
Winchester  and  Gloucester,  nor  was  there  the  least  similitude  in 
the  arms. 

Clarencieux  Lee  in  1595  made  a  pedigree  for  the  then  Sir  John 
Spencer  or  Wormleighton  and  Althorpe,  in  which  he  drew  the 
descent  nearly  in  the  manner  in  which  Dugdale  has  given  it ; 
he  professes  to  have  compiled  it  from  divers  records,  registers, 

1  These  effigies  and  all  the  monuments  are  fully  described  in 
Baker's  Northamptonshire,  and  are  beautifully  depicted  in  colours 
in  a  British  Museum  MS.  (Add.  MS.  16,965). 

2  See  Collectanea  Topographica  et  Genealogica,  vol.  V.  p.  6,  note. 

292 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

wills,  and  other  good  and  sufficient  proofs  which  he  had  diligently 
and  carefully  perused,  and  in  his  character  of  Clarencieux  King 
of  Arms  he  confirms  and  allows  it  officially.  Whatever  the 
proofs  which  he  saw  and  examined,  I  confess  that  I  cannot  give 
implicit  credit  to  his  work. 

So  it  was  Clarencieux  King  of  Arms  who 
foisted  this  pedigree  on  Sir  John  Spencer  in  1595. 
The  family  had,  by  that  time,  largely  increased  its 
wealth,  for  Sir  John's  mother  was  a  daughter  of 
the  well-known  Sir  Thomas  Kytson,  who  had 
acquired  a  great  fortune  as  a  mercer  in  London. 
Lee,  to  whom  queen  Elizabeth  said  that  "  if  he 
proved  no  better "  than  his  predecessor  Cooke, 
Clarencieux,  "  yt  made  no  matter  yf  hee  were 
hanged," 1  must  have  felt  that  it  was  Sir  John's 
duty  to  "  pay,  pay,  pay  "  for  a  new  pedigree  and 
coat.  For  a  hungry  King  of  Arms  he  was  a 
marked  man.  Now  we  understand  how  it  was 
that  the  monument  erected  in  or  after  1596  dis- 
plays the  e  Despencer '  coat,  while  those  already 
existing  in  the  interesting  Spencer  chapel  were 
bedecked,  right  and  left,  with  the  fruits  of  Lee's 
discovery.  When  the  heralds  next  "  visited  "  the 
county  (1617—8),  the  new  baronial  pedigree  was 
entered  in  all  its  splendour.2  The  shepherd  peer 
was  now  of  the  stock  of  "  ye  Earles  of  Winchester 
and  Glocester."  A  year  later  he  had  soared  higher ; 

1  So,  at  least,  Segar  (afterwards  Garter)  asserted. 

2  It  will  be  found  in  Harl.  MS.  1,187  (a  copy  of  the  Visitation) 
with  the  alleged  proofs.     Baker  prints  it  from  this  source,  and  it 
is  also   printed  in  Lipscomb's   Bucks   and   set    forth    in    Collins' 
Peerage,  with  references  to  "  Visitat.  Com.  Northampton  in  Coll. 
Arm.,  anno  1617." 

293 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

he  was  in  direct  male  descent  from  "  Ivon  Viscount 
de  Constantine,"  who  had  married,  even  before  the 
Conquest,  a  sister  of  the  "earl  of  Britanny." l  Can 
we  wonder  that c the  noble  lord'  took  a  leading  part 
in  the  petition  to  the  king,  in  1621,  against  those 
Irish  and  Scottish  creations  "  by  which  all  the 
Nobility  in  this  realm "  were  injured  in  "  their 
birthrights "  ?  Did  not  a  peer  of  Hebrew  ex- 
traction and  very  recent  creation  sign  the  petition 
against  erecting  the  statue  to  Oliver  Cromwell, 
who  abolished  the  House  ot  Lords — and  gave  us, 
instead,  the  Jews  ? 

The  pedigree  to  which  Mr.  Townsend  refers 2  is 
headed  : 

The  pedegree  or  Sr  John  Spencer  Kt.  of  Althrope  and 
Wormleighton  in  the  Countyes  of  Northampton  and  Warr. 
being  a  branche  issueing  from  the  ancient  familly  and  chieffe  of 
the  Spencers,  of  which  sometymes  were  ye  Earles  of  Winchester 
and  Glocester  and  Barons  of  Glamorgan  and  Morgannocke. 

It  begins  with  "Thurstanus  pater  Americi  et 
Walterii,"  and  at  its  foot  we  read  : 

This  pedegre  and  discent  of  Sr  John  Spencer  of  Althroppe 
and  Wormleighton  in  ye  countyes  of  Northampton  and  Warr. 

1  Baker's  Northamptonshire,  I.    108,  from    Harl.   MS.    6,135. 
But  the  real  authority  for  this  descent  is  the  Heralds'  Visitation 
of  Warwickshire,  in  1619,  as  found  in  Harl.  MS.   1,563.     See 
the  paper  on  "Our  English  Hapsburgs  "  (p.  220)  for  the  authority 
of  this,  as  Bluemantle's  own  copy.     It  is,  however,  only  right  to 
add  that  the  college  copy  of  this  Visitation  (C.  7)  begins  the  pedi- 
gree, I  believe,  only  with  Henry  Spencer  of  Badby  (on  whom  see 
p.  326  below). 

2  It  is  incorporated  in  the  Visitation  pedigree  of  '  1617  '  in  MS. 
Harl.  1,187. 

294 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

Kt.  issueing  from  the  auncient  family  of  the  Spensers  herein  set 
downe  together  wth  the  armes  and  coates  thereunto  belonginge 
collected  out  of  divers  records,  registers,  evidences,  ancient  scales 
of  Armes,  sundry  willes  and  Testamentes  with  other  good  and 
sufficient  proofes  of  ye  truth  havinge  beene  diligently  and  care- 
fully scene  and  perused,  is  allowed  of  and  confirmed  by  me 
Richard  Lee  als.  Clarencieux  Kinge  of  Armes,  of  the  East, 
West,  and  South  parts  of  England  at  my  office  8  May  1595. 

[Signature  follows]. 

This  pedigree  proves,  for  the  early  period,  to  be 
little  more  than  a  skeleton.  Eighty-six  years  later 
it  was  brought  down,  by  a  certain  J.  T.,  to  1679, 
and,  though  the  early  portion  remained  unchanged 
(save  for  the  alteration  of  '  Thurstan '  to  c  Tris- 
tram'), an  addition  was  made  by  carrying  it  back, 
as  in  the  Harl.  MS.  1 563  Visitation,  four  generations 
(through  the  lords  of  Dutton  !)  to  "  Ivo  Viscount 
of  Constance  in  Normandy,"  who  married  "  Emme 
sister  to  Alane  Earl  of  Brittaine." 1 

It  is  desirable  to  print  a  portion  of  Clarencieux 
Lee's  pedigree  (see  next  page),  as  it  has  proved  the 
foundation  of  all  after  it.  We  shall  see  below  that 
this  descent,  on  which  the  whole  pedigree  hangs, 
can  be  absolutely  proved  to  be  false.  For  the 
present  we  need  only  note  that  Clarencieux,  hav- 
ing made  one  Geoffrey  into  two  (to  eke  out  his 
pedigree),2  threw  back,  as  even  his  own  dates  sug- 

1  Harl.    MS.    6,135.     This,    as    the    cookery    books   say,    is 
"  another  way  "  of  serving  up  the  pedigree,  and  figures  accord- 
ingly among  Baker's  three  alternatives  (Northamptonshire,  I.  108). 

2  Cf.  pp.  265, 269,  above.    The  pedigree  here  given  must  be  kept 
in  mind  throughout ;  and  it  must  be  grasped  that  the  elder  Geoffrey 
is  a  mere  invention  of  the  heralds. 

295 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

GEOFFREY 
LE  DESPENCER 

als.  Spencer 
Kt.  ob.  1251  36  H.  3 


HUGH 

SPENCER 
the  Justiciary 

slain  at 
Evesham,  1265 


GEOFFREY     =     EMME 

SPENCER 

2nd  son 

Lord  of  Martlee 
co.  Wore. 

JOHN  SPENCER* 

de  Martlee,  co.  Wore. 

T.  Ed.  I. 


WILLIAM 

1 

ADAM 

SPENCER 

SPENCER 

"qui  habuit 
Defford  et 

"qui  habuit 
maneria  de 

Burlingham." 

Stanley  et 
Leckhampton 
in  Com.  Glouc." 

gest,  the  death  of  the  husband  of  Emma   (1251) 
to  that  of  his  imaginary  father  ! 

It  may  have  been  observed  that  Mr.  Townsend, 
though  expressing  suspicion  of  the  pedigree,  left 
its  truth  undecided.  Shirley,  in  the  same  way, 
wrote,  in  his  Noble  and  Gentle  Men,  that — 


1  The  authority  cited  is  :  "  Emma  que  fuit  uxor  Galfridi  le 
Despenser    habuit    custodiam   Johannis    filii    et   heredis    ipsius 
Galfridi  A°  35  Hen.  III." 

2  The   authority   given    is   "Johannes   le    Despenser    tenuit 
manerium  de  Marthlee  in  Com.  Wigorn  Ao  I  Ed.  I." 

296 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

The  Spencers  claim  a  collateral  descent  from  the  ancient 
baronial  house  of  Le  Despencer,  which  without  being  irreconcil- 
able perhaps  with  the  early  pedigrees  of  that  family,  admits  of 
very  grave  doubts,  and  considerable  difficulties. 

Instead,  however,  of  investigating  that  claim,  he 
included  the  family  without  question,  although  it 
had  not,  we  have  now  seen,  his  qualification  for 
admission,  namely,  that  of  "  being  regularly  estab- 
lished either  as  knightly  or  gentle  houses  before  the 
commencement  of  the  sixteenth  century."  Brydges, 
again,  in  his  Collins*  Peerage^  expressed  his  doubts 
in  a  running  commentary  on  the  Spencer  pedigree 
as  recorded  ;  but  he  did  not  attempt  disproof. 
Baker,  somewhat  petulantly,  complains  of  Brydges' 
criticisms  that 

the  glaring  discrepancies  in  the  leading  line  of  Despenser  have 
escaped  his  animadversions,  whilst  he  has  minutely  scrutinised 
every  step  of  the  descent  from  Geoffrey  to  Sir  John  Spencer.1 

And  yet  Brydges  was  right.  For  there  is  no 
occasion  to  discuss  the  early  Despencer  pedigree, 
until  the  fact  has  been  established  that  the  Spencers 
are  descended  from  them.  If  the  links  connecting 
the  two  families  will  not  bear  investigation,  the 
historian  of  the  Spencers  need  not  discuss  the 
origin  of  the  baronial  house. 

Let  us  first  take  the  version  published  in  1764 
in  the  c  Baronagium  Genealogicum  .  .  .  origin- 
ally compiled  from  the  publick  records  and  most 
authentic  evidences  by  Sir  William  Segar  Knt. 
Garter  Principal  King  of  Arms  and  continued  to 

1  History  of  Northamptonshire^  I.  1 06. 
297 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

the    present    time    by  Joseph    Edmondson    Esqr. 
Mowbray  Herald  Extraordinary  '  : — l 


GALFRIDUS     =     EMMA 


ist  wife 

JOAN,  dau. 

of  Robert  le 

Lou.  ob.  s.  p. 


LE  DESPENCER 
ob.  26  Hen.  III. 
1242. 

=       SIR 


dau.  of 


OHN 


2nd  wife 
=  dau.  of 


SPENCER 
knighted 

40  Henry  III. 
1256,  ob.  2 

Edw.  I.,  1274 


I 

ADAM 
SPENCER, 

first  son 
ob.  s.  p. 


SIR  WILLIAM 

SPENCER, 

second  son,  styled 
of  Belton,  but  seated 
at  Defford,  co.  Worcester 
ob.  1328. 


This  descent  had  been  greatly  elaborated  by 
1779,  when  it  appeared  in  Collins"  Peerage  fortified 
by  ample  proofs.3  The  odd  blunder  of  the  two 
Geoffreys  was  still  retained,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Visitation  in  the  College  of  Arms,  which  was  also 
the  authority  vouched  for  the  fact  that  "  Sir  John 
Despencer  had  two  sons,  Adam  who  died  young 
and  William  Le  Despencer  his  heir."  But  an 
Inq.  p.  m.  of  3  Ed.  III.  (1329)  is  cited  in  that 
work  as  proof  that  this  Sir  William  "  resided  at 

1  Vol.  L,  plates  39,  40. 

2  The  authority  here  vouched  is  *  Visit,  com.  Northant.  in  coll. 
Arm.  Ao.  1617.'  3  Vol.  I.  pp.  348-9. 

298 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    SPENCERS 


Deffbrd,  in  com.  Wigorn,  and  died  possessed  there- 
of." Lee  had  recorded  him  (see  above,  p.  296) 
as  "  qui  habuit  Defford  et  Burlingham." 

Baker   (1822)   gave  virtually,  at  this  point,  the 
same  pedigree  : 


GEOFFREY 

LE  DESPENSER 

of  Marchley 

or  Martley 

co.  Worcester 

obiit  1242  (26 

Henry  III.) 


EMMA 
DE  ST.  JOHN 

had  the 

custody  of 

John  s.  and 

h.  of  Geoffrey 

35  Henry  III. 


i.  JOAN     =      SIR  JOHN      =     2.  ANNE 


dau.  of 

Robert  le 

Lou,  ob. 

s.  p. 


LE  DESPENCER 

knighted  40 

Hen.  III.  (1256) 

ob.  1274 


dau.  of 


WILLIAM 
"LE  SPENCER" 

seised  at 

DefFord,  co.  Wore, 
ob.  1328,  Esch.  2 
Edw.  III.  No.  13 


JOHN 

SPENCER 

of  DefFord. 


ADAM 

SPENCER 

of  Stanley 

and  Leck- 

hampton,  co. 

Glouc.  ob.  23 

Ed.  III.  (1349) 

I 
ALMARIC 

SPENCER. 


In  Lipscomb's  History  of  Buckinghamshire 
there  is  a  pedigree  of  the  family 


Vol.  I.  p.  565. 
299 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

From  the  most  authentic  sources,  collated  with  the  Family 
evidences  of  his  Grace  the  Duke  of  Marlborough  and  Earl 
Spencer  with  extracts  from  a  Book  in  the  Althorpe  Collection, 
containing  the  Genealogical  Descents,  collected  and  certified  by  Sir 
Isaac  Heard,  Knt.  Garter  King  of  Arms,  dated  3  June  1803, 
and  compared  with  the  Original,  as  farther  certified  under  the 
hand  of  the  Right  Honourable  George  John  Earl  Spencer  K.G. 
21  Feb.  1827. 

This  version  is  the  same  as  Baker's  save  that  "  Sir 
William  Spencer  Knt.  of  Defford  "  reappears  with 
his  title,  of  which  Baker  had  deprived  him. 

Now  the  saying  that  the  strength  of  a  chain  is 
that  of  its  weakest  link  is  nowhere  more  true  than 
in  the  case  of  such  a  pedigree.  The  Spencer 
pedigree  reaches  up  ;  the  Despencer  pedigree 
reaches  down :  between  the  two  there  is  a  gap  to 
be  filled,  a  gap  of  several  generations.  According 
to  the  heralds,  the  point  of  junction  between  the 
ancient  and  the  modern  house  is  found,  as  we  have 
just  seen,  in  a  second  marriage  of  'Sir' John  Le 
Despencer  (nephew  of  Hugh  Le  Despencer,  the 
Justiciary,1  from  whom  descended  the  Despencer 
earls) ,  by  which  he  left  a  son'  Sir '  William  "  Spencer  " 
of  Defford  (d.  1328),  ancestor  of  the  Spencers 
when  they  first  meet  us  a  century  and  a  half  later. 

For  this  "Sir  William  Spencer"  of  Defford 
the  reference  is  proudly  given  ;  and  so  we  can  test 
his  existence.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  an  "inquest 
after  death"  was  held  at  Pershore  (23  Jan.  1329- 
30),  but,  unfortunately,  William  "  Le  Spencer" 
turns  out  to  have  been  only  a  socage  tenant  of 
Geoffrey  Dabitot,  holding  of  him  a  messuage,  four 

1  See  pedigree  on  p.  296  above. 
300 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

virgates   of  land,   and    two    acres   of  meadow   in 
Defford.1 

But  the  heralds  not  only  knighted  this  William 
"  Le  Spencer";  they  also,  we  have  seen,  made  him 
the  son  of  "  Sir  John  le  Despencer  "  who  died  in 
1 274.  And  here  at  last  we  "  have  "  them.  For 
the  inquests  taken  after  the  death  of  this  John  Le 
Despencer  are  not  only  quite  decisive,  but  must 
have  been  examined  by  the  heralds  when  con- 
structing this  pedigree.  In  two  separate  returns 
(11  June  1275)  we  read  that  "Hugo  films 
Hugonis  le  Dispenser  est  propinquior  heres  predicti 
Johannis  le  Dispencer  et  fuit  aetatis  quatuordecim 
annorum  primo  die  Martii  ultimo  praeterito."2  It 
is,  therefore,  absolutely  certain  that  this  John  le 
Despencer  left  no  issue.  I  can,  further,  identify 
his  heir  as  the  son  of  Hugh  le  Despencer,  the 
Justiciar,  who  was  slain  at  the  battle  of  Evesham 
(1265),  and  as  the  Hugh  who  himself  afterwards 
became  famous  as  the  favourite  of  Edward  II. 
and  earl  of  Winchester.  For  his  age  in  1275 
proves  the  fact.3 


1  "  dicunt  quod  Willelmus  le  Spencer  die  quo  clausit  extre- 
mum  non   tenuit  aliquas  terras  ut  tenens  de  domino  Rege  in 
capite.      Dicunt  etiam  quod    tenuit    apud   Defford   de   Galfrido 
Dabitot    unum    mesuagium,    quatuor    virgatas  terre,  duas    acras 
prati,  cum  pertinentiis,  in  liberum  socagium  per  servicium  octo- 
decim  solidorum  redditus,"  etc.,  etc.     (Chancery  Inquisitions  3 
Edw.  III.,  No.  13.) 

2  Chancery  Inquisitions  3  Edw.  I.,  No.  2.     The  returns  re- 
late to  manors  in  Leicestershire. 

3  Compare  the  Inquest  9  Ed.  I.,  No.  9,  returning  him  as  heir 
to  his  mother,  and  then  aged  20  ;    also,  his  proof  of  age. 

301 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

It  is  needless,  after  this  exposure,  to  pursue  the 
pedigree  further.  We  are,  once  more,  simply  deal- 
ing with  one  of  those  lying  concoctions  hatched 
within  the  walls  of  the  Heralds'  College,  certified 
by  its  Kings  of  Arms,  and  still  "  on  record " 
among  its  archives.  This,  be  it  observed,  is  no 
case  of  a  tradition  rashly  or  credulously  accepted. 
Clarencieux  compiled  the  pedigree,  as  he  said  he 
had  done,  from  records  ;  but,  with  these  records 
before  him,  he  deliberately  and  fraudulently  in- 
vented a  descent  which  their  evidence  proves  to 
be  false.  He  knew,  therefore,  perfectly  well  that 
what  he  officially  certified  to  be  true  was  a  lie  of 
his  own  invention.  Recorded  by  Vincent  at  the 
Visitation  of  1617,  accepted  by  Garter  Segar,  and 
certified  by  Garter  Heard — even  in  the  present 
century,  this  impudent  concoction  is  indeed  an 
instance  of  what  we  owe  to  the  College  of  Arms. 

The  pedigrees  with  which  it  is  hardest  to  deal 
are  those  in  which  fact  and  fiction  are  cunningly 
intertwined.  Here,  for  instance,  it  is  perfectly  true 
that  John  le  Despencer  married  Joan,  daughter 
(and  heiress)  of  Robert  le  Lou  (Lupus),  who 
brought  him  the  manor  of  Castle-Carlton,  co. 
Line.  This  we  learn  from  the  Lincolnshire  In- 
quest taken  after  his  death,  which  proves  that  Joan 
died  without  surviving  issue,  and  that  John  held  the 
manor,  by  the  courtesy  of  England,  till  his  death. 
John  himself  had  inherited  the  manor  of  Martley, 
co.  Wore.,  which  had  been  granted  to  his  father 
by  Henry  III.1  The  heralds  must  have  seen  the 

1  See  Inq.  p.  m.     The  Inquests  on  the  death  of  this  John  are 

302 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

difficulty  caused  by  its  not  descending  to  his  al- 
leged sons,  but  being,  on  the  contrary,  afterwards 
found  in  the  hands  of  the  Hugh  Despencers.  For 
they  "  doctored  "  the  pedigree  accordingly.  But 
their  real  crime  was  providing  John  with  a  wholly 
fictitious  second  wife,  in  order  to  make  him  the 
father  of  men  with  whom  he  had  nothing  to  do. 

The  resemblance  of  the  modus  operandi  here  to 
that  employed  in  the  Russell  pedigree  is  so  close 
as  to  tempt  one  to  suggest  that  there  was  a  "  Com- 
pleat  Herauld  "  for  the  use  of  the  College  of  Arms. 
In  both  cases  a  modern  family  had  to  be  derived 
from  a  baronial  house  ;  in  both,  the  entries  in 
genuine  records  were  fraudulently  used  and  con- 
nected; and  in  both,  the  worst  crux  was  surmounted 
by  the  same  device,  namely,  that  of  providing  one 
of  the  baronial  house  with  a  wholly  imaginary 
second  wife,  by  whom  he  could  be  made  the  an- 
cestor of  the  artful  herald's  dupes.1 

Although,  as  I  have  said,  we  are  not  called 
upon  to  investigate  the  origin  of  the  baronial 
Despencers,  they  played,  in  the  history  of  their 
time,  so  conspicuous  a  part  that  one  may  be  par- 
doned a  brief  digression  on  a  problem  that  is 
deemed  obscure.  All  the  three  origins  set  forth 
in  Baker's  Northamptonshire  (I.  108)  are  wrong 
alike.  The  clue  has  to  be  sought  in  the  descent 
of  the  manor  of  Arnesby,2  which  was  held  in  two 

fully  abstracted  in  Collins'  Peerage,  but  the  fatal  finding  as  to  the 
heir  is  of  course  ignored.  l  See  p.  272. 

2  In  the  Hundred  of  Guthlaxton,  co.  Leic. 

303 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

moieties  by  the  above  John  le  Despencer,  accord- 
ing to  the  Inquisition  of  1275.  Arnesby  having 
escheated  to  the  Crown  with  the  rest  of  the  fief  of 
c  Peverel  of  Nottingham/  Henry  II.  bestowed  it 
on  Hugh  de  Beauchamp,  and  Hugh  proceeded  to 
enfeoff  there  "  Elyas  Dispensator,  Radulphus  de  la 
Mare,  Hugo  de  Alneto."  These  three  feoffees 
were  represented  in  or  about  1212  by  "  Thomas 
Dispensator  et  Jacobus  de  Mara  et  Hugo  de  Al- 
neto," who  then  held  "  in  Ernesby  "  of  Hugh  de 
Beauchamp.  The  two  first  held  by  the  service  of 
a  quarter  of  a  knight  each,  and  the  third  by  that 
of  a  tenth,  "  of  the  honour  of  Peverel."3  Thomas 
was  succeeded  in  this  quarter-fee  at  "  Erendebi  " 
by  his  younger  brother  Hugh,  who  was  accord- 
ingly charged  25  shillings  for  relief  on  it  in 
121 8, 4  this  being  the  regular  rate  on  fees  held 
"  ut  de  honore."  But  this  sum  was  remitted  to 
him  in  1225,  he  being  then  in  the  king's  ser- 
vice. He  and  his  heirs  continued  to  hold  this 
estate  in  capite  (the  overlordship  of  Beauchamp 

1  This  is  set  forth  in  the  Testa  de  Nevill  (p.  88),  the  descrip- 
tion there  of  Henry  II.  as  proavus  of  Henry  III.  being  clearly  a 
mistake.      Nichols,  in  his  History  of  Leicestershire  (VII.   9-10), 
gives  the  facts  very  imperfectly. 

2  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  p.  586. 

3  Ibid.   p.    1 80.     This  accords  exactly  with  their  respective 
holdings  there,  15  virgates,  15  virgates,  and  6  virgates  (Testa  de 
Nevill). 

4  "  Pro  relevio  suo  de  quarta  parte  feodi  unius  militis  in  Eren- 
debi   que    ei    excidit  per  mortem  Thome  Dispensarii  fratris  sui 
primogeniti  cujus  heres  ipse  est  "  (Excerpts  from  the  Fine  Rolls, 
vol.  I.  p.  1 8). 

5  Rot.  Claus.  9  Hen.  III.,  Ko.  12. 

304 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

having  been  eliminated),  but  by  1235  Geoffrey 
Despencer  had  been  subenfeoffed  in  this  quarter- 
fee.1  Thus  it  was  that  the  latter's  heir,  the  above 
John  le  Despencer,  was  found  by  the  Inquisition 
of  1275  to  hold  the  manor  of  Arnesby  in  two 
moieties,2  one  of  them  from  Hugh  le  Despencer 
as  a  quarter-fee,  the  other  from  Wigan  "  de  La- 
mare  "  (representing  the  original  feoffee  of  that 
portion,  Ralph  c  de  la  Mare  ').  We  must  there- 
fore trace  the  origin  of  the  family  to  Elyas  c  Dis- 
pensator '  of  Arnesby  (who  was  a  benefactor  there 
to  Sulby  Abbey),  though  neither  he  nor  his  suc- 
cessor Thomas  is  even  mentioned  in  any  one  of 
the  three  versions  of  the  pedigree.3 

Hugh  le  Despencer  the  first  prospered  in  the 
service  of  Henry  III.4  He  was  given  Ryhall,  with 
Belmethorpe,  Rutland,  in  the  8th  year  of  the  reign, 
and  Loughborough  in  the  1 1  th  year,  while  Freeby 
and  Hugglescote,  also  in  Leicestershire,  increased 
his  possessions,  which  passed  to  his  namesake,  the 
Justiciar  Hugh  le  Despencer,  as  his  heir.  We 
have  thus  a  house  which  rose  to  wealth  in  the 
service  of  Henry  III.,  which  then  (in  the  person 
of  the  Justiciar)  joined  the  barons  against  him, 
and  which  finally  became  obnoxious  for  the  favour 
it  received  from  his  grandson. 

In  the  meanwhile,  Geoffrey,  its  cadet,  who  was 

1  "  De  quarta  parte  militis  quam  Galfridus  Dispensator  tenet 
in  Hernesbi "  (Testa  de  Nevill,  p.  92).     The  exact  relationship  of 
this  Geoffrey  seems  to  be  undetermined. 

2  Chancery  Inquisition  3  Edw.  I.,  No.  2.     3  Baker,  I.,  108. 
4  He  acted  as  a  sheriff  and  governor  of  castles. 

305  x 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

given  the  royal  manor  of  Martley  (co.  Wore.), 
seems  to  have  speculated  in  wardships.  In  Janu- 
ary, 1230,  he  bought  for  £100  the  heir  of  John 
de  St.  John  (of  Stanton  St.  John),  and  his  marriage ; 
and  ten  years  later  he  bought,  in  like  manner, 
the  c  wardship '  of  the  heir  and  lands  or  Robert 
Musard  for  500  marcs,  being  pardoned,  9  May 
1243,  5°  marcs  of  that  amount.  Lastly,  in  1247, 
he  secured  for  80  marcs  the  custody  of  Robert  le 
Lou's  manor,  during  the  minority  of  his  heiress, 
who  was  herself  secured  as  a  wife  for  his  son  John. 
This  John  was  himself  under  age  at  his  father's 
death,  his  wardship  being  bought  by  his  mother 
Emma  (June  1251)  for  400  marcs.  It  was  this 
John  whom  we  found,  above,  dying  without  sur- 
viving issue  in  1275,  and  succeeded  by  his  relative 
Hugh  le  Despencer,  son  of  the  Justiciar. 

Having  now  traced,  for  the  first  time,  as  it  seems, 
the  rise  of  the  Despencers,  I  return  to  the  Spencer 
family. 

The  proved  falsehood  of  the  alleged  link  con- 
necting the  '  Spencers '  with  the  '  Despencers  '  does 
not  merely  shatter  the  pedigree  ;  it  is  absolutely 
fatal  to  the  bona fides  of  the  herald  by  whom  it  was 
concocted.  Consequently,  when  we  find  him 
citing  evidences  that  are  not  now  forthcoming, 
it  is  impossible  to  accept  his  statements  as  valid 
evidence.  He  asserts,  for  instance,  that  Henry 
Spencer,  the  alleged  great  grandfather  of  John  (the 
purchaser  of  Althorpe),  sealed  his  will  with  a  coat- 
of-arms  identical  with  that  differenced  Despencer 

306 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

coat  now  borne  by  the  family  in  1476  (16  Edw. 
IV.) ;  and  he  further  asserts  that  John,  Henry's 
son,  used,  in  1473-4  and  1479-80,  a  seal  bear- 
ing the  arms  of  his  mother  (a  Lincoln)  quartered 
with  those  of  his  wife  (a  Warsted)  !  This  most 
amazing  heraldry  is  actually  given  as  the  reason 
why  the  family  ceased  to  use  their  own  illus- 
trious coat  till  their  right  to  it  was  rediscovered 
by  the  too  ingenious  Lee  in  1595  !  It  is  obvious 
that  these  alleged  facts  were  intended  to  explain 
away  the  family's  application  for  a  fresh  grant  in 
1504,  and  the  no  less  awkward  fact,  which  seems 
to  have  escaped  notice,  of  the  Everdon  branch 
obtaining  yet  another  fresh  coat. 

It  was  difficult  to  know  how  to  deal  with  the 
1504  coat  after  the  "  resumption  "  of  the  ancestral 
arms  in  1595  by  the  Althorpe  branch.  But  the 
heralds  overcame  the  difficulty  by  placing  it  in 
the  second  quarter,  where,  marshalled  with  the 
arms  of  Lincoln,  Warsted,  Graunt,  and  Ruding,  it 
figures  in  endless  shields  adorning  the  Spencer 
monuments. 

And  now  let  me  once  more  insist  on  the  modus 
operandi  of  Clarencieux  Lee,  the  original  rascal,  and 
the  "  onlie  begetter "  of  this  precious  pedigree. 
He  took  from  the  records  Spencers  and  Despencers 
wherever  he  could  lay  hands  on  them,  fitted  them 
together  in  one  pedigree  at  his  own  sweet  will, 
rammed  into  his  composition  several  distinct 
families,1  and  then  boldly  certified  the  whole  as 

1  For  instance,  the  Despencers  of  Stanley  Regis,  Gloucester- 
shire, an  entirely  different  family,  who  had  received  that  estate 

307 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

gospel  truth.  To  him  enter  Vincent  (1617),  be- 
loved of  the  College  still,  but  ready  to  swallow,  as 
a  loyal  herald,  whatever  had  been  certified  as  true 
by  a  "  Clarencieux  Roy  d'Armes."  Vincent's  Visi- 
tation pedigree,  of  course,  was  evidence  enough 
for  Segar,  Garter  King  of  Arms,  who  indeed  had 
himself  certified  for  the  Westons,  with  all  formal 
solemnity,  a  little  concoction  of  his  own  (163 a).1 
Lastly  comes  Sir  Isaac  Heard,  Garter  in  the  present 
century,  ready,  as  we  learn  from  Lipscomb,  to 
certify  the  pedigree  anew, — and  doubtless  to  pocket 
his  fees  like  a  herald  and  a  man.  One  seems  to 
understand  why  a  King  of  Arms  bears  around 
his  crown  the  suggestive  words  "  Miserere  mei 
Deus." 

It  was  at  a  great  time  that  the  Spencer  pedigree 
was  forged.  Four  years  earlier  (1591)  the  then 
Lancaster  herald  had  endowed  the  Mauleverer 
family  with  a  no  less  spurious  descent  ;  and  only 

from  the  Crown  as  early  as  the  1 2th  century.  Lee  got  from  them 
his  Almerics  and  his  Thurstans  (see  pp.  295,  299  above, and  compare 
my  article  on  "  the  Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer  "  in  Genealogist, 
XIV.  4).  It  is  doubtless  from  this  imaginary  descent  that  the 
Spencer  Churchill  branch  have  taken  the  Christian  name  of 
*  Almeric.' 

1  Segar,  who  was  Garter  1607-1633,  traced  their  pedigree  in 
a  direct  line  from  "  Haylerick  de  Weston  Saxonicus "  to  Sir 
Richard  Weston  of  Sutton,  and  signed  it  as  *  Garter  principal 
King  of  Arms '  throughout.  It  is  worth  while  quoting,  for  com- 
parison with  Lee's  certificate  of  the  Spencer  pedigree,  Segar's 
certificate  of  this  Weston  one  as  compiled  : — "  Ex  publicis  regni 
Archivis  et  privatis  ejusdem  Familiae  archetypis,  ecclesiis,  monu- 
mentis,  historiis,  monasteriorum  registris,  et  rotulis  armorum 
vetustissimis,  aliisque  reverendae  antiquitatis  et  indubitatae  rebus 
maximo  labore  ac  fide  oculata." 

308 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    SPENCERS 

two  years  later  (1597)  tne  earl  °f  Kent  brought  an 
action  against  Garter  King  of  Arms  for  wronging 
him  in  a  peerage  case,  and  the  Commissioners  who 
tried  the  charge  "  determined  that  part  of  the 
pedigree  made  by  Garter  to  be  unlawful,"  and  the 
arms  dependent  on  it,  therefore,  to  be  unlawfully 
borne.1  This  case  would  seem  to  be  exactly 
parallel  with  that  of  the  arms  assigned  to  the 
Spencers  on  the  strength  of  a  spurious  descent. 

But,  it  may  be  said,  all  this  happened  long  ago. 
Why  revive  it  ?  The  answer  is  that  it  has  become 
absolutely  necessary  to  insist  upon  these  facts  since 
the  appearance  of  the  present  attempts  to  exalt  the 
paramount  authority  of  the  officers  of  arms  and 
of  their  records. 

In  an  article  on  "  the  Pedigree  of  the  Fane  and 
Vane  Family,"  2  Mr.  W.  V.  R.  Fane  set  himself 
"  to  test  the  authenticity  of  the  Fane  pedigree  as 
given  in  the  Heralds'  Visitations  of  Kent,  pre- 
served at  the  College  of  Arms,  by  the  light  of 
contemporary  records."  Of  this  he  wrote  that — 

when  we  refer  to  generations  twelve  to  sixteen  of  that  pedi- 
gree, which  can  be  tested  by  such  contemporaneous  evidence,  we 
find  them  constantly  incorrect,  while  the  various  copies  of  the 
pedigree  in  the  Heralds'  Visitations  do  not  even  agree  in  all  points 
among  themselves.  If  this  is  so  even  in  the  120  years  imme- 
diately preceding  the  first  appearance  of  the  pedigree,  how  much 
less  probable  does  the  authenticity  of  the  first  eleven  generations 
appear.3 

1  See  "  Arms  and  the  Gentleman  "  in  Cant.  Review,  August, 
1899.  2  Genealogist  [N.S.],  XIII.  81. 

3  I  am  merely  concerned  here  with  the  reliance  on  '  Visita- 
tion '  authority  as  against  Mr.  Fane's  case. 

309 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Mr.  Keith  Murray,  replying  on  behalf  of  the 
College  of  Arms,  and  supplied  by  York  Herald 
with  the  necessary  information  from  its  records, 
seemed  to  be  shocked  at  any  one  rashly  daring  to 
question  "  the  genuineness  of  the  pedigree  regis- 
tered by  a  Herald  acting  under  Royal  Commis- 
sion/' The  writer  who  masquerades  under  the 
pseudonym  of  '  X,'  exalts  in  the  same  manner  the 
authority  of  Heralds'  Visitations.  Dealing  with 
"  the  right  to  bear  arms,"  he  assures  us  that  a  fair 
copy  was  made  when  the  herald  returned  to  Lon- 
don, and  then — 

the  pedigrees  and  arms  were  checked  by  the  records  con- 
tained in  the  College.  The  whole  was  carefully  corrected,  and  the 
corrected  and  authoritative  copy  was  delivered  into  the  custody  or 
the  College  of  Arms  in  conformity  with  the  requirements  of  the 
Royal  Commission.2 

So  also  the  latest  edition  (1898)  of  Burke's 
Landed  Gentry  appeals  in  the  preface  to  "the 
Heralds'  visitations,  documents  of  high  authority 
and  value  .  .  .  invaluable  documents,"  and 
insists  upon  "  the  royal  commission  under  which 
the  Visitations  were  held."  To  appraise  the  value 
of  this  '  Royal  Commission,'  we  need  not  appeal 
to  the  Spencer  pedigree  ;  we  have  only  to  cite  the 
words,  written  in  his  official  capacity,  of  a  present 
member  of  the  College.  Windsor  Herald  (Mr. 
Lindsay,  Q.C.)  drew  up  a  formal  memorandum  at 

1  Genealogist  [N.S.],  XIII.,  p.  209.     The  pedigree  appears  in 
Visitations  of  1574  and  1592  (Ibid.  p.  212). 

2  Genealogical  Magazine,    II.    24.     And    compare    the    same 
writer's  book  on  The  Right  to  Bear  Arms,  p.  105. 

310 


THE    RISE   OF   THE    SPENCERS 

the  College,  27  August  1896,  in  which  he  thus 
exposed  a  single  generation  of  the  pedigree  of  the 
Pepys  family,  recorded  at  a  1684  Visitation  by 
Clarencieux  St.  George  :  l 

The  following  corrections  require  to  be  made  in  the  Visitation 
pedigree  : — 

Robert  did  not  die  unmarried  ;  Thomas  called  Black  did  not 
die  unmarried,  nor  without  issue  ;  Thomas  called  Red  did  not  die 
unmarried,  nor  without  issue  ;  no  daughter  married  Sir  Gilbert 
Pickering  ;  there  were  two  daughters  not  mentioned  in  the 
Visitation  pedigree — Elizabeth,  who  married  an  Alcocke,  and 
Edith,  who  lived  to  be  28,  but  died  unmarried.  There  are  other 
inaccuracies. 

Truly  a  fine  collection  of  blunders  for  one  generation  of  a 
pedigree  which,  being  reported  under  a  Royal  Commission,  is 
ipso  facto  evidence  and  primd  fade  proof  in  a  court  of  law  !  2 

After  this  specimen  of  what  was  done  even  at 
the  last  Visitation,  it  is  difficult  to  repress  a  smile 
at  the  sorrowful  lament  of  c  X  '  that  these  precious 
Visitations  were  discontinued  : 

That  no  further  Visitation  has  since  been  made  is  infinitely  to 
be  regretted.  It  is  the  saddest  thing  one  can  find  to  chronicle  in 
the  history  of  British  armory.3 

I  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  a  fresh 
pedigree  of  Pepys,  for  the  period,  has  now  been 
'  recorded  '  at  the  College  in  the  place  of  that 
which  Mr.  Lindsay  has  demolished.  This  is  one 

1  It   is  in   the   previous  Cambridgeshire  Visitations   that    the 
spurious  Stuart  pedigree  is  recorded  (pp.  132,  144  above). 

2  '  Pepysiana '  Volume  (in  Mr.  Wheatley's  edition  of  Pepys), 
pp.  5—6.     Mr.  Lindsay  points  out  that  it  was  even  in  the  life- 
time of  the  famous  diarist  that  his  grandfather  was  '  recorded '  as 
dying  childless,  and  indeed  unmarried  ! 

3  Genealogical  Magazine,  II.  25. 

311 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

of  the  little  ways  that  the  Heralds'  College  has. 
Their  c  recorded '  pedigrees  are  sacrosanct — until 
they  are  found  out  ;  and  then — well,  they  alter 
them. 

In  the  same  spirit  they  allow  it  to  be  proclaimed 
in  the  works  of  c  X '  and  Mr.  Fox-Davies, — the 
latter  avowing  his  dependence  on  the  help  of  one  of 
their  number,2 — that  arms  are  c  bogus '  or  illegally 
borne  unless  they  are  c  on  record '  at  the  College 
of  Arms.3  And  yet  so  perfectly  conscious  are  the 
heralds  of  the  grave  deficiencies  in  their  records 
that  they  had — it  is  no  secret — to  go  to  Oxford, 
not  long  ago,  for  the  particulars  of  grants  of  arms 
of  which  they  had  no  record.  It  will  be  interest- 
ing to  see  whether  Mr;  Fox-Davies  will  venture  to 
deny  a  fact  which  demolishes  his  whole  case.  For 
unless  every  grant  of  arms  was  duly  recorded  at  the 
College,  the  absence  there  of  a  record  of  any  given 
coat  being  granted  is  no  proof  whatever  that  the 
coat  is  c  bogus.' 

A  good  test  of  the  heraldic  value  of '  Visitation ' 
evidence  is  found  in  the  case  of  the  pedigree  and 
arms  of  the  Yorkshire  family  of  Stapleton.  About 
1530  a  member  of  that  family  compiled  for  it  a 
gorgeous  pedigree,4  tracing  its  descent  from  "  Sir 
Myles  Stapelton  Knight,  one  of  the  founders  of 

1  Compare  Cont.  Review  (Aug.  1899),  Vol.  76,  p.  258. 

2  "  Without  his  help  I  could  have  done  but  little." — Armorial 
Families. 

3  "Arms  are  good  or  bad  as  they  are  recorded  or  unrecorded." — 
The  Right  to  Bear  Jrmsy  p.  108. 

4  Now  in  the  Harleian  MSS. 

312 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    SPENCERS 

the  Garter,  by  the  dau.  and  one  of  the  heires  of 
John  de  Bretagne  Earl  of  Richmond  by  his  wife 
Beatrice  dau.  of  King  Henry  III."  This  story 
was  accepted  by  the  great  Dugdale  himself  when 
he  made  his  Visitation  of  Yorkshire  (1666)  ;  and, 
on  the  strength  of  it,  he  allowed  the  family  to 
quarter  "  Cheeky  or  and  azure  within  a  bordure 
gu.  a  canton  Ermine,"  l  as  the  coat  of  Britanny  and 
Richmond.  It  is  now  known,  and  fully  admitted, 
that  it  was  not  Sir  Miles  who  made  this  match, 
but  his  uncle  Sir  Nicholas,2  and  that  the  family, 
consequently,  are  not  descended  from  this  alleged 
heiress,  and  have,  therefore,  no  right  to  this 
illustrious  quartering.  And  yet  they  can  claim  it 
as  allowed  by  Dugdale  and  thus  on  record  at  the 
College,  and  this  they  do.  Mr.  Chetwynd- 
Stapylton,  the  historian  of  the  family,  writes  as 
follows  : 

The  Earl's  arms  have  always  been  quartered  on  the  shield  of 
Stapelton.  They  are  represented  in  Christopher  Stapelton's  pedi- 
gree ctrc.  1530,  and  Dugdale  places  them  among  the  quarterings 
of  the  family  in  1665.  Numerous  monuments  and  painted 
windows  at  Carlton  and  Wighill  and  Myton,  also  prove  that 
successive  generations  have  always  maintained  their  connection 
with  the  Earl's  family,  though  being  descended  from  Sir  Gilbert, 
the  younger  brother  of  this  Sir  Nicholas,  none  of  them  can 
actually  claim  Plantagenet  blood.3 

The  author  omits  to  mention  that  Dugdale  only 
allowed  the  quartering  in  the  belief  that  the  family 

1  Genealogist  [N.S.],  XII.  129  ;    The  Stapeltons  of  Yorkshire,  pp. 
58,  241. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  4,  58,  307-8.  3  Ibid.  (1897),  p.  58. 

313 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

- 

were  lineally  descended  from  the  Earl,  a  descent 
which  he  himself  denies. 

But  in  spite  of  monuments,  glass,  and  c  Visita- 
tion,' the  arms  as  well  as  the  descent  are,  if  I  may 
use  the  graceful  term  of  Mr.  Fox-Davies,  "  bogus." 
Not  only  have  the  Stapletons  no  descent  from  this 
alleged  heiress  ;  but  even  if  they  had,  she  was  not, 
as  they  allege,  a  daughter  of  the  earl  of  Richmond. 
She  is  now,  indeed,  made  a  daughter,  not  of  the 
son-in-law  of  Henry  III.,  but  of  Earl  John  c  de 
Bretagne/  his  son  ;  but  this  does  not  mend 
matters,  for  this  latter  earl  died  unmarried  ! 1  In- 
deed, Mr.  Chetwynd  -  Stapylton,  in  despair,  is 
driven  to  describe  her  in  the  strange  terms 
"  daughter,  it  may  be  illegitimate,  but  at  least  one 
of  the  heirs  of  John  de  Bretagne  Earl  of  Rich- 
mond." 2  His  sole  evidence  consists  of  his  belier 
that  she  brought  her  husband  an  estate  at  Kirkby 
Fleetham,  which  estate,  it  can  be  shown  from  his 
own  book,  the  Stapletons  had  held  before.3 

I  need  not  labour  the  point  further.  When 
c  the  veiled  prophet '  of  the  College  of  Arms 
adjures  the  public  to  place  its  faith  in  the  College 
records,  and  in  no  others,  it  ought  to  be  sufficient 

1  See  Complete  Peerage,  VI.  353. 

2  The  Stapeltons  of  Yorkshire ^  p.  58. 

3  I  emphasize  this  point  because  the  author  has  no  right  to 
consider  that  he  has  disproved  the  conclusion  of  that   eminent 
genealogist  Mr.  Thomas  Stapleton  that  she  was  not  a  daughter 
of  the  earl  of  Richmond.     The  point  here,  it  should  be  observed, 
is  that  a  quartering  wrongfully  assumed — one  of  the  abuses  com- 
plained of  by  Mr.  Fox-Davies  and  his  friends — has  the  authority 
of  the  Heralds'  College  on  the  strength  of  its  absurd  "  records." 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

to  quote  the  words  written  by  the  great  Blackstone 
even  in  the  last  century. 

The  marshalling  of  coat-armour,  which  was  formerly  the  pride 
and  study  of  all  the  best  families  in  the  kingdom,  is  now  greatly 
disregarded,  and  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  certain  officers  and 
attendants  upon  this  court  called  heralds,  who  consider  it  only  as 
a  matter  of  lucre,  and  not  of  justice,  whereby  such  falsity  and 
confusion  have  crept  into  their  records  (which  ought  to  be  the 
standing  evidence  of  families,  descents,  and  coat-armour)  that, 
though  formerly  some  credit  has  been  paid  to  their  testimony, 
now  even  their  common  seal  will  not  be  received  as  evidence  in 
any  court  of  justice  in  the  kingdom.1 

"  Who  consider  it  only  as  a  matter  of  lucre  "  : 
that  is,  unhappily,  the  point.  The  deplorable 
system  by  which  the  heralds,  when  they  were 
needy  or  greedy  men,  were  dependent  for  their 
income  on  the  fees  they  could  obtain,  lies  at 
the  root  of  the  evil.  In  the  old  days,  they  were 
ready  to  construct  such  pedigrees  as  those  I  have 
discussed  ;  in  later  times  they  have  had  to  look  to 
their  profits  from  grants  of  arms.  The  history  of 
the  College  in  the  past  is  smirched  by  the  sordid 
squabbles  of  its  members — squabbles  originating, 
as  is  well  known,  in  the  rivalry  for  fees  thus 
obtained.2  Nor  can  one  imagine  any  system 


1  See  article  on  "  Arms  and  the  Gentleman "  in  Cont. 
August,   1899. 

2  Cooke,  Clarencieux   King  of  Arms,  was  accused    by  Segar 
(afterwards  Garter)  of  having  given  "  Armes  and  Creasts  without 
number    to    base    and    unworthy    persons  for  his  private  gayne 
onlye "  ;  and    by    Dethick,    another    famous   herald,    of  having 
"  prostituted    his    office    in    the    vilest    manner    for    money " 
(Noble's    History    of   the    College    of  Arms).     See  also  the  out- 
spoken   letter    from    Peter    Le    Neve,  Norroy  King  of  Arms 

315 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

better  calculated  to  bring  about  the  degradation 
of  coat-armour  than  that  which  made  all  con- 
cerned, from  the  King  of  Arms  to  the  herald's 
tout,  gainers  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
coats  for  which  the  members  of  the  British 
public  could  be  induced,  by  cajolery  or  by 
terrorism,  to  apply.1  Happily  there  are,  in  the 
present  day,  among  the  members  of  the  College, 
gentlemen  of  social  distinction  and  of  independent 
means,  who  could  never  act  in  the  spirit  of  trades- 
men with  wares  to  push.  It  is,  therefore,  greatly 
to  be  hoped  that  they  will  soon  publicly  repudiate 
that  beating  of  drums  and  clashing  of  cymbals — in 
front,  metaphorically  speaking,  of  their  grave  and 
sober  walls — with  which  they  are  not  in  any  way 
connected,  and  which  can  only  arouse  their  pro- 
found disgust. 

If  the  self-appointed  champions  of  the  College 
would  heap  their  indignation  on  the  real  abuse  by 
which  the  arms  belonging  to  an  old  family  are 

(1704-1729),  to  Sir  John  Vanbrugh,  Clarencieux  King  of  Arms 
(1704-1726),  asking  him  "how  it  came  to  pass"  that  Sir 
John  had  bagged  the  £15  fee  on  a  grant  to  one  of  the  family 
of  Smith  "  when  in  my  province  "  (Calendar  of  Le  Neve  Corre- 
spondence^ by  F.  Rye,  edited  by  Walter  Rye,  p.  193). 

1  In  the  Morning  Post  of  20  January  1899  an  advertisement 
from  "  Two  Single  Clergymen,"  who  desired  "  Good  social 
introductions  to  Persons  of  means,"  was  followed  by  one  inti- 
mating that  "  A  Gentleman,  moving  in  good  Suburban  Society, 
can,  by  introducing  an  historical  subject,  benefit  his  income. 
Apply,  Herald"  etc.  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  suppose 
that  anyone  connected  with  the  Heralds'  College  can  have  been 
responsible  for  this  attempt  to  add  to  the  existing  horrors  of 
"  good  Suburban  Society." 

316 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    SPENCERS 

pirated  by  any  nouveau  riche  who  happens  to 
possess  the  same  name,  they  would  have  a  strong 
case.  But  when  they  denounce  with  equal  fer- 
vour those  who  are  guiltless  of  such  piracy,  and 
make  no  pretence  to  belong  to  any  family  but 
their  own,  one  sees  that,  for  them,  the  real  crime 
is  not  to  have  paid  heralds'  fees.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  College  itself  is  virtually  the  worst  offen- 
der in  the  above  piracy  of  arms.  Instead  of  dis- 
tinguishing pointedly,  as  it  should,  the  new  family 
from  the  old,  it  will  grant  the  former — if  the  fees 
are  paid — as  near  an  imitation  as  it  dares  of  the 
old  coat.  Just  as  it  confirmed  to  the  modern 
Spencers  a  form  of  the  old  Despencer  coat,  so, 
when  still  more  modern  Spencers  required  armorial 
bearings,  they  were  granted  so  close  an  imitation 
of  the  coat  granted  to  Lord  Spencer's  ancestor  in 
1504  as  to  be  absolutely  undistinguishable  in  a 
seal  or  engraving,  and  virtually  so  even  in  colour.1 
Surely  such  devices  are  worthy  only  of  a  trades- 
man who  should  try  to  make  his  margarine  look 
like  butter.2 

A  very  apposite  case  in  point  is  afforded  by  the 

1 1  refer  to  the  coat  of  Spencer  of  Cannon  Hall,  Yorks.,  as  now 
borne,  quarterly  with  Stanhope,  by  Mr.  Spencer-Stanhope  and 
blazoned  by  Mr.  Fox-Davies  as  ax.  a  fess  erm.  between  six  sea- 
mews'  heads  erased  ppr.  The  Spencer  coat  granted  in  1504 
was  az.  a  fess  erm.  between  six  seamews9  heads  erased  arg. 

2  So  obviously  wrong  is  this  system  that  even  the  champion  of 
the  College  himself  has  to  admit  that  "  there  is  much  to  be  said 
in  favour  of  the  contention"  of  its  opponents,  and  indeed  that 
this  contention  has  his  "thorough  sympathy"  (The  Right  to 
Bear  Arms,  1899,  pp.  172-3). 

317 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

arms  of  Buxton.  The  Derbyshire  Buxton  gave 
name  to  a  family  which  held  land  there,  and  which 
is  entered  as  of  "yeoman"  rank  in  I43I.1  When 
it  came  to  bear  arms,  its  coat  was  "  Sa.  two  bars 
ar.,  on  a  canton  of  the  second  a  buck  of  the  first 
attired  or."2  Removing  to  Brassington  in  the 
same  county,  this  family  had  a  cadet  branch,  de- 
scending from  a  second  son,  temp.  Elizabeth,3 
which  resided  in  the  adjoining  parish  of  Brad- 
bourne,  and  entered  its  pedigree  at  the  Derbyshire 
Visitation  of  1662-3,  when  it  bore  the  arms  given 
above,  differenced  by  the  addition  of  3  mullets 
argent  between  the  bars.4 

But  there  is,  in  Norfolk,  another  Buxton,  and 
this  place  must  have  given  name  to  a  Norfolk 
family  of  Buxton,  which  emerged  towards  the 
close  of  the  I5th  century,  at  Tibenham,  and, 
under  Elizabeth,  acquired  Shadwell,  which  place 
is  still  its  seat.  This  family,  most  properly,  bore 
a  coat  entirely  distinct  from  that  of  the  Derby- 
shire Buxtons,  viz.:  "ar.,  a  lion  rampant  sa.,  tail 
elevated  and  raised  over  the  head."  The  crests, 
also,  of  the  two  families  were  entirely  different  in 
character.  So  far,  so  good.  But  now  comes  the 
amazing  development  sanctioned  by  the  Heralds' 
College.6  The  Shadwell  Buxtons  were  actually 

1  Feudal  Aids,  I.  281.  2  Papworth's  Ordinary. 

3  Burke's  Armory. 

4  Lysons*    Derbyshire,    p.    Ixxx.  ;    and    Genealogist ,    III.    123. 
Compare  the  cases  below  of  differencing  a  cadet  coat  by  adding 
3  mullets. 

6  See  Mr.  Fox-Davies'  Armorial  Families,  Ed.  1895,  1899. 

318 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

allowed  to  quarter  the  coat  of  the  Derbyshire 
Buxtons1  and  to  use  the  latter's  crest  in  addition 
to  their  own  (as  if  they  had  married  their  heiress), 
although  they  had  nothing  in  the  world  to  do 
with  them  !  This  absolutely  crazy  heraldry  is,  if 
possible,  even  worse  than  allowing  the  Norfolk 
family  to  annex  the  Derbyshire  coat  in  the  place 
of  its  own. 

But  the  real  chance  of  the  College  of  Arms 
came  when  a  third  family  of  the  name  required 
to  be  fitted  with  a  coat.  The  well-known  brew- 
ing family  of  Buxton, — nonconformist  clothiers, 
in  the  last  century,  at  Coggeshall,  Essex,  where 
they  had  lived  since  the  latter  part  of  the  i6th 
century, — were,  as  usual,  granted  the  arms  of  the 
Buxtons  of  Shadwell,  with  the  addition  only,  for 
difference,  of  two  mullets  to  the  shield,  almost 
the  very  addition  employed  by  the  Derbyshire 
Buxtons  to  difference  the  arms  of  their  cadet 
branch.  Can  one  wonder  that  such  grants  as 
these  encourage  the  belief — which  indeed  they 

1  In  Burkis  Peerage  for  1886  we  read:  "A  second  coat  is 
stated  to  have  been  granted  by  Charles  II.,  viz.  Sa.,  two  bars 
arg.  ;  on  a  canton  of  the  second,  a  buck  of  the  first  attired  or." 
But  the  engraving  of  the  family  arms  had  previously  shown  this 
latter  coat  in  the  first  quarter.  When  the  above  sentence  was 
inserted  (between  1880  and  1883),  the  coat  disappeared  alto- 
gether from  the  engraving.  In  Armorial  Families  (1899)  it  is 
placed  in  the  second  quarter. 

Apart  from  the  above  coat  there  was  one  with  two  bucks  in  it 
used,  earlier,  in  connection  with  their  own  by  the  Tibenham 
Buxtons.  It  is  styled  "the  ancient  coat  of  the  family"  in 
Farrer's  Church  Heraldry  of  Norfolk,  I.  51,  210.  Compare 
Blomefield's  Norfolk  [1806],  V.  276. 

319 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

imply,  it  heraldry  means  anything, — that  the 
grantee  is  a  cadet  of  a  house  which  declines  to 
recognise  him  as  such,  but  which  cannot  prevent 
the  College  from  assigning  him  a  'colourable 
imitation'  of  its  own  arms  P1 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Bedford  Russells 
were  assigned  a  coat  of  which  the  c  lion  ramp- 
ant '  rendered  it  quite  distinct  from  that  of  the 
'  baronial '  Russells,  while  the  ancient  Worcester- 
shire house  of  Russell  of  Strensham  bore  a  coat 
charged  with  a  chevron  between  three  crosslets. 
Thanks  to  this  sound  heraldry,  there  was  no  possi- 
bility of  confusing  the  families  although  they  bore 
the  same  name.  The  modern  heralds,  on  the 
contrary,  in  accordance  with  their  vicious  system, 
have  assigned  to  Lord  Russell  of  Killowen's  house 
the  arms  of  the  Bedford  Russells  (with  whom  it  is 
wholly  unconnected)  differenced  only  by  a  bor- 
dure.  The  coat  which  follows  it  in  Burke  s 
Peerage  completes  the  case  against  them.  It  is 
that  of  Russell  of  Swallowfield,  and  its  origin  is 
thus  accounted  for : 


1  Indeed,  even  after  the  modern  family  had  received  this  new 
grant,  Mr.  Charles  Buxton,  in  his  Life  (1848)  of  his  distin- 
guished father — a  work  which  passed  through  thirteen  editions — 
wrote  that  "  William  Buxton,  his  lineal  ancestor,  died  in  1624  ; 
Thomas,  the  son  of  William  Buxton,  claimed  and  received 
from  the  Heralds'  College  in  1634  the  arms  borne  by  the  family 
of  the  same  name  settled  before  1478  at  Tybenham,  Norfolk, 
and  now  represented  by  Sir  Robert  Buxton,  Bart."  This  was 
an  entire  misapprehension,  as  the  fact  of  a  new  grant  being 
necessary  proves.  But  the  nature  of  the  arms  granted  encour- 
aged the  belief. 

320 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

This  family  came  originally  from  Worcestershire,  and  their 
arms,  until  slightly  altered  on  the  creation  of  the  first  baronet, 
were  the  same  as  those  of  the  Russells  of  Strensham  in  that 
county,  of  whom  the  last  baronet  died  in  1705. 

To  those  who  can  read  between  the  lines  it  is 
obvious  that  the  real  story  is  that  this  family  of 
Russell,  which  appears  to  have  emerged  at  Dover 
in  the  i8th  century,  had  assumed  the  arms  of 
Russell  of  Strensham,  and  that,  when  the  first 
baronet  was  created  (1812),  these  arms  were  dis- 
allowed and  a  fresh  coat  granted.  But,  to  gratify 
the  family,  this  coat  was  based  on  that  of  Russell 
of  Strensham,  and  is  now  adduced,  as  we  see 
above,  even  in  Burke's  Peerage,  to  support  a 
descent  which  must  have  been  rejected  in  1812. 
Such  is  the  natural  result  of  this  deplorable  system. 
But  indeed  one  could  go  further.  When  the 
heralds'  champions  furiously  denounce,  as  on  pp. 
145-6  above,  the  "contemptibly  snobbish"  use  of 
arms  belonging  to  "some  noble  family  of  your 
name  "  when  you  cannot  trace  descent  from  it, 
what  have  they  to  say  to  the  case  of  the  Howards, 
earls  of  Wicklow,  who  use,  with  full  heraldic 
sanction,1  the  famous  arms  of  the  c  Norfolk '  How- 
ards (as  borne  by  that  family  before  the  battle 
of  Flodden,  and  as  they  ought  to  be  borne  by  it 
now),2  although,  according  even  to  Burke' *s  Peerage 
itself,  they  do  not  claim  descent  from  that  house, 
and  cannot  trace  their  ancestry  beyond  the  father 
of  a  Dublin  physician  who  died  in  1710? 

1  See  Mr.  Fox-Davies*  Armorial  Families. 

2  See  pp.  39-41  above. 

321  Y 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  turn  from  the  heralds  and 
their  ways  to  the  family  of  Spencer  itself.  Pre- 
cisely as  its  ancestor  was  content  to  trace,  in 
1564,  his  pedigree  to  the  purchaser  of  Althorpe, 
so  are  his  descendants  in  the  Peerage  books  to- 
day. As  Egerton  Brydges  well  observed  : 

The  present  family  of  Spencer  are  sufficiently  great,  and  have 
too  long  enjoyed  vast  wealth  and  high  honours,  to  require  the 
decoration  of  feathers  in  their  cap  which  are  not  their  own. 

Baker,  who  set  an  example  to  all  county  historians 
by  the  thoroughness,  the  patience,  and  the  skill 
displayed  in  his  great  work  on  Northampton- 
shire, protested,  it  is  true,  indignantly  against 
the  remarks  of  Brydges,  urging  that  "in  the 
absence  of  positive^  there  is  all  the  circumstantial 
evidence  which  the  nature  of  the  case  will 
admit."  This  somewhat  "impotent  conclusion" 
was  due,  perhaps,  to  the  fact  that  Baker  had 
examined  the  records  for  himself,  when  con- 
structing his  great  pedigree,2  and  had  thereby 
become  conscious  of  the  fatal  flaw  that  they  re- 
vealed. But  his  position  was  most  difficult ;  he 
had  not  only  received  assistance,  locally,  from 
Lord  Spencer,  but  had  dedicated  to  him  his 
volume  in  terms  of  humble  gratitude.  Dug- 
dale,  on  the  other  hand,  though  he  would  not 
be  likely  to  offend  a  Warwickshire  magnate, 
treated  the  records  of  his  own  College  with 
the  silent  contempt  that  they  deserved.  //  les 
connaissait  si  bien.  In  his  Baronage  he  began  the 

1  History  of  Northamptonshire,  I.  106.  2  Ibid.  p.  108. 

322 


THE   RISE   OF   THE   SPENCERS 

pedigree  with  John,  the  purchaser  of  Althorpe, 
of  whose  origin  he  was  so  careless  that  he  made 
him  the  son  of  his  uncle.1 

There  is  no  reason  even  to  suppose  that  the 
name  of  Spencer  suggests  descent  from  the  great 
house  of  Despencer.  It  is  found,  at  a  compara- 
tively early  period,  scattered  about  the  country, 
in  counties,  for  instance,  so  far  apart  as  Somer- 
set and  Norfolk,  while  in  Warwickshire  itself, 
to  my  own  knowledge,  there  were  Spencers  at 
Rowington  at  least  as  early  as  the  middle  or 
the  1 5th  century.2  Mr.  Skeat,  in  his  Etymolo- 
gical Dictionary^  explains  that  the  "  Middle 
English  "  word  spensere  or  spencere  is  equivalent 
to  cellerarius  in  the  "  Promptorium  parvulorum." 
The  family,  therefore,  we  may  safely  say,  has  de- 
rived its  name  from  the  buttery  or  the  cellar,  and 
has  bestowed  it,  in  turn,  on  an  overcoat  and  a 
wig. 

The  time,  happily,  has  come  at  last  for  honest 
genealogy  and  for  truth.  Those  responsible  for 
the  new  histories  of  our  counties  and  their  county 
families  have  resolved  to  seek  the  truth  only, 
without  favour  and  without  fear. 

Every  effort  will  be  made  to  secure   accuracy    of  statement, 


1  "  Son  to  John  Spenser  of  Hodenhull,  as  it  seems  "  (II.  418). 
He  says  indeed  that  the  Spencers  "  do  derive  their  descent  from  a 
younger  branch  of  the  antient  Barons  Spenser,"  but,  under  '  De- 
spencer,'  he  ignores  them. 

2  A  Richard  '  Spenser '  occurs  a  few  years  later,  at  Halesowen, 
in  a  Hagley  charter. 

323 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

and  to  avoid  the  insertion  of  those  legendary  pedigrees  which 
have  in  the  past  brought  discredit  on  the  whole  subject.1 

And  facts  will  be  found  to  possess  an  interest  that 
no  fiction,  however  elaborate,  can  in  these  days 
claim  to  arouse. 

Nor  is  the  new  genealogy  a  work  of  destruction 
only.  It  will  show  that  the  Spencers  were  sub- 
stantial yeomen,  members  of  a  class  famous  in  our 
history,  when  the  House  of  Tudor  obtained  the 
throne.2  John  Spenser  "  de  Snytfylde,"3  I  find, 
was  already  styled  '  Master '  when  he  joined  the 
great  Warwickshire  Guild  of  Knowle  in  1495. 
The  writers  on  the  family,  strangely  enough, 
have  ignored  the  important  Inquest  after  death 
of  John  Spencer  of  Hodnell,  taken  5  Nov.  1499 
(15  Hen.  VII.).  It  not  only  gives  us  the  date  of 
his  death  (4  Jan.  1496-7)  and  recites  the  provi- 
sions of  his  will,  but  contains  the  particulars  of  a 
deed  of  feoffment  of  some  of  his  lands  (including 

1  Prospectus  of  the  Victoria  History  of  the  Counties  of  England 
(Archibald  Constable  &  Company). 

2  Harrison  wrote  of  the  yeomen,  in  the  days  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, that  "  This  sort  of  people     .     .     .     live  wealthily,  keep 
good  houses     .     .     .     and  with  grazing     ...     do  come  to 
great  wealth,  insomuch  that  many  of  them  are  able  and  do  buy 
the  lands  of  unthrifty  gentlemen,"  and  leaving  their  sons  "  suffi- 
cient lands,  whereupon  they  may  live  without  labour,  do  make 
them  by  those  means  to  become  gentlemen.       These  were  they 
that  in  times  past  made  all  France  afraid."  He  elsewhere  observed 
that  "  some  such  graziers  are  reported  to  ride  with  velvet  coats 
and  chains  of  gold  about  them,"  and  that,  owing  to  their  "  cun- 
ning "  and  their  large  profits,  "  the  poor  butcher  .    .    .  can  sel- 
dom be  rich  or  wealthy  by  his  trade."    The  tables  are  turned  now. 

3  He  is  styled  of  "  Snitterfield  "  in  his  uncle's  will  (1496). 

324 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    SPENCERS 

those  in  Wormleighton) ,  so  far  back  as  15  Jan. 
1491-2.  As  the  first  of  the  feoffees  was  Sir  Ed- 
ward Raleigh  (of  Farnborough) — himself  charged 
with  devastation  for  pasture  in  that  very  year 
(I492)1 — we  gather  that  John's  position  was 
good,  and  obtain,  further,  some  probability  for 
the  statement  in  Lee's  pedigree  that  John  Spencer 
'  of  Wormleighton  and  Hodnell  '2  had  joined  "  in 
divers  deeds  of  feoffment  with  Sir  Edward  Rau- 
leighe  of  Farneborowe  Kt.  and  others  "in  13 
and  19  Ed.  IV.  (1473-4  and  1479-80).  But 
it  is  precisely  this  mixture  of  genuine  evidences 
with  false  genealogy  that  makes  the  pedigree  so 
deceitful.  John  Spencer,  for  instance,  is  assigned 
only  the  T/ife  mentioned  in  his  will  (1496),  who 
is  made  the  mother  of  his  three  children,  although 
Baker  subsequently  found  that  he  had  been  mar- 
ried before,  and  that  his  eldest  child  was  by  his 
first  wife.  Moreover,  when  we  read  that  his 
"grandfather "  Henry  had  made  his  will3  only 
twenty  years  (1476)  before  his  own,  we  cannot 
but  suspect  that  there  may  be  some  fearful  con- 
fusion, and  that  two  entire  generations  were  made 
by  Lee  out  of  one.  If  so,  his  composition  becomes 
more  worthless  than  ever.4 

1  Domesday  of  Enclosures ,  p.  413.      Farnborough  adjoins  Worm- 
leighton. 

2  Hodnell  is  close  to  Wormleighton,  but  the  latter  estate  did 
not  belong  to  this  John  Spencer  the  elder.     It  was  only  bought 
by  his  nephew  and  namesake  many  years  later  (see  p.  288  above). 

3  This  is  the  will  alleged  to  have  been  sealed  with  the  present 
arms  of  the  family. 

4  One    must    repeat    that    Lee's   deeds   and    persons    may  be 

325 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

The  above  Inquest  states  that  Thomas,  son  ot 
John  Spencer  of  Hodnell,  was  six  years  old  when 
it  was  taken  (1499).  This  date  is  of  some  interest, 
because  it  proves  that  John,  the  purchaser  of 
Althorpe  and  Wormleighton,  resided  at  Hodnell, 
his  uncle's  house,  till  his  cousin  came  of  age  in 
1 5 1 4.1  According,  therefore,  to  this  evidence, 
the  date  of  his  petition  (p.  288  above)  would  be 
1517,  i.e.  a  little  earlier  than  Mr.  Leadam  thought. 
It  is  recorded  on  the  monument  of  this,  the  first 
Spencer  of  Althorpe  (d.  1522),  that  his  wife  was 

one  of  the  daughters  and  coheirs  of  Walter  Graunt  of 
Snitterfield  in  the  countie  of  Warwick  Esquire  ;  her  mother 
was  the  daughter  and  heir  of  Humphrey  Rudinge  of  the  Wich 
in  the  county  of  Worcester  Esquire. 

And  her  mantle  of  arms  displays  Graunt  quartering 
Rudinge.  But  the  inscription  seems  of  doubtful 
accuracy.  Walter  Graunt  was  a  bailiff  of  Droit- 
wich  (c  the  Wich  ')  in  1494^  and  a  parishioner  of 
Salwarp,  close  to  Droitwich,  in  I496.3  Snitterfield 
is  a  long  way  off.  There  has  always,  also,  been 

genuine,  but  that  he  connected  and  combined  them  at  his  own 
sweet  will  (compare  my  article  on  "The  Origin  of  the 
Thynnes"  in  Genealogist  [N.S.],  XL  193).  It  is,  for  instance, 
quite  possible  that  he  found  a  Henry  Spencer  obtaining  a  lease  of 
tithes  at  Badby  in  20  Hen.  VI.  (1441-1442),  and  that  his  wife's 
name  was  Isabel  ;  for,  although  it  has  been  supposed  that  there 
is  now  no  evidence  for  this  Henry,  I  have  found  Henry  Spencer 
'of  Badby,'  with  Isabel  his  wife,  occurring  in  1468. 

1  I  find  that  his  cousin  joined  the  Knowle  guild  in   1514  as 
"  Mr.  Thomas  Spensar  de  Hodnell." 

2  Calendar  of  Inquisitions  :  Henry  VII.,  I.  380. 

3  Nash's  Worcestershire^  II.  340. 

326 


THE    RISE    OF   THE    SPENCERS 

some  difficulty  about  the  Rudinge  match.1  Lee, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  gave  Walter's  wife  as  "  Eliza- 
beth dau.  and  heir  of  Edmund  Rudinge  de  Wiche" 
[Droitwich],  but  adds,  as  a  note  :  "  Sir  Robert 
sayth  she  was  daughter  of  Humfrey  Rudinge,  and 
hath  a  deed  to  prove  it."  This  e  Sir  Robert '  can 
be  no  other  than  the  first  Lord  Spencer,  then 
(1595),  clearly,  a  youthful  knight;  and  we  thus 
learn  that  he  assisted  Lee  with  his  "  singular  skill" 
in  alliances  and  arms.'2 

And  now  I  will  close  this  paper  with  a  suggest- 
tion  about  the  origin  of  the  arms  allowed  by  Lee 
to  the  Spencers.  These  were  no  mere  colourable 
imitation  of  an  old  coat  in  a  new  grant  ;  they 
were  the  actual  arms  of  the  Despencers,  with  a 
recognised  cadet  c  difference,'  allowed  them  in 
right  of  their  alleged  descent  from  a  cadet  branch 
of  that  house.  And  all  their  descendants  to  this 
day,  Spencers  and  Spencer-Churchills,  are  thus 
heraldically  proclaimed  a  branch  of  the  baronial 
Despencers.  The  placing  of  three  escallops  argent 
on  the  bend  of  the  Despencer  coat  was,  I  have 
said,  a  recognised  difference.  The  armorial  bear- 
ings of  the  Claverings  are  an  instance  specially  to 
the  point.  In  the  excellent  History  of  Northumber- 
land now  in  course  of  publication,  there  is  a 
"genealogy  of  the  lords  of  Warkworth  and  Claver- 
ing,"  whose  coat  was  quarterly  or  and  gules ;  a  bend 
sable.  It  is  there  pointed  out  that — 

1  See  Grazebrook's  Heraldry  of  Worcestershire. 

2  See  p.  285  above. 

327 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Sir  John  de  Clavering  bore  (during  his  father's  lifetime)  a  label 
vert  Caerlaverock,  1300  ;  Sir  Alexander  charged  the  bend  with 
three  mullets  argent,  as  did  Sir  Alan  with  three  mullets  or. 

Sir  Hugh  de  Eure  *  and  his  descendants  bore  three  escallops 
argent  on  the  bend.2 

The  Clavering  difference,  it  should  be  observed, 
originated  about  the  very  time  when  we  find 
Geoffrey  a  cadet  of  the  Despencers,  holding  Arnes- 
by  and  Martley.3  It  would  have  been,  therefore, 
in  accordance  with  the  practice  that  he  should 
adopt  such  a  coat  as  is  now  borne  by  the  Spencers 
as  his  alleged  descendants.4 

It  is,  perhaps,  a  little  rash  to  go  even  further. 
But  now  that  heraldry  is  beginning  to  be  rescued 
from  the  heralds'  hands,  and  to  be  intelligently 
studied  in  the  true  historical  spirit,  it  is  worth 
while  making  the  suggestion  that  the  original 
Despencer  coat  itself  may  have  been  based  on 
that  of  c  Beauchamp  of  Bedford '  (both  coats  were 
quarterly  with  a  bend),  even  as  the  latter  was 
directly  derived  from  those  of  Mandeville  and 
De  Vere.  For,  as  I  have  shown  above  (p.  304), 
the  ancestors  of  the  Lords  Despencer  first  appear 
as  feudal  tenants  of  the  Beauchamps  of  Bedford. 
In  that  case  we  should  start  with  the  coat  of 

1  A  younger  son  of  the  lord  of  Clavering,  living  circa  1274. 

2  Vol.    V.    (1899)    pp.    25-6.       Compare    also    Dallaway's 
Heraldry,  129,  and  the  instances  there  given,  and  Woodward's 
Heraldry,  II.  49.  3  See  p.  306  above. 

4  In  his  important  work  on  Heraldry  Mr.  Woodward  observes, 
of  the  Despencer  coat,  that  "This  coat  Sir  Hugh  le  Despencer,  in 
the  reign  of  Edward  II.,  differences  by  charging  the  bend  with 
3  mullets  arg.  ;  for  which  in  1476  Henry  Spencer  substitutes  3 
escallops  arg."  (II.  50). 

328 


THE   RISE   OF   THE    SPENCERS 

Mandeville,  Quarterly  or  and  gules  ^  which  Beau- 
champ  of  Bedford  adopted,  as  a  relative,  with 
the  addition  of  a  bend.1  Then  Despencer,  as  a 
tenant  of  Beauchamp,  would  adapt  the  coat  by 
altering  the  tincture  of  the  first  and  fourth  quarters, 
and  adding  a  fret  in  the  second  and  third.2  And 
lastly,  a  Despencer  cadet  would  add  yet  another 
'  difference '  by  placing  three  escallops  argent  on  the 
bend.  If  this  view  should  be  accepted,  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  coat  in  question  would  be  one  of 
peculiar  interest  for  the  student  of  feudal  arms, 
of  heraldry  as  a  living  science.  There  is  reason 
to  believe  that  this  branch  of  archasological  research 
is  about  to  receive  worthy  treatment  at  the  hands 
of  competent  scholars.3  We  may  then  learn,  at 
length,  what  armory  once  meant  before  the  days 
of  its  decline  and  fall  in  the  hands  of  the  Heralds' 
College. 

1  See  my  Geoffrey  de  Mandeville^  p.  392.     The  Clavering  coat, 
referred  to  above,  was  derived  from  the  same  source  (Ibid.). 

2  '  Frets '  and  '  fretty  '  seem  to  have  been  sometimes  used  for 
differencing. 

3  Mr.  St.  John  Hope  and  Mr.  Oswald  Barren  have  in  hand 
what  ought  to  prove  the  standard  work  upon  the  subject. 


329 


VIII 
Henry  VIII.  and  the  Peers 

SUMMARIZING  the  labours  of  the  Parliament  which 
sat  from  1529  to  1536,  Mr.  Froude,  in  his 
History^  has  extolled  its  importance  as  "  the  first 
great  Parliament  of  the  Reformation,  .  .  . 
which  had  commenced  and  concluded  a  revolution 
which  had  reversed  the  foundations  of  the  State." 
But  the  House  of  Commons  was,  for  him,  the 
Parliament  ;  he  saw  but  "  an  ornament  "  in  the 
House  of  Lords.  It  is  difficult  to  reconcile  this 
treatment  of  the  Upper  House  as  a  cipher  with 
his  own  description  of  the  opening  session  (3  Nov. 
to  17  Dec.  1529)  of  this  seven  years'  Parliament. 
He  describes  the  .situation,  at  that  time,  as  follows : 

It  seemed  likely  for  a  time  that  an  effective  opposition  might 
be  raised  in  the  Upper  House.  The  clergy  commanded  indeed 
an  actual  majority  in  that  house  from  their  own  body,  which 
they  might  employ  if  they  dared.  .  .  .  "In  result,"  says 
Hall,  "  the  acts  were  sore  debated  ;  the  Lords  spiritual  would  in 
no  wise  consent,  and  committees  of  the  two  houses  sate  continually 
for  discussion." 

At  length  the  obnoxious  bills  were  passed,  "  to 
the  great  rejoicing,"  says  Hall,  "  of  the  lay  people 
and  the  great  displeasure  of  the  spiritual  persons." 

330 


HENRY   VIII.   AND   THE   PEERS 

I  propose  to  ask  in  this  paper  whether  we  may 
not  be  able  to  trace  a  special  creation  of  peers  by 
the  king,  in  accordance  with  the  modern  constitu- 
tional theory,  at  the  very  time  of  this  clerical 
obstruction  in  the  Upper  House.1 

Although  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  admittedly 
witnessed  a  vast  change  in  the  composition  of  the 
House  of  Lords — substituting,  as  it  did,  a  decided 
lay  for  a  decided  clerical  majority — I  have  never 
seen  the  process  worked  out  in  detail.  When  we 
compare  the  summonses  to  Parliament  in  1529 
with  those  in  1523  we  find  that  the  lay  peers 
summoned  numbered  44  as  against  28,  the  estate 
of  the  clergy,  of  course,  remaining  the  same  (i.e. 
about  48  or  49)  ,2  The  details  are  as  follows  : — 

1523*  1529' 

Dukes       ...  2  3 

Marquises          .  o  2 

Earls         ...  7  9 

Viscounts.  i  3 

Barons      .          .          .          18  27 

28  44 

1  Mr.  Wakeman  observes,  in  his  History  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land (1897),  that,  for  "the  legislation  against  the  pope"  in  this 
parliament,  "  the  only  danger  of  serious  opposition  came  from  the 
spiritual  lords  and  the  clerical  estate,"  and  that  the  anti-clerical 
statutes  of  its  first  session  were  passed  "  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
of  the  clergy  "  (p.  212). 

2  See  below.     Dr.  Stubbs  reckons  them,  in  these  years,  at  5 1 . 

3  Dugdale's    Summons    of  Nobility  (from    Roll    in   College    of 
Arms),    pp.    492—3.     This   appears   to    be   the    only  authority 
available. 

4  Ibid.  pp.  494-5   (from  Roll    in    Petty   Bag   Office).     This 

331 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

But  the  forty-four  lay  peers  summoned  to  the 
Parliament  which  met  in  November  1529  were 
soon  substantially  reinforced.  The  lamentable 
gaps,  at  this  period,  in  the  Lords'  Journals — 
22  Dec.  1515  (I.  57)  to  15  Jan.  1534(1.58) 
— leave  us  dependent  on  other  sources,  includ- 
ing a  MS.  in  the  College  of  Arms  (H.  13),  which 
has  not,  hitherto,  it  seems  to  me,  received  scien- 
tific treatment.  From  this  MS.  are  printed  by 
Dugdale,  in  his  c  Summonses/  two  passages,  fo. 
398^  (p.  500)  and  fo.  403*2  (p.  496).  The  first 
of  these,  which  is  of  great  importance,  is  thus 
headed  by  him  in  his  book  : 

The  names  of  the  Barons  as  they  sate  and  entred  in  the 
Parliament  in  order,  in  the  xxviij  year  of  the  Reign  of  King 
Henry  the  Eighth  [i.e.  1536-1537]. 

It  may  seem  scarcely  credible  that  he  has 
actually  interpolated,  himself,  the  words  I  have 
here  italicized,  which  are  not,  I  discovered  on 
collation,  found  in  the  MS. !  As  Mr.  Gairdner, 
in  his  official  Calendar  (No.  104)  reproduces  this 
list  from  Dugdale,  assigning  it  (in  accordance  with 
the  interpolated  words)  to  18  July  1536,  it  be- 
comes of  interest  to  enquire  whether  this  im- 
portant list  was  actually  drawn  up  in  the  summer 
of  1536.  The  name  of  the  very  first  baron, 
George  Lord  Abergavenny,  is  decisive.  He  can- 
not have  "  sat  "  in  this  Parliament,  because  he  had 
died  the  year  before  (1535).  "John  Lord  Ber- 
ners,"  also,  had  died  in  1533.  "The  Lord  Tail- 
proves  on  collation  to  be  virtually  accurate.  Rymer  printed  the 
list  from  the  Close  Roll. 

332 


HENRY   VIII.   AND   THE    PEERS 

boys  of  Kyme"  was  not  summoned  in  1536; 
and  lastly,  the  entry  "  Lord  Hastings,  George, 
after  created  Earl  of  Huntingdon,"  is  proof,  from 
its  form,  that  it  deals  with  a  sitting  before  the 
creation  of  the  earldom  of  Huntingdon,  8  Dec 
1529,  and  therefore  quite  at  the  beginning  of  the 
seven  years'  Parliament.1 

On  the  other  hand,  the  last  two  entries  relating 
to  Lord  Hungerford  of  Heytesbury,  admitted  "  8 
June"  1536,  and  Lord  Cromwell  "  of  Wimble- 
ton,"  admitted  "  by  writ  and  patent  the  last  day  of 
the  Parliament,  sciL  18  July"  1536,  prove  that  this 
list,  which  is  written  in  one  hand,  must  have  been 
so  written  after  the  latter  date.  But  it  does  not 
describe,  as  Dugdale,  by  his  heading,  makes  it  do, 
the  state  of  things  in  the  summer  of  1536.  It 
represents  a  list  of  the  barons,  according  to  their 
precedence  in  the  Parliament  of  1529,  brought  up 
to  date,  with  two  additional  barons  added  from  the 
Parliament  of  1536.  All  this  has  been  fused 
together  in  the  list,  as  now  existing  in  the  MS., 
which  was  actually  written  not  earlier  than  18 
July  1536 

But  Dugdale  has  not  only  erred  in  making  a 
wrongful  addition  to  the  heading.  He  could  not 
even  print  the  text  accurately.  George  Boleyn 
Lord  Rochford  was  "  admitted,"  not  "  anno 
xxvij  "  but  "  anno  xxiiij."2  Lord  Bray  was  ad- 

1  At  any  later  date  there  need  only  have  been  mentioned  the 
precedence   of  the    earldom,  and    the    dignity    would    not    have 
appeared  at  all  in  this  list  of  "  barons." 

2  This  grave  error  is  reproduced  by  Mr.  Gairdner  in  his  Calendar. 

333 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

mitted,  not  "  the  xxiiij  day,"  but  "  the  iiij  day  " 
of  December  ;  Lord  Conyers  the  1 6th,  not  the 
1 7th  of  January. 

Leaving  for  the  present  this  list,  I  turn  to  that 
on  fo.  4030  (pp.  496-7).  This  is  a  Garter's  list 
of  25  peers  who  "made  their  first  entry  into 
the  Parliament  Chamber "  in  the  Parliament  of 
1529^  The  last  seven  were  barons  created  after 
it  had  met  ;  the  others,  except  the  prior  of  St. 
John  and  Lord  Lumley  (an  anomalous  case)  ,2  had 
succeeded  to  their  dignities  since  the  previous 
Parliament.  It  is  not,  however,  easy  to  say  why 
Garter  does  not  claim  from  such  barons  as  Mon- 
tague, Rochford,  and  Vaux,  who  cannot  have  sat 
before. 

As  I  shall  have  to  rely  largely  on  the  former  of 
these  lists,  I  may  mention  that  (when  explained 
as  above)  it  seems  to  me  deserving  of  credit, 
though  its  legal  status  appears  to  have  been  left 
somewhat  hazy  by  the  House  of  Lords.  It  evi- 
dently divides  the  barons  into  sets  :  (i)  those  who 
had  been  created  before  the  Parliament  of  1529, 
ending  with  Lord  Sandys  and  Lord  Vaux  ; 3  (2) 
those  created  by  writ  or  patent,  after  it  had  met. 
But  while  Montague,  Rochford,  Maltravers,  and 
Talbot  are  treated  as  pre-existing  dignities,  Burgh 
("  Borough  ")  of  "  Gaynesborough,"  which  the 

1  "  A  Reward  "  being  claimed  by  him  "  for  their  said  entries." 

2  John  Lord  Lumley,  as  rightly  given  in  the  summons.     Dug- 
dale's  Summonses  gives  "  Thomas  "  in  error. 

3  These  dignities  are  alleged   to  have   been   created  together 
27  April  1523  (see  below). 

334 


HENRY   VIII.   AND   THE   PEERS 

peerage  writers  assign  to  1487,  is  here  ranked  as 
a  new  creation  in  December  1529,  as  indeed  it 
continued  to  be.1 

I  shall  now,  in  the  light  of  Dugdale's  lists,  his 
"Summonses"  for  1529  and  1534,  and  the  Lords' 
Journals  for  the  latter  year,  endeavour  to  trace  the 
changes,  between  these  dates,  in  the  composition 
of  the  House. 

A  very  careful  collation  ot  the  lists  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  no  fewer  than  twelve  barons  were 
added,  in  the  course  of  this  Parliament,  to  the 
twenty-seven  summoned  to  its  opening  session. 
These  may  be  classed  as  follows  : 

ELDEST  SONS  SUMMONED. 

(1)  George  Boleyn,son  of] 

the  earl   of  Wilt- [Lord  Rochford. 
shire  and  Ormond2  j 

(2)  Henry  Fitz-Alan,  son 


of  the  earlof  Arun- 
del 

(3)  Francis  Talbot,  son  of 
the  earlof  Shrews- 
bury 


Lord  Maltravers. 


Lord  Talbot. 


1  This  is  a  point  of  some   importance   in  view  of   the   fact 
that  the  last  summons  had  been   to   Lord  Burgh's  grandfather 
more  than  thirty  years  before  (1495). 

2  Strictly  this  was  a  new  creation,  as  his  father  was  only  a  co- 
heir  of   the    Barony  of   Rochford  ;  but    it  was    ranked   above 
the    two   next  and  several    ancient    baronies,   higher,   it  seems, 
than    the   old    barony  of  1495.     This  was   probably,  however, 
believed  to  be  the  precedence  to  which  the  old   barony  was  en- 
titled. 

335 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

RESTORATION. 

(4)  Henry  Pole,  son  of] 

the  countess  of  Sal-^Lord  Montague.1 
isbury  J 

NEW  CREATIONS. 

(5)  John  Hussey  Lord   Hussey  of  Slea- 

ford. 

(6)  Andrew  Windsor          Lord  Windsor  of  Stan- 

well. 

(7)  Gilbert  Tailboys  LordTailboysofKyme. 

(8)  Thomas  Wentworth     Lord  Wentworth. 

(9)  Thomas  Burgh  Lord  Burgh  of  Gains- 

borough.2 

(10)   Edmund  Bray  Lord  Bray, 

(n)  John  Mordaunt  Lord  Mordaunt. 

PEER  PREVIOUSLY  OMITTED. 

(12)  Thomas  Vaux3  Lord    Vaux    of    Har- 

rowden. 

If  we  now  arrange  these  additions  to  the  barons 
in  chronological  order,  we  have  : 

1  This  is  styled  a  restoration,  but  the   barony,  if  extant,  was 
in  his  mother  at  the   time,  and   I  should  therefore  consider  it  a 
summons  like  the  three  preceding.     He  was  allowed  precedence 
above  Lord  Rochford.     This  would  seem  to  have  been  a  much 
higher  precedence  than  was  enjoyed  by  the   old  barony,  but  no 
holder  of  it  had  sat  as  Lord  Montacute  since  1336. 

2  See  Note  I  on  p.  335. 

3  I  cannot  but  think  that  his  omission  was  due  to  his  being 
under  age  when   Parliament  was  summoned.     The   date   of  his 
subsequent  summons  seems  to  have  been  that  of  his  majority. 

336 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE    PEERS 

ist  Dec.  1529  Lord  Montague. 

„  „  Lord  Hussey. 

„  „  Lord  Windsor. 

„  „  Lord  Tailboys. 

and  Dec.  1529  Lord  Wentworth. 

Lord  Burgh. 

4th  Dec.  1529  Lord  Bray, 

i gth  Jan.  1531  Lord  Vaux.2 

7th  Feb.  1533  Lord  Rochford. 

„          „  Lord  Maltravers.3 

(?)  Feb.  1533  Lord  Talbot.4 

4th  May  1533  Lord  Mordaunt.3 

Of  the  twelve  barons  stated  above  to  have 
been  admitted  to  the  House  of  Lords  before  the 
Prorogation  of  May  1533,  eleven  are  found 
members  or  the  House  in  the  session  which 
opened  15  January  1534.  Lord  Tailboys  alone 
was  omitted,  being  dead.5 

On  the  other  hand,  of  the  twenty-seven 
originally  summoned  to  that  Parliament,  the 


1  "  Admitted  "  on  these  dates  (H.  13). 

2  "Entered"  on  this  date  (H.  13). 


1  "  Admitted  "  on  this  date  (H.  13). 

4  The  Henry  VIII.  "Calendar"  has  brought  to  light  the 
very  interesting  fact  that  fiants  for  writs  of  summons  were 
issued  to  Lord  Rochford  and  Lord  Maltravers  on  5  Feb. 
1533,  and  to  Lord  Talbot  twelve  days  later.  This  strikingly 
confirms  the  accuracy  of  H.  13,  which  states  that  the  two 
former  were  *  admitted*  7  Feb.  (1533),  while  it  gives  us  the 
date,  hitherto  unknown,  of  Lord  Talbot's  summons.  Lord  Roch- 
ford's  summons,  as  I  have  explained  (Athenaum,  25  June  1898) 
is  exactly  parallel,  in  its  anomalous  character,  to  that  of  Lord 
Mowbray  in  1640  (see  p.  335,  note  2).  5  See  below,  p.  350. 

337  Z 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

names  of  three  are  not  found  among  the  Barons 
in  January  1534.  Hastings  had  become  earl  of 
Huntingdon;  Sutton,  Lord  Dudley,  had  died;1 
and  Lord  Ogle  was  not  summoned.2  Deducting 
these  three,  together  with  Lord  Tailboys  (four 
in  all),  from  the  barons,  who  had  been  increased 
by  twelve,  we  obtain  a  net  increase  of  eight. 
Accordingly  35  barons  were  on  the  roll  for  1534 
as  against  the  27  summoned  in  1529^ 

The  alleged  summonses  to  Parliament  for  the 
session  of  1534  gave  me  extreme  trouble.  They 
will  be  found  in  Dugdale's  Summonses  (pp.  497—8) 
from  which  they  have  duly  found  their  way  into 
the  Record  Office  Calendar  for  1534  (No.  55),* 
Mr.  Gairdner  citing  Dugdale's  list  as  his  authority. 
But  not  only  did  these  writs  of  summons  issued  in 
the  midst  of  a  Parliament  strike  me  as  singular  ;  I 
also  wanted  to  know  Dugdale's  authority.  He 
himself  prints  in  the  margin,  "  Ex  diario  domus 
Procerum  in  Parliamento "  ;  but  no  such  list  is 
found  in  any  volume  of  the  kind.  At  last,  the 
explanation  was  discovered.  This  list,  which  has 
been  gravely  cited  as  if  an  original  authority,  is 
an  absolute  concoction  by  Dugdale  himself,  who 

1  In  Jan.  1532.     His  successor,  "  being  a  weak  man  of  under- 
standing," had  begun  at  once  to  alienate  his  estates,  and  having 
to  subsist  "on  the  charity  of  his  friends,"  was  "commonly  called 
the  Lord  Quondam  "  (Dugdale). 

2  There   seem    to  have    been    no   summonses  to    the    Ogles 
between  1529  and  1554. 

3  Berners,  however,  must  be  deducted,  being  inserted  in  error 
(see  below,  p.  340). 

4  There  entered  as  "  Writs  or  summons  to  the  Parliament." 

338 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE   PEERS 

has  simply  taken  the  Lords'  Journals,  where  they 
recommence,  and  constructed  from  them  writs  of 
summons  in  what  he  thought  would  be  their 
form  ! 1  Nor  is  even  this  the  extent  of  his  offence. 
He  overlooked  the  earl  of  Sussex,  who  appears  at 
the  opening  of  the  session,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
earl  of  Oxford  and  the  Lords  Sandys  and  Mount- 
joy,  who  are  found  on  the  roll  two  days  later 
(17  Jan.),  thus  bringing  up  the  total  of  the  lay 
peers  to  54,  as  against  the  50  given  by  Dugdale 
as  "  summoned  "  to  this  session.2 

While  on  the  subject  of  this  unintentional,  but 
splendidly  successful  hoax,  I  may  explain  that 
writers  on  the  historic  peerage  have  been  so  com- 
pletely imposed  upon  by  Dugdale,  that  they  have 
even  quoted  as  genuine  his  concocted  Latin  writs. 
Courthope  stated  that  George  Boleyn  was  sum- 
moned to  Parliament  by  writ  5  Jan.  I5333  as 
"Georgio  Bullen  de  Rochford"  (p.  402),  and  is 
followed  in  this  by  the  editor  of  The  Complete 
Peerage  (VI.  382).  Nay,  this  valuable  work,  now 
our  standard  authority,  has  even  gone  further  than 
Courthope  in  inventing  a  new  peerage  dignity — 
"  Bullen  de  Ormond  and  Bullen  de  Rochford  " — 
on  the  strength  of  Dugdale's  work.  For  on  p. 
492  of  the  Summonses,  in  a  list  similarly  constructed 

1  His  remark  in  the  closing  paragraph  of  his  Preface  would 
hardly  lead  one  to  suspect  he  had  gone  so  far  as  this. 

2  Dr.  Stubbs  reckons  the  maximum   for  the  reign  as  51  (in 

1536). 

This  date  is  Dugdale's  error  for  15  Jan.  1533-4  (the  date, 
moreover,  not  of  a  writ,  but  of  Parliament  reassembling). 

339 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

from  the  Lords'  Journals  (though  no  authority  is 
cited),  Dugdale  constructed  from  the  word  "  Or- 
mond "  an  imaginary  writ  "  Thoma  Eullen  de 
Ormond "  in  1515!  Evidently  what  had  really 
happened  was  that  the  writ  (apparently  lost)  had 
been  issued  to  Thomas  earl  of  Ormond  (and  Lord 
Rochford),  who  had  died  about  the  time  of  its 
issue.  Dugdale,  knowing  he  was  dead,  had  coolly 
assumed  that  the  writ  was  issued  to  Sir  Thomas 
Boleyn,  who  was  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  raised 
to  the  peerage  till  several  years  later.1  Of  his 
concocted  writs  for  Jan.  1534  one  more  instance 
must  be  noted.  The  Barons'  roll  in  the  Lords' 
Journals  includes  on  the  opening  day  (15  Jan.) 
the  name  of  Lord  "  Barnes."  Dugdale  concocted, 
on  the  strength  of  this,  a  writ  of  summons  "  Hum- 
phrido  Bourchier  de  Berners,  chel'r,"  which  has 
sorely  puzzled  the  peerage  writers.  For  the  only 
possible  Lord  Berners  was  named  John,  and  had 
died  some  ten  months  before.  Courthope,  in  his 
Historic  Peerage,  repeated  the  speculations  of 
Nicolas  as  to  who  this  Humphrey  could  be,  and 
they  are  now  copied  into  the  Complete  Peerage 

(I-  345)- 

Before  leaving  the  above  Parliament  of  1515,  I 

would  note  that  Mr.  Brewer,  like  his  successor  in 
the  editorship  of  the  Henry  VIII.  Calendar,  was 
imposed  upon  by  a  list,  not  indeed  constructed,  but 
actually  copied,  from  the  Lords'  Journals,  1 2  Nov. 

1  This  instance  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  liberties  Dugdale 
took  with  his  names.  In  other  cases,  such  as  those  of  Lumley 
and  Grey  de  Powis,  he  erred  in  the  Christian  name. 

34° 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE    PEERS 

1515.  It  is  calendared  as  a  "modern  copy."1  One 
is  really  tempted  to  copy  a  page  from  the  printed 
Journals  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  to  leave  it 
about  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  in  the  hope 
that  one's  manuscript  may  be  calendared  among 
the  treasures  of  the  nation. 


Having  compared  the  numbers  of  the  lay  peers 
summoned  in  1523  and  1529,*  we  will  now  com- 
pare the  numbers  summoned  at  the  latter  date 
with  those  upon  the  roll  for  the  session  which 
opened  on  15  Jan. 


I529- 
Dukes     ...       3     ...       3 

Marquises    .     .  2  ...  2 

Earls  ....  9  ...  1  3 

Viscounts     .  3  ...  i 

Barons    ...  27  ...  35 

44  54 

The  total  increase   of   ten  may   not   seem   large  ; 
but  it  was  sufficient  to  convert  the  lay  peers  from 
a   minority  to   a  majority.      The   composition  of 
the  House,  according  to  the  Lords'  Journals   (15 
Jan.),  was  now  as  follows  : 

1  Calendar  1515-1518,  No.  1131. 

2  p.  331  above. 

3  By  an  unlucky  slip  (p.  497)  Dugdale  prints  the  date  "quinto 
[instead  of  c  quintodecimo  ']  die  Januarii." 

341 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Spiritual  peers 48 

Lay  peers 5 1  l 

Prior  of  St.  John  .      ...        i  2 

100 

The  addition  of  the  earl  of  Oxford  and  Lords 
Sandys  and  Mountjoy  raised  the  number  of  lay 
peers  to  54  at  the  very  outset  of  the  session  (17 
Jan.),  while  the  spiritual  peers,  simultaneously, 
shrink  on  the  Journals  to  37. 

The  importance  of  these  figures  lies  in  the  fact 
that  the  spiritual  peers  are  supposed  to  have  re- 
tained their  majority  till  the  Dissolution  of  the 
Monasteries  (1540).  Hallam  was  emphatic  on 
the  subject  : 

The  fall  of  the  mitred  abbots  changed  the  proportions  of  the 
two  estates  which  constitute  the  upper  house  of  parliament. 
Though  the  number  of  abbots  and  priors  to  whom  writs  of 
summons  were  directed  varied  considerably  in  different  parlia- 
ments they  always,  joined  to  the  twenty-one  bishops,  pre- 
ponderated over  the  temporal  peers.  It  was  [now]  no  longer 
possible  for  the  prelacy  to  offer  an  efficacious  opposition  to  the 
reformation  they  abhorred.3 

Mr.  Pike  would  seem  to  take  the  same  view,  for 
he  writes  that — 

The  most  important  of  all  permanent  changes  ever  effected  at 
any  one  time  in  the  constituent  parts  of  the  House  of  Lords  was 


1  I.  58-9.    One  more  than  Dugdale's  total,  because  he  omits 
the  earl  of  Sussex.     As  the  lists  tally  in  all  else,  the  omission  is 
obviously  an  error. 

2  Sat  at  the  head  of  the  barons. 

3  Const.  Hist.  (Ed.  1832),  I.  99. 

342 


HENRY   VIII.  AND   THE   PEERS 

that  which  befel  when  the  greater  monasteries  were  dissolved. 
.  .  .  The  Lords  Spiritual,  reduced  now  only  to  archbishops 
and  bishops,  could  never  again  command  alone  a  majority  in  the 
House  of  Lords.1 

Mr.  Taswell-Langmead,  again,  was  quite  positive 
on  the  subject  : 

The  dissolution  of  the  monasteries  .  .  .  reduced  from  a 
majority  to  a  minority  the  Spiritual  Peerage,  who  alone  were 
likely  to  be  sufficiently  independent  to  offer  a  serious  opposition.2 

Mr.  Lecky  also  appears  to  hold  the  same  view  : 

The  Reformation  had  a  capital  influence  on  the  constitution  of 
the  House.  By  removing  the  mitred  abbots  it  made  the  temporal 
peers  a  clear  majority.3 

Lastly,  Mr.  Amos,  in  his  monograph  on  the 
Reformation  Parliament,4  took  only  the  numbers 
summoned  at  its  outset  (44  lay  lords,  48  spiritual 
lords),  and  observed  that  "The  Spiritual  Peers  did 
not,  in  fact,  avail  themselves  of  their  numerical 
strength  to  oppose  Henry's  measures  against  the 
Pope  and  the  Anglican  Church  "  (p.  4). 

Dr.  Stubbs,  I  find,  has  a  paragraph  on  the  sub- 
ject in  a  monograph  on  "  Parliament  under  Henry 
VIII."5  He  holds  that— 

The  number  of  lay  peers   varied  little,  for  there  were  few  new 

1  Constitutional  History  of  the  Home  of  Lords  (1894),  pp.  349, 
351.  2  Constitutional  History  of  England  (Ed.  1890),  p.  399. 

3  Democracy  and  Liberty  (1896),  I.  302. 

4  Observations  on  the  Statutes  of  the  Reformation  Parliament.    By 
A.  Amos  (1859). 

5  Lectures  on  Medieval  and  Modern  History  (1886),  pp.  269— 
270. 

343 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

creations  except  where  an  old  peerage  had  been  extinguished. 
The  minimum  number  was  called  in  1523,  being  only  28, 
several  of  the  peers  being  that  year  employed  in  military  affairs 
abroad  ;  the  maximum  was  in  1536,  in  the  parliament  called  to 
approve  of  the  destruction  of  Anne  Boleyn,  and  the  number  was 
51.  In  the  other  parliaments  it  varied  between  36  and  46.  It 
will  be  thus  observed  that  until  the  dissolution  of  the  monasteries, 
the  spiritual  lords  were  always  in  a  numerical  majority. 

But  he  guards  himself  by  adding  that — 

the  tendency  was  decided  towards  an  equalisation,  a  tendency 
which  is  ocularly  perceptible  in  the  journals  where,  in  the  list  of 
attendances  which  from  1515  onwards  are  marked  daily,  the  two 
bodies  are  arranged  in  parallel  columns.1 

And  he  proceeds  to  urge  that  as  the  lay  peers 
attended  much  more  regularly  than  the  spiritual 
lords,  the  former  may  have  had  more  voting 
power,  unless  the  spiritual  lords  had  given  proxies, 
which  they  may  often  have  omitted  doing.  He 
admits,  however,  on  the  next  page  that  proxies 
were  largely  used  by  them. 

To  those  who  have  followed  my  narrative  above 
there  can  be  little  question  that  so  far  back  even 
as  the  close  of  1529  the  king's  creations  had 
deliberately  given  the  lay  peers  a  majority  by 
raising  their  number  to  51.  And  the  Lords' 
Journals,  extant  for  the  last  part  of  the  Parlia- 
ment (1534-1536),  show  at  a  glance  the  substan- 
tial majority  possessed  throughout  that  period  by 
the  lay  peers. 

To  the  summer   Parliament   of   1536  (8  June, 

1  But  there  is  a  serious  gap  in  the  Journals  (i5I5~I534)>  as 
I  observed  above  (p.  332). 

344 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE    PEERS 

28  H.  VIII.)  there  were  summoned,  according  to 
Dugdale,  5 1  peers,  divided  as  follows  : 

Dukes  ....  3 

Marquises      ...  2 

Earls     .          .          .  13 

Viscount         ...  i 

Barons            .          .  32 

51 

But  this  is  another  of  Dugdale's  concocted  lists,1 
and  is  distinctly  unreliable.  It  cannot  be  identi- 
fied, I  think,  with  any  particular  list  in  the  Lords' 
Journals  ;  and  it  omits  Lords  Conyers  a<nd  Mount- 
joy,  who,  as  we  know  from  the  Journals,  were  on 
the  Roll.  In  the  case  of  this  parliament  there  is 
record  evidence  for  the  writs  (27  April),  namely 
the  Close  Roll  of  28  H.  VIII.,  m.  43^.,  from 
which  the  list  of  summonses  is  printed  in  Rymer's 
Fcedera.  From  this  authentic  list  we  find  that 
Dugdale  omitted  no  less  than  three  peers  who  on 
this  occasion  received  writs  of  summons.  These 
were  Arthur  Viscount  Lisle,  Christopher  Lord 
Conyers,  and  Charles  Blount  Lord  Mountjoy.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  added  an  imaginary  writ, 
"Thorns  Cromwell  (de  Wimbleton)  Chivaler " 

1  He  describes  it  as  "Adhuc  ex  dicto  diario  [Procerum]."  In 
this  case  he  has  successfully  imposed,  it  is  clear,  on  Dr.  Stubbs, 
who,  in  his  monograph  on  the  subject,  asserts  of  the  lay  peers 
that  "the  maximum  was  in  1536  .  .  .  and  the  number 
was  51." 

345 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

(p.  499).  He  further  made  George  Lord  Cobham 
into  Thomas,  and  Edward  Lord  Grey  de  Powys 
into  John.  The  net  result  of  substituting  the  cor- 
rect figures  from  Rymer  is  that  53  lay  peers  were 
summoned.  The  exact  constitution  of  the  House, 
as  summoned,  was  this  : 

Lay  peers       .          .          -53 
Prelates          .          .  17 

Keepers  of  spiritualities  .        4 
Abbots  .          .  27 

Prior     ....        i 
Prior  of  St.  John    .          .        i 

103 

But  on  June  1 3  there  are  only  40  spiritual  peers 
and  the  prior  of  St.  John  on  the  roll  as  against  52 
lay  peers. 

A  new  lay  peerage  was  created  on  this  occasion 
in  Lord  Hungerford  of  Heytesbury,  who  was 
admitted  to  the  House  1 3  June,1  and  a  further  one 
by  the  admission  of  Thomas  Cromwell  as  a  baron 
on  the  last  day  of  the  Parliament  (18  July)  "by 
writ  and  patent,"  says  H.  13,  but,  according  to 
the  Lords'  Journals,  under  the  writ.  The  date  of 
his  patent  was  9  July. 

Lastly,  if  we  take  the  Parliament  which  opened 
28  April  1539  (31  Hen.  VIII.),  we  find  that  the 

1  Lords'  Journals,  I.  86.  Not  "  the  eighth  day  of  June,"  as 
in  Dugdale's  Summonses  (p.  500).  He  produced  his  writ,  which, 
according  to  Rymer,  had  been  issued  with  the  others  on  27  April. 

346 


HENRY   VIII.  AND   THE   PEERS 


summonses,    according    to     Dugdale,    give    these 
totals  : 

Prelates    .          .          .20] 

Abbots     .          .          .      19] 

Dukes      ...        2 

Marquis  i 

Earls         .          .  15 

Viscount ...        i 

Barons      .          .          .29 


But  the  Lords'  Journals  (I.  104)  give  us  on  the 
opening  day  : 

Spiritual  peers         .          .     40 
Lay  peers 2     .          .          -5° 

90 

For  ten  years  before  the  Dissolution,  it  seems 
clear  to  me,  the  king  had  systematically  secured  a 
majority  of  lay  peers  ;  and  this  majority,  as  the 
crisis  approached,  he  made  decisive.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  notable  that  the  Parliament  of  1539 
presents  the  opposite  tendency  to  that  of  the  ses- 
sions 1534-1536.  For,  instead  of  the  lay  majority 
increasing,  it  now  diminished,  though  continuing 
to  exist.  On  the  last  day  that  the  abbots  sat  (28 
June)  the  Lords'  Journals  show  us  the  lay  peers  in 
a  majority  of  only  six. 

1  Summonses,  p.  501. 

2  They  omit  Viscount  Lisle  (who  is  given  by  Dugdale),  but 
have  three  more  barons. 

347 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

And  now,  from  this  historical  enquiry,  I  would 
pass  to  a  more  antiquarian  subject,  namely,  the  fate 
of  the  seven  baronies  created,  as  we  have  seen, 
in  the  Parliament  of  1529.  My  reason  for  doing 
so  is  that  our  dependence  on  a  single  MS.  (H.  13, 
Coll.  Arm.)  for  their  first  appearance  has  led,  not 
only  to  much  confusion  among  peerage  writers  on 
the  subject,  but  also  to  conflicting  action  in  the 
treatment  of  these  dignities.  The  question  is 
not  one  of  mere  academic  interest,  for  it  may 
actually  arise  at  any  moment  before  the  Committee 
for  Privileges. 

If  we  take  these  peers  in  order,  we  find  the  first 
three  are  Hussey,  Windsor,  and  Tailboys,  all 
admitted  alike  i  Dec.  (1529)  : 

(1)  John  Hussey,  rightly  stated  in  Complete  Peerage 

to  have  taken  his  seat  as  above. 

(2)  Andrew    Windsor,    wrongly    there    stated    to 

have  been  summoned  by  writ  3  Nov.  1529.* 
There  is  no  such  writ. 

(3)  Gilbert   Tailboys,  there  stated  "  to  have  been 

summoned    to  Parliament   as  a  baron  in   or 

before  1529." 

The     next    two  are  Wentworth  and  Burgh,  both 
alike  admitted  the  day  following  (2  Dec.  1529)  : 

(4)  Thomas   Wentworth,  stated  in  Complete  Peer- 

age to  have  been  summoned  toi  Parliament 
by  writ  from  2  Dec.  1529.*  There  is  no 
such  writ. 

1  This  simply  repeats  Courthope's  statement. 

2  This,  again,  repeats  Courthope. 

348 


HENRY   VIII.   AND   THE   PEERS 

(5)  John    Burgh,    wrongly    there   stated  to    have 

been     summoned     to     Parliament     3     Nov. 
1529.*      There  is  no   such   summons. 

Sixth  is  Bray,   admitted   4   Dec.    (1529)  : 

(6)  Edmund  Bray,  stated  in    Complete   Peerage   to 

have  been  "  summoned  as  a  baron  from  3 
Nov.  I529-"1  A  footnote  adds  that  "the 
reasoning  in  support  of  such  summons  was 
deemed  conclusive,  in  1839,  by  the  House  of 
Lords,  though  neither  the  original  writ  nor 
the  enrolment  thereof  could  be  found."  But 
this  is  a  misconception.2 

Seventh  and  last   is  John   Mordaunt,   admitted 
4  May  1533  : 

(7)  John   Mordaunt,   stated  in  Complete  Peerage  to 

have  been  "  summoned  to  Parliament  as  a 
baron  from  4  May  1529.*  This  date  is  four 
years  too  early,  and  impossible  to  boot. 

Now  the  sole  authority  for  the  dates  of  all  seven 
creations  is  H.  13,  and  Dugdale's  book  containing 
its  list  was  before  the  editors  of  both  works.  Yet 
only  for  the  first  of  the  seven  has  its  evidence  been 
rightly  reproduced,  and  this  only  in  the  Complete 
Peerage. 

1  This,  again,  repeats  Courthorpe. 

2  It  was  only  "  Resolved  that  it  appears  to  this  Committee  that 
Edmund  Lord  Bray  was  summoned  to  Parliament  and  sat  in  the 
House  in  the  Twenty-First  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Henry  the 
Eighth."      The   sole    evidence  adduced    for    his    doing   so   was 
H.  13,  which  merely  records  his  admission   (4  Dec.)  as  above. 

349 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

The  fate  of  these  seven  baronies  has  varied 
widely.  It  may  be  summarized  thus : 

(1)  Hussey.     Forfeited  1537. 

(2)  Windsor.      Fell  into  abeyance    1641.       Called 

out    1660.      Abeyance  again    1833.     Called 
out    1855.     Extant. 

(3)  Tailboys.     Seems  to  disappear  (in  Parliament) 

after  1529.* 

1  The  peerage  writers  are  all  wrong  about  this  interesting 
barony.  The  Complete  Peerage,  following  Courthope,  states  that 
Gilbert  Lord  Tailboys  (who  had  doubtless  received  the  barony 
as  the  husband  of  the  king's  mistress)  died  15  April  1539.  But 
the  inscription  on  his  monument  states  that  he  died  15  April 
1530  (Genealogist  [O.S.],  vol.  II.)  ;  that  is,  within  a  few  months 
of  his  becoming  a  baron.  This  is  confirmed  by  entries  in  the 
Henry  VIII.  "  Calendar,"  which  show  that  his  wife  was  a 
widow  before  24  May  1532  (No.  1,049).  Their  son  George  is 
regularly  termed  Lord  Tailbois.  He  is  still  spoken  of  as  a  minor 
in  1538,  but  in  April  or  May  1539  he  married  Margaret 
daughter  of  Sir  William  Skipwith.  He  was  among  the  peers  in 
attendance  upon  Anne  of  Cleves  on  her  arrival,  Dec.  1539. 
There  is  an  entry  in  the  Lords'  Journals,  17  May  1539  : — 
*  quaedam  allata  est  billa  concernens  stabilimentum  quarundam 
terrarum  Domino  Tailboys  et  Domine  Anne  uxoris  ejus,"  but  it  is 
clear  from  the  Calendar  that  his  wife's  name  was  Margaret.  He 
is  named  in  a  Lincolnshire  commission  of  Sept.  1540,  but  had 
been  succeeded  by  his  brother  before  15  Feb.  1541,  when  "Robert 
Lord  Talboys,"  a  minor,  occurs  in  a  royal  grant.  His  name 
is  an  addition  to  the  peerage.  He  was  dead  19  May,  1542. 

The  above  account,  it  will  be  found,  differs  widely  from  that  in 
the  Complete  Peerage,  according  to  which  the  father  died  1 5  April, 
and  the  son  6  Sept.  1539,  the  latter  being  unmarried.  The 
father's  death  in  1530,  and  the  fact  that  his  sons  were  minors, 
explain  the  absence  of  the  name  in  Parliament ;  but  the  barony 
was  fully  recognised. 

It  became  the  subject  of  an  important  decision,  as  to  a  hus- 
band's right  to  be  styled  a  baron  jure  uxoris,  on  a  Mr.  Wimbish, 

350 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE    PEERS 

(4)  Wentworth.         Fell     into     abeyance     1815. 

Emerged  1850.     Merged  in  Lovelace,  1893. 

(5)  Burgh.      Fell  into  abeyance  1601  (?). 

(6)  Bray.      Fell  into  abeyance  1557.      Called  out 

1839.     Extant. 

(7)  Mordaunt.      Fell  into  abeyance  1836. 

Thus  Wentworth  alone  is  inherited  by  the  sole 
heir  of  the  original  grantee  ;  Mordaunt  was  so 
inherited  down  to  1836;  and  Windsor,  though 
falling  twice  into  abeyance,  has  only  remained  in 
that  condition  some  forty  years  in  all.  Compared 
with  these  three  dignities  the  barony  of  Braye  has 
been  the  subject  of  what  is  rightly  deemed  very 
peculiar  treatment.  After  remaining  in  abeyance 
for  no  less  than  282  years,  it  was  "called  out" 
(1839)  in  favour  of  one  of  several  junior  co-heirs.1 
At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  observe  that 
there  is  confirmatory  evidence  aliunde  for  the 
creation  of  all  these  baronies  in  the  Parliament  of 
1529.  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  the  first 
four  of  the  barons  "  admitted  "  in  December  (i  529) 
had  been  returned  to  this  Parliament  as  knights  of 
the  shire.2  The  new  peers,  probably,  are  first 

who  had  married  the  sister  and  eventual  heiress  (in  1542)  of  the 
above  George,  claiming  (unsuccessfully)  to  be  styled  Lord 
Tailboys  in  her  right.  *  See  also  pp.  30-31  above. 

2  "Sir  John  Husee,  now  Lord  Husee,"  and  "Sir  Gilbert 
Tailboys,  now  Lord  Tailbois"  for  Line. ;  "Thos.  Wentworth,  now 
Lord  Wentworth,"  for  Suff.  ;  and  "  Sir  And.,  now  Lord  Wynde- 
sore  "  for  another  county.  It  is  clear  from  these  entries  and  that 
of  "Sir  John  Neville,  now  Lord  Latymer"  (Yorks),  that  this 
Record  Office  list,  as  printed,  is  not  earlier  than  1530  (see  Calen- 
dar, 1529,  No.  6,043[2]). 

351 


PEERAGE  STUDIES 

found  collectively  in  a  curious  copy  of  their  auto- 
graph signatures  appended  to  a  draft  act.1  Mr. 
Gairdner  dates  this  interesting  list,  "Nov.  1529," 
which  is  certainly  too  early,  for  the  earls  of  Wilt- 
shire and  Sussex  were  not  so  created  till  8  Dec. 
The  signatures  run  thus  : 

Henry  R. — Thomas  More,  cancellarius — T.  Norfolk — Charlys 
Suffolk — Thomas  Dorset — H.  Exeter — W.  Arrundell — John 
Oxynford — E.  Derby — H.  Worcester — Thomas  Rutland — T. 
Wylsher — Robt.  Sussex — Arthur  Lysle — G.  Bergevenny — Aude- 
lay — T.  Berkeley — Henry  Montagu — Willm.  Dacre  3 — Harry 
Morley — Edward  Grey  4 — William  Graye  5 — John  Berners — 
W.  Mountjoy — Henry  Daubney  (?) — T.  Darcy — T.  Mountegle 
— John  Husey — A.  Wyndesore — T.  Wentworth — Thomas 
Burgh — Edmond  Bray. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  list  must  be  previous  to 
the  resignation  of  Sir  Thomas  More  (May  1532), 
and  indeed  to  the  Marquis  of  Dorset's  death, 
10  Oct.  1530.  It  is  therefore  much  earlier  than 
Lord  Mordaunt's  creation.  But  as  Lord  Tailboys' 
name  alone  is  absent  among  those  of  the  newly 
created  barons,  I  am  disposed  to  associate  his 
absence  with  his  death  in  1530  (15  April)  ;  and 
therefore  to  date  this  list  as  later  than  1529.  We 
have,  at  any  rate,  for  extreme  limits,  8  Dec.  1529 
— 10  Oct.  1530.° 

1Cott.  MS.  Titus  B.  IV.  114. 

2  Calendar,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  6,044. 

3  Of  Gillesland.          4  Of  Powys.          5  Of  Wilton. 

6  This  investigation  has  a  further  bearing.  The  object  or 
these  "  Articles  condescended  and  agreed  by  the  king's  highness 
and  the  noblemen  of  this  his  realm  of  England  being  assembled  in 
this  present  Parliament,"  etc.,  was  to  secure  the  full  rights  of  the 
Crown  in  wardships,  which  was  the  motive  for  the  Statute  of 

352 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE    PEERS 

I  would  specially  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  barons'  precedence  in  this  list  is  precisely  the 
precedence  assigned  them  in  H.  I3,1  with  the  sole 
exception  that  Lord  Morley  and  Lord  Dacre 
change  places.  Of  the  newly-created  barons  the 
precedence  is  the  same  in  both  :  Hussey,  Windsor, 
Wentworth,  Burgh,  Bray. 

The  next  list  in  which  we  find  them  is  that  of 
:3  Juty  1S3°>  when  the  peers  sign  an  address  to 
the  Pope.2  Here  again  the  junior  barons  are  : 
(i)  'John  Husey,'  (2)  'Andrew  Wyndesor/ 
(3)  c  Thomas  Wentworth/  (4)  '  Thomas  Burgh.' 
Tailboys,  as  I  said,  was  dead  :  Bray  is  unaccounted 
for.  Sir  John  Mordaunt  (the  last  creation)  was 
still  so  styled  in  March  1532  ;  but  is  "John  Lord 
Mordaunt"  16  May  1 5 32,3  twelve  days  after  his 
admission  (according  to  H.  13)  to  the  House  of 
Lords. 

Before  dealing  with  the  treatment  of  these 
baronies  by  the  Crown  or  the  House  of  Lords,  we 
must  glance  at  one  of  the  difficulties  created  by  the 
want  of  evidence,  namely,  the  question  whether 
we  should  hold  them  to  have  been  created  by 

Uses.  Consequently,  it  proves  that  this  legislation  was  initiated 
by  Henry  from  the  earliest  days  of  this  Parliament,  and  not,  as 
historians  have  held,  introduced  towards  its  close.  Hall  states 
that  the  king  sent  down  the  Bill  to  the  Commons,  as  approved  by 
the  Lords  and  himself,  in  his  24th  year  [1532-1533]. 

1  Fo.  398^  (see  p.  332  above). 

2  Calendar,  No.  6,513.     The  appearance  of  "George  Roche- 
ford  "  as  the  second  baron  on  the  list,  at  this  early  date,  is  difficult 
to  account  for,  as  his  first  known  summons  was  in  Feb.  1533- 

3  Calendar,  No.  1,023. 

353  A  A 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

patent  or  by  writ  of  summons.  It  is  difficult  to 
say  what,  if  any,  should  be  the  presumption  on 
this  point  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  It  is  now, 
I  believe,  recognised  that  Eure  and  Wharton  were 
baronies  created  by  patent  (1544).  Yet  in  the 
absence  of  evidence  on  the  point,  the  House  of 
Lords  treated  the  latter,  in  1845,  as  a  barony  by 
writ,  and  actually  recognised  a  right  to  co-heirship 
to  that  dignity  accordingly.1  In  this,  indeed,  it 
did  but  follow  the  precedent  of  1836,  when  the 
Committee  for  Privileges  accepted  the  strenuous 
contention  of  the  Vaux  and  Bray  claimants  that 
the  non-enrolment  of  a  patent  of  creation,  and  the 
failure  to  discover  one,  constitute  a  sufficient  pre- 
sumption that  the  creation  was  by  writ.  The 
creation  of  Eure  and  Wharton  by  patent  (1544) 
seems  to  be  well  established  ; 2  and  the  fact  that 
this  is  so,  though  the  patents  are  not  enrolled,  has 
a  grave  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  presumption  in 
cases  of  future  occurrence. 

The  strange  uncertainty  of  practice  at  the  time 
is  shown  by  the  curious  fact  that  the  Cromwells, 
father  and  son,  were  apparently  created  barons 

1  Resolution  of  28  July  1845  (repeating  that  of  the  Committee 
for  Privileges)  :    "  That   the   Barony  of  Wharton  is  a    Barony 
created  by  Writ  and  Sitting  on  the  26th  of  Nov.  2nd  Edw.  VI., 
in  the  year   1548,  and   is  descendible  to  heirs  general."     The 
Resolution  further  asserts  that  this  barony  fell  into  abeyance  in 

I73L 

We  know  now  that  the  barony  was  created  by  patent  four 
years  earlier  (1544),  though  efforts  have  been  made  to  dispute  this. 
(Notes  and  Queries  [1899],  9th  S.  IV.  459). 

2  See  Complete  Peerage. 

354 


HENRY   VIII.  AND   THE   PEERS 

both  by  writ  and  by  patent.  Thomas,  summoned 
(it  would  seem)  by  writ  to  the  Parliament  of  1 536, 
was  created  Lord  Cromwell  by  patent  on  the  gth 
of  July.  He  took  his  seat  on  the  i8th,  "  by  writ 
and  patent,"  says  H.  13,  but,  according  to  the 
Lords'  Journals,  under  the  writ.1  Gregory,  his  son, 
summoned  by  writ  to  the  Parliament  of  (28  April) 
I539,2  was  created  Lord  Cromwell  by  patent, 
1 8  Dec.  1540. 

I  believe  that  there  was  a  change  of  practice 
about  the  year  1536.  In  that  year  Thomas 
Cromwell,  summoned  to  Parliament  by  writ,  was 
also,  we  have  seen,  created  a  baron  by  patent 
(9  July).  In  1539  Lords  Russell,  St.  John,  and 
Parr  were  all  created  barons  by  patent  (9  March).3 
Gregory  Cromwell,  indeed,  was  summoned  by  writ 
to  the  Parliament  of  28  April  1539,*  but  was 
created  baron  by  patent  18  Dec.  1540.  Lord 
Wriothesley  was  created  by  patent  i  Jan.  1 544,  as 
also  (we  now  know)  were  Lords  Eure  and  Wharton 
(?24Feb.)  1544. 

The  immediate  precedents  for  the  baronies  I  am 
discussing  are  the  creations  in  the  opening  days 
of  the  Parliament  preceding  (15  April  1523). 

1  Compare  p.  346  above. 

2  There  is   much  confusion   on   this  subject  in  the    Complete 
Peerage  (I.  119,  II.  433),  due  to  the  erroneous  supposition  that 
this  was  a  summons  in  his  father's  barony. 

3  There  is  some  doubt  about  the  date  of  Parr's  creation,  but, 
as  he  sat  below  Russell  and  St.  John  in   1532,  he  cannot  have 
been  created  before  them. 

4  According   to   Dugdale's    Summonses-,  p.    501    (from    original 
record). 

355 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

These  were  the  Viscountcy  of  Lisle  and  the 
baronies  of  Berkeley,  Sandys,  and  Vaux.  Nothing 
could  be  more  unsatisfactory  than  the  authorities 
vouched  for  these  creations  in  the  pages  of  the 
Complete  Peerage.  None  whatever  is  cited  for 
Vaux  ;  "  Dugdale  "  alone  is  quoted  for  Sandys  ; 
while,  for  Berkeley,  we  read  that  "  Fitz  James* 
letter  and  this  (contemporary)  account  in  the 
c  Chronicle  of  Calais '  are  the  only  proofs  of  the 
alleged  summonses"  (rectius  summons).  The 
evidence  for  all  four  creations  is  as  follows  : 

(1)  "In  the  month  of  Aprell  [1523],  a  parliament 

being  holden  at  Westmynstar,  ser  Arthur 
Plantagenet  was  made  vicounte  Lile  and  ser 
Morreis  Barkley,  lyvetenaunte  of  Calleis, 
was  made  lorde  Barkley,  ser  William  Sands 
was  made  lorde  Sands,  ser  Nicholas  Vauxe 
was  made  lorde  Vauxe."  1 

(2)  "The  27th  of  April  was  Sir  Arthur  Plantagenet, 

a  bastard  son  to  King  Edward  the  Fourth, 
at  Bridewell,  created  Viscount  Lisle  in  the 
right  of  his  wife,  which  was  some  time  wife 
to  Edward  Dudley,  beheaded  ;  Sir  Maurice 
Berkeley,  lieutenant  of  Calais,  was  made  Lord 
Berkeley  ;  Sir  William  Sandys,  Lord  Sands, 
and  Sir  Nicholas  Vaux,  Lord  Vaux." 

(3)  "  In  parliament   Sir   Arthur   Plantagenet    has 

been  created  Viscount  Lisle.  Sir  Thomas 
Boleyn,3  Sir  William  Sandys,  Sir  Morres 

1  Chronicle  of  Calais  (Camden  Soc.),  pp.  32-3. 

2  Stew's  Chronicle,  Ed.  Howes,  II.  520. 

3  This  name  is  inserted  by  error. 

356 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE    PEERS 

Barkeley,  and  Sir  Nicholas  Vaux  have  been 
made  barons,  and  summoned  by  writ  of  the 
Parliament.  No  acts  have  yet  passed  the 
Lords  or  the  Commons." 1 

Of  these  three  witnesses,  the  first  could  not  be 
better.  Lord  Berkeley  was  lieutenant  of  Calais, 
Lord  Vaux,  lieutenant  of  Gumes,  and  Lord  Sandys, 
treasurer  of  Calais. 

There  is  abundance  of  concurrent  testimony 
from  independent  sources.  A  letter  to  Surrey, 
14  May  1523,  speaks  of  "Lord  Vaux"  (he  is 
said  to  have  died  that  day)  as  "  sick  and  in  great 
danger."2  Two  days  later  Sir  W.  Fitzwilliam  is 
appointed  governor  of  Gumes,  "  as  held  by 
Nicholas  Lord  Vaux "  ; 3  and  the  latter's  Inq. 
p.  m.  styles  him  late  "  Lord  Harrowden."  More- 
over, his  son,  as  "  Lord  Harrewden,"  landed  at 
Calais  with  Wolsey  11  July  i$2()5  (being  then 
about  1 8). 

Berkeley  did  not  long  survive  ;  but  a  letter  of 
Wolsey  to  Henry  VIII.,  20  Aug.  1523,  speaks  of 
"  letters  to  Lords  Sandes  and  Berkeley," 6  and  eight 
days  later  there  "  landyd  at  Caleis  100  soldiers  sent 
to  the  Lord  Barkley."7  He  died  12  Sept.  1523, 
and  the  writ  to  make  Inquisition  for  his  lands  as 
"  Maurice  Lord  Berkeley  "  followed  on  October 

1  Letter  of  28  April  1523  from  Richard  Lyster  to  Lord 
Darcy  (Calendar  of  Henry  VIII.  documents  1519-1523,  p. 
1,260).  2  Ibid.  p.  1,272.  3  Ibid.  p.  1,273. 

4  See  Vaux  case  (Minutes  of  Evidence)  for  this  and  some  other 
proofs.  5  Calais  Chronicle ',  p.  38. 

6  Calendar  (ut  supra\  p.  1,352.          7  Calais  Chronicle,  p.  33. 

357 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

24.*  We  have  also  the  important  letter  of  6  May 
(1523)  from  his  counsel  Fitz  James,  touching  his 
precedence  as  a  peer.2 

Sandys  presents  no  difficulty,  as  the  new  peer 
lived  on  till  I542.3 

Given  the  above  evidence,  we  ask  whether  these 
baronies  were  created  by  writ  or  patent  ?  Fitz 
James,  who  as  a  lawyer  understood  the  subject, 
wrote  to  Lord  Berkeley  of  the  honour  "  which  the 
king's  grace  by  his  write  hath  late  callid  yowe  to." 
And  this  expression  harmonizes  well  with  that 
in  Lyster's  letter.4  The  statement  of  Banks  that 
Lord  Vaux  was  created  by  patent,  and  that  this 
patent  was  wilfully  destroyed  by  the  infamous  Lady 
Banbury  in  the  next  century,5  seems  to  be  unsup- 
ported. Moreover,  her  alleged  object — to  prevent 
her  husband's  brother  succeeding — is  absurd,  for 
he  would  have  been  the  heir  to  the  dignity 
whether  created  by  writ  or  by  patent.  As  to  the 
subsequent  decision  of  the  question  by  the  House 
of  Lords,  the  Complete  Peerage  assigns  to  1 8  3  8  6  (the 
Vaux  case)  the  "  rather  rash  "  assumption  that  the 
creation  was  by  writ.  But  the  House  had  decided 
the  point  so  far  back  as  1660-1661,  when  an 
heir-general  obtained  the  barony  of  Sandys,7  which 
was  on  all  fours  with  that  of  Vaux. 

1  Calendar  (ut  supra),  p.  1,453. 

2  Smyth's  Lives  of  Berkeley s,  II.  208  ;   and   Complete  Peerage,  I. 
332.     It  was  cited  in  the  Vaux  case. 

3  "  The  xxij  of  Auguste  Landyd  at  Caleis  100  men  to  go  into 
France  with  lorde  Sands."      Calais  Chronicle,  p.  33. 

4  P-  357  above.  5   Complete  Peerage,  VIII.  18. 
6  Rectius  1836.              7   Ibid.  VII.  57. 

358 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE    PEERS 

Let  us  now  return  to  the  baronies  created  in  the 
parliament  of  1529,  and  ask  whether  their  creation 
was  by  writ  or  by  patent.  The  answer  must  be 
sought  in  the  case  of  the  barony  of  Tailboys,  the 
bearing  of  which  has  been  imperfectly  realized. 
In  this  case  attention  has  been  concentrated  on  the 
claim  of  a  husband  to  the  style  of  his  wife's 
dignity.1  But  for  our  purpose  the  point  is  that 
the  Crown  accepted,  without  a  question,  its  inheri- 
tance by  a  female  within  some  fifteen  years  of  its 
creation.  Now  as  Tailboys  was  one  of  several 
baronies  which  all  appear  simultaneously,2  we  must 
presume  them  all  alike  to  have  been  created  by 
writ  and  descendible  to  heirs-general.  The  ques- 
tion arose  in  the  case  of  another  of  these  baronies, 
that  of  Braye,  and  was  argued  at  .length  in  the 
Vaux  case,  which  came  on,  oddly  enough,  about 
the  same  time.3 

But  the  question  had  arisen  long  before  in  the 
case  of  another  of  these  dignities,  the  barony  of 
Windsor.  Although  unnoticed,  it  would  seem,  in 
Cruise's  Treatise  on  Dignities,  the  Windsor  case 
(1660)  has  been  held  to  be  the  earliest  certain 

1  Cruise  on  Dignities,  pp.  106—7.          2  See  P-  337  above. 

3  See  Mrs.  Cave's  claim  to  the  barony  of  Braye,  pp.  5-8, 
where  the  argument  is  very  full,  and  Mr.  Bourchier  Hartopp's 
claim  to  that  of  Vaux,  pp.  8— II,  and  p.  15.  The  evidence 
collected  in  the  Vaux  case  certainly  creates  a  very  strong  presump- 
tion in  favour  of  a  writ.  A  petition  from  the  Vaux  claimant 
that  his  case  might  be  heard  before  the  committee  came  to  any 
decision  as  to  the  creation  or  limitation  of  the  barony  of  Braye 
was  read  in  the  House  29  Feb.  1836.  In  his  case  the  object  was 
to  assign  the  creation  to  the  summons  of  1536,  in  order  to  prove 
that  Vaux  was  a  barony  by  writ  and  not  by  patent. 

359 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

instance  of  the  determination  of  an  abeyance  by 
the  Crown,1  the  method  then  adopted  being  a 
declaratory  patent.  Mr.  Pike,  in  his  Constitutional 
History  of  the  House  of  Lords  (1894),  has  given 
great  attention  to  this  case  (pp.  133—135,  ^S)  as 
"  the  earliest  case  in  which  anything  like  the 
doctrine  of  abeyance  was  recognised."  But  neither 
he  nor  any  one  else  (though  Dugdale  alludes  to  it) 
seems  to  have  known  of  the  singular  "  grant  "  of 
Feb.  1645-6,  which  I  here  transcribe  from  the 
Signet  Office  Docquet  Book  1644-1660. 

A  graunt  whereby  (reciting  that  Henry  sometime  Baron 
Windsor  of  Bradenham  in  the  County  of  Bucks  to  him  and  his 
heires  dyed  and  left  issue  Thomas  his  only  sonn  and  heire  who 
was  Baron  Windsor  to  him  and  his  heires  now  deceased  without 
issue  and  two  daughters,  Elizabeth  the  elder  married  to  Dixey 
Hickman  Esq.  and  now  also  deceased  and  another  daughter. 
And  that  Thomas  Windsore  Windsore  als.  Hickman  Esq. 
is  sonn  and  heire  of  the  said  Elizabeth  and  Dixey)  his 
Majestic  is  hereby  pleased  to  dispose  conferre  and  confirme 
the  said  Barony  and  honour  to  the  said  Thomas  Windsore  and 
the  heires  males  of  his  body,  and  to  declare,  accept,  elect,  and 
ratify  him  and  his  heires  males  to  bee  Barons  Windsore.  And  if 
this  declaracion  bee  ineffectuall  in  Law,  his  Majestic  hereby 
erecteth,  confirmeth  and  establisheth  to  him  and  his  heires  males 
the  said  dignity  with  all  priviledges  and  immunities  thereunto 
belonging.  And  declareth,  approveth,  confirmeth,  restoreth  and 
establisheth  to  him  and  his  heires  males  the  same  place  degree  and 
Precedency  in  Parliament  and  elsewhere,  and  the  same  priviledges 
and  immunities  as  the  said  Henry  or  Thomas  Barons  Windsore 
enjoyed.  Subscribed  by  Mr.  Attorney  General  upon  signification 
of  his  Majesty's  pleasure  and  his  signe  manuall  procured  by 
Mr.  Secretary  Nicholas. 

The  immediate  point  of  this  document   is  the 

1  Courthope's  Historic  Peer  age ,  p.  xxxiv. 


HENRY   VIII.   AND   THE   PEERS 

bearing  on  the  1529  creations  of  its  recital  that 
the  late  Lord  Windsor  held  the  dignity  "  to  him 
and  his  heires"  thereby  making  it  a  barony  by 
writ.  But  still  greater  is  the  interest  of  this  effort 
on  the  part  of  the  grantee  to  hold  the  dignity, 
when  thus  "  disposed "  of  in  his  favour  to  him 
"  and  the  heires  males  of  his  body."  The  Crown's 
doubt  of  its  power  in  the  matter  is  very  signifi- 
cant ;  and  the  effort  was  completely  abandoned  at 
the  Restoration,  when  the  dignity  was  simply  con- 
firmed to  the  same  grantee  "  and  his  heirs." 

The  question  of  these  baronies  and  their  origin 
arose  next  in  the  Wentworth  case  i  April  1702, 
when  Martha,  wife  of  Sir  Henry  Johnson,  claimed, 
before  the  House  of  Lords,  to  be  Baroness  Went- 
worth.2 The  Minute  Book  containing  notes  of  the 
evidence  produced  on  this  occasion  was  discovered 
in  time  to  be  adduced  in  the  Braye  case,  22  March 
1836.  They  ran  thus  : 

They  produced  the  Heralds'  proofs.  Sir  Henry  St.  George  : 
He  says — This  Book  hath  been  in  my  office  ever  since  his  Time, 
and  looked  upon  to  be  very  good.3 

"This    Book"    was   clearly    H.    13,*   and   on   its 

1  Pike,  p.  134  ;  from  Signet  Office  Docquet  Book,  June  1660. 
Henry    VIII.   did,  indeed,    create  Sir  William  Paulett,   Kt.   of 
Basing,  who  was  similarly  a  co-heir  of  the  lords  St.  John  of  Basing, 
in  1539,  lord  St.  John  with  limitation  to  his  heirs  male,  but  this 
was  a  new  creation,  and  the  barony  was  ranked  accordingly. 

2  Lords'  Journals,  XVII.  91. 

3  Braye  case  :  Minutes  of  Evidence,  pp.  34-5. 

4  This  is  evident  from  "  Brief  of  case  of  the  Barony  of  Went- 
worth "    in    the    Heralds'    College.       (See    Mrs.    Cave's    Braye 
claim,  p.   7.) 

361 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

decidedly  flimsy  (till  corroborated)  evidence  the 
House  clearly  accepted  Wentworth  as  a  creation  of 

15*9- 

The  whole  question,  however,  was  investigated 

much  more  thoroughly  in  the  Braye  case  ;  but 
the  procedure,  on  that  occasion,  was  very  strange. 
H.  13  and  the  Wentworth  minute  book  of  evi- 
dence were  put  in  for  the  claimant,  but  "  the 
Counsel  were  informed  that  they  could  not  be 
used  as  Evidence."  Nevertheless,  although  the 
committee  had  no  other  evidence  before  it  to  prove 
that  Edmond  Bray  was  summoned  to  Parliament 
or  sat  in  it  before  25  Hen.  VIII.,  it  was 

Resolved  that  it  appears  to  this  committee  that  Edmund  Lord 
Braye  was  summoned  to  Parliament  and  sat  in  the  House  in  the 
Twenty  First  year  of  the  Reign  of  King  Henry  the  Eighth.1 

This  resolution,  it  will  be  found,  simply  accepts 
the  opening  words  of  Mrs.  Cave's  original  petition 


Sir  Edmond  Braye  of  Braye  in  the  County  of  Bedford  Kt. 
was  summoned  to  Parliament  as  a  Baron  of  the  Realm,  by  Writ, 
in  the  2ist  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Henry  the  Eighth,  anno 
1529,  and  sat  in  Parliament  in  pursuance  of  such  writ. 

This  was  an  assertion  based  on  nothing  but  H.  13, 
and  its  acceptance,  therefore,  as  valid,  was  an 
acceptance  of  that  MS.  as  equivalent  to  legal 
evidence. 

Nevertheless  the  Crown,  when  determining  the 
abeyance,  did  not  specify  the  year  of  the  reign  in 
which  the  barony  was  created.  Here  are  the 

1  Lords'  Journals,  1839,  p.  647. 
362 


HENRY   VIII.   AND    THE    PEERS 

letters  patent  from  the  London  Gazette  of  10  Sept. 
1839  (p.  i^o).1 

Whitehall,  Sept.  7,  1839. 

The  Queen  has  been  pleased  to  direct  Letters  Patent  to  be 
passed  under  the  Great  Seal,  declaring  Sarah  Otway  Cave  .  .  . 
Baroness  Braye,  she  being  one  of  the  co-heirs  of  John  the  last 
Lord  Braye,  and  as  such  one  of  the  co-heirs  of  the  Barony  of 
Braye  originating  by  writ  of  summons  granted  to  Sir  Edmund 
Bray  in  the  reign  of  King  Henry  the  Eighth  ;  and  that  she,  the 
said  Sarah  Otway  Cave,  shall  be  Baroness  Braye,  and  have,  hold, 
and  enjoy  the  said  Barony  of  Braye,  together  with  all  the  rights, 
titles,  privileges,  pre-eminences,  immunities  and  advantages,  and 
the  precedency  thereunto  belonging,  to  hold  to  her  and  the  heirs 
of  her  body,  in  as  full  and  ample  manner  as  John  the  last 
Lord  Braye  held  and  enjoyed  the  same. 

The  barony  was  ranked,  quite  properly,  after 
that  of  Wentworth,  as,  we  have  seen,  it  was  from 
its  earliest  days.  The  relative  precedence  of 
Windsor  was  not  then  in  question,  that  barony 
having  been,  since  1682,  merged  in  the  earldom  of 
Plymouth,  and  being,  moreover,  actually  in  abey- 
ance since  10  July  1833.  When  that  abeyance 
was  terminated  (1855),  the  Braye  precedent  ought 
to  have  been  strictly  followed,  the  evidence  for  the 
origin  of  the  two  dignities  being  absolutely  the 
same.  But,  instead  of  that,  it  will  be  seen,  the 
proof  of  sitting  in  25  Hen.  VIII.  was  now 
treated  as  the  earliest  evidence  for  the  existence  of 
the  dignity. 

1  The  precedent  here  followed,  as  to  date,  seems  to  have  been 
that  of  Vaux,  in  which  the  House  (following  the  committee) 
resolved,  2  March  1837,  "That  the  Barony  of  Vaux  of  Har- 
rowden  was  a  Barony  created  by  writ  in  the  reign  of  King  Henry 
the  Eighth  and  therefore  descendible  to  Heirs  General."  (The 
italics  are  mine.) 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Whitehall^  October  15,  1855. 

The  Queen  has  been  pleased  to  direct  letters  patent  to  be 
passed  under  the  Great  Seal  declaring  Harriet  Clive  (commonly 
called  Lady  Harriet  Clive),  Widow,  Baroness  Windsor,  she  being 
one  of  the  coheirs  of  Other  Archer,  last  Baron  Windsor  (sixth 
Earl  of  Plymouth),  deceased,  and  as  such  one  of  the  coheirs  of 
the  Barony  of  Windsor,  originating  by  writ  of  summons  to 
Parliament,  granted  to  Sir  Andrew  Windsor,  in  the  twenty-fifth 
year  of1  the  reign  of  King  Henry  the  Eighth,  and  that  she 
shall  be  Baroness  Windsor,  and  have,  hold,  and  enjoy 
the  said  Barony  of  Windsor,  together  with  all  the  rights,  titles, 
privileges,  pre-eminences,  immunities,  and  advantages,  and  with 
the  precedency  belonging,  to  hold  to  her  and  the  heirs  of  her  body 
in  as  full  and  ample  manner  as  Other  Archer  ...  or  any 
of  his  ancestors,  Barons  Windsor  held  and  enjoyed  the  same.2 

The  importance  of  this  action  by  the  Crown  is 
that  it  virtually  ignores  the  evidence  of  H.  13, 
although,  as  I  have  now  shown,  that  evidence  is 
strikingly  confirmed  by  what  has  elsewhere  been 
brought  to  light. 

But  in  abandoning  H.  13  as  evidence  for  the 
creation  of  the  dignity  in  1529,  the  Crown  has 
only  increased  the  confusion.  For  the  alleged 
writ  of  summons  granted  "  in  the  twenty-fifth 
year  "  is  wholly  imaginary  !  It  is  actually  found 
only  in  Dugdale's  deliberate  concoction.3  The 
result  of  the  whole  muddle  is  that  no  one  can  tell 
what  is  really  held  by  the  Committee  for  Privileges, 
the  House,  or  the  Crown.  What,  for  instance,  is 
the  origin  to  be  assigned  to  Vaux  of  Harrowden  ? 
It  is  historically  certain  that  its  creation  belongs  to 
1523  ;  but  there  is  no  legal  evidence  that  the  first 

1  The  italics  are  mine. 

2  London  Gazette^  16  Oct.  1855  (p.  3,797). 

3  See  p.  339  above. 

364 


HENRY   VIII.  AND   THE   PEERS 

peer  either  received  a  writ  of  summons  or  ever  sat 
in  the  House,  and  Mr.  Hartopp's  elaborate  claim 
seemed  to  treat  the  general  summons  in  1536  as 
the  origin  desired  (in  order  to  reject  a  creation  by 
patent).1  In  the  Windsor  case,  the  letters  patent 
(1855)  deduce,  we  have  seen,  the  issue  of  a  writ 
from  the  fact  of  a  proved  sitting  ;  in  the  Braye 
case,  and  apparently  in  that  of  Wentworth,  no 
legal  proof  for  either  writ  or  sitting  was  produced 
as  evidence  of  creation,  for  which  H.  13  seems  to 
have  been  deemed  sufficient  by  the  Committee  for 
Privileges  and  the  House. 

It  is  one  of  my  objects  in  this  paper  to  call 
attention  to  the  unsatisfactory,  because  unsystematic, 
practice  of  the  Committee  for  Privileges  and  the 
House  of  Lords.  In  the  Mowbray  case,  (1877), 
as  I  have  elsewhere  shown,2  the  modern  doctrine 
of  abeyance  was  carried  back  centuries  per  saltum. 
But  even  more  important,  though  apparently  over- 
looked, was  the  startling  acceptance  without  ques- 
tion of  writs  of  summons  to  the  "  parliaments  " 
of  1283,  1294,  and  1297.  For  the  validity  of 
the  writs  to  the  meeting  at  Shrewsbury  in  1283 
affects  of  itself  a  hundred  baronies,  and  the 

1  The  Lords,  we  have  seen,  evaded  the  difficulty  by  resolving 
that  the  barony  had  been  created  "  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII." 
The   Complete  Peerage  holds,  somewhat   strangely,  that  this  in- 
dicates "the  date   1529,   being  that  in  which   there  is  the  first 
notice  of  a  sitting  in  this  Barony"  (VIII.  18).     But  there  is  no 
such  notice  in  1529,  or  indeed  till  1534,  though  H.  13  places  the 
young  lord's  entry  into  the  House  in  Jan.  1531* 

2  "  The  Determination   of  the  Mowbray  Abeyance "    (Law 
Quarterly  Review,  X.  68-77)  an(*  in  tms  work  below. 

365 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Mowbray  decision,  as  I  have  observed,  thus  effects 
a  revolution  in  peerage  law.1 

The  position,  at  present,  of  the  Tudor  baronies 
specially  discussed  in  this  paper  is  somewhat 
analogous  to  that  which  has  been  caused  by  con- 
flicting decisions  on  Simon  de  Montfort's  Parlia- 
ment. De  Ros  and  Despencer  are  ranked  as  dating 
from  that  Parliament,  while  its  summons  has  not 
been  deemed  valid  in  the  case  of  other  baronies. 

It  is,  in  any  case,  quite  clear  that  the  present 
ranking  of  these  baronies — Wentworth,  Braye, 
Windsor — is  altogether  wrong.  In  the  Parlia- 
ment beginning  June  1536,  the  precedence  found 
both  in  the  enrolment  of  summonses  and  in  the 
Lords'  Journals  is  precisely  that  which  we  have 
found  in  H.  13  and  elsewhere:  (i)  Hussey,  (2) 
Vaulx,2  (3)  Windsor,  (4)  Wentworth,  (5)  Burgh, 
(6)  Braye,  (7)  Mordaunt.3  This  being  so,  Lord 
Windsor  is  certainly  entitled  to  claim  a  higher 
precedence  ;  and  the  closing  words  of  the  letters 
patent  of  15  Oct.  1855  undoubtedly  enable  him 
to  do  so. 

1  See  p.  10  above  ;  and  cf.  Stubbs'  Constitutional  History  (1875), 
II.  116,  131,  184,  223,  225. 

1  Vaux  is  not  one  of  the  baronies  in  question.  Its  ranking 
here  seems  anomalous  (see  p.  365  note  i).  In  H.  13  (fo.  398^)  it 
is  ranked  with  Sandys  above  Hussey  in  the  Parliament  of  1529— 
1536  ;  and  it  is  so  ranked  in  the  Lords'  Journals  where  they  re- 
commence in  Jan.  1534.  This  would  seem  to  be  the  right 
ranking. 

3  Journals,  12  June  1536  (28  Hen.  VIII.). 


366 


IX 

Charles    I.   and  Lord  Glamorgan 

PART    I 
GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

FOR  some  two  hundred  and  fifty  years — indeed, 
ever  since  their  creation  or  alleged  creation — the 
dukedom  of  Somerset  and  earldom  of  Glamorgan, 
bestowed  on  Lord  Herbert,  the  son  of  the  marquis 
of  Worcester,  have  been  surrounded  by  a  baffling 
haze  of  mystery  and  doubt.  But  while  the  duke- 
dom has  long  been  so  forgotten  that  it  is  not 
even  mentioned  by  modern  writers  on  the  Peerage, 
the  earldom  has  continued  to  vex  the  souls  not 
only  of  antiquaries,  but  of  historians.  For  on  the 
authenticity  of  these  dignities  and  of  the  documents 
affecting  them  there  hangs,  to  some  extent,  the 
solution  of  a  great  problem.  This  problem  is 
that  of  Glamorgan's  secret  treaty  (1645),  of  which 
his  biographer  observes  that — 

The  genuineness  of  the  commissions  and  of  the  patents  on 
the  authority  of  which  he  acted — a  question  involving  the  cha- 
racter of  Charles  I.,  has  since  been  one  of  the  most  intricate  and 
fiercely  debated  points  in  English  history.1 

1   Dictionary  of  National  Biography ',  LIII.  233.     It  may  be  as 

367 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

I  have  dealt  elsewhere  with  the  earldom  of 
Glamorgan,  and  shown  that,  save  in  two  documents 
which  I  reject  as  forged,  we  can  find  no  mention 
of  it  earlier  than  the  month  of  January,  i645«2 
A  bill  for  its  creation  reached  the  signet  office 
in  the  following  April,  but,  as  Mr.  Gardiner  ob- 
serves, "  nothing  further  was  done  in  it."  Lord 
Herbert,  however,  styled  himself  c  Glamorgan,' 
and  was  so  addressed  by  the  king  in  1645  an^ 
1646,  till  he  succeeded  to  his  father's  marquisate. 
It  was  my  suggestion  that  Charles  may  have 
purposely  kept  back  the  patent  in  order  that  the 
prospect  of  securing  it  might  serve  as  a  hold  on 
the  grantee  and  as  an  incitement  to  success. 

We  may  now  turn  from  the  earldom  of  Gla- 
morgan to  the  dukedom  of  "  Somerset  and  Beau- 
fort." The  peerage  writers  seem  to  have  generally 

well  to  give  the  references  for  the  previous  steps  in  the  discussion 
between  Mr.  Gardiner  and  myself.  In  "  The  True  Story  of  the 
Somerset  Patent  1644"  (Academy,  8  Dec.  1883),  I  showed 
how  strong  was  the  belief  after  the  Restoration  that  Glamorgan's 
patents  were  forged.  In  the  English  Historical  Review,  October 
1887,  Mr.  Gardiner  dismissed  my  criticisms,  and  in  "Charles  I. 
and  the  Earl  of  Glamorgan  "  (pp.  687-704)  upheld  the  validity 
of  all  the  documents.  In  the  Athenteum,  15  Jan.  1898,  I 
published  a  paper  on  "  Charles  I.  and  Lord  Glamorgan,"  urging 
that  the  latter's  letter  to  Clarendon  in  1660,  on  which  Mr. 
Gardiner  relied,  did  not  refer,  as  he  had  assumed,  to  events  in 
1644,  and  was  too  confused  in  its  statements  to  afford  reliable 
evidence.  To  this  Mr.  Gardiner  replied,  26  Feb.  1898,  frankly 
admitting  that  he  had  "  built  on  too  unstable  a  foundation  in 
regard  to  this  letter."  Lastly,  I  contributed  to  the  Genealogist 
for  April  1898  an  article  on  "The  Earldom  of  Glamorgan." 

1  E.  H.  R.,  II.  694,  note. 

2  Genealogist,  April  1898  (N.S.  XIV.  213-5). 

368 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

assumed1  that  the  patent  produced,  at  the  Restora- 
tion, by  the  marquis  of  Worcester,  as  granting 
him  a  dukedom  was  the  curious  quasi-patent  of 
April  i,  1644,  in  which  inter  alia  occurs  this 
relative  passage  : 

We  give  and  allow  you  henceforward  .  .  .  the  title  of 
Duke  of  Somerset  to  you  and  your  heirs  male  for  ever,  and  from 
henceforward  to  give  (sic)  the  Garter  to  your  arms,  and,  at  your 
pleasure,  to  put  on  the  George  and  blue  ribbon.2 

But  this  most  "  casual "  clause,  inserted  in  the 
middle  of  a  commission,  was  not  the  document 
upon  which  he  relied.3  Dugdale,  in  the  private 
letter  to  which  I  originally  drew  attention, 
writes  : 

The  Marquis  of  Worcester  did  exhibit  a  patent  under  the 
Great  Seal  pretended  to  be  granted  to  him  by  the  late  king  at 
Oxford  for  creating  [him]  Duke  of  Somerset  and  Beaufort ;  but 
this  being  in  truth  suspected  to  be  forged,  there  appearing  no 
vestige  of  it  at  the  signet  or  privy  seal,  nor  any  other  probable 
way,  and  my  Lord  of  Hartford  being  prepared  to  make  such 
objections  against  it  as  might  have  tended  much  to  the  dishonour 
of  my  Lord  of  Worcester  before  a  committee  of  Lords,  about  three 
days  since  the  Marquis  of  Worcester  was  pleased  to  tell  the 
Lords  that  he  must  confess  that  there  were  certain  private  con- 
siderations upon  which  that  patent  was  granted  to  him  by  the 
late  king,  which  he  performing  not  on  his  part,  he  would  not 
insist  thereon,  but  render  it  to  his  Majesty  to  cancel  if  he  so 
pleased.4 

1  This  idea  originated  with  Birch,  author  of  the  Inquiry  in 
the  middle  of  the  last  century.  2  See  Collins'  Peerage. 

3  It  was  supposed  to  be  so    by   Birch  (1756)  in  his   Inquiry 
(p.  23),  by  Sir  C.  Young,  and  by  Courthope,  etc.,  afterwards. 

4  Dugdale   to  John   Langley  25    Aug.   1660.      (Hist.   MSS. 
Commission,  5th  Report,  App.,  p.  178. 

369  B  B 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

From  the  phrase  "  duke  of  Somerset  and  Beau- 
fort" it  is  certain  that  the  patent  in  question  must 
have  been  that  which  contains  that  title,  and  which 
alone  contains  it.  This  patent,  of  which,  as  I 
have  said,  the  existence  is  ignored  by  the  peerage 
writers,  is  still  preserved  at  Badminton,  where  it 
was  examined  by  Mr.  Gardiner.  As  it  has  never, 
I  believe,  been  printed, — except  a  portion  of  the 
preamble  by  Dircks, — it  may  be  of  interest  to  give 
here  the  words  of  creation,  and  those  of  the  limi- 
tation which  Mr.  Madan,  of  the  Bodleian  Library, 
has  most  kindly  copied  for  me  from  the  Carte 
MSS.,  which  contain  a  transcript  of  it.1 

Passing  over,  for  the  present,  the  preamble,  we 
come  to  the  actual  creation. 

His  igitur  perspectis,  Sciatis  quod  nos  de  gratia  nostra  speciali 
ac  ex  certa  scientia  et  mero  motu  nostris  praefatum  Consan- 
guineum  nostrum  Edvardum  Comitem  Comitatus  nostri  Gla- 
morgan ad  statum,  gradum,  stilum,  dignitatem,  titulum,  et 
honorem  Ducis  de  Somerset  et  Beaufort  ereximus,  praeficimus 
(sic\  insignivimus,  constituimus  et  creavimus,  ipsumque  Edvardum 
Comitem  Comitatus  Glamorgan  Ducem  de  Somerset  et  Beaufort 
tenore  presentium  erigimus,  praeficimus,  insignimus,  constituimus 
et  creamus,  eidemque  Edvardo  nomen,  statum,  gradum,  stilum, 
dignitatem,  titulum,  et  honorem  Ducis  de  Somerset  et  Beaufort 
imposuimus,  dedimus  et  praebuimus,  et  per  praesentes  imponinimus 
(sic)  damus  et  praebemus,  ac  ipsum  Edvardum  hujusmodi  statu, 
gradu,  stilo,  titulo,-:dignitate,  nomine  et  honore  Ducis  de  Somerset 
et  Beaufort  per  gladii  cincturam  capae  honoris  et  circuli  aurei 
impositionem  insignimus,  investimus,  et  realiter  nobilitamus  per 
praesentes,  habendum  et  tenendum,  etc. 

The  limitation  is  as  follows  : 

1  Bodleian  MS.  Carte  129,  fo.  349  (Carte's  foliation  228). 
This  is  transcribed  by  Carte  from  Anstis'  copy. 

370 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   DUKEDOM 

praefato  Edvardo  et  haeredibus  suis  masculis  legitime  procreatis 
et  procreandis  in  perpetuum,  volentes  et  per  praesentes  concedentes 
pro  nobis  haeredibus  et  successoribus  nostris  quod  praedictus 
Evardus  (sic)  et  haeredes  sui  praedicti  praedictum  nomen,  statum, 
gradum,  stilum,  titulum,  dignitatem  et  honorem  Ducis  de  Somer- 
set et  Beaufort  successive  gerant  et  habeant  et  eorum  quilibet 
gerat  et  habeat. 

The  first  point  to  arrest  attention,  here,  is  the 
double  title  found  only  in  this  patent  and  in  Dug- 
dale's  letter  referring  to  it.  The  great  aim  of  the 
family — or  at  least  of  Glamorgan  himself — was  to 
revive  the  title  of  Somerset,  borne  by  the  Beau- 
forts,  from  whom  they  were  illegitimately  de- 
scended. The  double  title  (suspicious  in  itself) 
must  have  been  adopted  to  distinguish  this  duke- 
dom from  that  which  had  been  held  by  the  house 
of  Seymour, 

The  next  point  is  the  limitation,  of  which  the 
language  is  important  ;  for  Mr.  Gardiner  observes 
that  it  "  was  not  as  usual  to  the  heirs  of  Glamor- 
gan's body,  but  to  his  heirs  male,  implying  that  in 
case  of  his  own  sons  predeceasing  him  the  title 
was  to  go  to  his  father  or  his  brother."  If,  as 
Mr.  Gardiner  has  observed,  such  problems  as 
those  of  the  Glamorgan  documents  "  are  not  to  be 
solved  even  by  the  most  impartial  person  who 
approaches  the  subject  from  a  purely  antiquarian 
point  of  view,"  2  it  is  no  less  true  that  they  cannot 
be  solved  without  antiquarian  knowledge.  We 
here  find  him,  for  instance,  accepting  a  limitation 
to  "  heirs  male  "  as  equivalent  to  a  limitation  to 
heirs  male  collateral — in  spite  of  the  doubt  notori- 

1  E.  H.  £.,  II.  p.  693.        2  Ibid.  p.  687. 
37i 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

ously  surrounding  that  construction,1  and,  in  the 
second  place,  restricting  the  parties  to  whom  the 
dukedom  was  limited  to  the  grantee's  "  father  or 
his  brother,"  a  construction  which,  on  any  hypo- 
thesis, is  obviously  inadmissible.  But  this  is  not 
all.  It  will  have  been  observed  that  the  words  of 
the  patent  are  : 

haeredibus  suis  masculis  legltime  procreatis  et  procreandis  in  per- 
petuum. 

This  anomalous  formula,  which  here  replaces  the 
normal  "  de  corpore  suo  exeuntibus,"  must  be 
construed  (I  am  assured  by  a  well-known  peerage 
counsel)  as  a  limitation  to  the  heirs  male  of  the 
grantee's  body. 

From  this  limitation  I  now  pass  to  the  date  at 
which  the  dukedom  was  granted.  The  patent 
gives  this  as  "  quarto  die  Maij  anno  regni  nostri 
vicessimo  primo  "  (i.e.  4  May  1645).  Anstis  had 
pointed  out  that  the  word  "  primo "  had  been 
added,  and  Mr.  Gardiner,  accepting  this  as  indis- 
putable, held  that  Glamorgan  had  added  the  word 
"  to  gain  easier  credence  for  what  was  otherwise 
a  true  tale."  This  was,  he  urged,  "  the  full  ex- 
tent of  Glamorgan's  forgery."  2  And  this  conclu- 
sion he  applied  in  the  case  of  Glamorgan's  nego- 
tiations, urging  that  "just  as  in  1660  he  did  not 
scruple  to  add  primo  to  the  date  of  his  patent,"  so 
did  he  treat  his  powers  when  he  made  his  secret 
treaty.3  And  again,  in  a  later  proposal  of  his, 

1  See  Complete  Peerage^  III.  107-109. 

2  E.  H.  R.y  II.  689,  694-5.   '         3  Ibid.  p.  705. 

372 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

Mr.  Gardiner  sees  "  the  work  of  the  man  who 
subsequently  added  the  word  primo  to  a  patent."1 
But,  in  the  next  volume,  Mr.  Gardiner  withdrew 
his  conclusions,  and  suggested  that  Glamorgan  had 
forged  nothing,  but  that  when  a  warrant  for  a 
dukedom  of  Somerset  was  sent  to  his  father  the 
marquis  of  Worcester  (Jan.  1645),  tne  date  °f  tne 
son's  patent  was  formally  altered  by  the  Crown  to 
avoid  a  question  of  precedence.2  The  suggestion 
is  as  plausible  as  it  is  ingenious. 

Mr.  Gardiner  found  the  precedence  difficulty  in 
the  singularly  conflicting  evidence  on  the  grant  of 
this  dukedom.  For,  according  to  him,  we  have  : 

(1)  i    April    1644.     The  anomalous   grant   to 
"  Glamorgan"  of  "  the  title  of  Duke  of  Somer- 
set." 

(2)  4  May    1644.     The   patent   creating   him 
duke  of  Somerset  and  Beaufort. 

(3)  6  Jan.     1645.     The  warrant  for  a  signed 
bill  creating  his  father,  Worcester,  duke   of 
Somerset3  (enclosed  in  a  letter  of  10  Jan.  to 
Lord  Worcester  from  the  king). 

(4)  12  Feb.    1645.     A  letter  from  Charles  to 
Glamorgan  himself,  mentioning  that  he  sends 
him    "  a    warrant   for    the   title   of  Duke  of 
Somerset."  4 


1  E.  H.  R.y  II.  p.  707.  2  E.  H.  £.,  III.  125. 

3  Hist.  MSS.  1 2th  Report,  IX.  p.  14  ;  Dircks,  p.  104. 

4  Dircks,  p.  74.     "  And  yet,"  says  Mr.  Gardiner,  "  Glamor- 
gan subsequently  informed  Rinuccini  that  the  dukedom  was  to  be 
his  father's"  (E.  H.  R.,  II.  694). 

373 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

It  is  no  wonder  that  Mr.  Gardiner  finds  this 
last  letter  "  not  very  easy  to  understand."  But 
that  is  only  because  of  his  belief  in  the  earlier 
documents  as  genuine. 

The  difficulty,  it  will  be  seen,  is  that  (i)  Gla- 
morgan is  made  a  duke  by  patent  ;  then  (2)  his 
father,  Worcester,  is  sent  a  warrant  for  the  duke- 
dom ;  and  (3)  only  a  month  later,  Glamorgan  is 
sent  a  warrant  for  it  himself.  Now,  bearing  in 
mind  the  above  evidence,  as  given  in  Mr.  Gar- 
diner's article,  we  turn  to  his  History,  where  we 
read  : l 

The  informal  patent  conferring  a  dukedom  on  Glamorgan  was 
allowed  to  fall  asleep.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  his  father 
was  displeased  that  his  son  should  be  a  duke  whilst  he  himself 
remained  a  marquis,  and  though  the  steps  of  the  process  cannot 
be  distinctly  traced,  it  is  plain  that  the  intention  was  already 
formed  of  making  the  old  man  a  duke  instead  of  the  son.  In 
February  (sic)  a  warrant  to  that  effect  was  actually  sent  to  Wor- 
cester ;  but,  as  in  the  case  of  his  son's  earldom,  complete  secrecy 
was  both  enjoined  and  observed,  no  attempt  being  made  to  carry 
the  grant  beyond  the  initial  stage.2 

The  marginal  heading  to  this  passage  is  "  Feb- 
ruary 12.  Worcester  to  be  a  duke."  It  is  scarcely 
credible,  yet  a  fact,  that,  referring  to  his  own 
article,  Mr.  Gardiner  has  so  confused  its  evidence 
that  he  mistakes  the  warrant  sent  to  Glamorgan  on 
February  1 2  for  the  warrant  sent  to  Worcester  on 

1  History  of  the  Civil  War  (Ed.  1894),  II.  166-7. 

2  Mr.  Gardiner  adduces  no  proof  that  secrecy  was  either  en- 
joined or  observed   in   the  case  of  the   earldom  of  Glamorgan. 
Indeed  he  cites  "  a  catalogue  of  lords,"  published  in  1645  as  proof 
that  it  was  "  a  matter  of  public  notoriety  "  (E.  H.  R.,  II.  694). 

374 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

January  10  (more  than  a  month  before),  and  by 
leaving  out  the  former,  ignores  the  main  difficulty. 

Indeed,  he  seems  quite  to  have  forgotten  the  let- 
ter to  Glamorgan  of  Feb.  12  (1645),  w^h  i*8  fresh 
warrant  for  the  dukedom,  when  he  holds  that 
his  patent  of  4  May  1644  had  its  date  altered  to 
4  May  1645,  tnat  ^  might  not  take  precedence 
of  his  father's  warrant.1  For  this  implies  that  it 
was  still  valid  in  1645. 

Mr.  Gardiner's  theory,  therefore,  is  that  Gla- 
morgan could  not  make  use  of  his  patent  till  his 
father  was  dead,  and  that — as  this  did  not  happen 
till  Dec.  1646 — his  first  opportunity  of  doing  so 
came  at  the  Restoration.2  But  what  would  become 
of  this  theory  if  we  found  that,  long  before  the 
latter  date,  he  was  trying  to  obtain  the  coveted 
dukedom  ?  Now  among  the  MSS.  at  Badminton 
is  a  letter  to  him  (as  marquis  of  Worcester) 
from  Charles  II.,  so  early  as  Oct.  1649,  which  can 
only  be  a  reply  to  an  application  for  a  duke- 
dom : 

I  feare  that  in  this  conjuncture  of  tyme  it  will  not  be  season- 
able for  me  to  graunt,  nor  for  you  to  receyve  the  addition  of  honour 
you  desire,  neyther  can  I  at  this  tyme  send  the  order  you  mention 
concerning  the  garter,  but  be  confident  that  I  will  in  due  tyme 


1  E.  H.  R.,  III.  125  :— "If  Worcester  lived  to  produce  his 
warrant  and  to  have  the  patent  made  out,  his  son,  whose  patent 
was  now  dated  4  May  1645,  could  not  come  before  him  ; 
whereas,  if  Worcester  died  before  sending  his  warrant  to  the 
signet  office,  Glamorgan  could  show  his  own  patent,  and  it  would 
not  be  of  much  consequence  to  him  whether  it  was  dated  in  1644 
or  in  1645."  2  E.  H.  R.,  II.  693. 

375 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

give  you  such  satisfaction  in  these  particulars,  and  in  all  other 
things  that  you  can  reasonably  expect  from  me,  as  shall  lett  you 
see  with  how  much  trueth  and  kindness  I  am 

Your  affectionate  friend, 

CHARLES  R.1 

Here  we  have  the  two  things  on  which  the 
marquis  had  set  his  heart  :  (i)  the  dukedom  ; 
(2)  the  garter.  Fortunately,  it  does  not  matter 
whether  the  letter  is  genuine  (there  is  no  reason 
to  suspect  it),  for,  in  any  case,  it  alters  the  whole 
problem.  The  marquis  here  makes  (or  represents 
himself  as  making)  a  request  for  a  dukedom,  al- 
though, in  Mr.  Gardiner's  belief,  he  was  actually 
in  possession  of  a  genuine  patent  (to  say  nothing 
of  a  subsequent  warrant)  conferring  one  on  him. 
This  request  is  refused,  and  a  most  guarded  pro- 
spect of  future  reward  held  out.  What  we 
naturally  ask  is  whether  such  a  letter  is  consistent 
with  the  applicant's  possession  of  a  patent  from 
Charles  I.  granting  him  a  dukedom.  At  the 
Restoration,  he  produced  such  a  patent,  instead  of 
asking  the  king  to  grant  him  a  new  one,  as,  from 
this  evidence,  he  clearly  did  in  1649. 

The  king's  letter,  I  maintain,  is  an  answer  to  a 
new  application  ;  from  which  we  must  infer  that 
the  applicant  did  not  at  the  time  possess,  or  even 
believe  himself  to  possess,  a  patent  granting  him  a 
dukedom.  Baffled  in  this  attempt  to  obtain  such 
a  patent  from  Charles  II.,  he  must  have  fallen 
back  on  that  document  which  he  produced  at  the 

1  Charles  II.  to  the  Marquis  of  Worcester  (i2th  Report  on 
Historical  MSS.,  IX.  p.  47  ;  Dircks,  p.  190). 

376 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

Restoration  as  a  valid  patent  of  dukedom  from 
Charles  I. 

I  have  said  above  that  the  two  objects  on  which 
he  had  set  his  heart  were  a  dukedom  of  Somerset 
and  the  garter.  Throughout,  the  two  are  found 
together  ;  and  it  is  singular  that  the  story  of  the 
one  is  no  less  a  puzzle  than  the  story  of  the  other. 

How  does  the  matter  of  the  c  Garter  '  stand  ? 

(1)  i    April    1644.      In  the  preposterous  docu- 
ment  bearing   this  appropriate  date,  Charles 
empowers    Glamorgan    "  from    henceforward 
to  give  (!)  the  garter  to  your  arms,  and  at 
your  pleasure  to  put  on  the  George  and  blue 
ribbon." 

(2)  4  May   1644.     In  the  patent  of  dukedom 
assigned  by  Mr.  Gardiner  to  this  date,  Gla- 
morgan  is    formally   styled   "  Knight  of  the 
Garter." 

(3)  12    Feb.     1645.      Charles    writes    to    Gla- 
morgan saying  that  he  sends  him  "  the  Blue 
Ribbon  and  a  warrant  for  the  title  of  Duke 
of  Somerset,   both  which   accept   and    make 
use  of  at  your  discretion  "  (Glamorgan's  dis- 
cretion !). 

(4)  13-21    Oct.     1649.      Charles    II.    declines 
Glamorgan's  (Worcester's)  application  for  the 
Garter.1 

1  "  neyther  can  I  at  this  tyme  send  the  order  you  mention 
concerning  the  garter  "  (Hist.  MSS.  Report,  ut  supra^  p.  47).  It 
should  be  observed  that  Lord  Ormonde  had  been  given  the  Garter 
a  month  before  (18  Sept.),  which  may  account  for  Worcester's 
application. 

377 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Remembering  that  all  the  first  three  are  ac- 
cepted as  genuine  by  Mr.  Gardiner,  it  would  be 
interesting  to  learn  how  he  reconciles  their  evi- 
dence, and,  still  more,  how  he  reconciles  it  with 
that  of  the  fourth. 

We  have  now  discovered  the  suspicious  and 
contradictory  character  of  the  evidence  for  Gla- 
morgan's dukedom  and  for  his  '  Garter  '  as  well. 
Especially  should  it  be  observed  that  a  warrant 
is  sent  him  for  the  dignity  on  12  Feb.  1645, 
although  he  was  already  in  possession,  on  Mr. 
Gardiner's  hypothesis,  of  an  actual  patent  of  it. 

From  this  external  evidence  I  turn  to  the 
document  itself. 

So  strangely  careless  was  Mr.  Gardiner  here 
that  his  views  must  be  received  with  caution.  He 
first  tells  us  that  an  opinion  of  Anstis  "  decidedly 
unfriendly  to  the  dukedom  patent  follows  the  copy 
of  it  in  the  Carte  MSS.,"1  and  then  that — 

As  to  the  dukedom  patent  .  .  .  Anstis,  who  does  not  say 
there  was  any  fault  with  ity2  allows  that  Willis,  who  countersigned 
it,  was  the  proper  person  to  do  so.3 

I  am  compelled  to  give  further  evidence  of  Mr. 
Gardiner's  singular  inaccuracy,  or  carelessness,  in 
this  minute  and  full  enquiry.  While  thus  contra- 
dicting himself  over  the  dukedom  patent,  he  tells 
us  that  "a  hostile  opinion"  of  the  1644  (April  i) 
document,  "  which  is  not  now  to  be  found  at  Bad- 
minton, by  Anstis  garter  king  of  arms  in  the 

1  E.  H.  R.,  II.  p.  688.        2  The  italics  are  mine. 
3  Ibid.  p.  692. 

378  ' 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   DUKEDOM 

middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  is  embodied  in 
the  '  Case  of  the  Royal  Martyr  '  (p.  Hi)."1  Now, 
on  referring  to  the  work  cited,  we  find  Anstis 
quoted  as  follows  : 

As  they  [Anstis  and  Carte]  often  talked  together  of  the  Earl  of 
Glamorgan's  unaccountable  conduct,  so  Mr.  Anstis  as  often 
answered  him  (Carte)  "  that  all  the  pretended  Patents  of  that 
Nobleman  were  forged  ;  that  some  of  them  he  had  seen  and  con- 
sidered with  great  exactness  ;  that,  observing  the  Matrix  of  the 
Great  Seal  in  all  of  them  to  be  considerably  thicker  than  he  had 
ever  observed  before,  he  had  the  curiosity  to  examine  one  of  them, 
and  found  the  Great  Seal  to  be  formed  of  two  Great  Seals,  clapped 
together,  so  as  to  inclose  the  Label  fixed  to  the  Patent."  In  the 
year  1737,  October  3,  he  shewed  me,  says  Mr.  Carte,  two  of 
these  patents  which  he  had  been  curious  enough  to  copy.  One 
of  them  was  the  same  which  was  afterwards  published  by  Mr. 
Collins  in  1 74 12  .  .  .  The  other  ...  is  the  very 
same  which  Mr.  Anstis,  upon  the  nicest  Examination,  found  to  be 
an  arrant  forgery.  "  This,"  says  Mr.  Anstis,  "  is  a  copy  of  the 
very  Patent  which  I  examined  so  curiously,  and  found  the  Seal  to 
be  composed  of  two  Great  Seals,  clapped  together,  so  as  to  inclose 
the  Label"  (pp.  i4i~3).3 

Yet  Mr.  Gardiner,  actually  citing  (p.  692)  "  the 
Case  of  the  Royal  Martyr,  pp.  142,  143,"  from 
which  the  latter  part  of  the  above  passage  is  taken, 
tells  us  that  it  was  the  "  commission  patent "  of  i 
April  of  which  "  Carte  reports  from  Anstis  "  that 
"  it  is  composed  of  two  great  seals  clapped  together 
so  as  to  inclose  the  label."  l  It  was,  on  the  contrary, 
the  dukedom  patent  of  which  Anstis  so  reported 5 
(pp.  142-6). 

1  E.  H.  R.y  II.  688. 

*  This  is  the  document  of  April  I,  1644. 

J  This,  as  the  writer  goes  on  to  explain,  is  the  dukedom  patent. 

4  E.  H.  £.,  II.  692. 

5  It  will  be  found  that  Mr.  Gardiner  carried  his  confusion  so 

379 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

The  document  itself,  therefore,  was  as  unsatis- 
factory to  Anstis,  a  well-qualified  expert,  as  is  the 
external  evidence  concerning  its  grant. 

With  the  anomalous  and  blundered  limitation  in 
this  patent  I  have  already  dealt,1  so  that  we  have 
only  its  preamble  left.  Its  inflated  description  of 
the  grantee's  services  ought  to  be  compared  with 
his  own  description  of  them  in  the  wild  speech  he 
composed  for  delivery,  under  Charles  II.,  in  the 
House  of  Lords.2  For  our  present  purpose,  we 
need  only  consider  the  words  I  have  italicized 
below  : 3 

Whereas  our  right  trusty  and  well-beloved  cousin  Edward 
Somerset,  alias  Plantagenet,  Knight  of  the  most  noble  Order  of 
the  Garter,  Earl  of  our  county  of  Glamorgan,  son  and  heir 
apparent  of  our  right  trusty  and  well-beloved  cousin  Henry,  Earl 
and  Marquess  of  Worcester,  Baron  of  the  Honours  of  the  Castles 
of  Raglan,  Chepstow,  and  Gower,  a  man  eminent  for  the  noble- 
ness of  his  blood,  .  .  .  illustrious  by  a  long  train  of  noble 
ancestors,  and  by  the  high  nobility  transmitted  by  paternal  succes- 
sion— from  John  of  Gaunt  Duke  of  Lancaster,  and  his  son  John 
Plantagenet  Duke  of  Somerset,  from  the  place  of  his  nativity 
surnamed  Beaufort — and  by  other  connections  of  blood  with  the 
Royal  Houses  of  Lancaster  and  York,  etc.,  etc. 

With  what  courage  and  successful  conduct  did  he  take  Good- 
ridge  Castle,  the  Forest  of  Dean,  and  the  city  of  Hereford  ?  In 
short,  with  what  remarkable  good  fortune,  with  what  unhoped-for 
success  he  made  himself  master  of  the  strongly  fortified  town  of 
Monmouth  ?  And  not  content  with  the  confined  limits  of  one 

far  as  to  connect  this  report  of  Anstis  on  the  dukedom  patent  with 
a  passage  in  Worcester's  letter  to  Clarendon  referring  (he  held) 
"  to  the  commission  patent"  (Ibid.}.  l  p.  371  above. 

2  Hist.  MSS.  Report,  ut  supra,  pp.  56-63. 

3  In  the  text  they  run  : — "  et  unius  regni  finibus  non  contentus 
in  ultimas  trans   oceanum   oras   per   medios   hostes   et  naufragia 
tendit." 

380 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

kingdom,  go  to  the  most  distant  places  beyond  the  seas,  through  the 
midst  of  hostile  forces  and  the  dangers  of  shipwreck,  .  .  .  that 
he  might  raise  succours  for  the  support  of  the  tottering  crown  of 
his  King.1 

Really,  one  need  only  quote  Mr.  Gardiner's  un- 
conscious comment  : 

On  the  25th  [March  1645]  he  sailed  from  Carnarvon  on  this 
hopeful  enterprise.  A  storm  drove  him  northward,  and  on  the 
28th  he  was  wrecked  on  the  Lancashire  coast,  whence,  slipping 
past  the  Parliamentary  forces  in  the  neighbourhood,  he  made  his 
way  to  the  safe  refuge  of  Skipton  Castle. 

But  to  this  may  be  added  Digby's  words,  21  May 
1645,  in  a  letter  to  Ormond  : 

As  to  my  Lord  Herbert  he  made  a  dangerous  escape,  but  I 
hope  is  now  well  on  his  way  towards  you  from  Skipton  Castle.2 

How  perfect  a  confirmation  do  these  passages  afford 
of  the  statement  in  the  patent  that  the  earl  is 
striving  to  cross  the  seas  "  per  medios  hostes  et 
naufragia  " — if  that  patent  was  granted  in  the  spring 
of  1645.  But  Mr.  Gardiner  has  burnt  his  ships  ; 
"  to  the  later  investigator  "  he  writes,  "  to  myself 
even  more  than  to  Anstis,  1 645  is  an  impossible 
date."3 

The  patent,  therefore,  can  only,  he  holds,  have 
been  granted  in  1644 — nearly  a  year  before  the 
earl's  shipwreck,  to  which  it  so  magniloquently 
alludes  !  For  my  part  I  prefer  to  believe  that  the 

1  Dircks  (translation),  pp.  162-3.     ^  should  be  observed  that 
this  allusion  to  his  dangerous  journey  refers,  like  those  preceding 
it,  to  a  definite  achievement.     Glamorgan  himself  (as  Worcester) 
refers  to  the  incident  in  his  letter  to  the  duke  of  Albemarle,  29 
Dec.  1665  :  "besides  hazard  by  sea,  even  of  shipwreck." 

2  Carte's  Ormond,  III.,  No.  388.         3  E.  H.  R.,  II.  694. 

381 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

artist  by  whom  it  was  concocted  intended  to  assign 
it  to  May  1645,  ^ut  omitted  by  error  the  word 
primo,  which  was  inserted  at  a  subsequent  time,  to 
correct  his  error. 

It  has  been  shown  above  that  the  documents 
which  are  used  by  Mr.  Gardiner  himself  are  enough, 
when  placed  side  by  side,  to  make  the  grant  of  this 
dukedom  a  matter  of  inextricable  confusion.  He 
has,  unfortunately,  increased  that  confusion  by  mis- 
taking, as  we  saw,  one  of  them  for  another,  by 
misquoting  the  testimony  of  Anstis,  and  by  misun- 
derstanding the  patent.  When  he  writes  anew — 
as  he  doubtless  will — this  portion  of  his  history, 
he  will  examine,  I  trust,  the  preamble  in  the  light 
of  the  suggestion  I  have  made,  and  will  come,  I 
venture  to  think,  to  the  same  conclusion  as  myself. 

I  can  scarcely  suppose  that  any  one  who  has 
followed  the  evidence  with  care  will  henceforth 
accept  as  genuine  this  patent  of  dukedom.  Re- 
garded as  a  forgery  at  the  Restoration,  and  criticised, 
in  the  next  century,  by  such  an  expert  as  Anstis, 
it  is  further  discredited,  for  ourselves,  by  all  the 
external  evidence  now  available  to  the  student. 
Therefore,  with  even  greater  confidence  than  in 
1883,  I  can  now  repeat  Dugdale's  words  : 

The  Marquis  of  Worcester  did  exhibit  a  patent  under  the 
Great  Seal,  pretended  to  be  granted  to  him  by  the  late  King  at 
Oxford  for  creating  [him]  Duke  of  Somerset  and  Beaufort ;  but 
this  being  in  truth  suspected  to  be  forged,  there  appearing  no 
vestige  of  it  at  the  signet  or  privy  seal,  nor  any  other  probable 
way,  and  my  Lord  of  Hartford  being  prepared  to  make  such 
objections  against  it  as  might  have  tended  much  to  the  dishonour 
of  my  Lord  of  Worcester  before  a  committee  of  Lords,  about 

382 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

three  days  since  the  Marquis  of  Worcester  was  pleased  to  tell 
the  Lords  that  he  must  confess  that  there  were  certain  private 
considerations  upon  which  that  patent  was  granted  to  him  by 
the  late  King,  which  he  performing  not  on  his  part,  he  would 
not  insist  thereon,  but  render  it  to  His  Majesty  to  cancel  if  he 
so  pleased.1 

The  lameness  of  this  excuse  for  withdrawal  is 
obvious  from  the  fact  that,  if  valid,  it  ought  to 
have  precluded  the  claim  being  brought  forward 
at  all.  It  seems  to  have  been  only  remembered  by 
the  marquis  when  his  patent  was  denounced  as  a 
fraud. 

Let  us  now  return  to  Mr.  Gardiner's  case  : 

In  itself  the  question  of  the  irregularity  of  this  dukedom 
patent  would  only  indirectly  concern  an  inquirer  into  the  Gla- 
morgan treaty  ;  but  it  is  closely  connected  with  another  patent 
granting  to  Glamorgan  a  commission  conferring  on  him  very 
extraordinary  powers  to  command  an  army  in  chief,  and  em- 
bodying the  "  certain  private  considerations "  referred  to  by 
Dugdale,  and  paving  the  way  for  his  subsequent  employment 
in  Ireland.2 

The  close  connection  between  the  two  docu- 
ments (for  which  Mr.  Gardiner  accepts  the  dates 
of  i  April  and  4  May  1644)  is  indisputable. 
Anstis  believed  them  both  to  be  frauds,  and  this 
was  also,  we  shall  now  see,  the  belief  at  the 
Restoration. 

1  Dugdale  to  Langley,  25  Aug.  1660  (Hist.  MSS.  Commission, 
App.  to    Fifth   Report,   p.    178).     Mr.   Gardiner,   repeating  the 
above  quotation,  erroneously  treated   it  as  a  mere  expression  of 
Dugdale's  personal  opinion,  and  refused  to  follow  him  "  in  the 
inference  which  he  drew"  (E.  H.  £.,  II.  688).     It  will   be  seen 
that  Dugdale  is  speaking  of  the  current  belief. 

2  E.  H.  £.,  II.  688. 

383 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 
i 

As  touching  the  King's  declaration  upon  his  father's  grant  of 
the  title  of  Duchess  to  the  old  lady  you  mention,  with  place 
and  precedency  to  her  daughter,  this  is  the  account  which  I  can 
give  you  thereof,  viz.,  that  Sir  Edward  Walker  did  draw  a 
petition  for  this  now  Duchess  to  the  King,  and  being  assisted  by 
Secretary  Nicholas,  moved  His  Majesty  in  it,  but  could  not 
prevail  ;  for  he  told  me  in  private  that  the  King  had  no  great 
opinion  of  the  truth  of  the  pretended  grant  from  his  father,  which 
they  showed  under  the  Great  Sea/,  but  deemed  it  to  be  one  of  those 
counterfeits  which  the  now  Marquis  of  Worcester  is  shrewdly  suspected 
to  be  guilty  of  (there  being  one  for  himself,  which  creates  him  Duke 
of  Somerset  and  a  Knight  of  the  Garter,  nay,  which  gives  him  power 
to  create  any  degree  of  honour  under  an  Earl,  now  in  question  before 
the  Parliament  of  which  you  will  hear  more  perhaps  very  shortly). 
But  not  [withstanding  that  Sir  Edw.  Walker  and  the  secretary 

could  not  set  the  whole  agoing,  one  doctor  B (one  of  the 

King's  physicians),  and  one  Thomas  Killegrew  (an  old  courtier) 
as  I  am  credibly  [in  prfjvate  informed,  did  the  business,  not 

without  good   reward  you  may  be  sure.     Mr.  William told 

me  it  was  £500  ...  I  hope  you  will  keep  this  letter 
private,  for  it  [is]  not  fit  that  any  but  yourself  should  be  ac- 
quainted therewith,  nor  would  I  impart  so  much  to  [any]  one 
but  an  entire  friend  as  I  know  you  to  be.1 

I  explained  the  references  in  this  letter  to  the 
c  Duchess  Dudley  '  patent  on  a  previous  occasion,2 
so  need  only  mention  here,  in  further  illustration, 
that  Worcester,  two  days  before  writing  formally 
to  the  Lord  Chancellor  (Clarendon)  in  defence  of 
the  genuineness  of  his  "  commission,"  at  "  the 
amplitude  "  of  which,  he  admitted,  "  your  Lordship 
may  well  wonder,  and  the  king  too,"  wrote  to 
him  (9  June  1660)  ;  in  strict  privacy,  offering  him 
his  mansion,  Worcester  House,  rent  free,  so  long 
as  he  himself  lived,  if  he  would  be  his  "  friend." 

1  Dugdale  to  Langley,  30  Aug.  1660. 
3  Academy,  Dec.  8,  1883,  p.  383. 
3  Dircks,  pp.  235-7  (from  Clarendon). 
384 


LORD   GLAMORGAN'S   DUKEDOM 

As  to  the  really  preposterous  document — "  the 
commission  patent"  Mr.  Gardiner  terms  it — of 
i  April  1644,  one  could  hardly  treat  it  seriously, 
did  he  not  insist  on  doing  so.  What  it  was,  what 
it  professed  to  do,  and  why  it  was  given,  must  all 
be  mysteries  alike  to  any  student  of  documents. 

Was  it  a  patent  ?  Its  own  description  of  itselt 
is  as  follows  : 

And  for  your  greater  honour,  and  in  testimony  of  our  reality, 
we  have  with  our  own  hand  affixed  our  great  seal  of  England 
unto  these  our  commission  and  letters  making  them  patents. 

I  pass  over  the  absurd  phraseology  ;  I  pass  over 
the  pertinent  enquiry  how,  when  the  great  seal 
was  in  the  due  keeping  of  Lyttelton,  it  came  to 
be  in  Charles'  hands,  for  this  irregular  purpose  ; 
and  I  pass  straight  to  Mr.  Gardiner's  explana- 
tion : 

Not  only  was  the  English  of  the  commission  patent  very 
unofficial  in  its  character,  but  its  seal  was  everything  that  it 
ought  not  to  have  been.  As  Carte  reports  from  Anstis,  it  is 
composed  of  two  great  seals  clapped  together  so  as  to  inclose 
the  label 1  This  is,  however,  no  more  than  Glamorgan 

himself  acknowledged  with  respect  to  the  commission  patent. 

"  In  like  manner  "  (he  writes  to  Clarendon)  "  did  I  not  stick 
upon  having  this  commission  inrolled  or  assented  to  by  the 
king's  counsel,  nor  indeed  the  seal  to  be  put  unto  it  in  an 
ordinary  manner,  but  as  Mr.  Endymion  Porter  and  I  could 
perform  it,  with  rollers  and  no  screw-press."2 

But  how  could  Glamorgan  and  Endymion  Por- 
ter have  sealed  this  "  commission  patent,"  when, 

1  I  have  shown  above  (p.  379)  that  Mr.   Gardiner  here  con- 
fuses the  two  patents  discussed  by  Carte  and  Anstis. 

2  E.  H.  £.,  II.  692. 

385  cc 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

according  to  itself  \  the  king  "  with  our  own  hand 
affixed  our  great  seal  "  ?  Yet  even  this  is  not 
all.  Mr.  Gardiner  now,  admitting  the  force  of 
my  criticism  that,  in  his  letter  to  Clarendon, 
Glamorgan  was  not  describing  this  amazing  Com- 
mission,1 suggests  that  it  may  have  been  another 
which  was  thus  irregularly  sealed  : 

What  then  is  the  commission  which  was  irregularly  sealed 
by  Glamorgan  and  Porter  ?  Was  it  the  commission  mentioned 
some  time  before,  or  is  it  a  synonym  for  the  powers  given  to 
Glamorgan  to  treat  with  the  Pope  and  Catholic  princes  men- 
tioned much  more  recently  ?  If  the  latter  interpretation  is  right, 
then  we  need  not  be  troubled  by  the  mention  that  '  it '  con- 
ferred powers  to  create  a  mint.  The  first-mentioned  commission 
may  have  been  that  of  April  ist,  1644,  tne  second  commission 
that  for  treating  with  the  Pope  and  erecting  a  mint.2 

But  what  becomes  of  his  original  explanation, 
if  he  is  thus  ready  to  abandon  the  identity  of  the 
document  referred  to  in  the  letter  to  Clarendon  ? 

While    thus     oscillating     between    hypotheses, 
which,  as   he   himself  admits,  are   "  plausible  but 
.     no  more,"3   Mr.   Gardiner    proceeds    to 
suggest  "  the  following  sequence  of  events  "  : 

On  April  ist,  1644,  when  there  was  a  chance  of  getting  an 
Irish  army  from  the  Irish  agents  at  Oxford,  Charles  gives  Gla- 

1  Mr.  Gardiner  had  assumed  that  the  document  referred  to  in 
Worcester's  letter  to  Clarendon  was  what  he  terms  the  'com- 
mission  patent'  of  I  April  1644  ;  but  I  pointed  out  that  Wor- 
cester's letter  spoke  of  a  commission  giving  him  power  "  to  erect 
a  mint  anywhere  and   to  dispose   of     ...     delinquents'    es- 
tates," which  power  was  given  him  expressly  by  other  documents 
that  he  produced,  but  not  by  the  c  commission  patent '  (Athenaum^ 
15  Jan.  1898). 

2  Athen&um,  26  Feb.  1898,  p.  279.  3  Ibid. 

386 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   DUKEDOM 

morgan  a  wide  commission,  and,  either  then^  or  a  few  days  latery 
another  empowering  him  to  treat  with  the  Pope  and  other  princes  for 
money}- 

But  the  words  I  have  italicized  are  a  counsel  of 
despair  :  they  are  the  first  mention  that  has  ever 
been  made  of  such  a  commission  being  granted  in 
April  1644.  Indeed,  Mr.  Gardiner  himself  had 
written  that  he  felt  "  little  doubt  that  the  powers 
of  12  Jan."  1645  (nme  months  later)  were  those 
referred  to  in  the  letter  to  Clarendon  as  authoriz- 
ing "  financial  arrangements  with  the  pope  and 
catholic  princes."2  Can  he  have  forgotten  his  own 
words  ? 

The  point  is  of  such  importance  that  I  venture 
to  drive  it  home.  Alike  in  his  original  article  and 
in  his  History,  based  upon  it,  Mr.  Gardiner  had 
strongly  urged  that  Glamorgan  was  commissioned 
by  Charles,  in  the  year  1645  (i)  to  raise  troops 
abroad,  (2)  to  negotiate  with  the  Pope  and 
Catholic  princes  for  money  with  which  to  pay 
them.  This,  he  held,  was  the  right  explanation 
of  the  warrant  of  12  Jan.  1645.  Here  are  his 
own  words  : 

That     these    words    are          these  words     .     .     .are  more 

perilously    wide    is    beyond  appropriate  to  the  other   negotia- 

question  ;    but  is  there  any  tion  with  which  Glamorgan  was 

reason  to   believe  that  they  entrusted,  the  negotiation  with  the 

had  anything  to  do  with  the  Pope  and  the  Catholic  powers  for 

Irish  peace  ?     Not   only  do  money  to  pay    the  armies  which 

they  seem  much   more   ap-  were  to  be  brought  from  the  Con- 

propriate  to  the  negotiations  tinent    in    support    of  the    troops 

which      Glamorgan     would  from  Ireland. 

1  Athenaum,  26  Feb.  1898,  p.  279.      2  E.  H.  R.,  II.  697-8. 

387 


PEERAGE  STUDIES 


have  to  carry  on1  with  foreign 
powers  for  the  money  with 
which  the  foreign  levies  were 
to  be  paid  (E.  H.  R.y  II. 
697-8). 


'The  maintenance  of  this  army 
of  foreigners,'  wrote  Glamorgan 
in  explanation  many  years  after- 
wards, 'was  to  have  come  from 
the  Pope  and  such  Catholic  princes 
as  he  should  draw  into  it.  ... 
And  for  this  purpose  had  I  power 
to  treat  with  the  Pope  and  Catho- 
lic princes,'  etc.,  etc.  ...  In 
all  probability  the  powers  referred 
to  in  this  explanation  are  the  war- 
rants mentioned  by  Charles  (12 
Jan.  1645).  .  .  . 

This  interpretation  of  the  mean- 
ing of  Charles' warrant  of  the  1 2th 
is  the  more  probable  as  that  war- 
rant followed  closely  on  a  commis- 
sion granted  on  the  6th  under  the 
great  seal  ...  by  which 
Glamorgan  was  empowered  to 
levy  troops  not  only  in  Ireland 
but  on  the  Continent  as  well 
(History,  II.  167-8). 


Yet,  having  thus  emphatically  urged  that 
Charles  commissioned  Glamorgan  to  negotiate, 
in  1645,  for  men  and  money  on  the  Continent, 
Mr.  Gardiner,  hard  pressed,  argues,  in  the 
Atheruzum^  that  that  is  just  what  Charles  would 
not,  and  did  not  do  !  He  there  urges  : 

Another  point  in  my  favour  is  that  in  April,  1644,  the  arrange- 
ments for  foreign  succours  were  directly  in  the  hands  of  the  king, 
whereas  in  1645  they  were  in  the  hands  of  the  queen,  and  instead 
of  sending  Glamorgan  to  the  Pope,  she  then  employed  Sir  Kenelm 
Digby  ...  he  (Charles)  leaves  this  negotiation  to  the  queen 
in  the  first  months  of  1645,  leaving  Glamorgan  to  carry  out  his 


1  The  italics  are  mine. 
388 


LORD   GLAMORGAN'S   DUKEDOM 

instructions  in  Ireland,  and  to  take  military  command  of  Irish  and 
foreign  forces  invading  England.1 

The  sole  cause  of  all  this  trouble  is  Mr.  Gardi- 
ner's resolve  to  believe  in  the  document  of  i  April 
1644,  and  to  connect  it  with  the  statements  in 
Worcester's  letter  (n  June  1660),  of  which  he 
has  to  confess,  after  my  criticism,  that  — 

his  statement  appears  to  me  on  re-examination  to  be  too  confused 
to  build  with  certainty  upon  it.2 

No  doubt  his  history  would  be  gravely  affected, 
should  he  be  driven  from  both  positions. 

When  we  next  ask  what  it  is  that  this  ridicu- 
lous document  professes  to  do,  we  find  at  its  tail 
this  addition  : 

We  give  and  allow  you  henceforward  .  .  *  the  title  of 
Duke  of  Somerset  to  you  and  your  heirs  male  for  ever  ;  and  from 
henceforward  to  give  (sic)  the  Garter  to  your  arms  and  at  your 
pleasure  to  put  on  the  George  and  blue  ribbon. 

Is  this  a  creation  of  a  dukedom,  or  is  it  not  ?  If 
it  is,  why  was  it  necessary  to  create  it,  on  Mr. 
Gardiner's  hypothesis,  by  a  later  patent  (4  May 
1644),  de  novo?  If  it  was  not,  what  was  the 
use  of  it  ? 

And  the  Garter  ?     Mr.  Gardiner  writes  : 

On  2  Aug.  1644,  Charles  writes  to  Worcester  that  he  is  to 
have  the  first  vacant  garter  ;  the  garter,  it  will  be  remembered, 
having  before  been  promised  to  the  son.3 

But  the  Garter  is   not  "  promised  "  by  the  above 


^  26  Feb.  1898,  p.  279.     The  other  point  in  Mr. 
Gardiner's  favour  is  left  obscure. 

2  Atheneeuni)  as  above.          3  E.  H.  R.>  II.  p.  693. 

389 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

document  :  it  is  given,  and  "  from  henceforward." 
Indeed,  in  the  patent  of  dukedom,  which  Mr. 
Gardiner  accepts  as  genuine,  and  assigns  to  4  May 
1 644,  the  son  is  already  styled  "  Knight  of  the 
Garter." 

In  both  these  documents,  admittedly  "  closely 
connected,"  we  find  Lord  Herbert  styled  "  Earl 
of  Glamorgan,"  although,  as  I  have  shown,  he  has 
nowhere  else  been  found  so  described  before 
1 645.*  In  both  he  is  described  as  "Edward 
Somerset  alias  Plantaginet  "  as  he  again  describes 
himself  in  his  formal  ratification  to  the  nuncio, 
1 8  Feb.  1 645-6. 2  He  was  as  eager  to  be- 
come a  "  Plantagenet "  and  a  duke  as  was  his 
contemporary,  Lord  Denbigh,  to  become  a 
"  Hapsburg  "  and  a  German  count.8  They  both, 
at  about  the  same  time,  appear  to  have  been 
playing  the  same  game. 

"Your  son  Plantaginet"  is,  in  this  document, 
the  unintelligible  style  applied  to  the  grantee's 
boy.  Among  its  "  startling  concessions,"  as  Mr. 

1  I  attach  considerable  importance  to  this  point.  For  even  so 
late  as  27  Aug.  1644  the  alleged  earl  of  Glamorgan,  writing 
privately  to  his  father,  signs  himself  only  "Ed.  Herbert"  (see 
facsimile  of  his  signature  in  Dircks,  p.  77).  In  1645  he  uses 
the  title  openly.  Mr.  Gardiner  (History ,  II.  158)  asserts  that  in 
or  about  March  1644  Charles  "conferred  on  him  the  title  of 
Earl  of  Glamorgan  by  warrant,"  which  warrant  was  "  presented  at 
the  Signet  Office."  But  in  his  own  article  he  rightly  states  that 
the  "  signed  bill  "  was  only  "  received  at  the  signet  office  in  April 
1645,"  i.e.  a  year  later  (E.  H.  R.,  II.  694). 

*  Nuncio's  Memoirs,  fo.  1,087  (^V^i  P*  T77)* 
3   They  succeeded,   respectively,  to    their    fathers'  honours  in 
1646  and   1643,  so  were  virtually  contemporaries, 

39° 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

Gardiner  terms  them  (although  they  do  not  shake 
his  faith),  is  the  "promise  of  our  dear  daughter 
Elizabeth"  as  a  wife  for  this  boy  with  £300,000 
in  dower.  This,  Mr.  Gardiner  does  admit,  is 
"  very  startling  indeed  "  ;  yet  he  deems  the  state- 
ment corroborated  by  a  letter  from  the  king  to 
Worcester,  in  which  occurs  the  passage  : 

As  by  a  matche  propounded  for  your  grandchilde  you  will 
easily  judge.  The  particulars  I  leave  to  your  son  Glamorgan 
his  relation. 

But  it  turns  out  that  this  letter  was  written  on 
Jan.  10,  1645  (a  likely  time),  that  is,  more 
than  nine  months  after  the  date  of  the  alleged 
patent  assuring  (not  propounding)  that  "  matche  " 
under  the  Great  Seal. 

As  to  the  instructions  of  2  Jan.  1645,  which 
Mr.  Gardiner  deems  so  "  singularly  confirmatory 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  commission  of  i  April 
1 644,"1  from  their  containing  certain  similar  clauses, 
I  should,  on  the  contrary,  draw  the  inference  that 
Glamorgan  "  faked "  the  earlier  document  out  of 
some  genuine  instructions  etc.  of  1645,*  adding  to 
their  language  what  he  wished  to  add,  and,  in 
short,  "  flavouring  to  taste." 

And  this  (to  anticipate),  in  my  belief,  was  also 


1  E.  H.  R.,  II.  697. 

2  Even  these  instructions,  unfortunately,  are  known  to  us  only 
from  Dircks  (pp.  72-4),  being  unmentioned  in  the  Report  to  the 
Historical  MSS.  Commission.     Mr.  Gardiner  accepts  them  with- 
out question,  but  we  do  not  know  the  nature  of  the  document  or 
even  whether  it  exists. 

391 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

how  he  produced  the  warrant  alleged  to  have 
been  granted  on  12  March  1645.* 

To  the  historical  side  of  the  "  commission 
patent "  I  have  scarcely  the  space  to  do  justice. 
As  for  the  grantee's  military  achievements,  he  had, 
early  in  1643,  received  a  local  command  in  South 
Wales,  where  he  had  raised  a  little  "  mushroom 
army/'  as  Clarendon  terms  it,  which  was  routed  at 
the  first  blow.  His  "judgement,"  moreover,  we 
shall  find,  was  frankly  distrusted  by  Charles.  Yet 
we  here  find  him  suddenly  appointed  "  General- 
issimo of  three  armies,  English,  Irish,  and  for- 
eign, and  Admiral  of  a  fleet  at  sea  "  ;  he  is  even 
to  exercise  his  own  judgment  whether  he  will 
obey  the  king's  orders.2  To  all  this  farrago  of 
nonsense  the  answer  is  plain  and  brief.  Mr. 
Gardiner  has  failed  to  produce  one  scrap  of  evi- 
dence that  there  was  the  slightest  intention  of 
employing  "  Glamorgan "  in  any  such  capacity 
in  the  spring  of  1644. 

When,  at  the  close  of  the  year,  the  king  de- 
cided to  employ  him,  it  was,  admittedly,  as  a 
negotiator,  to  act  as  intermediary  between  Or- 
mond  and  the  Catholics.3  And  when  Ormond, 
in  the  following  spring,  "  was  quite  ready  to  take 
up  the  negotiation  on  Charles'  terms,  there  was 

1  I  mean,  of  course,  that  he  adapted   the  language,  not  the 
document  itself. 

2  "  And  lest  through  distance  of  time  or  place  we  may  be  mis- 
informed, we  will  and  command  you  to  reply  to  us,  if  any  of 
our  orders  should  thwart  or  hinder  any  of  your  designs  for  our 
service."  3  E.  H.  R.y  II.  695-6. 

392 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

no  immediate  necessity  for  Glamorgan's  presence 
in  Dublin."1  It  would,  then,  have  been  equally 
unnecessary,  had  the  treaty  been  carried  through, 
at  Oxford,  a  year  before. 

I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  Glamorgan's 
references  to  the  "  army  of  foreigners  "  and  its 
payment  by  the  Pope  and  Catholic  princes,  in 
his  letter  to  Clarendon  (n  June  1660),  apply  to 
the  royal  schemes  in  the  winter  of  1644-5,  as 
indeed  Mr.  Gardiner  himself  held,2  and  cannot 
possibly  be  forced  into  confirmation  of  the  "  com- 
mission patent  "  as  part  of  "  a  plan  for  raising  half 
Europe  to  take  arms  on  behalf  of  Charles  and  the 
Catholic  cause,"3  in  April  1644. 

As  Mr.  Gardiner  has,  here,  now  shifted  his 
ground,  I  will  briefly  contrast  the  schemes  on  foot 
in  the  spring  of  1644  and  in  January  1645.  It  is 
rightly  observed  in  his  History  that,  only  after  the 
Irish  treaty  had  broken  down  at  Oxford  (1644), 
did  Charles  turn  to  the  Continent  for  help.  It  was 
not  till  May  30  that  he  requested  the  prince  of 
Orange  to  find  transport  for  troops  whom  he  hoped 
(but,  as  yet,  merely  hoped)  to  obtain  from  France.4 
The  foreign  army  was  intended  to  be  a  substitute 
for  the  army  hoped  for  from  Ireland,  not  part  of 
the  same  scheme.  But,  in  1645,  t^ie  Irish 


1  E.  H.  £.,  II.    700.  2  See  p.  387  above. 

3  History,  II.    158-160,  and  Athentsum,  15  Jan.  1898,  p.  86. 

4  Groen  van  Prinsterer,  2nd  Ser.,  IV.    IOO,  103  ;  History,  I. 
348  :    "Mazarin,    it   is  true,   had  hitherto  made  no  promise  to 
allow  Charles  the  benefit  of  this  little  army  (4,000  French  foot 
and  2,000  French  horse)." 

393 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

the  foreign  armies  were  both  hoped  for.1  And  the 
foreign  army  was  to  be  partly  composed  of  a  con- 
tingent from  the  Low  Countries. 

This  latter  occasion  (1645),  therefore,  must  be 
that  to  which  Glamorgan  (Worcester)  alludes  in 
his  letter  to  Clarendon.  He  there  says  that  there 
was  to  be  an  Irish  and  a  foreign  army,  the  latter 
comprising  "  2,000  men,"  drawn  out  of  Flanders 
and  Holland.2  And  yet  Mr.  Gardiner,  quoting 
this  letter  and  both  the  requests  to  the  prince  of 
Orange,  would  persuade  us  of  the  very  opposite.3 

It  is  a  striking  coincidence  that  the  instructions 
(as  above)  of  2/12  Jan.  1645  were  issued  on  the 
very  same  day  as  those  to  Glamorgan  himself. 
Mr.  Gardiner  dates  them  correctly  in  his  History, 
but  now  strangely  speaks  of  them  as  "  given  to 
Goffe  in  February  or  the  end  of  January,  1645  "4 

1  Ibid.  pp.  123,  126.  Also  History  (Ed.  1893),  II.  171, 
where  we  read  that  the  queen  "  on  January  2  instructed  Dr. 
Goffe,  her  agent  at  the  Hague,  to  urge  the  Prince  of  Orange  .  .  . 
to  lend  3,000  soldiers  for  service  in  England  and  to  supply  vessels 
in  sufficient  numbers,  not  only  to  transport  this  contingent,  but 
also  to  convoy  across  the  sea  such  forces  as  might  be  obtained 
from  France  or  Ireland." 

1  The  actual  number,  we  see,  was  3,000. 

3  Athenceum^  26  Feb.  1898,  p.  279. 

4  Atherusum^  26  Feb.  1898,  p.  279.     The  same  strange  loose- 
ness of  statement,  where  dates  are  concerned,   is   seen   in   Mr. 
Gardiner's  contention  that  Glamorgan,  in  his  letter  to  Clarendon, 
"could  not  possibly  refer  to  a  commission  granted  in  1645,  be- 
cause, as   everybody  then  knew,  Sir   Henry  Gage  was  killed  in 
January,  1644/5  "  (E.  H.  £.,  II.  690).     I  pointed  out  (Atken&um, 
15  Jan.    1898)  that  "so  far  from  being  dead,  Gage  was  at  the 
height  of  his  reputation"  in  the  first  week  of  January,  1645,  the 
date  required  (see  p.  397). 

394 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    DUKEDOM 

— an  absolutely  impossible  date  ;  for  Goffe  had 
actually  arrived  in  Holland  and  communicated  his 
instructions  in  January.1  Indeed  Mr.  Gardiner 
himself,  in  his  History  (II.  172)  holds  that  these 
instructions  were  superseded  so  early  as  1 7  January 
in  consequence  of  the  duke  of  Lorraine's  promises 
reaching  the  queen.2 

Mr.  Gardiner,  in  fact,  has  found  himself  driven 
from  conjecture  to  conjecture,  and  plunged,  as  I 
have  shown  above,  into  even  greater  confusion, 
solely  because  of  his  resolve  to  uphold,  at  all  costs, 
the  impossible  document  of  i  April  1644.  This 
document  and  the  dukedom  patent  with  which,  as 
he  rightly  says,  it  was  so  closely  connected,  must 
be  frankly  and  absolutely  recognised  by  him  as 
forgeries  before  he  can  extricate  himself  from  the 
bog  into  which  they  have  plunged  him.  And  with 
them  there  will  go  by  the  board  all  that  he  has 
written  on  the  great  scheme,  based  upon  their  evi- 
dence, for  1 644.  Nor  can  he  stop  even  here.  For, 
as  he  himself  wrote  (1887)  : 

It  is  necessary  to  come  to  some  understanding  on  the  history 
of  both  these  patents  before  proceeding  to  that  of  the  later  docu- 
ments which  Glamorgan  produced  in  Ireland.  As  Mr.  Round 
says,  if  both  or  either  of  these  were  forged  in  i66o,3  there  is  an 
end  of  Glamorgan's  credit,  and  the  warrants  which  he  produced 
to  justify  his  conduct  in  Ireland  must  be  regarded  with  grave 
suspicion.4 

1  Zuylichem  to  Jermyn,  6  Feb.  1645  (N.S.)  ;  Groen  van 
Prinsterer,  and  Ser.,  vol.  IV.  p.  127.  2  Ibid.  p.  125. 

3  I  am  not  responsible  for  this  date. 

4  E.H.R.,  II.  688. 

395 


PART  II 
GLAMORGAN'S  TREATY 

To  the  historian,  Glamorgan's  dukedom  and  the 
documents  connected  with  it  are  of  interest  only 
for  their  bearing  on  "  the  main  question  at  issue," 
as  Mr.  Gardiner  terms  it,  "  Glamorgan's  actual 
mission  to  Ireland  in  1645."  To  quote  his  own 
summary  of  the  case  : 

It  is  well  known  that  in  the  course  of  that  year  he  signed  a 
peace  with  the  Irish,  the  particulars  of  which  he  did  not  com- 
municate to  the  Lord  Lieutenant,  and  that  he  produced  to  them 
certain  documents  signed  by  Charles  which,  as  he  contended, 
authorized  him  to  enter  upon  a  secret  negotiation.1 

It  will  be  desirable  totcommence  by  setting  forth 
in  order  the  letters,  instructions,  and  powers  pro- 
ceeding from  the  king,  when  he  had  resolved  on 
despatching  Glamorgan  to  Ireland.  Their  dates 
are  of  importance,  and  still  more  so  are  the  authori- 
ties upon  which  the  documents  rest.  For  these 
latter  differ  widely  in  character. 

(i) 

(i)  27  Dec.  1644.  Letter  from  Charles  to 
Ormond  announcing  that  Glamorgan  ("  Lord 
Herbert ")  was  coming.2 

1  English    Historical   Review,   p.    695   (pp.    695-708   of  Mr. 
Gardiner's  article  relate  to  the  Irish  negotiations). 
8  Letter  in  Carte's  Ormond. 

396 


LORD   GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

(2)  2  Jan.    1645.     Instructions  to  Glamorgan, 
giving  him  powers.1 

(3)  5  Jan.    1645.     Warrant    granting  to   Gla- 
morgan (as  Lord  Herbert)  lands  to  the  value 

Of  £  40,OOO.2 

(4)  6  Jan.  1645.     Warrant  for  preparing  signed 
bill  creating  the  marquis   of  Worcester  duke 
of  Somerset.8 

(5)  6  Jan.    1645.     Commission   to   Glamorgan 
to  levy  troops  "  vel  in  nostro  Ibernias  regno, 
aut  aliis  quibusvis  partibus  transmarinis."  4 

(6)  10   Jan.    1645.      Letter    from    Charles    to 
Worcester,  referring  gratefully  to  his  "  sonnes 
endeavours." 5 

(7)  12  Jan.  1645.    Wide  powers  to  Glamorgan6 
(for  his  Continental  schemes,  according  to  Mr. 
Gardiner) . 

This  group  of  2-12  January  stands  by  itself.  It 
is  here  collected,  I  believe,  for  the  first  time  ; 
but  even  now  it  may  not  be  complete.  The 
earldom  of  Glamorgan,  for  which  the  signed  bill 

1  Dircks,  p.  73  (nature  of  the  document  itself  not  stated). 

2  Signet  Office  Docquet  Book  (March  1663-4),  fo.  293. 

3  Now  in  possession  of  the  duke  of  Beaufort  (Historical  MSS. 
Report,  XII.  9,  p.  14  ;  Dircks,  p.  104). 

4  Only  known  from  the  Nuncio's  Memoirs  (Lord  Leicester's 
MS,fo.  713). 

»  Report  ut  supra  (from  duke  of  Beaufort's  MSS.),  p.  14  ; 
Dircks,  p.  103  (undated). 

6  "  Dircks,  p.  79,"  is  the  authority  cited  by  Mr.  Gardiner  ;  but 
Dircks  merely  copied  the  text  from  "  Birch  and  others  "  !  Birch 
(Inquiry,  p.  48)  cites  for  it  "Nuncio's  memoirs,  fo.  715,  and 
Carte,  vol.  I.  p.  554." 

397 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

reached  the  signet  office  so  mysteriously  in  the 
following  April,  was,  according  to  my  own  sug- 
gestion,1 probably  granted  (though  not  certified)  at 
this  very  time.  , 

We  have  next  a  further  group  of  documents,  of 
which  the  existence  is  only  known  to  us  from  sub- 
sequent allusion  : 


(1)  "A   commission   to  coin  money  anywhere 
in    the  king's    dominions,2   and    to    impower 
others  to  do  the  same  ;  to  name  one  Secretary 
of  State,  a  Treasurer,  either  the  Attorney  or 
Solicitor-General,  and  two  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil in  England  ;  3  and  to  make  concessions  in 
point  of  religion  in  Ireland,  by  way  of  sup- 
plement to  the  Lord  Lieutenant's  authority." 

(2)  "  Among    other    patents    and    commissions 
signed  by  the  King  and  brought  by  the  Earl 
of  Glamorgan    from  England,   there    is   one 
appointing  him   Lord   Lieutenant  of  Ireland 
upon  the  expiration  of  the   Marquis  of  Or- 
monde's term  of  holding  that  post,  or  in  case 
the  Marquis  should,  by  any  fault,  deserve  to 
be  removed  from  it."4 

1   Genealogist,  April  1898. 

1  This  is  referred  to  by  Glamorgan  (then  Worcester)  in  his 
letter  of  1  1  June  1660,  as  part  of  his  Commission  —  the  Com- 
mission, as  Mr.  Gardiner  imagined  (until  the  appearance  of  my 
criticism  in  the  Athen&um)  of  I  April  1644  —  in  which  Commission, 
however,  no  such  power  is  found. 

3  It  would  be  interesting  to  learn  if  Mr.  Gardiner  believes  even 
this  to  be  genuine. 

4  Nuncio  to  Pamphili   21   Sept.  1646,  in  Nuncio's  Memoirs, 

398 


LORD   GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  first  of  these 
(which  may,  from  the  text,  be  one  or  more)  is 
known  to  us  only  from  "  a  paper  in  Italian,"  pre- 
sented by  Glamorgan  to  the  Nuncio,  and  headed  : 

Patents  and  Commissions  granted  to  me  by  the  King  my 
Master,  with  which  I  desire  to  serve  the  Catholic  religion,  the 
Apostolic  see,"  etc.,  etc.1 

He  had  already  communicated  to  the  Nuncio  the 
famous  warrant  of  1 2  March  and  the  king's  letter 
of  30  April,  which,  we  shall  find,  he  treated  as  his 
powers.2  The  above  "  paper  "  was  only  intended 
to  display  to  the  Nuncio  his  influence  with  the 
king.3 

To  the  above  second  group  we  cannot  assign  a 
date. 

It  will  be  best  to  treat  as  a  third  group  these  two 
letters  from  Charles  to  Glamorgan  : 


fo.  1,376  (Inquiry ',  pp.  253—4).  This  is  fully  accepted  by  Mr. 
Gardiner  in  his  History ,  where  he  adds  the  gloss  that  the  fault 
meant  "  in  the  event  of  his  persisting  in  his  refusal  to  carry  on 
the  negotiation  on  the  lines  indicated  by  his  last  instructions  " 
(II.  165).  Writing  to  Ormond,  29  Sept.  1646,  when  this  pre- 
tension had  leaked  out,  Glamorgan  evasively  claimed  only  "  a 
promise  from  the  king  "  to  that  effect.  Digby,  who  was  in  the 
confidence  of  the  king,  queen,  and  prince,  wrote  that  "  the  fool " 
had  certainly  "  forged  new  powers  from  his  Majesty  to  take  upon 
him  the  command  at  least  of  Munster,  if  not  of  Ireland  "  (Digby 
to  Ormond,  18  Oct.  1646). 

1  Nuncio's  Memoirs,  fo.  1,004  (Inquiry,  p.  79). 

2  Ibid.  fos.  998-1,002  (Inquiry,  p.  77). 

3  According  to  Birch,  it  "  particularly  mentions  the  patent  of 
I   April   1644"  (impugned   by  me)   but  not  (unless  the  Inquiry 
omits  it)  the  Lord  Lieutenancy. 

399 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

(III) 

(1)  12  Feb.  1645.     Letter  to  Glamorgan  from 
Oxford,  urging  him  to  hasten  his  departure, 
and    sending   him    "  the   blue    ribbon  and   a 
warrant  for  the  title  of  duke  of  Somerset." l 

(2)  12    March    1645.      Letter    to    Glamorgan 
from  Oxford,  expressing  surprise  that  he  has 
not  started.2 

Last  of  all  is  a  fourth  group,  containing  the 
special  powers  to  which  Glamorgan  referred  the 
Nuncio  as  his  authority  for  the  Irish  Catholics  : 

(IV) 

(1)  12     March      1645.        Warrant     pledging 
Charles  to  ratify  and  perform  "  whatsoever  " 
Glamorgan  should  promise  them. 

(2)  30    April    1645.       Letter    to    the    Nuncio 
pledging   Charles  "  a  perfectioner   ce   que   a 
quoy    il    [Glamorgan]     s'obligera    en    nostre 


nom."  3 


The  question  we  have  now  to  consider  is  :  what 
were  the  powers  really  granted  by  Charles  to 
Glamorgan,  either  in  written  documents  or,  secretly, 
by  word  of  mouth  ? 

1  Dircks,  p.  74. 

3  Dircks,  p.  75.  Both  these  letters  (with  others  printed  by 
Dircks)  are  strangely  omitted  in  the  Report  to  the  Historical 
MSS.  Commission,  as  if  they  were  no  longer  to  be  found  at 
Badminton. 

3  The  authority  for  these  two  documents,  which  are  of  the 
utmost  importance  in  the  matter,  will  be  fully  discussed  below. 

400 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

The  issue  in  this  famous  controversy  was,  at 
first,  crude  enough.  Did  Glamorgan  forge  all  the 
documents  he  produced,  or  were  they  all  genuine  ? 
Did  Charles  I.  intend  to  make  concessions  to  the 
Catholics,  or  did  he  not  ?  Such  were  the  questions 
that  men  asked,  and  undertook  to  answer.  But 
the  historian  of  to-day  replies  Distinguo.  If 
Glamorgan  forged  one  or  more  of  his  documents, 
the  rest  may  yet  be  genuine  :  Charles,  again,  may 
never  have  intended  to  offer  what  Glamorgan 
promised,  and  yet  he  may  have  intended  to  make 
certain  concessions. 

It  is  here  that  Mr.  Gardiner  has  rendered  an 
inestimable  service  to  the  student  by  narrowing  the 
controversy  to  certain  points  and  clearing  the 
ground  of  others.  On  the  one  hand,  he  has 
shown  that,  of  all  the  warrants  and  commissions 
granted  to  Glamorgan,  only  that  of  12  March 
1645  was  really  cited  by  him  as  the  power  for 
his  famous  treaty  ;  on  the  other,  he  has  shown 
(conclusively,  I  think)  that  "  the  two  concessions  " 
which  Ormond  refused,  and  which  Glamorgan 
granted  in  his  Treaty1  (25  August  1645)  were 
concessions  which  Charles  cannot  possibly  have 
authorized  him  verbally  to  make,  since  the  king 
had  strenuously  objected  to  them  throughout.2 

Mr.  Gardiner  himself  put  forward  an  avowedly 
novel  explanation  of  the  whole  difficulty  : 

1  Mr.  Gardiner  describes  them  as  "(i)  the  surrender  to  the 
catholics  of  the  churches  in  their  possession,  and  (2)  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  protestant  clergy  over  the 
catholics."  2  E.  H.  R.y  II.  pp.  699-700,  702,  703-4,  707-8. 

401  D  D 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

On  one  side  it  has  been  held  that  these  documents  were  forged 
by  Glamorgan,  but  the  prevailing  opinion  has  been  that  Charles 
really  authorized  him  to  make  the  secret  treaty,  and  mendaciously 
disavowed  him  when  the  truth  lurked  1  out.  I  now  propose  to 
show  that  neither  of  these  views  is  correct,  and  that  all  the 
evidence  consistently  points  to  an  explanation  of  a  different 
character  from  either.2 

That  explanation  is  that  Charles 

merely  meant  him  to  assist  the  lord  lieutenant,  and  to  use  his  own 
zeal  and  opportunities  as  a  catholic  with  the  confederates  whilst 
he  was  guided  by  Ormond's  judgment.3 

The  earl,  in  fact,  was  merely  to  be  a  go-between  ; 
"  Ormond  might,  as  he  desired  [to  do],  keep  in 
the  background  and  guide  Glamorgan  with  that 
judgment  in  which  Charles  acknowledged  his  new 
emissary  to  be  deficient."  4 

Of  this  explanation  I  will  only  say  that,  to  me 
as  to  Mr.  Gardiner,  all  the  evidence  seems  to  point 
in  that  direction.  But  I  think  that  Mr.  Gardiner 
might  have  made  his  case  at  once  clearer  and 
stronger.  To  understand  clearly  the  part  Glamorgan 
was  intended  to  play,  we  must  remember  that,  in 
all  this  business,  the  difficulty  was  to  persuade  the 
Catholics  that  concessions  which  Ormond  was 
only  privately  empowered  to  grant  would  be 
subsequently  ratified  by  the  king.  Therefore, 
apart  from  Ormond's  reluctance  to  mix  himself  up 
in  the  matter  at  all  (the  point  on  which  Mr. 
Gardiner  dwells),  we  have  the  Catholics'  anxiety 
to  make  sure  of  the  concessions,  intensified  by  the 

1  (?)  leaked.  2  E.  H.  £.,  II.  p.  695. 

3  Ibid.  p.  696.  4  Ibid. 

402 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

fact  that  Ormond  was  a  sturdy  Protestant.1  If 
Glamorgan,  a  zealous  Catholic  ("  ter  Catholicus  ") 
and  a  man  high  in  the  king's  favour,  could  person- 
ally pledge  himself  that  Charles  would  ratify 
what  Ormond  did,  his  co-religionists  would  more 
willingly  believe  the  concessions  real.  And  this  is 
what  the  king  commissioned  him  to  do.2 

Again,  Mr.  Gardiner  might  fairly  have  appealed 
to  the  letter  from  Charles  to  Ormond,  when  the 
secret  treaty  was  discovered,  and  to  the  important 
letter  (if  genuine)  from  Charles  to  Glamorgan3 
(12  March  1645),  distinctly  treating  the  earl  not 
as  a  plenipotentiary,  but  as  subordinate  to  Ormond. 
From  first  to  last,  on  this  at  least,  Charles  is  abso- 
lutely consistent  :  he  never  authorized  Glamorgan, 
he  says,  "  to  treat  independently  of  Ormond.'' 4 

What  then,  I  ask,  was  the  state  of  affairs  ? 
Glamorgan,  arriving  in  Ireland,5  finds  negotiations 

1  Rinuccini's  words  on  this   point   are  very  interesting.     He 
denies  that  the    hope  of  Ormond's    conversion,    entertained    at 
Rome,  "  has  any  foundation,  as  the  dogmas  taught  by  the  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  are  firmly  implanted   in  his  mind,  and  I 
know  that  he  has  several  times  declared  in  private  the  impossibility 
of  believing  two  articles   in   the  Catholic  creed,  viz.  :   the  presence 
of  Christ    in    the    sacrament,   and    the   authority  of   the    Roman 
pontiff"  (Embassy,  p.  136  ;   Nunxiatura,  p.  106).     The  italics  are 
mine.     The  said  archbishop  must  be  Laud. 

2  "  First,  you  may  engage  your  estate,  interest,  and  credit,  that 
we  will  most  really  and   punctually  perform  any  our  promises  to 
the  Irish,"  etc.,  etc.  (E.  H.  £.,  p.  697). 

3  Mr.  Gardiner,  I  find,  does  quote   this   letter  in  his   History. 
He  may  have  overlooked  it  when  he  wrote  his  article. 

The  actual  words  are  Mr.  Gardiner's  (E.  H.  R.,  p.  697). 
5  Mr.  Gardiner  writes  that  he  "  arrived  at  Dublin  in  August " 
(1645)  ;  but    so    early   as    23  June  Charles  wrote    to   the    earl 

403 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

at  a  standstill,  because  "  Ormond  refused  to  grant " 
the  confederates'  "  request  for  the  abolition  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  king  or  of  the  clergy,  and  for 
the  retention  of  the  churches." 1  Glamorgan  there- 
upon leaves  Ormond,  follows  the  confederate 
delegates  who  had  withdrawn  to  Kilkenny,  and, 
on  August  25,  makes  a  secret  treaty  with  their 
Supreme  Council,  conceding  both  the  points 
which,  as  he  and  they  knew,  Ormond  refused  to 
concede. 

Now  what,  under  these  circumstances,  would  be 
the  first  question  that  the  confederates  would  ask 
him  ?  They  would  ask  to  see  his  powers  for  treat- 
ing independently  of  Ormond.  Glamorgan,  there- 
upon, produced  precisely  what  was  wanted,  the 
famous  warrant  of  12  March  ;  and  this  was  in- 
corporated in  the  treaty  as  his  authority  for  making 
it.  That  he  himself  appealed  to  it  as  empowering 
him  to  act  independently  is  certain.2  Nor  can  I 
conceive  it  possible  that  any  one  would  read  it 
otherwise. 

But,  in  that  case,  what  becomes  of  Mr.  Gardiner's 
theory  ?  There  are  two  ways  of  meeting  the 
difficulty,  assuming  that  theory  to  be  sound.  Mr. 
Gardiner,  on  the  one  hand,  urged  that  "  these 

expressing  his  pleasure  that  he  "  was  gone  for  Ireland  "  (E.  H.  R.y 
p.  701).     He  may  therefore  have  arrived  somewhat  earlier. 
1  E.  H.  R.,  p.  703. 

"Est  mihi  potestas  in  Ibernia  faciendi  concessiones  (in 
Proregis  supplementum)  Catholicorum  gratia,  .  .  .  idque 
sine  relations  ad  ullum  alium "  (Nuncio's  Memoirs,  fo.  1,004). 
"  This  evidently  refers,"  Mr.  Gardiner  writes,  "  to  the  powers  of 
12  March." 

404 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

powers  do  not  contemplate  any  action  independent 
of  the  lord  lieutenant."  l  I,  on  the  contrary,  shall 
hold  that  they  do,  but  that  they  were  forged  by 
Glamorgan  for  that  express  purpose. 

Although  Mr.  Gardiner  has  done  so  much  to 
clear  the  issue  by  fixing  our  attention  on  the 
warrant  of  1 2  March,  as  the  document  in  virtue 
of  which  Glamorgan  made  his  treaty,  it  is  necessary 
to  observe  that  Glamorgan  himself,  when  insisting 
on  his  powers  to  the  Nuncio,  placed  on  a  level 
with  that  warrant  the  king's  letter  of  30  April, 
sent  through  himself  to  the  Nuncio.  Writing  on 
6  Feb.  1645-6  he  proposed  to  the  latter  to  send 

the  articles  agreed  on  between  his  Holiness  and  Sir  Kenelm 
Digby  to  the  King  my  master,  in  the  form  of  an  agreement  made 
between  your  Lordship  and  me,  by  virtue  of  the  authority  given 
me  by  his  Majesty  and  of  the  security  given  your  Lordship  by  the 
King's  own  letter? 

Again,  in  another  letter,  very  shortly  afterwards, 
he  urges  the  Nuncio  thus  : 

whom  I  beseech  to  consider  the  authority  granted  your  Lord- 
ship by  his  Holiness,  and  to  recall  to  your  memory  the  letter 
written  by  the  King  my  master  to  your  Lordship  and  my  powers  for 
treating  with  your  Lordship.3 

Glamorgan  would,  most  naturally,  lay  stress  upon 
this  letter,  for  it  afforded  precisely  that  independent 
confirmation  of  his  warrant  of  1 2  March  of  which 
he  found  the  need  in  dealing  with  the  cautious 
Nuncio.  Its  reference  to  himself  ran  thus  : 

1  E.  H.  R.,  p.  699.     2  Inquiry,  p.  157.      3  Ibid.  p.  175. 

405 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

avec  qui  ce  que  vous  resolvez,  nous  nous  y  tiendrons  oblige'z, 
et  1'acheverons  a  son  retour.  Ses  grandes  merites  nous  obligent 
a  la  confidence  que  sur  tous  nous  avons  en  luy  .  .  .  rien 
ne  manquera  de  nostre  cost6  a  perfectionner  ce  que  a  quoy  il 
s'obligera  en  nostre  nom,  au  prix  des  faveurs  receues  par  vos 
moyens.  Fiez  vous  doncques  a  luy.1 

Nothing  could  be  more  sweeping  than  this. 
Glamorgan  is  treated  as  a  plenipotentiary,  and 
Ormond  absolutely  ignored.  There  can  be  no 
question  that  the  Nuncio  would  attach  great  im- 
portance to  this  private  letter  of  Charles,  if  it 
indeed  was  what  it  professed  to  be.2  But  was  it  ? 
He  himself  had  his  doubts.  He  writes  to  Rome 
(27  Dec.  1645)  tnat — 

The  Earl  of  Glamorgan,  after  having  showed  me  two  patents 
in  which  the  King  gives  him  secret  but  full  powers  to  conclude 
a  peace  with  the  Irish  .  .  .  presented  to  me  a  letter  directed 
to  myself  from  his  Majesty,  in  the  ordinary  form  sealed  with  a 
small  seal  in  two  places  with  the  superscription  in  French  and 
dated  3Oth  of  April  last.  .  .  .3 

This  letter  has  raised  a  variety  of  doubts  in  my  mind,  as  I 
cannot  understand  why  in  the  month  of  April,  when  the  King 
was  as  yet  not  much  cast  down,  he  should  have  shown  such  a 
desire  for  peace  and  assistance  from  Ireland  or  why  he  should 
have  given  such  full  powers  to  Glamorgan.4 

1  RintKCtnFs  Embassy,  p.  104.      Also  Inquiry,  p.  29. 

2  Glamorgan  appealed    to  it  as  "  propriam  regis    epistolam " 
(Nuncio's  Memoirs,  fo.  1,069  ;  E.  H.  R.,  p.  707.     The  author 
of  the   Nuncio's    Memoirs    observes    that    Glamorgan    "nedum 
facultates  superius  positas,  quibus  ad  pacem  contrahendam  munitus 
esset,  ostendit,  sed  etiam  literas    eidem  a  Rege  Gallice  scriptas 

quibus    Regem    manu    propria    subscripsisse    video." 
Fo.  998  (Inquiry,  p.  27). 

3  "  literas  a   sua    Majestate   ad  me  ipsum  directas  ;     .     .     . 
datas  praeterito  Aprilis  die  30"  (Memoirs,  fo.  1,002). 

4  Embassy,  pp.  103,  105  ;   Nunziatura,  pp.  81-83. 

406 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    TREATY 

Apart  from  its  contents,  the  date  arouses  grave 
misgivings  as  to  this  letter.  Glamorgan  had  been 
wrecked  on  the  Lancashire  coast  25  March,  and, 
says  Mr.  Gardiner, — 

Here  arises  a  fresh  question,  which  has  often  been  asked,  but 
never  answered.  Why  is  it  that  if  Glamorgan  was  trusted  with 
a  secret  mission  of  such  tremendous  importance,  he  was  allowed 
to  stay  in  England  for  three  months  after  his  shipwreck,  appa- 
rently without  the  slightest  attempt  being  made  to  hasten  his 
departure  ?  I,  at  all  events,  find  no  difficulty.  As  soon  as  Charles 
became  aware  that  Ormond  did  not  insist  on  resigning,  and  was 
quite  ready  to  take  up  the  negotiation  on  Charles's  terms,  there 
was  no  immediate  necessity  for  Glamorgan's  presence  in  Dublin. 
I  must  leave  it  to  those  who  think  that  Glamorgan  was  to  have 
given  a  secret  consent  to  much  more  than  this  to  explain  his  delay 
as  best  they  can.1 

Mr.  Gardiner  holds  that  the  whole  negotiation 
was  now  left  to  Ormond,  and  that  the  first  inti- 
mation of  any  hitch  is  -found  in  his  letter  of  8 
May.2  And  yet  it  was  during  these  very  weeks, 
when  Charles  believed  (in  Mr.  Gardiner's  view) 
that  the  negotiation  could  be  carried  through  with- 
out Glamorgan's  help,  that  he  is  represented  as 
writing  this  letter  (30  April)  referring  the  Nuncio, 
when  he  should  arrive,  to  Glamorgan  alone  as  his 
plenipotentiary  authorized  to  negotiate  secretly  ! 

So  much  for  the  date.  But  indeed  it  is  waste 
of  time  to  discuss  this  letter  seriously.  For  Mr. 
Gardiner  does  not  attempt  to  defend  its  authenticity. 
He  dismisses  it  in  a  footnote  so  amazing  that  it 
must  be  quoted  verbatim  : 

I  have  taken  no  notice  of  a  letter  from  the  king  presented  by 

1  E.  H.  £.,  p.  700.  2  Ibid.  p.  701. 

407 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Glamorgan  to  the  nuncio.  It  has  been  correctly  said  that  its 
language  and  its  date  are  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that  it 
proceeded  from  Charles  himself.  The  obvious  explanation  is  that 
it  was  written  by  Glamorgan's  secretary  on  a  blank  signed  by  the 
king.  Some  criticisms  on  this  and  other  documents  connected 
with  this  affair  would  lead  one  to  suppose  that  those  who  make 
them  imagine  that  Charles  wrote  formal  documents  with  his  own 
hand.  The  flowery  language  of  the  patents  is  no  doubt  traceable 
to  Glamorgan  ;  but  that  is  only  what  is  to  be  expected.1 

It  is  difficult  to  comment  on  this  note  in  lan- 
guage that  would  not  be  indecorous  in  dealing  with 
so  pre-eminent  an  authority.  In  spite  of  its  almost 
contemptuous  allusion  to  those  who  have  criticised 
this  letter,  we  must  remember  what  the  Nuncio 
received  from  Glamorgan's  hands.  It  was  no  for- 
mal document,  but  a  strictly  secret  letter,2  ending 

Vostre  Amis 

CHARLES  R. 

De  nostre  Cour  d'Oxford 
Le    oesme  d'Avril 


Of  what  it  professed  to  be,  there  is  no  question 
whatever.  And  Glamorgan,  we  have  seen,  more 
than  once,  referred  the  Nuncio  to  it  as  of  equal 
consequence  with  his  warrant.  Yet  Mr.  Gardiner 
calmly  tells  us  that,  date  and  all,  it  was  concocted 
by  Glamorgan's  secretary,  and  implies  that  this  was 
quite  regular  and  not  in  any  way  a  fraud  ! 

To   the   Nuncio   it  could  only  be    one  of  two 
things,  a  private  letter  to  himself  from  the  king, 

*  E.H.R.,p.7os. 

2  "  combien  il  importe  que  se  tient  secret,  il  n'y  a  pas  besoign 
de  vous  persuader,  ny  plus  de  recommander,"  etc.,  etc. 

3  I  take  the  text  from  Rinuccini's  Embassy. 

408 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

written  from  Oxford  on  30  April, — or,  as  he  anx- 
iously suspected,  a  mere  'fraud. 

The  obvious  inference  from  this  document  was 
duly  drawn  in  the  last  century  : 

If  his  Majesty  had  wrote  his  name  in  a  blank  in  England,  the 
letter  itself  was  certainly  wrote  in  Ireland.  This  undoubted 
forgery  proves  plainly  that  the  person  who  was  guilty  of  it  would 
not  probably  have  scrupled  any  other.1 

Certainly  the  secretary  who  concocted  on  a  blank 
(as  the  Nuncio  feared  and  Mr.  Gardiner  admits) 
the  Oxford  letter  of  30  April  might  equally  well 
have  concocted  on  a  blank  the  Oxford  warrant  of 
12  March.  The  effect  of  the  two  documents 
was  the  same  :  they,  and  they  alone,  pledged  the 
king  to  perform  anything  that  Glamorgan  might 
concede. 

But,  before  proceeding  to  the  warrant,  it  may  be 
well  to  speak  of  that  mysterious  letter  to  the  Pope, 
concerning  which  the  Nuncio  writes,  in  the  same 
despatch  as  above  (27  Dec.  1645)  : 

The  Earl  .  .  .  allowed  me  to  see  a  letter  from  the  King 
consisting  of  a  quarter  of  a  sheet,  folded  in  the  smallest  possible 
compass,  and  directed  to  his  Holiness  thus  :  "  Beatissimo  Patri 
Innocentio  Decimo,"  but  he  neither  explained  its  contents  nor 
when  it  was  to  be  sent.2 

The  reason  for  mentioning  this  letter  is  that 
there  exists  at  Badminton  a  mysterious  letter  "  in 
a  formal  clerk's  hand,"  beginning  "  Beatissime 
Domine  "  and  ending  impossibly  : 

1  See  Inquiry,  p.  330.        2  Rinuccini's  Embassy,  p.  103. 

409 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

Datum  apud  curiam  nostram  pene  carcerem  in  Insula  de  Wight, 
2O  Aprilis  1649. 

Sanctitatis  Vestrae 

devinctissimus  CHARLES  R. 

Three  months  after  his  head  was  cut  off,  Charles 
here  urges  "  His  Holiness  "  to  place  faith  in  (Gla- 
morgan now)  the  marquis  of  Worcester,  "omnium 
subditorum  nostrorum  optime  merito."1  On  the 
document  some  one  has  written  :  "  It  is  perhaps  a 
forgery."  For  us,  it  is  chiefly  of  interest  for  its 
blundered  date,  suggestive,  as  this  is,  of  the  earlier 
patents. 

And  now  at  length  we  come  to  the  warrant, 
"the  famous  Warrant  of  12  March." 

When  I  was  at  Balliol,  I  once  attended  a  lecture 
on  Thucydides  by  Jowett,  where  he  had  to  deal 
with  a  famous  crux  on  which  we  hoped  for  dis- 
quisition. But  in  this  we  were  disappointed,  "  This 
passage,"  the  Master  piped,  "  should  be  taken 
thus."  It  is  somewhat  in  the  same  spirit  that  Mr. 
Gardiner  treats  the  warrant  : 

"  That  this  document  was  genuine  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt "  (E.  H.  R.,  p.  698). 

But  that  is  precisely  the  question  that  we  have 
to  discuss. 

Mr.  Gardiner,  unfortunately,  could  not  say 
what  had  become  of  the  original.2  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  is  now  preserved  in  the  library  of 

1  Hist.  MSS.  Report,  XII.  9,  p.  33. 

2  "  What  became  of  it  afterwards  I  have  been  unable  to  discover, 
but   I  have  in  my  possession  a  photograph  taken  of  it  by  Mr. 
Bruce  whilst  it  was  in  Canon  Tierney's  possession.     .     .     .     Un- 
fortunately the   photograph  itself  is  now  too  faded   to  admit  of 

410 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

Ushaw  College.1  The  superscribed  "Charles  R." 
is  doubtless  written  by  the  king,  and  Mr.  Gardiner 
adds  :  "  The  only  question  is  whether  the  body 
of  the  document  is  not  also  in  Charles'  hand- 
writing."2 Well,  this  is  a  point  on  which  any 
one  can  satisfy  himself  by  examining  the  facsimile 
prefixed  to  Mr.  Gardiner's  article.  One  has  only 
to  compare  the  king's  signature  with  the  "  Charles  " 
written  below  it  to  see  that  the  two  handwritings 
are  frankly  and  glaringly  distinct.  But  this,  of 
course,  merely  proves  that  the  body  of  the  docu- 
ment may  have  been  written,  without  the  king's 
knowledge,  on  a  blank  having  his  signature. 

We  have,  therefore,  to  ask  ourselves  whether  it 
was  so  written  ;  for  if  so,  it  can  only  be  described 
as  a  deliberate  and  wilful  fraud.  Now  Glamorgan 
comes  before  us  as  a  man  under  grave  suspicion. 
The  king's  letter  produced  by  him  in  connection 
with  this  warrant  was,  we  have  seen,  admittedly 
fabricated  by  this  very  process.  And  his  two 
patents  of  the  previous  year  have  been  shown  by 
me,  I  hope,  to  have  been  sheer  forgeries.  It  is, 
then,  antecedently  probable  that  he  would  concoct 
this  warrant  if  he  found  it  essential  for  his  purpose. 

reproduction  by  photography,  but  a  facsimile  prepared  by  the 
ordinary  process  is  published  with  the  present  article "  (pp. 
698-9). 

1  First  Report  on    Historical   MSS.   (1874),  p.    92:     "It    is 
signed  by  the  king  at  the  top,  the  Royal  Signet  is  affixed,  and  it  is 
endorsed,  '  the  Earl  of  Glamorgan's  especial  Warrant  for  Ireland.' 
There  is   here  also  the  draft  of  a  somewhat    similar  document 
in  a  different  form,  not  executed."     This  last  remark  is  suggestive. 

2  E.  H.  R.,  pp.  698-9. 

411 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

1  have   argued    above    that   it   was    essential,    for 
without   it   he   had   no   power   to  treat    indepen- 
dently of  Ormond.     Mr.  Gardiner  urges  that 

powers  are  limited  by  instructions,  and  that,  however  enormous 
is  the  authority  conveyed,  Glamorgan  would  be  bound  only  to  use 
them  in  assisting  Ormond,  as  he  was  there  directed  to  do." l 

It  is  here  that  I  definitely  join  issue.  If  this 
warrant  of  1 2  March  represents  his  powers  under 
the  Instructions  (2  Jan.),  it  ought  to  have  been 
given  him  at  the  same  time,  in  the  first  group  of 
documents.  Had  it  been  given  him  at  that  date, 
Mr.  Gardiner's  argument  might  have  been  urged 
with  at  least  some  force.  But  it  does  not  make 
its  belated  appearance  till  fully  two  months  after- 
wards, at  a  date  when  Glamorgan  ought  to  have 
been  gone,  for  some  time,  on  his  mission.  But 
this  incomprehensible  delay  is  at  once  explained 
if  the  earl  forged  it  as  a  subsequent  enlargement, 
by  the  king,  of  his  powers,  intended  to  override 
the  instructions  of  January  2. 

Let  us  place  the  two  side  by  side  : 

DOCUMENT  OF   2  JAN.  DOCUMENT  OF  12  MARCH. 

you    may   engage    your    es-  ...     Authorise  and  give 

tate,   interest,  and  credit,   that  you  power  to  treate  and  conclude 

we  will  most  readily  and  punc-  with  the    Confederat  Romaine 

tuelly  perform  any  our  promises  Catholikes  in  our  Kingdome  of 

to  the  Irish,  and  as  it  is  neces-  Ireland   if  upon    necessity  any 

sary  to  conclude  a   peace  sud-  thing    be   to    be    condescended 

denly,    whatsoever  shall  be  con-  unto    wherein    our  Lieutenant 

1  E.  H.  R.,  p.  699.     By  "  there  "  is  meant  the  instructions  of 

2  January,  though,  by  an  unlucky  slip  of  the  pen,  Mr.  Gardiner 
describes  them  as  "of  12  Jan.,"  the  date  of  quite  another  docu- 
ment. 

412 


LORD   GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

sented  unto  by  our  lieutenant,  the  can  not  so  well  be  scene  in  as 
marquis  of  Ormond,  we  will  not  fitt  for  us  at  the  present 
die  a  thousand  deaths  rather  publikely  to  owne  and  therefore 
than  disannul  or  break  it ;  and  we  charge  you  to  proceede  ac- 
if  upon  necessity  anything  to  be  cording  to  this  our  warrant  with 
condiscended  unto  and  yet  the  all  possible  secresie,  and  for 
lord  marquis  not  willing  to  be  whatsoever  you  shall  engage  your 
seen  therein,  or  nott  fit  for  us  selfe  upon  such  valuable  con- 
at  the  present  publicly  to  own,  siderations  as  you  in  your  iudge- 
do  you  endeavour  to  supply  the  ment 1  shall  deeme  fitt,  we  promise 
same.  in  (sic)  the  worde  of  a  Kinge  and 

a  Christian  to  ratifie  and  per- 
forme  the  same  that  shall  be 
graunted  by  you  and  under  your 
hand  and  seale,  etc.  etc. 

Now  the  point  I  wish  to  emphasize,  to  the  very 
utmost  of  my  power,  is  that  the  warrant  of  12 
March  is  so  far  from  being  governed,  as  Mr. 
Gardiner  holds,  by  the  Instructions  of  2  Janu- 
ary, that  its  very  object  is,  on  the  contrary,  to 
supplant  and  supersede  them.  It  will  be  seen 
that  both  the  above  extracts  refer  to  absolutely 
the  same  matter,  namely  the  concessions  to  be 
made  to  the  Irish.  But  while  the  first  document 
pledges  the  king  to  grant  only  "  whatsoever  shall 
be  consented  unto "  by  Ormond,  the  second 
wholly  ignores  Ormond,2  treats  Glamorgan  as  a 
plenipotentiary,  and  solemnly  pledges  the  king  to 
"  ratifie  and  performe  "  anything  whatsoever  that 
the  earl  may  grant.3 

1  Of  which  Charles  had  said  in  his  famous  postcriptto  Ormond  : 
"  I  will  not  answer  for  his  judgement "  (E.  H.  R.,  p.  695). 

2  By  which  I  mean  that  it  wholly  ignores  the  necessity  of  any 
consent  of  his. 

3  I  draw  the  same  inference  from  the  words  "  power  to  treate 

413 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

This,  as  we  have  seen,  was  Glamorgan's  view  of 
his  warrant  ;  and  it  certainly  is  mine.  But  I  go 
further.  If  Mr.  Gardiner  is  right  in  holding  that 
the  document  is  genuine,  and  that  Glamorgan 
offended  only  in  making  undue  concessions  and 
acting  independently  of  Ormond,  why  did  not 
the  king  adopt  this  defence  when  the  secret 
treaty  was  discovered  ?  Why  did  he  command 
Nicholas,  when  writing  to  Ormond  and  the  Coun- 
cil, to  impugn  the  document  itself,  if,  as  Mr. 
Gardiner  holds,  it  was  not  the  document  that  was  to 
blame,  but  the  use  which  Glamorgan  made  of  it  ? 
Is  not  this  letter  an  admission  that  the  warrant 
would,  if  genuine,  have  given  Glamorgan,  as  he 
claimed,  independent  powers  ? 

Let  me  now  explain  my  theory,  and  show  on 
what  I  agree  with  Mr.  Gardiner  and  on  what 
we  differ.  We  are  absolutely  agreed  in  holding 
that  the  earl  was  not  empowered  to  make  the  two 
concessions  which  he  did,  and  that  he  knew  he 
was  doing  wrong.  As  Nicholas  wrote  to  Ormond 
and  the  Council : 

The  Lord  Herbert  did  not  acquaint  the  Lord  Lieutenant  with 
any  part  of  it  before  he  concluded l  with  the  said  Roman 
Catholics  nor  ever  advertised  his  Majesty,  the  Lord  Lieuten- 
ant or  any  of  his  Council  here  or  there  what  he  had  done  in 
an  affair  of  so  great  moment  and  consequence  four  months  before, 
till  it  was  discovered  by  accident.  This  doth  not  sound  like  good 
meaning,  and  I  am  sure  is  not  fair  dealing.2 

and  conclude."     It  is  significant,  perhaps,  that  this  phrase  is  also 
found  in  Glamorgan's  letter  of  1660  :  "my  powers  to  treat  and 
conclude  "  (E.  H.  R.,  II.  698).     1  Note  again  the  use  of  this  word. 
2  Carte's  Ormond,  III.  p.  446  (No.  426). 

414 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

To  this  I  may  add  that  the  very  man  who  had 
drawn  up  the  secret  treaty  was  instructed  to  deny 
its  existence  to  the  Nuncio,  till  the  latter  could 
reach  Ireland  and  be  urged  to  secrecy.  In  the 
matter,  by  the  earl.1  Mr.  Gardiner  draws  the 
same  conclusion  from  the  "  defeasance  "  which  ac- 
companied the  treaty.2  Glamorgan  knew  that  he 
had  done  wrong,  but  was  sanguine  that  he  would 
be  forgiven,  if  he  only  revealed  what  he  had  done 
after  he  had  brought  the  Irish  army  to  the  king's 
help  : 

When  once  there  was  an  Irish  army  in  England,  and  perhaps 
an  army  of  continental  catholics  as  well,  Charles  would  forget 
his  scruples.3 

Where  we  differ  is  that  I  believe  the  earl's 
offence  to  have  consisted  in  forging  the  warrant 
by  which  alone  he  could  claim  to  make  the  treaty. 
It  seems  clear  that  he  possessed  "  blanks  "  bearing 
the  king's  sign  manual  and  the  impression  of  his 
pocket  signet.4  There  was  nothing  to  prevent  his 

1  "  This  same  gentleman  (Barren)  tells  me  that  in  the  General 
Assembly  nothing  had  been  concluded  about  a  peace  ;  the  truce 
only  was  tacitly  continued,  and  that  no  more  will  be  done  before 
my  arrival.  In  proof  of  this  he  brought  me  a  letter  from  the 
Earl  of  Glamorgan,"  etc.  Letter  from  Nuncio  5  Oct.  1645 
(Embassy,  p.  74).  2  E.  H.  R.,  p.  704.  3  Ibid.  p.  705. 

4  "facultas  Glamorgano  concessa,  quae  tota  consistebat  in  foliis 
albis  et  concessionibus  sigillo  Regis  cubiculario  et  private  signatis, 
quibus  sua  Majestas  non  poterat  legitime  obligari"  (Nuncio's  Me- 
moirs; Inquiry,  p.  334).  An  interesting  illustration  of  this  prac- 
tice of  giving  "  blanks,"  ready  signed,  is  afforded  by  fourteen 
being  sent,  in  March,  1646-7,  to  Ormond  himself  by  the  Queen 
and  Prince.  The  fact  is  cited  in  Inquiry,  pp.  336—7,  on  the 
authority  of  Father  Leyburn. 

415 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

secretary  writing  the  warrant  on  one  of  these, 
without  having  actually  "  counterfeited  "  the  king's 
hand.  Digby  and  Nicholas,  secretaries  themselves, 
naturally  seized  on  the  suspicious  fact  that  the 
warrant  describes  itself  as  given  "  under  our  signet 
and  royal  signature."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  only 
bears  the  impression  of  the  pocket  or  private 
signet,  which  was  quite  devoid  of  such  authority 
as  the  signet.  Digby,  in  his  letter  to  Nicholas 
(4  Jan.  1646),  writes  : 

I  believe  you  will  be  as  much  startled  as  I  was  to  find  the 
signet  mentioned  in  my  Lord  of  Glamorgan's  transactions.  But  it 
seems  that  was  mistaken,  and  that  he  now  pretends  to  some  kind 
of  authority  under  the  king's  pocket  signet,  which  I  certainly 
believe  to  be  as  false  as  I  know  the  other.1 

Nicholas,  writing  to  Ormond  and  the  Council 
(31  Jan.  1646),  observes  that — 

The  warrant,  whereby  his  Lordship  pretends  to  be  authorized 
to  treat  with  the  Roman  Catholics  there,  is  not  sealed  with  the 
signet,  as  it  mentions. 

To  Ormond  himself  he  points  out  that — 

his  Lordship's  pretended  warrant  and  power  is  alledged  to  be 
(confirmed  to  him  under  the  signet),  though  there  be  no  signet 
to  it. 

That  their  criticism  was  sound  is  seen  when 
we  compare  the  warrant  of  March  12  with  that 
of  Jan.  I2.2 


1  Inquiry,  p.  105. 

8  Printed  opposite  one  another  in  Inquiry,  pp.  20,  21. 

416 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

12  Jan.  12  March. 

.     .     .     your  sufficient  war-          ...     a  sufficient  warrant, 

rant.  Given  at  our  court  at  Ox-  Given  at  our  court  at  Oxford 

ford  under  our  sign  manual  and  under  our  signet  and  royal  signa- 

private  signet^  ture. 

I  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  even  the  earlier 
document  is  genuine,  but  at  least  it  illustrates 
the  difference  between  the  private  and  the  official 
"  signet."2 

There  is  another  point  which  has,  I  believe, 
escaped  notice  hitherto.  The  unhappy  school 
of  thought  to  which  Charles  belonged  led  him, 
if  he  wished  to  be  believed,  to  make  a  statement 
in  writing,  as  in  his  letter  to  Ormond,  "  upon 
the  faith  of  a  Christian."3  This,  at  least,  he 
regarded  as  binding.  Now  in  the  warrant  of 
12  March  Mr.  Gardiner's  own  facsimile  makes 
him  "  promise  in  the  worde  of  a  King  and  a 
Christian."4  Is  it  credible  that  Charles  himself, 
or  even  an  English  secretary,  could  perpetrate 
this  blunder  ?  But  if  the  warrant  was  written 
by  "  a  Romish  Priest "  for  Glamorgan,5  he  might 
have  easily  made  a  slip  suggested  by  a  Latin 
idiom.6 

1  This  is  from  the  text  as  given  by  Carte  and  Birch. 

2  The  Nuncio,  as  we  have  seen  above,  fully  realized  that  the 
earl's  documents  were  only  sealed  with  the  private  signet,  which 
was  not  binding  on  the  king. 

3  Letter  of  30  Jan.  1645-46  (Carte's  Ormond). 

4  Mr.   Gardiner  escapes  the  difficulty  by  printing  it  (doubt- 
less from  oversight)  "on  the  word  "  (p.  698). 

5  Cf.  Inquiry,  pp.  330,  333. 

6  "  in  verbo  veritatis,"  which  Ducange  describes  as  a  "  sacra- 
menti  formulam  "  specially  used  by  princes.     In  the  letter  from 

417  E  E 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  labour  the  point 
further.  What  remains  to  be  done  is  to  consider 
how  the  conclusion  I  have  drawn  affects  the 
characters  of  Glamorgan  and  of  Charles. 

Fantastic,  ardent,  "  feather-brained,"  the  earl 
is  a  fascinating  study.  He  has  a  "  scheme "  for 
reducing  the  Rock  of  Cashel,  if  he  is  but  allowed 
jTioo  "  and  four  or  five  barrels  of  gunpowder  "  ; l 
he  has  a  "  method "  for  enabling  Charles  to 
employ  him,  even  after  the  great  exposure  ; 2  and 
"when  first  with  his  corporall  eyes  he  did  see 
finished  a  perfect  tryall  of  his  water-commanding- 
engine,"  he  records  an  "ejaculatory  "  prayer  "  that 
he  may  not  be  puffed  up  by  this  and  many  more 
unheard-of  and  unparalleled  inventions."5  He  is  at 
all  times  ready  to  promise  money,  artillery,  ships, 
and  men,  till  Digby  cynically  exclaims,  "  Lord, 
increase  our  faith  !  "  And  yet  with  all  his  rash 
assurance,  his  colossal  but  naive  vanity,  he  was  filled 
with  a  chivalrous  devotion  to  the  causes  of  his 
church  and  of  his  king.  It  will  not,  I  hope,  be 
deemed  unfair  to  suggest  that  his  Catholic  and 
foreign  training  may  have  imbued  him  with  the 
faith  that  "  the  end  justifies  the  means,"  and  that 
he  may  have  applied  that  maxim  in  the  case  of  his 


Charles  to  Glamorgan,  12  March  1645,  alleged  by  Dircks  (p.  75) 
to  exist  at  Badminton,  the  king  pledges  himself  "on  (sic)  the 
word  of  a  king  and  a  Christian  "  (compare  the  formula  in  the 
warrant)  ;  but  Mr.  Gardiner,  misquoting  Dircks,  omits  the  words 
"and  a  Christian"  (History,  II.  175). 

1  Inquiry,  p.  221.  2  29  March  1646  (Ibid.  p.  189). 

3  Hist.  MSS.  Report,  ut  supra,  p.  49. 

418 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

secret  treaty.  As  Ormond  finely  phrased  it,  in  a 
stately  and  dignified  rebuke  : 

I  understand  not  what  your  Lordship's  authorities  from  his 
Majesty  are,  or  what  ways  you  mean  to  take  to  serve  him  ; 
and  therefore  can  give  no  judgment  of  either.  ...  In 
the  mean  time,  I  must  take  the  freedom  of  a  better  subject  than 
most  your  Lordship  meets  with  there,  and  of  one  that  wishes 
you  happiness,  to  advise  you  to  be  careful  how  you  affirm  your 
desires  to  serve  the  King  to  be  powers  from  him.1 

The  paramount  necessity  of  obtaining  an  Irish 
army  for  the  king  must  have  overridden,  in  his 
mind,  every  other  thought,  while  his  optimism, 
doubtless,  led  him  to  believe  that,  in  gratitude, 
his  master  would  confirm  the  concessions  he 
had  made  to  his  church.  Only  success,  in  short, 
was  needed.  As  Dr.  Jameson  exclaimed,  to  Sir 
William  Harcourt's  horror,  he  knew  that,  had 
he  succeeded,  he  would  have  been  forgiven. 

As  for  Charles,  on  whose  character  this  famous 
question  has  always  been  held  to  have  so  grave  a 
bearing,  Mr.  Gardiner  has,  at  least,  rejected  the 
gravamen  of  the  charge  against  him,  namely  that 
he  gave  instructions  to  Glamorgan  to  make  the 
concessions  in  the  secret  treaty  behind  Ormond's 
back.2  He  does,  however,  charge  him  with 
shuffling  in  his  disavowal. 

In  one  document,  and  in  one  only,  does  Charles 
seem  to  shuffle  in  the  matter  of  Glamorgan's 

1  Ormond  to  Glamorgan,  6  Oct.    1646   (at  a  later  stage  in 
the  negotiations). 

2  "That    Glamorgan  had    secret  instructions  from    Charles, 
empowering  him  to  act  as  he  did,   is  a  notion   which  may   be 
promptly  dismissed  "  (History,  III.  34). 

419 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

powers.  In  his  formal  despatch  to  Ormond  and 
the  Council,  he  explains  with  what  object  Gla- 
morgan was  sent  : 

and  i  withal  knowing  his  interest  with  the  Roman  Catholic 
party  to  be  very  considerable,  we  thought  it  not  unlikely  that 
you  might  make  good  use  of  him  by  employing  that  interest  in 
persuading  them  to  a  moderation,  and  to  rest  satisfied,  upon  his 
engagement  also,  with  those  above  mentioned  concessions,  of 
which,  in  the  condition  of  our  affairs,  you  could  give  them  no 
other  than  a  private  assurance.  To  this  end  (and  with  the 
strictest  limitations  that  we  could  enjoin  him  merely  to  those 
particulars  concerning  which  we  had  given  you  secret  instruc- 
tions, as  also  even  in  that  to  do  nothing  but  by  your  especial 
directions)  it  is  possible  we  might  have  thought  fit  to  have  given 
unto  the  said  Earl  of  Glamorgan  such  a  credential  as  might  give  him 
credit  with  the  Roman  Catholics,  in  case  you  should  find  occasion 
to  make  use  of  him,  either  as  a  further  assurance  unto  them  of 
what  you  should  privately  promise,  or  in  case  you  should  judge  it 
necessary  to  manage  those  matters,  for  their  greater  confidence, 
apart  by  him,  of  whom,  in  regard  of  his  religion  and  interest, 
they  might  be  the  less  jealous.  This  is  all  and  the  very  bottom 
of  what  we  might  have  possibly  intrusted  unto  the  said  Earl  of 
Glamorgan  in  this  affair,  etc.,  etc.  ...  he  was  bound  up 
by  our  positive  commands  from  doing  anything  but  what  you 
should  particularly  and  precisely  direct  him  to  do,  both  in  the 
matter  and  manner  of  his  negotiation.1 

The  words  I  have  italicized,  no  doubt,  have  a 
very  ugly  sound.  But  do  they  apply  to  the  famous 
warrant  of  1 2  March  ?  From  the  great  care  with 
which,  throughout,  Charles  insists  on  having  made 
his  envoy  a  mere  subordinate  to  Ormond,  it  is 
clear  to  me  that  they  cannot.  Mr.  Gardiner, 
however,  has  jumped  at  the  conclusion  that  they 
do,2  but  that  this  is  not  a  necessary  inference  is 

1  Despatch  of  31  Jan.  1645. 

2  "  In  a  public  despatch  to  the  Irish  Council  he  allowed  himself 

420 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S    TREATY 

proved  by  two  letters  from  the  Nuncio.  On  Dec. 
23,  1645,  he  writes  that  Glamorgan  made  his 
treaty — 

in  virtue  of  two  most  ample  but  secret  powers  .  .  .  given 
by  his  Majesty  to  the  Earl.1 

And  four  days  later  he  writes  that  the  earl 

showed  me  two  patents  in  which  the  king  gives  him  secret  but 
full  powers  to  conclude  a  peace  with  the  Irish  on  whatsoever  terms 
he  thinks  advisable.2 

But,  whatever  the  Nuncio  may  here  refer  to,  my 
own  suggestion  is  that,  in  the  above  despatch, 
Charles  refers  to  the  instructions  of  2  January,  en- 
titled "  Several  heads  whereupon  you  our  right 
trusty  and  right  well-beloved  earl  of  Glamorgan 
may  securely  proceed  in  execution  of  our  com- 
mands." These,  if  carefully  studied,  would  be 
certainly  "  a  credential,"  and  for  such  a  purpose  as 
the  king  describes.  And  if  it  be  asked  why  Charles 
should  thus  grudgingly  own  them,  it  must  be 

to  cast  doubts  upon  the  genuineness  of  his  warrant  to  Glamorgan 
[the  one  of  March  12  is  always  intended]  by  speaking  of  it  as  a 
credential  which  he  might  possibly  have  given,  whilst  he  per- 
mitted Nicholas  at  the  same  time  to  call  attention  to  its  defects  as 
an  official  document"  (History^  III.  47). 

Is  it  probable  that  Charles  would  thus  "  give  himself  away  "  by 
admitting  that  "  he  might  possibly  have  given  "  the  warrant  of 
12  March,  while  instructing  Nicholas  to  assail  its  genuineness 
from  its  internal  evidence  ?  As  I  have  argued  above,  if  the 
document  itself  was  blameless,  what  occasion  was  there  to  assail 
its  genuineness  ? 

1  Embassy ,  p.  95. 

2  Ibid.  p.  103.     These  were  irrespective  of  the  king's  (alleged) 
letter  to  the  Nuncio  (which  Siri  describes  as  "  credenza  "). 

421 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

remembered  that  Ormond's  Council  were  so  op- 
posed to  the  Catholic  demands  that  Ormond  had 
had  to  keep  them  in  the  dark  as  to  Charles'  letter 
of  27  February  (1645)  to  himself,  enlarging  his 
concessions.  That  Charles  had  given  any  "  cre- 
dential "  at  all  to  a  Catholic  envoy  in  the  matter 
was  a  fact  that  he  grudged  confessing  to  a  Council 
of  alarmed  Protestants. 

In  the  preceding  paper,  dealing  with  Glamor- 
gan's dukedom,  I  suggested  that  the  document  of  i 
April,  '  1 644 ',  was  developed  by  him  from  genuine 
documents  of  1645,  anc^  tnat  this  might  be  also 
how  he  produced  the  warrant  of  12  March.1 
Since  doing  so,  I  have  found  that  a  precisely 
similar  conclusion  had  been  reached  by  Mr.  Gar- 
diner, independently,  on  another  great  contested 
document,  the  "  commission J>  from  Charles  L, 
bearing  a  Great  Seal,  which  Sir  Phelim  O'Neill 
produced  in  Ireland  25  Nov.  1641. 

That  this  document  was  forged  there  can  be  no  doubt  what- 
ever,2 but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  not  forged  upon  the  lines 
of  a  real  document,  sent  from  Edinburgh  by  the  King  to  the 
Catholic  Lords.3 

It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  the  motives  by 
which  Glamorgan  was  inspired,  and  to  remember 
the  policy  of  the  men  with  whom  he  had  to  deal. 
Rinuccini  and  the  Protestant  Ormond  represented 
the  two  extremes.  Between  them  stood  the 
Supreme  Council  (of  the  Confederate  Catholics), 

1  p.  391  above. 

2  Compare  the  equally  confident  verdict  on  p.  410  above, 

3  Ed.  1884,  vol.  X.  p.  92. 

423 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

far  too  ready,  in  the  Nuncio's  view,  to  come  to 
terms  with  Ormond  and  with  Charles.  From  the 
time  of  his  reaching  Ireland  (1645),  ne  °Penty 
and  stubbornly  strove,  on  the  one  hand,  to  extort, 
for  the  Catholics,  more  extensive  concessions,  on 
the  other  to  obtain  greater  security  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  those  concessions.  In  less  than  a  year  the 
situation  had  developed  into  his  arrest,  at  Kil- 
kenny, of  the  leaders  of  the  Supreme  Council  ( 1 9 
Sept.  1646),  for  making  peace  with  Ormond, 
while  Glamorgan,  who  had  soon  become  a  mere 
puppet  in  his  hands,  had  sworn  "  before  the  most 
holy  sacrament  "  that  he  would  adhere  to  his  party 
"  against  the  marquis  of  Ormonde  and  all  his 
relations  and  favourers." 

In  dealing,  therefore,  with  the  Nuncio,  Glamor- 
gan found  the  need  of  producing  more  evidence 
than  the  Catholic  leaders  had  required.  And  this 
evidence  assumed  the  form  of  documents  and  letters 
intended  to  prove  the  absolute  confidence  reposed 
in  him  by  Charles  and  the  almost  unlimited  extent 
of  his  powers.  We  must  consequently  look  with 
grave  suspicion  on  such  evidence  as  this  when 
found  in  the  Nuncio's  Memoirs  alone. 

Glamorgan's  own  champions  unconsciously  reveal 
his  ways.  We  are  shown  him  writing  to  the 
Nuncio,  6  Feb.  1646,  urging  the  necessity  of 
sending,  "  without  the  least  delay,  3,000  men  to 
succour  "  Chester,  while  "  the  other  seven  thousand 
soldiers"  (of  the  10,000)  need  not  be  sent  till  they 

1  19  Feb.  1646  (Inquiry ',  p.  182,  from  Nuncio's  Memoirs). 

423 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

had  communicated  with  the  king.1     Two  days  later 
(8  Feb.)  he  writes  to  Ormond  : 

Myself  alone  having,  by  the  interest  and  goodwill  of  the 
Nuncio,  gained  this  point,  that  three  thousand  soldiers  are  designed 
to  be  sent  to  the  relief  of  Chester  ;  and  to-morrow  or  next  day 
he  is  to  have  the  chief  management  of  that  proposal  in  the 
General  Assembly.2 

This  was  either  false  or  a  strange  delusion  ;  the 
Nuncio,  so  far  from  supporting  this  proposal,  held 
out  stubbornly  at  the  meeting  on  the  gth.  It  was 
only  after  Glamorgan's  abject  submissions  to  the 
Nuncio  on  the  i6th  and  igth  February  that  "  the 
Nuncio  being  satisfied  with  this,  went  two  days 
after  to  the  Assembly,  exhorting  them  ...  to 
hasten  the  three  thousand  soldiers  to  the  relief  of 
Chester." 3  Moreover,  having  instantly  hurried  to 
Waterford  "  to  attend  the  transportation  of  those 
troops,"  i  he  wrote  only  two  days  later  to  the  king 
(23  Feb.): 

I  am  now  at  Waterford,  providing  shipping  immediately  to 
transport  6,000  (sic)  foot  ;  and  4,000  foot  are  by  May  to  follow 
them.6 

And  on  28  Feb.  he  similarly  wrote  to  Lord  Hop- 
ton,  "  that  the  ten  thousand  men  are  designed  for 

1  Memoirs,  fos.  1,066-9  (Inquiry,  pp.  157-8). 

3  Ibid.  p.  162.  *Ibid.  p.  183.         4  Ibid. 

5  Ibid.  p.  184  (from  Rushworth).  Mr.  Gardiner  cites  the 
Carte  MSS.  for  yet  another  letter  in  which  "on  February  24 
Glamorgan  was  able  to  assure  Ormond  that  not  3,000  but  6,000 
men  would  be  sent,  and  that  he  was  himself  starting  for  Water- 
ford  to  expedite  their  embarkation  "  (History,  III.  153).  Yet  his 
bargain  with  the  Nuncio  was  only  that  3,000  should  be  sent  and 
7,000  kept  back. 

424 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

his  Majesty's  service,  six  (sic)  thousand  of  which 
are  ready  for  transportation."  * 

There  is  something,  in  these  instances,  more 
than  sanguine  imagination  :  there  is  that  incor- 
rigible bombast,  that  vainglorious  exaggeration, 
which  seems  inseparable  from  everything  he  writes 
or  (in  his  forgeries)  makes  others  write  about 
himself  and  his  performances.  The  glowing 
recital  of  his  military  services  in  the  patent 
alleged  to  create  his  dukedom  was  repeated  by 
him  in  his  letter  to  Albemarle  (29  Dec.  166$)? 
and  in  the  speech  he  proposed  to  deliver  in 
the  House  of  Lords  (i666~7).3  Yet  even  Dircks, 
his  own  most  ardent  panegyrist,  dismisses  these 
achievements  in  no  sparing  terms.4  It  must  have 
been,  however,  on  the  strength  of  these  perform- 
ances that  this  amazing  man  caused  himself  to  be 
depicted  "  as  a  Roman  general,  seated  by  his  lady 
attired  in  a  modern  costume  of  pale  blue  satin." 

1  Ibid.  p.  187.  2  Dircks,  p.  279. 

3  "  Soe  immediately  and  in  eight  dayes  tyme  I  raysed  six  regi- 
ments,  fortified  Monmouth,   Chepstow,   and  Ragland, 
Garrisoned    likewise    Cardiffe,  Brecknock,   Hereford,    Goodridge 
Castle,  and  the  Forest  of  Dean,  after  I  had  taken  them  from  the 
enemie"  (iath  Report  Hist.  MSS.,  IX.  62). 

4  "  The  achievements,  as   thus  recorded,  are  sufficiently  high- 
sounding,  but  no  contemporary  historian  seems  to  have  considered 
them  of  sufficient  importance  to  put  on  record.     Neither  his  own 
letters,  nor  those  of  his  numerous  family  and  connexions,  neither 
political  nor  religious  partizans  nor  opponents   give  us  a  glimpse 
of  our  general's  skill,  bravery,  and  final  successes  ;  while  the  few 
particulars  actually  recorded  leave  but  a  faint  impression  as  regards 
facts,  and  a  most  unfavourable  one  as  regards  results.     In  short, 
in  his  military  capacity   he  bears  a  most  mythical  character " 
(pp.  66-7). 

425 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

His  Lordship  presents  a  singular  appearance  in  a  toga  and  tight- 
fitting  hose  of  deep  scarlet,  an  ornamented  leather  jerkin,  and 
wearing  a  wig  [?]  streaming  over  his  breast  and  shoulders  .  .  . 
while  his  left  (hand)  hangs  negligently  over  the  arm  of  the  chair 
in  proximity  with  a  mighty  sheathed  sword. 

His  lordship's  expression,  one  may  add,  is  that  of 
fatuous  complacency.1 

But  more  serious  is  the  painful  question  whether 
the  earl  "  ran  straight,"  whether  his  statements, 
when  unsupported,  should  always  obtain  credit. 
Glamorgan,  Mr.  Gardiner  holds,  had  been  in- 
structed by  Charles  to  act  in  loyal  co-operation 
with  Ormond,  and  to  be  guided  by  his  judgment. 
Yet,  having  made  the  secret  treaty  (25  Aug.) 
behind  Ormond's  back,  he  wrote  to  him  (9  Sept.) 
a  letter  in  which — 

To  prevent  Ormond  from  becoming  aware  of  the  real  state  of 
the  case,  Glamorgan  professed  entire  ignorance  of  the  requests 
which  would  now  be  made  by  the  agents  of  the  Supreme 
Council.2 

And  again,  on  November  28 — 

In  writing  to  Ormond  Glamorgan  not  only  gave  no  hint  of 
this  secret  negotiation,  but  assured  him  with  the  most  fulsome 
expressions  of  devotion  that  he  was  but  carrying  out  the  direc- 
tions which  he  had  received  at  Dublin.3 

It  is  no  wonder  that  Nicholas  wrote,  in  his  indig- 
nant letter  to  Ormond  and  the  Council  (31  Jan. 
1646)  : 

1  See  the  frontispiece  to  Dircks'  volume  and  his  description  on 
pp.  30,  31.  But,  from  the  child's  age,  I  should  date  the  picture 
as  not  earlier  than  1643  or  1644. 

8  Gardiner,  History ,  III.  37. 

3  Ibid.  p.  38. 

426 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

This  doth  not  sound  like  good  meaning  ;  and  I  am  sure  is  not 
fair  dealing. 

We  again  find  him,  a  year  later,  playing  the  same 
double  game.  He  writes  to  Ormond  (n  Sept. 
1 646)  as  "  Your  Excellency's  most  really  affec- 
tionate kinsman  and  devoted  servant/'  to  assure 
him  that  he  is  about  to  leave  Ireland,  unless 
Ormond  persuades  him  to  remain  and  prove  "  my 
affection  to  your  person,  to  whom  my  professions 
have  been  ever  real." l  Yet,  at  this  very  time,  he 
was  scheming  with  his  foe  the  Nuncio  to  supplant 
him  as  Lord-Lieutenant,  and  "  being  desirous  of 
advancing  himself  to  the  Marquis'  post,"  was 
soliciting  the  support,  for  that  purpose,  of  the 
Catholic  generals  and  clergy,  who  had  it  "  in  their 
view  to  transport  the  Holy  Faith  into  England  by 
their  arms,"  2  and  who  were  actually  in  the  field 
against  Ormond  !  Is  this  the  sort  of  man  whose 
statements  should  command  credit  ? 

Now  that  we  have  seen  the  startling  frauds  of 
which  the  earl  was  capable,  .every  document  with 
which  he  had  to  do  is  tainted  in  an  expert's  eyes. 
It  is  a  singular  circumstance  that  Mr.  J.  A.  Ben- 
nett, in  his  report  on  the  duke  of  Beaufort's  MSS. 
to  the  Historical  MSS.  Commission,3  prints  hardly 
any  of  the  documents  given  by  Dircks  as  existing 
among  the  Badminton  MSS.  What  has  become 
of  the  others  ?  Where,  for  instance,  are  the  let- 

1  Dircks,  p.  179,  from  Carte  MSS. 

2  See  Nuncio's  letter  of  21  Sept.  1646  in  Inquiry,  pp.  253-6 
(from  the  Memoirs,  fos.  1,376-9). 

3  1 2th  Report,  IX.  pp.  1-115  (1891). 

427 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

ters  of  12  Feb.  and  12  March  1645  -?  I  do  not 
say  that  they  are  not  genuine,  but  we  ought  to  see 
them,  if  they  exist,  before  deciding  the  question. 
Mr.  Gardiner,  although  he  has  visited  Badminton,1 
quotes  his  documents  from  Dircks  alone,  as  if  that 
writer,  though  admittedly  not  qualified  for  their 
treatment,  were  an  original  authority.2 

It  is,  however,  on  the  documents  quoted  from 
the  Nuncio's  Memoirs  alone  that  the  gravest  doubt 
must  rest.  And  these  are  of  great  importance  for 
the  attitude  assumed  by  Charles,  after  the  exposure 
of  the  treaty,  towards  Glamorgan  and  his  conduct. 

Charles,  we  must  remember,  would  not  be  harsh 
to  one  who  had  erred  from  zeal  for  his  cause,  who 
had  supported  him  eagerly  in  the  past,  and  might 
yet  help  him  in  his  need.  But  did  he,  to  take  a 
definite  instance,  write  to  Glamorgan,  from  New- 
castle (20  July  1646),  the  extraordinary  letter 
that  Mr.  Gardiner  quotes  ?  Moved  by  its  con- 
tents to  the  sarcastic  comment  that  "  Charles' 
notions  of  bad  faith  were  all  his  own,"  3  he  quotes 
from  it  this  passage  : 

If  you  can  raise  a  large  sum  of  money  by  pawning  my  king- 
doms for  that  purpose,  I  am  content  you  should  do  it ;  and  if  I 

1  E.  H.  R.y  II.  688. 

2  See   p.  397  above,  and   compare    E.  H.  R.,   II.  708,  and 
History,  III.  48,  where  he  cites  '  Dircks '  for  an  important  letter 
of  Charles  in  Harl.  MSS.  6,988  (fo.\i<)i),  where  I  found  it  to  be 
of  singular  character. 

3  History,  III.  154.     Mr.    Gardiner    again    appeals   to    it    on 
p.  1 60  as  "the  enthusiastic  letter  in  which  Charles  had  expressed 
his  eagerness  to  place  himself  in   the  hands  of  Glamorgan  and 
Rinuccini," 

428 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

recover  them,  I  will  fully  repay  that  money.  And  tell  the  Nuncio 
that  if  once  I  can  come  into  his  and  your  hands,  which  ought  to 
be  extremely  wished  for  by  you  both,  as  well  for  the  sake  of 
England  as  Ireland,  since  all  the  rest,  as  I  see,  despise  me,  I  will 
do  it  (Dircks,  174). 

One  would  certainly  imagine,  from  the  reference 
to  "  Dircks,"  that  the  letter  was  at  Badminton.  It 
is  not  a  little  surprising  to  find  that  Dircks  merely 
quotes  it  from  Birch's  Inquiry  (p.  245),  where  it  is, 
in  turn,  translated  from  the  Latin  text  in  the 
Nuncio's  Memoirs  (fo.  1,373)  '  Although  he 
enjoyed  the  great  advantage  of  access  to  these 
memoirs,  Mr.  Gardiner  cites  this  letter  from 
c  Dircks  '  alone.  Such  treatment  of  authorities, 
surely,  is  somewhat  out  of  date. 

But  when  we  turn  to  the  contents  of  this  epistle, 
what  are  we  to  say  ?  We  see  the  king  suggesting 
to  Glamorgan  the  "  pawning  "  of  his  "  kingdoms  " 
— as  if  they  were  his  watch.  Who  was  to  act  the 
pawnbroker's  part  ?  And  who  was  to  advance  the 
"  large  sum  "  on  the  strength  of  a  suggestion  in  a 
private  letter  ?  For  other  security  there  was  none. 
Moreover,  if  a  pawnbroker  was  wanted,  why  seek 
him  in  Ireland,  when  the  king's  recognised  agent 
was,  at  this  time,  the  queen  in  France  ?  But  there 
is  another  question,  which  is  of  historical  import- 
ance. Mr.  Gardiner's  charge  against  the  king  is 
that,  while  he  was  employing  Ormond  to  arrange 
a  peace  in  Ireland,  he  was  eager  to  place  himself 
in  the  hands  of  the  Nuncio,  "  whose  policy  in 
Ireland  had  crossed  Ormond's  at  every  step."  *  As 

1  History,  III.  154-155. 

429 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

a  matter  of  fact,  the  two  men  were,  at  this  date, 
open  foes.  This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  a  grave  charge  ; 
but  is  it  true  ? 

What  are  the  facts  ?  Charles  had  privately  in- 
structed Ormond1  to  disregard  his  formal  dispatch 
of  June  1 1  (1646)  and  to  hurry  on  the  Irish  peace.2 
Ormond,  on  July  30,  proclaimed  the  peace,  which 
was  instantly  denounced  by  the  Nuncio.  But  it 
was  to  Ormond  that  Charles  looked  : 

On  Sept.  1 6  he  wrote  to  Ormond,  suggesting  the  seizure  and 
fortification  of  a  spot  on  the  Lancashire  coast  as  a  means  "of 
helping  "  him  "  to  make  use  of  the  Irish  assistance."  3 

Mr.  Gardiner,  indeed,  can  here  be  quoted  against 
himself.  For  the  situation  in  the  summer  of 
1646  resembled  that  in  the  spring  of  1645.  At 
both  periods  the  king  had  placed  the  Irish  peace 
in  Ormond's  hands ;  and  when  he  did  so,  Mr.  Gar- 
diner holds,  Glamorgan  was  dropped.4  Still  less, 
while  looking  to  Ormond,  would  Charles  en- 
deavour to  obtain  the  peace  through  the  Nuncio, 
Ormond's  foe,  whose  object  was  not  mere  tolera- 

1  Ibid.  p.  154. 

8  Mr.  Gardiner's  statements  are  contradictory,  but  only  by 
a  slip  : 

III.  151.  III.  153. 

"  On  June  1 1  he  had  been  "  On  June  24  Ormonde  re- 
forced  to  direct  (sic)  Ormond  to  ceived  the  letter  of  June  n,  in 
abandon  all  further  negotiations  which  Charles  forbade  (sic)  him 
with  the  rebels."  to  abstain  from  further  negotia- 

tion." 

The  first  passage  is  the  right  one. 
8  History,  HI.  144. 

4  E.  H.  R.y  II.  700  ;    History,  II.  176. 

430 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

tion,  but  the  subjugation  of  the  three  kingdoms  to 
the  faith  of  Rome.1  This  would  be  even  more  in- 
credible than  the  king's  employment,  the  previous 
year,  of  Glamorgan  as  a  secret  rival  to  Ormond  was 
pronounced  to  be  by  Mr.  Gardiner  himself.3  So 
much  for  the  charge  of  intriguing  behind  Ormond's 
back. 

But  what  of  the  statement  that  Charles  wished 
to  join  Glamorgan  and  the  Nuncio  ? s  If  he 
thought  of  fleeing,  it  was  to  France.4  Yet  this  is 

1  "  The  Nuncio  was  of  opinion  that  under  the  conduct  of  so 
zealous  a  Catholic  as  the  Earl,  a  way  would   be  opened  for  ex- 
terminating the  Protestant  religion  from  Ireland  and  the  conver- 
sion of  the  king,  if  he  should  come  thither  ;  or  at  least  for  trans- 
porting a  strong  and  faithful  army  out  of  Ireland  into  England  ; 
by  the  junction  of  which  with  the  English  Catholics,  his  Majesty 
might  be  restored,  and  the  Catholic  religion  triumph  over  the  Pro- 
testants in  England  and  Scotland,  who  were   extremely  divided 
among   themselves  "  (Inquiry,   p.  253,   from   Nuncio's  Memoirs, 
fo.    1,376,  where  the    Latin    runs:    "ad  haeresim  tota  Ibernia 
eliminandam "     .     .     .     "  fides  catholica  in  Anglia  quoque  et 
Scotia  de  haereticis  inter  se  discordibus   triumpharet ").     It  would 
be  to  nourish  these  hopes  that  the  Newcastle  letter  was  concocted 
(if,  as  I  suggest,  it  was  forged).     It  was  meant  to  illustrate,  for 
Glamorgan's  purpose,  what  the  memoirs  term  "  the  confidence 
in  his  Lordship  testified  by  his  Majesty  in  his  letters  to   him  " 
(Ibid.). 

2  "  Ormond  is  to  drive  as  good  a  bargain  as  he  can.     .     .     . 
Is  it  to  be  supposed   that  he  [Charles]   was  at  the  same  time 
privately    authorising    Glamorgan    to    purchase    a    peace  at  any 
price  ? "  (E.  H.  R.y  H.  700).     "  That  he  [Glamorgan]  had  any 
secret  instructions  to  abandon  the  Acts  of  Appeal  and  Praemunire 
is  an  idea  which  may  be  rejected  as  incredible  "  (History,  II.  1 74). 

3  The  Pope,  it  is  said,  shed  tears  on  receiving  a  copy  of  this 
letter,  from  which  it  would  seem  that,  if  I  am  right,  Glamorgan 
succeeded  in  hoaxing,  not  only  the  Nuncio,  but  the  Pope. 

4  "On   the    8th    (July)    he   wrote    to   Ashburnham  that  he 

431 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

not  the  evidence  on  which  I  take  my  stand.  At 
this  period  we  read  (of  the  king's  objects)  : 

It  was  Charles'  firm  conviction  that  he  was  dividing  his  ene- 
mies by  his  policy.1 

Now  if  there  was  one  step  by  which  he  would 
instantly,  infallibly,  compel  those  enemies  to  unite, 
it  would  be  by  throwing  himself  into  the  arms  of 
the  Nuncio  and  Glamorgan.  The  Scots,  the  army, 
the  English  Presbyterians  would  present  an  un- 
broken front.  And  they  would  be  joined  even  by 
others — 

at  a  time  when  all  English  parties  were  resolutely  opposed  to 
every  idea  which  had  found  favour  at  Kilkenny.2 

Nay,  in  Ireland  itself,  not  only  the  Presbyterians, 
but  Ormond  and  his  Council,  were  unshakeably 
hostile  to  the  Nuncio  and  all  his.  schemes.  Charles 
at  the  worst  was  no  fool  :  he  was  perfectly  aware 
that  such  a  step  would  destroy  his  last  chance  of 
recovering,  as  he  hoped,  his  kingdoms.  It  would 
be  the  act  of  a  madman. 

And    it    would,    moreover,   have    been    useless. 
How  could  Charles,  even   if  he  sacrificed  all  his 

believed  himself  to  be  lost  unless  he  could  escape  to  France 
before  August"  (History,  III.  132).  Glamorgan  and  the  Nuncio 
drew  up  (according  to  the  latter's  memoirs)  a  reply  to  the  alleged 
letter  of  20  July,  urging  Charles  to  come,  as  it  suggested,  to 
Ireland. 

1  History ',  III.  140. 

2  Ibid.  p.  162.     At  the  moment  of  returning  this  proof  for 
press  I  find  that  Charles,  in  his  letters  to  the  queen  (19  Aug., 
31  Aug.,  7  Sept.  1646)  assures  her  that   even   Ormond's  peace 
(which  the  Nuncio  rejected)  would  "  infallibly  "  hamper  his  nego- 
tiations in  England  (Add.  MS.  28,857). 

432   " 


LORD    GLAMORGAN'S   TREATY 

other  supporters,  hope  to  gain  the  Nuncio  and  his 
followers,  when  he  had  made  it,  Mr.  Gardiner 
admits,  a  point  of  honour  and  of  conscience  never 
to  grant  those  two  concessions  on  which  the 
Nuncio  had  inexorably  insisted  throughout  as  the 
minimum  price  of  his  support.1  His  stubborn 
insistence  on  these  concessions  culminated  in  the 
rejection  of  the  treaty  between  Ormond  and  the 
Supreme  Council  (12  Aug.  1646),  because  it  did 
not  contain  them,  and  in  his  arrest  of  the  Council's 
leaders.2  As  for  Glamorgan,  he  had  "  surrendered 
himself  body  and  soul  to  the  Nuncio,  swearing  by 
all  the  saints  that  he  would  obey  every  one  of  his 
commands  and  would  never  do  anything  contrary 
to  his  honour  and  good  pleasure."  3  Charles,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  firmly  declared  (31  July  1645) 
that  he  would  "  rather  chuse  to  suffer  all  extremity 
than  ever  to "  make  these  concessions,4  and  had 
privately  assured  the  queen  (March  1 646)  that  he 
could  never  hope  "  to  enjoy  God's  blessing  "  if  he 
did.5  Mr.  Gardiner  observes  that  "  it  was  hopeless 
to  expect  him  to  change  his  mind,"6  and  that 
though  "  there  is  always  something  arbitrary  in 
the  selection  of  a  limit  to  concession,  that  limit 
had  now  been  reached  by  Charles." 7  How  then 
could  he  hope  for  the  Nuncio's  help  ? 

Has  Mr.  Gardiner  even  asked  himself  how  the 
king  could  "  pawn  "  his  kingdoms  ?  Or  whether 
he  would  do  so  in  this  manner  ?  Or  whether  he 

1  See  History,  III.  39,  40.  2  Ibid.  pp.  156,  159. 

3  Ibid.  p.  52.         4  E.H.R.,  II.  703.         5  Ibid.  p.  708. 

6  History,  II.  174.  7  Ibid.  III.  34. 

433  FF 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

wished  to  take  a  step  which  meant  his  instant 
ruin  ?  Apparently  not.  He  finds  a  letter  in 
'  Dircks '  (which  is  merely  taken  from  Birch's 
Inquiry,  where  it  is  retranslated  from  a  Latin  trans- 
lation found  in  the  Nuncio's  Memoirs),  and  ac- 
cepting its  evidence  without  question  as  that  of 
an  original  authority,  he  charges  the  king  with  a 
stupid  treachery  at  obvious  variance  with  all  the 
facts  as  given  even  in  his  own  History.  \ 

When  shall  we  learn,  in  England,  how  to  use 
our  evidence  ?  If  one  document  is  as  good  as  an- 
other, if  their  critical  treatment  is  deemed  needless, 
vain  is  the  writer's  talent,  and  vain  the  student's 
toil. 


434 


The  Abeyance  of  the   Barony  of 
Mowbray 

SEVERAL  points  of  great  interest  to  the  student  of 
Peerage  law  were  raised  in  the  Mowbray  and  Se- 
grave  case  decided  in  1877.  But  on  the  present 
occasion  I  do  not  propose  to  call  attention  to  more 
than  one — the  alleged  determination,  '  in  some 
way  or  other/  in  favour  of  the  Howard  co-heir,  of 
the  abeyance  into  which  the  baronies  of  Mow- 
bray and  Segrave  had  fallen  in  the  i  5th  century. 

Anne,  the  child-heiress  of  the  Mowbrays, 
dukes  of  Norfolk,  was  an  infant  of  three  years 
old  at  her  father's  death  (1476)  and  affianced  to 
a  son  of  Edward  IV.  (one  of  "  the  princes  in  the 
Tower  "),  who  was  thereupon  created  earl  of  Not- 
tingham, and  subsequently  duke  of  Norfolk.  She 
died  in  tender  years,  leaving  the  succession  to  the 
baronies  and  vast  estates  of  her  house  open  to  the 
heirs  of  her  relatives,  Isabel  and  Margaret,  wives 
respectively  of  James  Lord  Berkeley  and  Sir 
Robert  Howard.  Now  these  ladies  were  the 
daughters  of  the  first  duke  of  Norfolk,  son  of 
John  Lord  Mowbray,  by  his  marriage  with  the 

435 


PEERAGE  STUDIES 

daughter  and  heir  of  John  Lord  Segrave,  whose 
wife  Margaret,  countess  of  Norfolk,  was  the  heiress 
of  Thomas  c  de  Brotherton,'  son  of  Edward  I.,  and 
Earl  Marshal.  Thus  the  death  of  the  little  heiress 
proved  the  means  of  a  vast  accession  to  the  fortunes 
of  the  house  of  Berkeley,  while  it  virtually  founded 
those  of  the  house  of  Howard.  The  Mowbray 
baronies  were  divided  between  them,  Lord  Berke- 
ley being  created  earl  of  Nottingham  and  Lord 
Howard  duke  of  Norfolk  the  same  day  (June  28, 
1483).  It  is  a  singular  circumstance  that  the 
seniority  of  the  heiresses  seems  to  be  undeter- 
mined, c  Burke  '  declaring  Lady  Howard  to  be  the 
elder,  while  the  Complete  Peerage  of  G.  E.  C.  as- 
signs that  position  to  Lady  Berkeley,  as,  appar- 
ently, did  Dugdale.  But  in  any  case  the  Berke- 
leys  had  an  equal  share  in  the  representation  of 
this  illustrious  line,  which  makes  it  the  more 
strange  that  the  Howards  should  have  been  tacitly 
allowed  to  monopolize  it  as  they  virtually  have 
done.  In  1777  this  representation,  with  all  that 
it  involved,  passed  away  from  the  Howards  to 
their  heirs-general,  the  Lords  Stourton  and  Petre  ; 
and  in  1882  the  share  of  the  Berkeleys  similarly 
passed  to  their  heir-general,  Mrs.  Milman,  since 
recognised  as  Baroness  Berkeley.  Thus,  in  1877, 
there  were  three  co-heirs  to  the  house  of  Mow- 
bray,  namely  the  de  jure  earl  of  Berkeley  (whose 
right  to  that  title  has  been  confirmed  by  a  subse- 
quent decision,  but  who  never  assumed  it),  who 
inherited  one  moiety,  and  the  Lords  Stourton  and 
Petre,  who  shared  the  other.  The  Committee 

436 


THE   BARONY   OF   MOWBRAY 

for  Privileges  decided,  however,  that  the  abey- 
ance of  the  Mowbray  and  Segrave  baronies  had 
been  determined  in  favour  of  the  Howards  "  pre- 
viously to  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,"  and 
believed  that  it  was  done  by  Richard  III. 

The  first  point  in  this  decision  that  invites  close 
attention  is  its  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  abey- 
ance. The  best  authorities  have  agreed  in  placing 
the  earliest  undoubted  case  of  the  determination 
of  an  abeyance  by  the  Crown  so  late  as  1660,  the 
previous  cases  being  all  more  or  less  doubtful. 
The  Mowbray  decision,  however,  carried  back  the 
practice  per  saltum  to  the  days  of  Richard  III.  ! 
But  far  more  extraordinary,  and  indeed  revolution- 
ary, was  the  view  taken  of  the  evidence  in  proof 
of  the  abeyance  being  determined  in  favour  of  the 
Howard  co-heir.  In  the  Windsor  case  (1660) 
the  determination  was  effected  by  formal  patent,1 
but  in  that  of  Ferrers  of  Chartley  (1677)  merely 
by  the  issue  of  the  writ,  which  has  since  been 
the  usual  practice.  But  in  the  Mowbray  case 
there  is  no  evidence  how  or  even  when  the  abey- 
ance was  determined. 

Down  to  the  time  of  Lord  Stourton's  claim  the 
position  of  the  question  was  this.     The  barony  of 
Segrave   (though   the   Berkeleys  had  constantly  in- 
cluded  it  among   their   titles)    was  believed  to  be 
still  in  abeyance.     Mr.  Fleming,  Lord  Stourton's 
own   counsel,  had   himself  admitted  in  the  Scales 
case  (p.  26)  that  the  barony  of  Segrave  is  in  abey- 
ance "between  Lords  Stourton  and  Petre     . 
1  See  p.  361  above. 
437 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

and  the  heir  of  the  late  earl  of  Berkeley."  So 
universal  was  this  belief  that  a  modern  barony 
of  Segrave  was  created  in  favour  of  the  Fitz- 
hardinge  Berkeleys  (1831).  As  to  Mowbray  there 
were  doubts.  Mr.  Courthope,  in  his  Historic 
Peerage  (1857),  referring  to  the  Mowbray  sum- 
mons of  1 640,  held  that  "  it  may  reasonably  be 
doubted  whether  this  writ  of  summons  did  not 
create  a  new  barony  instead  of  affecting  the  abey- 
ance of  the  ancient  dignity"  (p.  340). l  But,  in 
any  case,  no  other  evidence  than  this  writ,  for 
the  determination  of  the  abeyance,  was  sup- 
posed to  exist.  In  Lord  Stourton's  original  peti- 
tion it  was  accordingly  claimed  "  that  the  Barony 
of  Mowbray  continued  in  abeyance  *  . 
until  the  year  1 640,  when  King  Charles  the  First 
was  pleased  to  determine  the  abeyance  by  sum- 
moning Henry  Frederick  Howard  ...  as 
Lord  Mowbray."  This  allegation,  of  course, 
ignored  the  difficulty  that  the  party  to  whom  the 
writ  was  issued  was  not  a  co-heir  to  the  dignity 
at  the  time. 

The  claim,  however,  was  subsequently  altered  in 
consequence  of  the  discovery  of  Letters-missive 
from  Richard  III.,  including  the  baronies  of 
Mowbray  and  Segrave  in  the  duke's  style.  In 

1  It  should  be  noted  that,  by  a  strange  error,  Courthope  gave 
the  date  of  this  summons  as  "13  April  1639"  (sic),  and  was 
followed  in  this  by  the  Complete  Peerage  (VI.  54  ;  but  compare 
VIII.  480).  This  error,  which  is  constantly  repeated,  probably 
arose  from  the  summons  being  dated  21  March  '1639*  (i.e. 
1640),  the  Parliament  meeting  on  13  April  1640. 

438  ' 


THE   BARONY   OF   MOWBRAY 

Lord  Stourton's  "additional  case"  it  was  confidently 
urged  by  his  counsel  that  these  Letters  proved  (but 
did  not  constitute)  the  determination  of  the  abey- 
ance.1 

These  Letters,  on  which  Mr.  Fleming  insisted 
so  strenuously  throughout,  were,  with  singular 
eagerness,  accepted  as  proof  by  the  Committee. 
I  append  the  relevant  extracts  from  their  judg- 
ment : 

LORD  CHANCELLOR. 

"  As  to  the  abeyance  of  the  Segrave  barony,  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  Letters-missive  of  the  2nd  of  Richard  III.,  signed  by 
the  King,  would  of  itself  be  sufficient  evidence  that  in  some  way 
or  other  the  abeyance  had  been  terminated  by  the  sovereign." 

LORD  O'HAGAN. 

"As  to  the  abeyance,  I  should  say  that  the  Letters-missive  of 
King  Richard  III.  are  of  themselves,  without  any  question  being 
raised  as  to  the  admissibility  of  the  garter-plates  in  evidence,  quite 
sufficient  to  prove  the  determination  of  the  abeyance  of  the 
baronies.  The  King  recognises  the  determination  of  the  abey- 
ance ;  .  .  .  and  however  it  may  have  been  accomplished 
.  .  .  I  think  the  evidence  with  regard  to  the  determination 
of  the  abeyance  of  the  baronies  is  perfectly  sufficient." 

LORD  BLACKBURN. 

"  If  it  [the  determination]  is  done  by  a  document,  under  the 
hand  of  a  sovereign,  by  his  sign  manual,  that  is  quite  sufficient. 
Now  here  is  evidence  that  the  abeyance  was  so  terminated.  .  .  . 
I  think  myself,  if  it  were  necessary,  it  [the  Letters-missive] 
should  be  construed  as  operating  as  an  original  grant  under  his 

1  See  Additional  Case,  No.  27  (p.  9),  and  the  note  there- 
upon :  "  It  is  confidently  submitted  on  the  part  of  the  Petitioner 
that  the  abeyance  .  .  .  was  determined  in  favour  of  John 
Lord  Howard  Duke  of  Norfolk  shortly  after  her  [Anne's]  death, 
and  before  the  24th  of  September,  1484  [the  date  of  the  Letters 
missive]." 

439 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

hand  to  determine  the  abeyance  ;  for  I  am  not  aware  that  the 
King  could  do  more.  ...  I  think  the  Letters-missive  of 
king  Richard  III.  are  quite  conclusive  upon  the  matter." 

LORD  CHANCELLOR. 

"  I  myself  do  not  accept  that  [the  garter-plates]  as  evidence 
with  regard  to  the  determination  of  the  abeyance,  but  I  think 
the  other  evidence  of  the  determination  of  the  abeyance  is  satis- 
factory, namely  the  Letters-missive  of  king  Richard  III." 

These  extracts  sufficiently  establish  the  Com- 
mittee's acceptance  of  Mr.  Fleming's  contention 
that  "  the  abeyance  of  the  baronies  .  .  .  was  de- 
termined in  favour  of  John  Howard,  the  first  Duke 
of  Norfolk,," 1  and  that  this  determination,  proved 
by  the  Letters-missive,  "  forms  the  sole  ground  " 
for  the  subsequent  user  of  the  titles. 

Let  us  first  consider  the  consequences  of  the 
principle  thus  laid  down.  It  revolutionizes  the 
doctrine  of  abeyance,  as  hitherto  understood,  in 
the  direction  aimed  at  by  Mr.  Fleming  in  the 
Scales  case,  and  thus  opened  the  door  to  a  new 
series  of  claims.  The  Leicester  patent  of  1784, 
for  instance,  can  now  be  invoked  as  determining 
(or  proving  the  determination  of)  the  Bourchier 
abeyance  ;  and  other  recognitions  by  the  Crown 
in  formal  instruments,  however  erroneous,  can  now 
be  similarly  interpreted. 

Incidentally,  it  may  here  be  added  that,  accord- 
ing to  Lord  Stourton's  "  original  case  "  (p.  1 1),  the 
duke  of  Norfolk  received,  Feb.  24,  148!,  a 
general  pardon  "  describing  him  by  all  the  titles 
and  names  which  could  be  attributed  to  him,"  but 

1  Special  Case,  p.  290.  2  Ibid.  p.  26. 

440 


THE   BARONY   OF   MOWBRAY 

the  Pardon  Roll  reveals  that  the  baronies  of  Mow- 
bray  and  Segrave  are  not  to  be  found  among  them. 
So  too  with  his  patent  of  creation  on  June  28 
preceding.  This  then  narrows  the  date  of  the 
alleged  determination  to  February  —  September, 
1484.  And  though  the  time  and  manner  of  such 
determination,  at  this  very  early  date,  should  have 
been  clearly  established,  we  have  only  the  Lord 
Chancellor's  belief  that  it  took  place  "  in  some 
way  or  other  "  on  some  unknown  occasion. 

Assuming,  however,  that  Mr.  Fleming  was 
right,  and  that,  in  the  words  of  the  petitioner's 
case,  "  the  abeyance  .  .  .  was  determined  in 
favour  of  John  Howard  Duke  of  Norfolk  previ- 
ously to  the  24th  of  September,"  1484,  what 
evidence  is  there  of  the  user  of  the  titles  by  the 
Howards  ?  The  petitioner  was  not  able  to  ad- 
duce one  till  1564,  when  the  funeral  certificate  of 
the  duchess  of  Norfolk  styles  her  husband  "  Lorde 
Mowbray  Segrave  and  of  Brews"  (p.  265).  And 
this  was  dismissed,  in  his  judgment,  by  Lord 
Blackburn  (who  oddly  seems  to  have  imagined 
that  it  was  a  coffin-plate  inscription  *)  as  "  no  evi- 
dence at  all."  With  that  exception  the  petitioner 
adduced  no  evidence  of  user  till  the  garter-plate  of 
1611  (p.  265).  Now  what  is  the  cause  of  this 
hiatus  ? 

Assuming,  as  I   have  said,  that  the  baronies  of 
Mowbray   and   Segrave  were  duly  vested  in  John 

1  "  The  mere  fact  that  a  duke  of  Norfolk  put  upon  his  duchess' 
coffin-plate  a  statement  that  she  was  the  wife  of  the  Lord  Mow- 
bray and  Segrave  is  no  evidence  at  all." 

441 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

duke  of  Norfolk  (d.  1485),  they  were  obviously 
forfeited  by  the  Act  of  Attainder  in  i  Hen.  VII. 
(P-  I35)-  Of  *his  there  can  be  no  question. 
Now  the  act  of  "  restitucion  "  in  favour  of  his  son 
"  Thomas  late  erle  of  Surrey  "  (4  Hen.  VII.)  ex- 
pressly stipulates  "  that  this  statute  of  adnullacion 
and  restitucion  extend  not  for  the  said  "Thomas  to  eny 
honour  estate  name  and  dignite  but  onely  to  the  honour 
estate  name  and  dignite  of  Erie  of  Surrey"  (p.  I4O).1 
This  would  obviously  exclude  the  baronies  of 
Mowbray  and  Segrave  as  well  as  that  of  Howard 
and  the  dukedom  of  Norfolk.  Accordingly  when 
this  Thomas  Howard  was  created  Earl  Marshal  (2 
Hen.  VIII.)  and  duke  of  Norfolk  (5  Hen.  VIII.) 
he  was  only  styled  earl  of  Surrey  and  had  no 
baronies  assigned  him.  Now  the  subsequent  at- 
tainders and  restorations  of  the  house  could  do  no 
more  than  place  its  heads  eventually  in  the  shoes 
of  this  Thomas. 

It  has  indeed  been  argued  that  the  above  pro- 
vision applied  only  to  Thomas  himself,  not  to  his 
heirs,  and  that  the  baronies,  therefore,  remained,  as 
it  were,  in  a  state  of  suspended  animation  during 
his  life.  But  this  argument  would,  obviously,  apply 
to  the  dukedom  of  Norfolk  also,  and  is  inconsistent 
with  the  new  creation,  in  1514,  of  that  dignity,  in 
favour  of  Thomas  and  his  heirs  male.  Moreover, 
on  carefully  reading  the  act,  it  will  be  seen  that  its 
object  was  to  deprive  the  earl  not  only  of  the 
Honours,  but  also  of  the  lands  derived  from  or 

1  Naturally  enough,  these  words  are  not  those  italicized  in  the 
Minutes  of  evidence. 

442 


THE   BARONY   OF   MOWBRAY 

through  his  father,1  whose  great  share  of  the  Mow- 
bray  inheritance  was  to  remain  vested  in  the 
Crown,  while  that  of  the  Berkeleys  was  assured  to 
them  by  a  special  act  which  followed.  Now  it  is 
clear,  from  the  case  of  the  lands,  that  the  provision 
partially  excluding  Thomas  excluded  his  heirs  also. 

If,  then,  the  abeyance  was  indeed  determined 
under  Richard  III.,  the  baronies  were  forfeited  by 
attainder  and  have  remained  so  ever  since. 

The  actual  resolution,  however,  adopted  by  the 
Committee  did  not  pledge  them  (in  spite  of  their 
rationes  decidendi)  to  a  determination  in  or  before 
Sept.  1484.  Although  it  was  avowedly  on 
this  that  their  decision  was  based,  they  illogically 
resolved — ob  majorem  cautelam  we  may  presume — 
that  the  abeyance  was  determined  "  previously  to 
the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth." 

Now,  either  the  abeyance  was  determined  pre- 
viously to  Sept.  1484,  or  it  was  not.  If  it 
was  not,  then  the  earliest  proof  of  that  determi- 
nation accepted  by  the  Committee  is  the  Act  of 

1  "  And  that  it  be  enacted  by  the  said  auctorite  that  this  Statute 
of  Adnullation  and  Restitution  extend  not  for  the  said  Thomas 
to  any  Honour  Estate  Name  and  D ignite  but  onely  to  the 
Honour  Estate  Name  and  Dignite  of  Erie  of  Surrey  nor  to  any 
Manors  Lordshippes  Landes  Tenements  and  other  Enheritaments 
wherto  the  Kyngs  Highnes  was  at  any  tyme  entitled  by  reason 
of  either  of  the  said  Atteyndres,  other  then  the  said  late  Erie 
had  in  the  right  of  his  wife,  ...  or  such  Manors  Lord- 
shippes Londes  Tenementes  and  other  Inheritaments  which  if  the 
said  Act  of  Atteyndre  had  not  be,  shuld  herafter  discend,  remayne 
or  reverte  to  the  said  Thomas  and  his  Heires  by  any  other 
Auncestre  than  by  the  said  John  late  Duke  of  Norfolk "  (Rot. 
Par!.,  VI.  410-411). 

443 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

1604,  which  implied,  according  to  the  construc- 
tion placed  upon  it  by  the  petitioner,  that  the 
baronies  must  have  been  vested  in  Duke  Thomas 
at  his  attainder  (1572)  ;  that  is  to  say,  the  abey- 
ance was  determined  previous  to  1572.  But  what 
is  the  proof  that  it  was  determined  "  previously  to 
the  reign  of  Queen  'Elizabeth"  (i.e.  to  1558)  ?  Ab- 
solutely none  was  given  ! 1 

Adopting,  then,  this  hypothesis,  it  is  clearly  far 
more  difficult  to  assume  the  determination  of  an 
abeyance  at  this  comparatively  late  epoch  than  it 
would  be  under  Richard  III.,  a  period  relatively 
obscure.  Moreover,  in  this  case  there  is  no  such 
evidence  as  was  afforded  even  by  the  Letters- 
missive  of  1484.  We  are  therefore,  admittedly, 
dependent  on  a  retrospective  induction  from  the 
Act  of  1604.  And  to  this  I  propose  now  to  ad- 
dress myself. 

The  words  relied  on  by  the  claimant  were  : 

To  the  Honour,  State,  and  Dignitie  of  Erie  of  Surrey  and  to 
such  dignitie  of  baronies  only  which  the  said  late  Duke  of  Norfolk 
forfeited  and  lost  by  the  said  attainder. 

The  word  c  only  '  has  been  understood  as  ex- 
cluding any  claim  to  the  duke's  territorial  c  baron- 
ies.' But,  in  any  case,  these  guarded  words  could 
not  do  more  than  restore  to  the  earl  such  baronies 


1  This  extraordinary  expression  may  have  originated  in  the  pe- 
titioner's claim  (Additional  Case,  p.  27)  that  the  baronies  "  were 
vested  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  in  Thomas  .  .  .  Duke  of 
Norfolk,"  a  loose  expression  which  is  by  no  means  equivalent  to 
"  at  the  accession  of  Elizabeth." 

444 


THE    BARONY    OF    MOWBRAY 

as  he  could  prove  to  have  been  vested  in  the  late 
duke.  They  were  not,  and  did  not  profess  to  be, 
a  determination  of  abeyance,  nor  did  they  even 
name  a  single  barony.  It  was  urged  by  counsel 
that  the  only  baronies  they  could  refer  to  were 
those  he  claimed,  which  must,  therefore,  have 
been  vested  in  the  duke.  But  I  reply,  firstly, 
that  they  do  not  name  any  baronies  as  vested  in 
the  duke  ;  secondly,  that  even  if  they  had,  the 
recognition  of  a  wrongful  assumption  could  not 
operate  as  a  creation  or  even  a  determination  of 
abeyance. 

It  is  the  very  essence  of  my  case  that  the  com- 
mittee accepted  as  valid,  and  indeed  decisive,  evi- 
dence the  recognition  in  formal  documents  (as  in 
the  Letters-missive)  by  the  Crown,  of  minor 
dignities  as  vested  in  an  earl  or  duke,  although  it 
can  be  demonstrated,  and  ought  to  have  been 
shown  by  the  Attorney  General,  for  the  Crown, 
that  such  evidence  is  not  valid,  and  that  the  facts 
of  the  case  can  be  perfectly  explained  on  the  hypo- 
thesis of  error. 

The  assumption  of  dignities  was  an  ancient 
practice.  In  the  early  days  of  the  Tudors,  Lady 
Hungerford,  who  held  three  baronies,  took  the 
styles  of  six,  two  of  them  not  genuine  and  one  in 
abeyance.  Her  contemporary,  Thomas  earl  of 
Derby,  took  upon  himself,  as  for  instance  in  a 
warrant  sealed  with  his  seal  and  bearing  date  8 
Nov.  8  Hen.  VIII.  (1516),  the  style  of  Vis- 
count Kynton,  Lord  Stanley  and  Strange,  lord  of 
Knokyn  and  Mohun,  Bassett,  Burnell  and  Lacy, 

445 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

lord  of  Man  and  the  isles.1  Yet  Stanley  and 
Strange  were  the  only  baronies  actually  vested  in 
him,  while  his  viscountcy  was  a  fancy  title  taken 
from  a  c  member '  of  the  Stranges'  lordship  of 
Ness,  Shropshire.  The  earls  of  Northumberland 
assumed  the  baronies  of  Fitz  Payne  and  Bryan,  to 
neither  of  which  had  they  any  right.  In  the 
1 6th  century  the  Radcliffes,  earls  of  Sussex,  suc- 
cessively assumed  the  baronies  of  Egremont  and 
Burnel,  though  (Multon  of)  Egremont  was  in 
abeyance  and  Burnel  also.  So  too,  though  the 
barony  of  Latimer  fell  into  abeyance  in  1557,  two 
of  its  four  co-heirs,  the  earls  of  Danby  and 
Northumberland,  coolly  assumed  it  temp.  Charles 
I.  (as  was  pointed  out  in  the  Fitzwalter  case),  and 
even  had  it  assigned  to  them  on  their  garter-plates 
at  Windsor.2  Lastly  the  barony  of  Badlesmere, 
also  in  abeyance,  was  similarly  assumed  by  the 
earls  of  Oxford,  together  with  a  '  fancy  '  viscountcy 
of  Bulbeck.  And  this  brings  us  to  the  very  reign 
when  the  similar  wrongful  assumption  of  Mow- 
bray  was  recognised  (I  hold)  in  error  by  the 
Crown. 

For  that  the  Crown  did  so  err  I  now  proceed  to 
show.  An  armorial  decision  of  the  Court  of 
Chivalry  in  1410  induced  the  then  Lord  Grey  de 

1  Inq.  p.m.  of  15    Sept.  1523  in  Chancery  Inquisitions,  vol.  40, 
No.  25  (15  Henry  VIII.). 

2  It  was  aptly  observed  by  Lord  Redesdale  (who  seems  to  have 
known  his   business  better  than  the  Law  Lords)  :  "  You  show 
that  there  were  co-heirs  of  the  barony  of  Mowbray  ;  you  show 
that  an  individual  assumed  the  title  ;     .     .     .     but  there  is  no 
proof  of  the  abeyance  being  determined"  (Proceedings,  pp.  14-1 5). 

446 


THE    BARONY    OF    MOWBRAY 

Ruthyn  to  assume  the  baronies  of  Hastings  and 
'  Weysford'  [Wexford],  and  both  these  titles  were 
duly  assigned  by  the  Crown  to  his  heir  when  he 
was  created  earl  of  Kent,  1465  (and  in  1484, 
1486).  Yet  'Weysford'  was  a  fancy  title  and 
Hastings  one  to  which  the  Longueville  decision 
(1640)  proved  the  family  had  no  right.  So  reten- 
tive were  the  Greys  of  their  c  plumes,'  that,  as 
G.  E.  C.  reminds  us,  they  "  clung  tenaciously  to  the 
barony  of  Grey  de  Ruthyn  "  even  after  their  heir- 
general  had  proved  his  right  to  it  and  taken  his 
seat.  With  the  same  tenacity  the  Manners  family 
clung  to  the  barony  of  Roos  after  it  had  been 
decided,  against  them,  that  the  right  to  that  dig- 
nity had  passed  to  the  heirs  general  of  the  earl  of 
Rutland  who  died  in  1587.  The  first  duke  was 
actually  divorced  by  Act  of  Parliament  as  Lord 
Roos  (1670),  and  the  style  was  still  used  by  the 
family  at  least  as  late  as  1770  without  any  right 
thereto.1  More  striking,  however,  are  the  assump- 
tions of  the  Devereux  family  and  their  heirs. 
Walter  Devereux,  earl  of  Essex  (d.  1576),  assumed 
among  his  styles  the  earldom  of  c  Ewe,'  the  vis- 
countcy  of  Bourchier,  and  the  barony  of  Lovayne  : 
the  first  was  a  Norman  countship  extinct  since 
1539,  the  second  also  an  extinct  dignity,  and  the 
third  a  fancy  title.  Now  my  point  is  that  these 

1  See  Complete  Peerage,  VI.  405,  465-70.  The  present 
duke  maintains  indeed  that  "  their  claim  to  it  was  admitted  by 
the  Sovereign  and  Parliament  up  to  the  close  of  the  last  century  " 
(Ibid.  VIII.  500)  ;  but  he  has  accepted  a  modern  barony  of 
"  Roos  of  Belvoir"  (1896)  in  its  place. 

447 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

titles,  wrongfully  assumed  though  they  were,  were 
recognised  nominatim^  in  the  Devereux  Act  of 
Restoration  (1604),  as  having  been  "lawfully  and 
rightly  "  held  by  the  earls  of  Essex  !  This,  as  will 
be  seen,  is  evidence  far  stronger  than  that  of  the 
Howard  Restoration  Act,  in  the  very  same  year 
(1604),  which  vaguely  speaks  of"  such  dignitie  of 
Baronies "  as  the  Howards  may  have  lost  by  the 
attainder  of  1572.  And  yet  this  latter  Act  was 
actually  treated  as  a  sheet-anchor  in  1877,  and  ac- 
cepted as  conclusive  proof  that  the  baronies  of 
Mowbray  and  Segrave,  which  were  not  even  men- 
tioned by  name,  must  have  been  lawfully  vested  in 
the  duke  who  was  attainted  in  1572! 

The  Committee  and  the  House  indeed  went  so 
far  as  to  resolve  "  that  by  Act  of  Parliament  the 
said  Baronies  were  restored  to  Thomas  earl  of 
Arundel  ...  in  the  year  1604"  ;  but  if  we 
turn  to  the  Act  of  1627  passed  in  favour  of 
his  son,  we  find  it  speaking  of  "  the  baronies  of 
Fitzalan,  Clun  and  Oswaldestre,  and  Maltravers," 
and  annexing  these  "  titles,  names,  and  dignities " 
with  all  their  "  places,  pre-eminences,  arms,  en- 
signs, and  dignities  "  to  the  earldom  and  castle  of 
Arundel.1  Now,  in  spite  of  this  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment, no  one  now  pretends  that  Fitzalan,  Clun  and 
Oswaldestre  had  any  existence  as  peerage  dignities, 
or  were  anything  but  '  plumes '  assumed  by  the 
family  for  its  own  adornment.  Of  what  possible 
value,  therefore,  can  the  far  vaguer  language  of  the 
1604  Act  be  deemed  as  evidence,  when  all  that 

1  Tierney's  Arundel^  I.  132-3. 
448 


THE    BARONY   OF    MOWBRAY 

could  be  urged  was  that  its  mention  of  baronies 
must  allude  to  more  than  that  of  Howard,  and 
must  consequently  comprise  those  of  Mowbray  and 
Segrave  ? 

To  any  one  conversant  with  the  practice  in 
such  matters  the  worthlessness  of  such  evidence 
needs  no  demonstration. 

We  have  now  seen  that,  if  the  claim  based  on 
the  Letters-missive  of  Richard  III.  be  abandoned, 
the  case  stands  thus:  The  abeyance  must  have 
been  determined  after  the  restoration  of  1489  and 
before  the  attainder  of  1572,  but  nothing  is 
known  as  to  how,  or  even  when,  it  was  done, 
while  the  only  ground  for  supposing  that  it  was 
ever  done  at  all  is  an  Act  of  Parliament  at  a  later 
period,  which  does  not  state  that  the  abeyance 
was  determined,  and  does  not  even  name  the 
baronies  in  question. 

So  little  was  the  supposed  determination  sus- 
pected at  the  time,  that  the  Lords  Berkeley  styled 
themselves  Lords  Mowbray  and  Segrave  con- 
stantly from  1488  to  1698,  a  fact  which  counsel, 
of  course,  kept  carefully  out  of  sight.  For  Mr. 
Fleming's  argument  was  that  all  such  assumptions 
were  valid  ;  and  yet,  if  this  one  was  so,  there  was 
at  once  an  end  of  his  case. 

The  view  that  I  shall  myself  advance  removes 
every  difficulty.  The  Mowbray  summons  of  1 640 
is,  I  hold,  exactly  parallel  with  the  Strange  and 
Clifford  summonses  of  1628.  All  these  were 
issued  in  error.  It  can  be  shown  that  great  nobles 

449  G  G 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

were  in  the  habit  of  annexing  minor  titles  in  the 
most  casual  manner  ;  and  that  the  Crown,  in  this 
matter,  so  far  took  them  at  their  own  valuation  as 
to  allow  them,  in  most  formal  documents,  these 
ornamental  appendices.  Of  this  there  are  most 
curious  examples,  although  they  are  little  known. 
These  minor  titles  were  sometimes  retained,  wrong- 
fully, by  heirs-male,  sometimes  those  of  baronies  in 
abeyance,  sometimes  mere  inventions.  Let  us  take 
the  first.  The  strange  doctrine  that  an  earldom  (in 
tail  male)  '  attracts '  a  barony  (in  fee)  was  advanced 
in  the  cases  of  Roos  (1616) — now  De  Ros — and 
Fitzwalter  (1668),  but  was  disposed  of  by  the  judges 
in  the  latter.  And  yet  the  arguments  in  the  How- 
ard of  Walden  case  (1691-2),  now  made  more 
accessible  by  the  publication  of  a  House  of  Lords 
MS.,1  are  important  as  showing  that,  even  at  this 
late  date,  it  was  urged  on  behalf  of  the  earl  of 
Suffolk  (heir-male)  by  his  counsel,  Mr.  (afterwards 
chief  baron)  Ward  and  Mr.  Wallop  that  the 
barony  was  vested  in  him,  not  in  the  heirs-general 
(in  spite  of  the  1668  decision  ut  supra).  For  this 
they  relied  inter  alia  on  the  Strange  and  Clifford 
cases  (1628),  in  which,  as  we  now  hold,  the  titles 
were  recognised  in  error.  Failing  this,  they  urged 
that  the  barony  was  wholly  at  the  King's  disposal, 
without  preference,  to  the  heirs-general  over  the 
heirs-male.  For  this  view  their  precedent  was  the 
case  of  the  earldom  of  Oxford  (1626),  "in  which 
case  it  was  decided  that  the  baronies  were  at  the 

1   1 3th  Report  on  Historical  MSS.,  App.  V.  pp.  479-489. 

450 


THE   BARONY   OF   MOWBRAY 

King's  disposal."1  The  precedents  put  in  on  be- 
half of  the  earl  of  Suffolk,  and  certified  by  Wind- 
sor Herald,  confirm  further  my  statements  as  to 
the  assumption  of  dignities.  Of  these,  the  two 
most  important  for  my  purpose  are  : 

(1)  Derby.     In  this  case,  on  the  death  of  Ferdi- 

nand, earl  of  Derby  (1594),  the  baronies 
vested  in  him  are  held  to  have  fallen  into 
abeyance  between  his  three  daughters. 

"  The  Baronies,  notwithstanding,  were  used  and  enjoyed  by 
William,  Earl  of  Derby,  brother  and  heir-male  to  the  said  Ferdi- 
nand, and  being  chosen  Knight  of  the  Garter  (at  his  installation, 
according  to  custom),  the  said  William's  titles  and  stile  were  pro- 
claimed in  the  presence  of  Queen  Elizabeth  in  1601,  which  were 
William  Stanley,  Earl  of  Derby,  Lord  Stanley,  Strange  of  Knock- 
ing and  of  the  Isle  of  Man,  and  were  also  engraven  upon  his 
plate  under  his  arms  at  the  back  of  his  stall,  and  continue  still 
[1692]  to  be  used  by  the  present  Earl  of  Derby,  without  the  least 
dispute,  which  we  do  esteem  a  good  precedent "  (p.  486). 

(2)  Oxford.     In   this  case   the  judges  had  re- 

ported (1626)  that  the  three  baronies  in 
dispute  "  descended  to  the  general  heirs  of 
John,  the  I4th  Earl  of  Oxford,"  in  1526. 

"The  Baronies,  notwithstanding,  accompanied  the  Earldom, 
and  Aubrey  de  Vere,  the  present  Earl  of  Oxford,  when  installed 
Knight  of  the  Garter,  with  the  title  of  Earl  of  Oxford,  were  (sic) 


1  The  judges  had  reported  that  "  they,  in  strictness  of  law  re- 
verted to,  and  were  in  the  disposition  of,  king  Henry  the  Eighth." 
But  the  House  resolved  "  that  the  baronies  of  Bolbecke,  Sandford, 
and  Badlesmere  are  in  his  Majesty's  disposition"  (Lords' Journals, 
III.  537),  22  March  1625-6,  and  certified  the  King  (5  April) 
that  "  they  are  wholly  in  your  Majesty's  hand,  to  dispose  at  your 
own  pleasure"  (p.  552),  according  to  the  judges. 

451 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

also  proclaimed  his  baronies  of  Bolebec,  Sandford,  and  Badles- 
mere,  in  the  presence  of  the  King,  and  are  also  engraven  upon 
his  plate  at  the  back  of  his  stall  at  Windsor,  which  we  do  esteem 
also  a  precedent"  (p.  487). 

These  cases  have  a  grave  bearing  on  the  admis- 
sibility  of  garter-plates  in  evidence.  Considerable 
stress  was  laid  on  their  testimony  in  the  Mowbray 
case  itself ;  and  if  that  of  the  Letters-missive  must 
now  be  abandoned,  a  garter-plate  will  not  be  found 
an  efficient  substitute. 

One  of  the  arguments  for  the  doctrine  of  c  at- 
traction '  was  that,  otherwise,  ancient  earldoms 
"  should  lose  the  plumes  of  their  honour."  This 
happily  expresses  the  spirit  of  those  great  nobles 
who  decked  themselves  with  such  plumes,  too 
often  c  borrowed  plumes,'  either  by  inventing 
baronies  which  had  no  existence,  or  by  retaining 
those  which  should  have  passed  to  heirs-general. 
Sometimes  they  did  both.  Thus  in  the  case  of 
the  earldom  of  Oxford  (1626)  the  judges  held  that 
the  baronies  of  "  Bulbeck,  Sandford,  and  Badles- 
mere  "  had  passed  away  to  heirs-general  a  century 
before,  but  that  five  earls,  in  succession,  had  since 
"  assumed  these  titles  nominally  in  all  their  leases 
and  conveyances,  and  the  eldest  son  [is]  called  still 
by  the  name  of  Lord  Bulbeck."  But  modern  re- 
search has  further  shown  that  "  Bulbeck  and  Sand- 
ford  "  had  never  even  existed  as  peerage  baronies 
while  Badlesmere  was  in  abeyance,  an  abeyance 
determined  by  the  earls  themselves  in  their  own 
favour,  as  was  that  of  Mowbray  (I  hold)  by  the 
Howards.  So,  too,  the  Howards,  in  1627,  foisted 

452 


THE   BARONY   OF   MOWBRAY 

upon  the  Crown  "  the  titles  and  dignities  of  the 
baronies  of  Fitz-alan,  Clun  and  Oswaldestre,  and 
Maltravers,"  which  they  employed,  though  it  is 
admitted  that  Maltravers  alone  was  a  genuine 
peerage  barony.  The  Crown  was  actually  induced 
not  only  to  recognise  them  all  (to  the  eternal  con- 
fusion of  peerage  students),  but  to  wrench  them 
from  their  natural  descent  and  entail  them,  together 
with  the  earldom  and  castle  of  Arundel,  on  the 
Howards  by  a  special  Act  of  Parliament.  The 
same  Act  recognised  by  its  preamble  the  preten- 
sion that  Arundel  was  an  earldom  by  tenure, 
though  our  better  knowledge  of  history  has  shown 
the  absurdity  of  the  claim.  Thus  these  baronies 
were  made,  by  violence,  to  c  attend '  the  earldom, 
much  as  James  I.,  in  1620,  by  a  similar  stretch  of 
the  prerogative,  had  annexed  the  barony  of  Offaley 
to  the  earldom  of  Kildare.1 

The  best  known  and  latest  instance  of  erroneous 
recognition  by  the  Crown,  is  the  patent  of  creation 
for  the  earldom  of  Leicester  in  1784.  In  this 
instrument  three  baronies  were  recognised  as  vest- 
ing in  the  earl,  to  none  of  which  he  could  prove 
a  right. 

From  such  recognitions  it  was  but  a  step  to 
summoning  the  son  and  heir  of  an  earl  in  a  barony 

1  In  an  article  on  '  The  Earldom  of  Kildare  and  Barony  of 
Offaley '  (Genealogist  [N.S.],  IX.  2O2~5),  cited  in  Complete  Peer- 
age (VI.  1 1 3-4),  I  have  urged  that  this  very  barony  of  Offaley 
may  have  been  another  case  of  assumption,  and  that  it  is  doubtful 
whether  it  even  existed  when  James  was  called  upon  to  decide  by 
whom  it  ought  to  be  inherited. 

453 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

to  which  his  father  was  supposed  to  be  entitled. 
This  was  done,  I  suggested  above  (p.  337),  in  the 
case  of  George  Boleyn's  summons  in  the  barony 
of  Rochford  ;  it  was  certainly  done,  by  universal 
admission,  in  the  case  of  the  earl  of  Derby's  son, 
summoned  as  Lord  Strange  in  1628,  though  the 
earls,  since  1594,  had  not  been  entitled  to  that 
barony,  as  also  in  that  of  the  earl  of  Cumberland's 
son,  summoned  in  1628  as  Lord  Clifford,  though 
that  barony  had  passed  away  from  the  earldom  in 
1605.  It  was  again  done  in  1722,  when  a  sum- 
mons in  the  barony  of  Percy  was  issued  in  error. 
In  all  three  cases  the  result  of  this  error  was,  ad- 
mittedly, the  creation  of  a  wholly  new  barony. 
My  contention  is  that  the  Mowbray  summons  of 
1640  was  an  error  precisely  similar.  And  as  for 
the  admission  of  the  original  precedence,  it  was 
similarly  admitted  in  the  case  of  Percy.1 

An  exact  parallel  to  the  Mowbray  summons  of 
1 640,  a  parallel  of  great  importance  for  the  alleged 
determination  of  the  abeyance,  is  found  in  the  Say 
summons  of  1 6 1  o.  ^1399  the  barony  of  Say  fell 
into  abeyance  (according  to  the  modern  doctrine) 
between  the  descendants  of  three  sisters,  one  of 
whom  was  the  Lord  Clinton  who  died  in  1432. 
He  thereupon  assumed  the  style  "  Dominus  de 
Clynton  et  de  Say."  His  son  went  so  far  (i  Nov. 
1448)  as  to  grant  to  his  kinsman  James  Fiennes 
(who  was  not  a  co-heir  of  the  barony),  "and  to  his 
heirs  and  assigns  for  ever,  the  name  and  title  of 

1  It  is  a  singular   coincidence  that  Lord  Strange  was  one  or 
Lord  Mowbray's  two  introducers  in  1640. 

454 


THE   BARONY   OF   MOWBRAY 

Lord  Say";1  and  the  grantee's  barony  of  c  Saye  ' 
has  descended  to  the  present  Lord  c  Saye  and  Sele.' 
Yet  the  Clintons  continued  to  use  the  title,  and 
when  Edward  Lord  Clinton,  who  had  taken  his 
seat  as  Lord  Say  in  1536  and  had  been  then 
ranked,  avowedly,  as  Lord  Say,2  was  created  earl  of 
Lincoln  (4  May  1572)  the  heralds  proclaimed  his 
style  as  "  Sir  Edward  Fynes  Conte  de  Lincoln, 
Seigneur  Clinton  et  Say."  His  grandson  was  re- 
turned as  member  for  Grimsby,  In  his  father's 
lifetime  (1601-4)  as  "  Lord  Clynton  and  Saye,3  and 
was  called  up  to  the  House  of  Lords  in  1610  as 
"Thomas  Clynton  de  Say"  precisely  as  Henry 
Frederick  Howard  was  called  up  in  1640  in  the 
barony  of  Mowbray. 

Again,  what  of  the  writs  of  summons  addressed 
to  Lord  Darcy  as  "  Conyers  de  Darcie  et  Mey- 
nill"  (1678-1680)?  Did  they  determine  the 
abeyance  of  Meynill,  of  which  barony  he  was  a 
co-heir  ?  Or  were  they  simply  issued  in  error,  as 
were  those  to  his  relative,  as  "  Johanni  Darcy  et 
Meinill,"  from  1605  to  1629?  And  what  of 
'Baroness  Dudley'  (1757-1762),  'Baroness  Le 
Despencer '  (1781-1788),  and  'Baroness  Crom- 
well' (1687-1709),  who  was  actually  summoned 
as  such,  in  error,  to  two  coronations  ? 

As  might  be  expected,  the  decision  of  the  Com- 
mittee, in  1877,  has  opened  the  door  to  further 

1  Dugdale's  Baronage. 

2  Dugdale's  Baronage  (from  H.  13,  fo.  387^7,  compare  p.  332 
above). 

3  i4th  Report  Hist.  MSS.,  App,  VIII.  p.  279. 

455 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

claims  based  on  user  and  its  recognition.  We 
now,  for  instance,  read  that 

the  Barony  of  Braose  was  continually  and  uninterruptedly 
assumed  and  claimed  by  the  Mowbray  family  and  by  their 
successors  the  Howards,  both  of  which  families  styled  themselves 
or  were  styled  Lords  Braose  l  in  Charters,  Letters  Patent,  and 
Funeral  Certificates,  and  on  their  monuments  and  Garter  plates. 
This  persistent  and  perpetual  usage  of  the  title  must  inevitably 
cause  one  to  think  they  had  good  reason  to  believe  that  the 
abeyances  had  been  determined  in  their  favour.  Comparing  the 
evidence  available  for  the  purposes  of  establishing  this  fact  with 
that  similarly  available  in  relation  to  the  Barony  of  Segrave  in 
1877,  it  is  not  an  unlikely  supposition  that  sufficient  evidence 
could  be  produced  to  justify  the  Committee  for  Privileges  in 
accepting  the  determination  in  favour  of  the  Howards  as  an 
established  fact.2 

Precisely  so  !  If  a  Committee  for  Privileges  has 
not  yet  mastered  the  elementary  fact  that  titles 
in  England,  as  in  Scotland  and  Ireland,  have  un- 
doubtedly been  assumed,  used,  and  even  recognised 
in  error,  it  is  capable  of  accepting  the  wildest 
claims  and  of  plunging  Peerage  history  into  utter 
and  hopeless  confusion. 

To  recapitulate,  I  claim  to  have  shown : 
(i)  That  the  words  of  the  Resolution,  'pre- 
viously to  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth '  (i.e.  to 
1558),  are  merely  a  careless  blunder;  and  that 
what  was  meant  was  c  previously  to '  the  death  of 
Thomas  duke  of  Norfolk  (i.e.  to  1572),  who  lived 
in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth. 

1  Unluckily  for  this  argument  the  Berkeley  co-heirs  of  the 
Mowbrays  similarly  assumed  this  title  with  those  of  Mowbray 
and  Segrave  (Complete  Peerage,  I.  333-4). 

*   The  House  of  Stourton,  II.  994. 

456 


THE   BARONY   OF    MOWBRAY 

(2)  That  the    Letters-missive   of  Richard  III. 
were  vouched  by  the  Petitioner   as   the  proof  of 
the  determination   of  the   abeyance   (before  their 
date),  although  such  evidence  never  had  been,  and 
never  ought  to  be  accepted  as  the  proof  of  such 
determination. 

(3)  That  if  the  abeyance  was  then  determined, 
the  baronies   of  Mowbray  and   Segrave   are   now 
under  attainder. 

(4)  That  the  determination  of  the  abeyance  pre- 
vious to  Sept.   1484  must  therefore  be  abandoned 
as  a  ratio  decidendi^  and  the  Resolution  be  construed 
as   asserting    a    determination   between    1489  and 
1572. 

(5)  That  of  such  determination  there  is  no  proof, 
Petitioner  having  vouched  the  Letters-missive  as 
the  '  sole  ground '  for  the  user  of  the  titles,  and 
the  Committee  having  deemed  them  essential  to 
his  case. 

The  moral,  surely,  is  obvious  enough.  If  peer- 
age claims  are  to  be  thus  decided  on  ex  parte 
evidence,  the  most  fatal  flaws  in  the  Petitioner's 
case  may,  as  on  this  occasion,  pass  undetected. 


457 


XI 

The  Succession  to  the  Crown 

ON  the  lamented  death  of  the  duke  of  Clarence 
in  1892  it  was  universally  assumed,  and  was  the 
subject  of  general  comment,  that  only  the  life  of 
the  duke  of  York  stood  between  the  duchess  of 
Fife  and  the  ultimate  succession  to  the  Crown. 
But  it  seems  to  be  at  least  open  to  question  whether 
this  was  legally  the  case,  and  indeed  whether  the 
event  of  such  a  contingency  occurring  is  at  present 
clearly  provided  for. 

It  is  no  doubt  generally  believed  that  in  the 
event  of  the  succession  opening  to  two  or  more 
sisters,  the  Crown,  in  England,  would  always  pass 
to  the  eldest  sister  as  of  right.  But  it  is  not  a 
question  of  general  belief ;  it  is  a  question  of  an 
Act  of  Parliament.  Although  the  fact  is  often 
forgotten,  the  crown  of  these  realms  is  held  by  the 
present  royal  family  under  the  Act  of  Succession 
and  under  that  Act  alone.  The  descent  of  the  crown, 
therefore,  is  determined  by  the  wording  of  that 
Act,  and  the  interpretation  of  that  wording  is 
a  matter,  not  of  supposition,  but  of  law.  I  here 
append  the  actual  wording  of  the  clause  limiting 

458 


THE   SUCCESSION   TO   THE   CROWN 


the  succession  in  12  and  13  William  III.  cap.  2, 
and  by  its  side  I  print  the  parallel  clause  from  the 
previous  Act  of  Succession,  i  William  and  Mary, 
sess.  2,  cap.  2. 


I  Will,  and  Mary,  sess.  2,  cap.  2. 
The  said  lords  spiritual!  and 
temporall  and  commons  assembled 
at  Westminster  doe  resolve  that 
William  and  Mary  Prince  and 
Princesse  of  Orange  be  and  be  de- 
clared King  and  Queene  of  Eng- 
land France  and  the  dominions 
thereunto  belonging  to  hold  the 
crowne  and  royall  dignity  of  the 
said  kingdomes  and  dominions  to 
them  the  said  prince  and  princesse 
dureing  their  lives  and  the  life  of 
the  survivour  of  them.  And  that 
the  sole  and  full  exercise  of  the 
regall  power  be  onely  in  and  exe- 
cuted by  the  said  Prince  of  Orange 
in  the  names  of  the  said  prince 
and  princesse  dureing  their  joynt 
lives  and  after  their  deceases  the 
said  crown  and  royall  dignitie  of 
the  said  kingdoms  and  dominions 
to  be  to  the  heires  of  the  body  of 
the  said  princesse  and  for  default 
of  such  issue  to  the  Princess  Anne 
of  Denmarke  and  the  heires  of  her 
body  and  for  default  of  such  issue 
to  the  heires  of  the  body  of  the 
said  Prince  of  Orange.1 

The  whole  question  turns  on  the  words  "  the 
heirs  of  her  body."  Is  there  any  precedent  for 
construing  these  words  as  a  limitation  to  the  eldest 

1  Statutes  Revised,  II.  II.  2  Ibid.  pp.  94-5. 

459 


1 2  and  1 3  William  III.,  cap. 
2. 

for  default  of  issue  of  the 
said  Princess  Ann  and  of 
his  Majesty  respectively  the 
crown  and  regall  government 
of  the  said  kingdoms  of  Eng- 
land France  and  Ireland  and 
of  the  dominions  thereunto 
belonging  with  the  royall 
state  and  dignity  of  the  said 
realms  and  all  honours  stiles 
titles  regalities  prerogatives 
powers  jurisdictions  and  au- 
thorities to  the  same  belong- 
ing and  appertaining  shall  be 
remain  and  continue  to  the 
said  most  excellent  Princess 
Sophia  and  the  heirs  of  her 
body  being  Protestants? 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

alone  of  two  or  more  daughters  ?  The  authors  of 
the  History  of  English  Law1  observe,  in  their 
chapter  on  "  The  Law  of  Descent,"  that 

The  manner  in  which  our  law  deals  with  an  inheritance 
which  falls  to  ...  daughters  may  give  us  some  valuable 
hints  as  to  the  history  of  primogeniture.  If  we  look  merely  at 
the  daughters  and  isolate  them  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  their 
claims  are  equal,  and  the  law  will  show  no  preference  for  the  first- 
born. This  principle  was  well  maintained,  even  though  some  of 
the  things  comprised  in  the  inheritance  were  not  such  as  could  be 
easily  divided,  or  were  likely  to  become  of  less  value  in  the  process 
of  division.  For  example,  if  there  was  but  one  house,  the  eldest 
daughter  had  no  right  to  insist  that  this  should  fall  to  her  share, 
even  though  she  was  willing  to  bring  its  value  into  account.  No, 
unless  the  parceners  could  agree  upon  some  other  plan,  the  house 
itself  was  physically  divided  (II.  273). 

When  we  turn  to  peerage  dignities,  themselves 
also  (we  shall  see  below)  deemed  real  estate,  we 
find  that,  in  the  case  of  baronies,  the  impartible 
nature  of  such  dignities  leads,  not  to  their  inheri- 
tance by  the  eldest  co-heiress  alone,  but  to  their 
disappearance  by  falling  into  "  abeyance."  The 
latest  writer  on  the  doctrine  of  abeyance  is  Mr.  L. 
O.  Pike,  who  traces  its  growth  and  insists  on  the 
late  date  of  its  acceptance.2  He  cites  the  well- 
known  conclusion  of  the  judges  on  the  earl  of 
Oxford's  baronies  (1626)  that  they  "descended 
upon  the  said  daughters  as  his  sisters  and  heirs  ; 
but,  those  dignities  being  entire  and  not  dividable, 
they  became  uncapable  of  the  same,  otherwise 

1  Prof.  Sir  F.  Pollock  and  Prof.  Maitland. 

2  Constitutional  History  of  the  House  of  Lords,   pp.   131-139. 
Mr.  Pike  agrees,  as  a  lawyer,  with  my  criticism  of  the  alleged 
determination  of  the  Mowbray  abeyance. 

460 


THE   SUCCESSION   TO   THE   CROWN 

than  by  gift  from  the  Crown."  The  Lords  them- 
selves treated  this  opinion  as  extinguishing  the 
right  to  the  baronies  in  question ;  for  they  reported 
to  the  king  that  "  they  are  wholly  in  your  Majesty's 
hands  to  dispose  at  your  own  pleasure."  Mr. 
Pike  holds  that  "  the  earliest  case  in  which  any- 
thing like  the  doctrine  of  abeyance  was  recognised 
was,  it  is  almost  certain,  that  of  Lord  Windsor  in 
the  reign  of  Charles  II."  This  case  (1660),  he 
admits,  did  imply  that  the  king's  "  power  in  re- 
lation to  the  barony  does  not  extend  beyond  the 
co-heirs  and  their  representatives."  Apart  from 
the  fact  that  the  writer,  we  have  seen,  was  not 
acquainted  with  the  earlier  action  taken  in  respect 
of  this  barony  by  king  Charles  I.,1  he  appears  to 
have  also  overlooked  the  most  interesting  patent 
creating  the  barony  of  Lucas  of  Crudwell  (7  May 
i663).2  There  was  a  special  proviso  in  this 
patent 

that  if  at  any  time  or  times  .  .  .  there  shall  be  more 
persons  than  one  who  shall  be  co-heirs  of  her  body  by  the  said 
Earl,  so  that  the  King  or  his  heirs  might  declare  which  of  them  should 
have  the  dignity ',  or  otherwise  the  dignity  should  be  suspended  or 
extinguished,  then,  nevertheless,  the  dignity  should  not  be 
suspended  or  extinguished,  but  should  go  and  be  held  and  enjoyed 
from  time  to  time  by  such  of  the  said  co-heirs  as  by  course  of 
descent  and  the  common  law  of  the  realm  should  be  inheritable 
in  other  entire  and  indivisible  inheritancy,  as  namely — an  office  of 
honour  and  public  trust,  or  a  castle  for  the  necessary  defence  of 
the  realm,  and  the  like,  in  case  such  inheritance  had  been  given 
and  limited  to  the  said  Countess  and  the  heirs  of  her  body  by 
the  said  Earl  begotten. 

1  See  p.  360  above. 

2  This  barony  is  now  vested  in  Lord  Cowper. 

461 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

The  object  of  this  clumsy  and  quite  exceptional 
proviso,  under  which  the  barony  has  been  inherited 
more  than  once  by  an  eldest  daughter  and  co-heir, 
was  to  prevent  the  dignity  ever  falling  into  abey- 
ance, as  abeyance  was  then  understood.  This 
patent  was  overlooked,  I  have  said,  by  Mr.  Pike  ; 
for  the  words  I  have  italicized  should,  clearly,  be 
compared  with  those  in  the  Windsor  docquet  : 
"  that  it  belongeth  to  his  Majesty  to  declare  which 
of  the  said  co-heirs  shall  enjoy  the  dignity  of  their 
ancestors."  The  allusion  to  "  a  castle  for  the 
necessary  defence  of  the  realm  "  is  of  special  in- 
terest, because  it  seems  to  refer  to  Bracton's 
doctrine,  ages  before,  that  among  the  very  few 
indivisible  things  were  a  castle  and  a  caput  taronue, 
for  the  reason  that,  if  they  were  divisible,  "  earl- 
doms and  baronies  would  be  brought  to  naught, 
and  the  realm  itself  is  constituted  of  earldoms  and 
baronies." 1  As  for  the  assertion,  which  appears  to 
be  made,  that  an  "  office  of  honour  and  public 
trust "  would  pass  by  "  the  common  law  of  the 
realm"  to  one  of  two  or  more  co-heirs,  it  is 
directly  contradicted  by  the  case  of  the  office  of 
Great  Chamberlain.  For  this  most  dignified 
"  office  of  honour,"  which  was  an  inheritance  in 
fee,  was  decided  by  the  House  of  Lords,  in  1781, 
to  vest  jointly  in  the  two  sisters  of  the  last  duke  of 
Ancaster  (d.  1779)  with  the  awkward  result  that 
there  has  since  been  no  one  person  entitled,  as  of 
right,  to  that  office.2 

1  History  of  English  Law,  II.  273. 

2  Complete  Peerage,  I.  207. 

462 


THE   SUCCESSION   TO   THE   CROWN 

Having  now  shown  that,  in  the  case  of  a  barony, 
the  words  "  heirs  of  her  body  "  were  well  under- 
stood to  mean  that  two  or  more  daughters  would 
inherit  equal  rights  to  the  barony,  and  that  there- 
fore a  special  proviso  was  needed  to  avert  its 
becoming  "  suspended  or  extinguished,"  I  advance 
to  the  case  of  an  earldom.  So  far  back  as  1627  t'ie 
earldom  of  Arundel  (with  appendant  baronies)  was 
entailed  by  Act  of  Parliament  on  "  Thomas  Earl  of 
Arundel  and  Surrey  and  the  heirs  male  of  his 
body  ;  and  for  default  of  such  issue,  to  the  heirs  of 
his  body."  l  But  this  remainder  has  never  come, 
and  is  never  likely  to  come,  into  play.  The 
question,  however,  has  been  raised  in  very  recent 
years  by  the  limitation  of  the  earldom  of  Cromartie, 
in  its  strange  patent  of  creation  (1861),  to  the 
grantee's  second  surviving  son,  with  a  special 
remainder  over  to  "  the  heirs  of  his  body."  On 
the  death  of  Lord  Cromartie  (24  Nov.  1893), 
without  male  issue,  the  "  heirs  of  his  body  "  were 
represented  by  his  two  daughters  and  co-heiresses, 
and  what  was  to  become  of  the  earldom  no  man 
could  say.  It  was  well  recognised  that,  under  the 
limitation,  the  two  co-heiresses  had  in  law  an  equal 
right  to  inherit  the  dignity,  and,  had  it  been  a 
barony,  the  Crown  need  only  have  '  called  it  out  of 
abeyance '  in  favour  of  one  or  the  other.  But  there 
was  no  precedent  for  extending  to  an  earldom  the 
modern  doctrine  of  abeyance.  Consequently, 

1  See  Tierney's  History  of  Arundel^  p.  133;  also  pp.  137-8, 
on  the  impossibility  of  understanding  such  remainder,  which  Lord 
Redesdale  (in  the  Lords'  Reports)  deemed  due  to  inadvertence. 

463 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

Burkes  Peerage  contained,  in  1894  and  1895,  the 
following  account  of  the  dignity,  treating  it  as  in 
suspension  : 

The  limitation  of  this  earldom  being  to  the  heirs  male  of  the 
late  Earl,  and  on  failure  of  such  to  his  heirs,  with  other  remainders 
over,  a  question  naturally  arises  as  to  whether  or  not  this  dignity 
is  now  in  abeyance  between  his  two  daus.  and  co-heirs. 

In  1895  the  Gordian  knot  was  cut  by  the  Crown 
mero  motu  suo  taking  direct  action. 

The  Queen  has  been  pleased  by  Letters  Patent  .  .  . 
bearing  date  the  25th  day  of  February  1895  to  declare  that 
Sibell  Lilian  Mackenzie,  commonly  called  Lady  Sibell  Lilian 
Mackenzie,  the  elder  of  the  two  daughters  of  Francis,  late  Earl 
of  Cromartie  ...  is  and  shall  be  Countess  of  Cromartie, 
etc.,  etc.  .  .  .  And  to  give,  grant,  and  confirm  the  said 
Earldom  of  Cromartie,  etc.,  etc.  ...  to  the  said  Sibell  Lilian 
Mackenzie  ;  to  have  and  to  hold  the  said  Earldom,  Viscountcy, 
and  Baronies,  together  with  all  the  rights,  privileges,  pre-emi- 
nences, immunities,  and  advantages,  and  the  place  and  preced- 
ence due  and  belonging  thereto,  to  her,  and  to  the  heirs  of  her 
body  .  .  .  in  as  full  and  ample  a  manner  as  the  said  Francis 
Earl  of  Cromartie  or  his  mother,  Anne  Duchess  of  Sutherland 
deceased  .  .  .  held  and  enjoyed  the  same.1 

It  is  by  no  means  clear  how  we  should  describe 
this  action  of  the  Crown.  The  form  employed  is 
not  the  same  as  that  which  is  used  when  a  barony 
is  called  out  of  abeyance  in  favour  of  one  of  its  co- 
heiresses,2 for  in  this  case  the  strong  words  "  to 
give,  grant,  and  confirm  "  are  introduced.  In  the 
Complete  Peerage,  indeed,  the  letters  patent  are 
boldly  described  as  "  terminating  the  abeyance  of 
her  father's  peerage  in  her  favour  "  ; 3  but  it  is  not 

1  London  Gazette,  5  March  1895. 

2  See  pp.  363,  364  above.  3  Vol.  VIII.  359. 

464 


THE    SUCCESSION   TO   THE   CROWN 

too  much  to  say  that,  down  to  1895,  tne  doctrine 
of  abeyance  had  not  been  applied  to  the  case  of  an 
earldom,  and  still  less  had  such  abeyance  been 
determined  by  the  action  of  the  Crown.  I  am 
probably  not  alone  in  thinking  that  the  Crown,  on 
this  occasion,  may  have  acted  ultra  'vires  and  have 
exceeded  its  powers  in  deciding  proprio  motu  a  legal 
question  of  inheritance.  For  so  recently  as  7 
Feb.  in  the  present  year  Mr.  Justice  Barnes,  in 
delivering  a  considered  judgment  on  the  Cowley 
case,  observed  that — 

The  dignities  of  the  Peerage  having  been  originally  annexed  to 
lands  were  considered  as  tenements  or  incorporeal  hereditaments 
wherein  a  person  might  have  a  real  estate  ;  and  although  dignities 
are  now  becoming  little  more  than  personal  honours  and  rights, 
yet  they  are  still  classed  under  the  head  of  real  property  (Cruise, 
c.  4,  i,  i  ;  C.  Litt.  16s).1 

The  Crown,  it  may  be  urged,  is  the  fountain  of 
honour ;  but  when  dignities  have  once  been  created, 
they  can  only  descend  according  to  law,  under  the 
limitation  in  the  patent.2 

1  The   Times,  8    Feb.    1900,  p.    14.     The  above  is  simply  a 
repetition  of  the  opening  words  of  chapter  iv.  of  *  Cruise  on  Dig- 
nities '  (1823). 

2  Although  the  above  assertion  in  the  text  would    be   now 
accepted  on  all  sides,  it  is  but  right  to  mention  that  the  early 
Stuart  kings  appear  to  have    endeavoured,   upon    this    point,  to 
stretch  the  prerogative.     It  is  possible  that  this  attempt,  which 
seems  to  have   escaped  notice,  may  be  due  to  their  familiarity 
with   the  Scottish  system  of  resignation  and    regrant.     In    the 
Windsor  case,  for  instance  (p.  360  above),  Charles  I.  endeavoured 
(1646)  to  bestow  the  old  barony  of  Windsor,  then  in  abeyance 
between  two  co-heirs,  on  one  of  them  in  tail  male,  though  he  seems 
to  have  thought  that  this  declaration  might  be  "  ineffectual  in 

465  H  H 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

The  Crown,  it  must  be  remembered,  has  not  the 
power  to  alter  the  limitation  even  of  dignities 
created  by  itself.  Of  this  we  were  reminded  less 
than  three  years  ago,  when,  according  to  the  news- 
papers, Lord  Burton  (cr.  1886)  was  granted  an 
alteration  in  his  patent  enabling  his  daughter  to 
succeed  to  the  barony,  but  when,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  a  fresh  barony,  with  a  special  remainder  to 
his  daughter,  had  to  be  created  (29  Nov.  1897) 
for  the  purpose.  Indeed,  it  has  now  been  laid 
down  that,  even  in  creating  dignities,  the  Crown 
must  c  play  the  game.'  Lord  Chancellor  Cairns, 
in  his  judgment  on  the  Buckhurst  case,  enunciated 
this  doctrine  in  the  words  : 

It  is  the  well-established  constitutional  law  of  the  country  that 
Peerages  partake  of  the  qualities  of  real  estate,  inasmuch  as  they 
must  be  descendible  in  a  course  known  to  the  law  ...  it  had 
been  clearly  laid  down  by  the  Committee  for  Privileges  . 
that  the  Crown  could  not  give  to  a  grant  of  a  peerage  a  quality 
of  descent  unknown  to  the  law.1 

Law."  The  same  thing,  however,  had  been  done,  in  1641,  in 
the  Conyers  case,  when  the  Conyers  barony,  with  its  old  prece- 
dence, was  bestowed  on  one  of  two  co-heirs  in  tail  male.  The 
precedent  had  been  set  by  James  I.  so  early  as  1604,  when  the 
old  barony  of  Abergavenny  was  diverted  from  its  legal  descent  in 
favour  of  the  heir-male  (it  has  since  descended  in  tail  male, 
though  it  is  not  known  why).  The  Roos  (1616),  Offaley 
(1620)  and  Arundel  (1627)  cases  a^  illustrate  the  efforts  made  at 
this  period  to  divert  the  descent  of  dignities  in  fee  in  favour  of 
heirs-male,  though  in  the  Dacre  case  (1604)  they  signally  failed. 
It  is  a  curious  circumstance  that  the  same  tendency  has  resulted 
in  the  three  most  famous  ducal  castles  in  England,  Alnwick, 
Arundel,  and  Belvoir,  passing  away  from  the  heirs  of  their  feudal 
lords  to  the  families  of  Smithson,  Howard,  and  Manners,  who  are 
not  their  present  representatives.  *  Times,  19  July  1876. 

466 


THE   SUCCESSION   TO   THE    CROWN 

In  the  same  case  the  Attorney-General  had  ad- 
mitted on  behalf  of  the  Crown  that — 

Although  her  Majesty  was  the  fountain  of  honour  and  could 
ennoble  those  whom  she  chose,  yet  all  grants  of  dignities  must  be 
made  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  Parliament  and  in  the  cus- 
tomary manner.1 

It  was  resolved  by  the  Committee  that  the  chal- 
lenged proviso  was  invalid,  that  is  to  say,  that  the 
Crown  had  exceeded  its  powers  by  inserting  it 
in  the  patent  of  creation.2 

This  decision  is  considered  to  apply,  of  necessity, 
to  the  Cromartie  patent  also,  which  had  been 
granted  three  years  earlier  (1861),  for  both  patents 
contained,  in  the  words  of  G.  E.  C.,  the  same  "  ex- 
traordinary proviso,  whereby  the  attempt  is  made 
to  subject  a  peerage  dignity  to  a  shifting  remainder 
(so  that,  on  certain  contingencies  happening,  it 
would  pass  from  one  person  to  another)."  While 
on  the  subject  of  the  action  of  the  Crown  in 
determining  the  descent  of  peerage  dignities,  I  may 
glance  at  its  autocratic  treatment  of  the  historic 
barony  of  Berkeley.  On  the  death,  in  1882,  of 
Thomas  de  jure  earl  of  Berkeley,  the  right  to  the 

1  Times,  19  July  1876. 

2  The  resolution  ran  :  "  That  the  said  barony  to  which  the 
said  Reginald  Windsor  so  succeeded  did  not  under  or  by  virtue  of 
the  declaration  and   proviso  in  the  Letters  Patent  cease  or  deter- 
mine on  the   succession  of  the  said  Reginald  Windsor  to  the 
earldom  of  De  La  Warr."     Lord  De  La  Warr  had  petitioned 
for  a  declaration  "that    the  shifting  clause     .     .     .     was  not 
valid  and  effectual  to  pass  the  said  title  dignity  and  honour,"  and 
"that  the  said  shifting  clause  in  the  said    Letters  was  and   is 
wholly  inoperative"  (House  of  Lords'  Journals).     This  was  in 
effect  the  conclusion  at  which  the  Committee  arrived. 

467 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

earldom  passed  to  his  heir  male,  but  the  ancient 
barony  of  Berkeley,  which,  for  more  than  two 
centuries  (1679-1882)  had  been  merged  in  that 
earldom,  passed,  it  was  generally  supposed,  to  his 
niece  Mrs.  Milman,  as  his  heir-general.  The 
title,  however,  was  not  assumed  by  her ; *  but 
when  she  consulted  me  (as  an  amateur),  I  expressed 
a  decided  view  in  favour  of  her  right  to  the  dig- 
nity. In  the  Complete  Peerage^  also,  at  the  request 
of  the  editor,  I  expressed  an  equally  strong  opinion 
to  that  effect  (1885),  which  is  there  printed 
verbatim  (I.  338).  In  that  work  the  difficult 
history  of  this  historic  'barony  was  very  fully  dis- 
cussed, and  Mrs.  Milman  pronounced  to  be  "  de 
jure  (apparently)  Baroness  de  Berkeley,"  although 
she  had  "taken  no  steps  towards  establishing  her 
right  to  the  Peerage."  Here  again  the  Crown 
intervened  directly,  and,  in  1893,  decided  for  itself 
the  question  of  right. 

The  Queen  has  been  pleased,  by  Letters  Patent  under 
the  Great  Seal  ...  to  declare  that  the  ancient  Barony 
of  Berkeley  now  belongs  to  and  is  vested  in  Louisa  Mary 
Milman  ...  as  the  heir  general  of  Sir  James  de 
Berkeley,  Knt.,  in  whose  favour  the  said  Barony  was  created 
in  the  year  1421  ;  and  that  she  and  the  heirs  general  of 
the  said  Sir  James  de  Berkeley  lawfully  begotten  and  to  be 
begotten  for  ever,  shall  be  named  and  called  Barons  and 
Baronesses,  and  shall  have  and  enjoy  the  said  ancient  Barony  of 
Berkeley,  together  with  all  and  singular  the  rights,  privileges,  pre- 
eminences, immunities,  and  advantages,  and  the  place  and  prece- 
dence, due  and  belonging  thereto.2 


1  Burkis  Peerage  for  1893  pointed  out  that  this  was  the  case 
even  then.  2  London  Gazette,  13  June  1893. 

468    ^ 


THE    SUCCESSION    TO   THE   CROWN 

It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  say  what  the  Crown 
here  did,  or  what  was  the  actual  effect  of  these 
letters  patent.  The  question  was  one  of  right, 
not  of  favour ;  of  inheritance,  not  of  grace.  Either 
Mrs.  Milman  had  inherited  this  peerage  dignity, 
or  she  had  not.  The  Crown,  apparently,  declared 
that  she  had  ;  but  if  she  had,  it  was  needless,  and 
even  prejudicial  to  her  right,  for  the  Crown  to 
intervene  as  if  its  grace  was  required. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  was  a  case  of  a 
barony  on  the  origin  and  descent  of  which  there 
had  long  been  much  controversy  ;  and  yet  the 
Crown  here  decides,  and  sets  on  record  its  decision, 
that  the  peerage  was  created  "  in  the  year  I42I."1 
The  result  of  issuing  letters  patent  in  the  above 
form  has  been,  it  appears  to  me,  to  prejudice,  or 
at  least  to  cast  a  doubt  on  the  precedence  of  this 
barony.  It  is  now  ranked,  in  Burke  s  Peerage^  tenth 
among  the  baronies,  as  a  creation  of  1421,  being 
placed  between  Camoys  ('1383')  and  Berners 
('  1455  ').  But  it  is  well  established  that  the 
barony  enjoyed  a  special  and  very  high  precedence 
down  to  the  time  of  its  merger  in  the  earldom  in 
1679.  In  a  dissertation  on  "Precedency  due  to 
certain  Baronies  of  ancient  creation,"2  it  is  pointed 
out  by  c  G.  E.  C.'  that  the  Berkeleys  sitting  under 
the  writ  of  1421  "were  allowed  the  precedency  of 
the  old  barony."  And,  under  Berkeley,  he  dis- 
cusses at  great  length  the  precedency  of  these 
barons  (I.  322-324,  334),  pointing  out  that  they 

1  Compare  my  remarks  above  (p.  363)  on  the  date  of  the  Wind- 
sor and  Braye  baronies.  2  Complete  Peerage,  I.  21. 

469 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

were  ranked  immediately  after  the  Lords  De  La 
Warr,  and  that  in  1661  an  even  higher  precedency 
was  claimed.  He  also  quotes  in  full  the  opinion 
that  I  had  given  him  on  the  arguments.  As  the 
Lords  Berkeley  sat  above  the  Lords  Morley 
(1299?)  and  Fitzwalter  (1295?),  ^  1S  obvious  that 
the  right  placing  of  the  barony  will  be  a  matter 
of  great  difficulty  and  that  a  protest  ("  salvo  jure  ") 
will  probably  be  required  should  its  holder  be 
ranked  at  any  state  ceremonial.1 

I  have  been  led,  in  the  last  few  paragraphs,  to 
discuss  the  decision  of  the  right  to  dignities,  with- 
out a  reference  to  the  House  of  Lords,  by  the 
Crown  itself.  The  Cromartie  case  appears  to 
involve  the  introduction  of  a  principle  unknown  to 
peerage  lawyers,  namely  the  application  to  an  earl- 
dom of  the  doctrine  of  abeyance.  Incidentally,  I 
may  observe,  it  must  greatly  strengthen  the  claim 
(if  that  claim  should  be  advanced)  of  the  present 
Baroness  Berkeley  to  be  countess  of  Ormonde  in 
her  own  right  under  the  creation  of  1529,  she 
being  sole  heir  of  the  body  of  Thomas  (Boleyn), 
earl  of  Wiltshire  and  Ormonde.  In  1882  I 
upheld  this  claim  in  a  paper  on  "  the  Earldoms  of 
Ormond  in  Ireland/' 2  and  my  views  were  adopted 
in  the  Complete  Peerage? 

But   it   is   now  time  to   insist  upon  my  point, 

1  Compare  my  remarks  on   the  precedence  of  the  barony  of 
Windsor  (p.  366  above). 

2  Foster's  Collectanea  Genealogica,  I.  84-93. 

3  Vol.  I.  p.  340  ;  vol.  VI.  pp.  139,  144. 

470 


THE   SUCCESSION   TO   THE   CROWN 

namely  that  the  Cromartie  case  proves  that  a 
limitation  to  heirs  of  the  body  cannot  be  construed, 
in  the  case  of  an  earldom,  to  limit  the  dignity  to 
the  eldest  of  two  or  more  daughters,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  others.1  What  ground  is  there  for 
asserting  that  such  limitation  should  or  can  be 
differently  construed  in  the  Act  of  Succession  now 
in  force  ?  And  what  tribunal  has  power  to  decide 
that  such  construction,  novel  as  it  would  be,  ought 
to  be  placed  upon  them  ? 

To  these  questions,  for  my  part,  I  can  see  no 
answer,  save  that  there  is  a  general  impression  that 
the  crown  would  so  descend.  To  say  that  Parlia- 
ment could  not  have  meant  to  leave  the  succession 
doubtful,  in  the  contingency  to  which  I  refer, — as 
in  that  case  the  crown  would  belong  to  no  one, — 
would  not  only  be  a  crude  reply,  but  is  disposed  of 
by  the  fact  that  the  earldom  of  Cromartie  found 
itself,  for  the  time,  in  like  case.2  It  is  quite 
possible  that  those  who  drew,  and  those  who 
passed,  the  Act  of  Succession  may  have  been  under 
the  above  impression  ;  but  on  what  grounds  does 
it  rest  ?  From  the  Conquest  downwards  there  is 
no  precedent  till  we  reach  the  reign  of  Henry 

1  So  well  understood  was  this  principle,  that  the  1702   patent 
for   the  dukedom   of  Maryborough  avoided  the  phrase  "  heirs  of 
the  body,"  and   contained  a  most  elaborate  limitation  providing 
for  the  case  of  the  succession  opening  to  two  or  more  daughters. 
It  was  specially  provided  that,  in    such  case,  the  eldest  should 
succeed  to  the  exclusion  of  the  others. 

2  It  is  suggested  in  the  Complete  Peerage  that  this  limitation  in 
the  Cromartie  patent   may  have    been   thoughtlessly  introduced 
owing  to  the  name  happening  to  be  Scottish  (II.  429). 

471 


PEERAGE    STUDIES 

VII.  That  sovereign,  indeed,  married  the  elder 
daughter  of  Edward  IV.  ;  but  it  would  have  gone 
ill  with  any  man  who  suggested  that  it  was  in  her 
right  that  Henry  wore  the  crown.  Not  only  did 
he  reign  in  his  own  right,  established  by  an  Act  of 
Parliament,  but  so  "  especially  desirous "  was  he 
(observes  Dr.  Franck  Bright)  "  of  not  in  any  sense 
reigning  in  right  of  his  wife  "  that  he  even  post- 
poned her  coronation  as  queen-consort.  As  for  the 
daughters  of  Henry  VIII.,  Mary  succeeded,  not  as 
the  elder,1  but  in  virtue  of  a  special  entail  under 
that  Act  of  Succession,  which  the  judges  declared, 
when  her  brother  was  dying,  they  could  only  dis- 
obey at  the  cost  of  high  treason.2  Elizabeth,  in 
turn,  succeeded  her  in  virtue  of  that  same  entail.3 

The  only  precedent,  it  seems  to  me,  that  it 
would  be  possible  to  cite  is  the  succession  of 
James  I.,  in  1603,  as  the  heir  of  the  elder  sister  of 
Henry  VIII.,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  heirs  of  the 
younger  sister  (of  whom  the  senior  representative 
is  now  the  Baroness  Kinloss).  But  he  did  so  in 
direct  defiance  of  the  will  of  Henry  VIII.,  which 
entailed  the  crown  on  the  heirs  of  his  younger 
sister ;  and  this  will  rested  on  the  above  Act 
of  Succession,  which  made  its  provisions  binding. 
Indeed,  Professor  Freeman  went  so  far  as  to  write 
(biassed,  no  doubt,  by  his  fierce  prejudice  against 
hereditary  monarchy)  : 

1  Indeed,  it  is  questioned  whether  her  legitimacy  had  ever  been 
legally  restored  to  her.  2  35  Hen.  VIII.  cap.  I  (1544). 

3  The  will  of  Henry  VIII.  did  not  alter  the  entail,  as  regarded 
them,  created  by  the  Act  of  Succession. 

472 


THE    SUCCESSION   TO   THE   CROWN 

It  should  always  be  remembered  that  the  Stewarts,  reigning  in 
defiance  of  the  lawful  settlement  of  Henry  the  Eighth's  will,  were 
simply  usurpers,  except  so  far  as  popular  acquiescence  in  their 
succession  might  be  held  to  be  equivalent  to  a  popular  election.1 

Without  going  so  far  as  this,  I  would  urge  at  least 
that  no  one  could  invoke  the  succession  of  James 
I.,  in  defiance  of  the  Act  of  Succession  then  in 
force,  as  a  precedent  for  the  interpretation  of  the 
present  Act  of  Succession.  Indeed,  if  it  were 
a  precedent  for  anything,  it  would  obviously  be  for 
the  succession  of  his  own  heirs  to-day  in  defiance 
of  the  Act  of  Succession  now  in  force  ! 

We  come,  therefore,  to  the  case  of  the  daughters 
of  James  II.  Here  again  there  was  no  question  of 
hereditary  right  at  all.  Neither  daughter  could 
so  succeed  in  the  lifetime  of  her  brother  and  his 
heirs  ;  and,  apart  even  from  this  fact,  William  and 
Mary  were  made,  respectively,  king  and  queen  by 
Act  of  Parliament  alone.2  And  by  the  same  Act 
the  succession  of  Anne  was  postponed  till  after  the 
death  of  William.  Thus  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
present  Act  of  Succession  (1701)  dates  from  the  reign 
of  a  king  3  who  was  actually  seated  on  the  throne 
to  the  exclusion  not  only  of  James  II.,  but  of  the 
future  queen  Anne,  whose  '  hereditary  right,'  of 


1  History  of  the  Norman   Conquest,  IV.  (1871),  513.     It   is  a 
singular  illustration  of  the  biassed  views  to  which  his  prejudice 
could  lead  him  that,  in   his   hatred   of  hereditary  right,  he  could 
uphold,  as  the  champion  of  popular  election,  the  will  of  Henry 
VIII. 

2  See  p.  459  above. 

3  Queen  Mary  was  then  dead. 

473 


PEERAGE   STUDIES 

course,  came  before  his  own.  The  latter  queen 
succeeded  only,  as  Mary  I.  and  Elizabeth  had,  we 
have  seen,  succeeded,  under  the  special  entail 
created  by  an  Act  of  Parliament.1  And  it  is  under 
that  same  Act  that  the  crown  is  now  held. 

In  view  of  this  recapitulation  of  facts,  which, 
certain  though  they  are,  are,  perhaps,  little  realized, 
it  becomes  difficult  to  understand  how  there  has 
come  to  prevail  the  general  belief  that  the  crown 
would  always  of  necessity  descend  to  the  eldest  of 
two  or  more  daughters  when  the  succession  opened 
to  them.  That  such  a  belief  is  of  old  standing  is 
seen  even  under  Henry  VIII.,  though  at  that  time 
there  was  absolutely  ;no  precedent  to  justify  that 
belief.  In  any  case,  however,  what  we  have  to 
deal  with  is  not  the  existence  of  a  general  impres- 
sion, but  the  interpretation,  in  a  statute,  of  the 
words  "  heirs  of  her  body  "  in  a  sense  entirely 
different  from  that  in  which  (it  will  not  be  denied) 
they  are  invariably  construed. 

We  saw,  at  the  outset  of  this  paper,  that  the 
case  I  have  discussed  is  one  that  came,  in  recent 
years,  within  the  range  of  possibilities.  Should  it 
ever  actually  arise,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  the 
question  raised  could  be  constitutionally  solved  if  it 
had  not  been  previously  settled  by  a  special  Act  of 
Parliament.  For  if  the  crown  were  held  by  a 
doubtful  title,  no  valid  Act  could  be  passed,  and 
yet,  without  such  Act,  the  doubt  could  hardly  be 
removed.  The  general  assumption  as  to  the 


1   12  and  13  Will.  III.  cap.  2. 
474 


THE   SUCCESSION   TO   THE   CROWN 

descent,  in  such  a  contingency,  of  the  crown  has,  I 
hope  it  has  been  now  shown,  no  foundation  in  fact 
or  in  law,  and  appears  to  have  its  origin  in  a  mis- 
apprehension on  the  part  of  Parliament  in  the  past 
and  of  the  nation  at  large. 


FINIS 


475 


LATE  GOSSIP  OF 

JlL 

So  enormous  are   the  costs  entailed  by 
the    presentation    of     claims    to 


i, „        ut^wio     uie      august      tribunals 

itnown  as  the  committee  of  privileges  of 
the  House  of  Lords  that  many  who  have 
•woll-iounded  rights  to  these  hereditary 
honors  are  debarred  from  submitting 
them  to  the  Crown  for  want  of  means. 
Impoverished  as  is  the  English  aristoc- 
racy, it  has  not  yet  reached  the  stag-e 
where  it  can  have  recourse  to  the  courts 
"in  forma  pauperis"  and  get  fhe  state  to 
defray  the  legal  costs  which  the  petitioner 
is  unable  to  pay. 

I  am  led  to  make  this  remark  by  the 
death  in  a  state  of  absolute  destitution  at 
Peterborough,  lOngland,  of  Alan  Hyde 
Gardner,  claimant  to  the  Gardner  peer- 
age, ar  the  age  of  fifty-two,  after  having 
spent  the  last  two  years  very  much  as  a 
tramp,  Bleeping  in  stables  and  m  the 
cheapest  kind  of  lodging-  houses.  A  paint- 
er by  profession,  but  unable  to  find  any 
customers  for  his  brush,  he  based  his 
claim  to  the  Gardner  barony  on  the 
strength  of  the  alleged  illegality  of  the 
birth  of  his  cousin,  who  bears  the  same 
Christian  name  as  himself,  namely,  Alan 
Hyde,  but  who  is  some  fifteen  years  old- 
er, and  who  makes  his  home  in  India, 
where  he  i^  chief  of  the  village  of  Mun- 
owta,  has  a.  native  wife  and  children,  and 
professes  not  the  Christian  but  the  Brah- 
man religion-. 

The  history  of  the  Gardner  peerage  is 
one  of  the  most  romantic  of  the   British 
House  of  Lords.  It  was  first  created  in  fa- 
vor of  Admiral   Gardner  for  hi.-;  services 
under  the  great  Lord  Howe  at  the  battle 
of   the   Orient,    where   he   was  second   in 
command.  His  grandnephew.  Col.  Stewart 
miner,   took  service  :n  India,  was  com- 
issionor  of  customs  in  the  Rajput  king- 
ora  of  Jeypore.   and  married  a  niece  of 
the   last    Emperor  of   Delhi,    a    lady    who 
figures   in   Burke's  Peerage  by   the  name 
of   "Jane."'   b\:t   who   was  known  in  India 
ae   the    Hnrrn.i  >zce   Begum. 

Col.    and    Commissioner    Stewart    Gard- 
ner married  this  lady  according  to  native 
ind    became    a    convert    to    her    ro- 
ligion.  During  the  great  Indian  mutiny  he 
underwent  the  most  exciting  experiences 
and  was  at  one  moment  lashed  tc  a  gun 
and    threatened    v/ith    death      unless      he 
agreed   to  fight  with   his  wife's  Pith  and 
kin   agninst  his  countrymen,  the  Isnglish. 
apod  by  a  miracle,   withdrew   to  a 
fort    nn    his    wife's    possessions,    and    de- 
it  to   the  end  of  the  conflict.   Col. 
«ir  bad   by  his  union   with   Pi •; 

:    chil- 
iii  the 

"f  this  rr:i  .•  been 

••Mest  son,   Alai.  rdner, 

the    head   of   the   Indian    village   o!    Mun- 


son,    Alan    Hyde, 

Iner.    serve.,1    for   a 

nat  ve  police,  then  took 

ied  a  nat.ve   vvo.nan  of 

n   Sheko   at   Munowta, 

?ral  children,  the  eldest 

irenty  years  of  age  and 

(.     In   fact,    his   father, 

the    village,    talc 

mother,  the  Begum, 
rttl  trace  of  the  Eng-  i 
tber,  ana  is,  15  3-11  in- 
is  a  native,  alike  in 
1Cal  and  moral  charac- 
dd  that  another  of  the 
served  for  a  time  in 
Lorse  and  is  likewise 
re  woman. 

loubt   out.  that  the   Be- 
o  Col.   Stewart  Gardner 
y  were  married  accdrd- 
f   the  piace-ex-lou-and 
e  British  courts  to  con- 
'fon.    The  half-caste  and 
Hvde  Gardner,  now  six- 
kS^SJ  therefore,  without 
ord  Gardner,  and,  inde-d, 
in  some  of  the  peerages, 
e  pages  of  "Burke's. 
ve?y  fact  that  he  is  mar- , 

woman,  and  is  the  son  of 
'is  sufficient  to  insure  his 
by  every  European  in  in- 
is  no  class  of  the  popula- 
te    thoroughly     despised 
Orient     than    what    are 
n-asians;  that  is  to  say,  the 
between  white  people  ana 

ng  a  common  saying  that 
ombines  all  the  evil  quah 
o  races,  and  none  of  t 

y»s  daughter,  the  Lady  Ann 
'married  the  Indian  prmce 
,  Singh,  in  London  (son  of 
.  the  Punjaub  wh  >  <^  m 


Index 


Abergavenny,  barony  of,  95,  466. 

-  ,  George  lord,  332. 

-  castle  and  priory,  189}  190, 
192,  196,  210-212. 

-  ,  '  Honour  '  of,  199,  211-2. 
Abeyance,  meaning  of,  36-7. 

-  ,  baronies  called  out  of,  30- 


,  determination  by  Crown  of, 
360,  362-4,   435,  437-41, 

443,  444,  445,  449,  454~5, 
456-7,  463-5. 
,  doctrine  of,  365,  437,  440, 
454,  460-65. 
of  Mowbray  barony,  37-8, 


Agriculture.     See  Arable. 
Alan.     See  Fitz  Alan. 
Albini.     See  Aubigny. 
Alneto,  Hugh  de,  304. 
Alnwick  castle,  descent  of,  466. 
Althorpe    (Northants),   284,   285, 

286. 

Alvington  (Glouc.),  185. 
<Amney  (Glouc.),  195. 
Ancaster,  duke  of,  Great  Chamber- 

lain, 462. 

Ancestors,  fictitious.     See  Names. 
Angus,  earldom  of,  12. 
Anne,   alleged    daughter  of  God- 

wine  and  sister  of  Harold,  5  2, 

53,  56-7,  61. 

-  ,  succession  of  queen,  473-4. 
Annesley   family,  alleged   founder 

of,  63. 


Anstis,  Garter,  372,  378-9,  381, 

382,  383,  385. 
Arable  land  converted  to  pasture, 

282-4,  2g6. 
Archbold,  Mr.,  264. 
Ardres,  Ernulf  de,  156. 
Armorial  Families.    See  Fox-Da  vies. 
Arms,  alleged  'bogus,'  312.     See 

also  Heralds. 

,  alleged  'variation'  of,  275. 

,    College   of.      See  Heralds' 

College. 
,     colourable     imitation     of, 

317-20. 

,  differencing  of,  318,  327-9. 

:,  grants  of,  fees  for,  315-6. 

,     '  Laws '     of,     by     whom 

broken,  144-6. 
pirated,  3 1 6-7. 

See  also  Crest,  Quarterings. 
Arms,  The  Right  to  Bear,  53,  145. 
Arnesby  (Leic.),  descent  of,  303-5. 
Arrouaise,    houses    dependent    on 

Abbey  of,  163. 
Arundel,  Thomas    (Howard)   earl 

of  (1604,  i62i),279-8o,447. 
,  earldom  of,  94,   109,  448, 

453,463,466. 

castle,  descent  of,  466. 

fief,  the,  44. 

Ashburnham  family,  fabulous  his- 
tory of,  46. 

Assumption.    See  Peerage  Dignities. 
Athenry,  barony  of,  its  precedence, 

102-3. 


477 


INDEX 


'  Attraction '  of  barony  by  earldom, 

doctrine  of,  450-53. 
Aubigny  family  (of  Arundel),  origin 

of,  125. 

Audley,  Hugh  de,  207. 
Augmentation,     alleged    grant    of 

honourable,    132,   138,    139, 

140,  144. 

,  the  Howard,  39-41. 

Aust  (Glouc.),  193. 

Austria,  Leopold  duke  of,  233. 

,  arms  of,  238. 

Austruy,  family  of,  1 5  8-9,  1 64. 
Authorities,  strange  treatment  of, 

428-9,  434. 

Baalun.     See  Ballon. 

Baderon  (of  Monmouth),  122,  191. 

,  William  son  of   120,   121, 

122,  123,  185. 
Badlesmere,  barony  of,  446,  451, 

452. 

Baelun.     See  Ballon. 
Bailleul,  Renaud  de,  130,  131. 
Bain,  Mr.  Joseph,  133,  134,  143. 
Baker's  Northamptonshire,  289,  291, 

292,    293,    294,    295,   297, 

299»  303,  322,  325. 
Baladone.     See  Ballon. 
Baldran,  Hubert,  130. 
Baldwin    (de    Clare,    of    Exeter), 

Richard  son  of,  2 1 3-4. 

,  William  son  of,  212. 

Ballon  (Maine),  190,  191-2. 
,  family  of,  in  Dorset,  Hants, 

and  Somerset,  209-10. 
,  Hamelin  de,  189,  190,  192, 

196,     198-200,    203,    204, 

205,  210. 
, ,  his  sons  William  and 

Mathew,  205. 
, ,    Emmeline   daughter 

of,  202,  205. 

-,  his  grandson  William, 


Ballon  (Hamelin  de),  descendants 
of,  199-200,  202-209. 

,  Winebaud  (Wynebald)    de, 

189,    190,    193,    194,    195, 
196,  197,  198,  209. 

,  ,  his  sons    Roger  and 

Milo,  195. 

, ,  his  son  Roger,  197. 

Balom.     See  Ballon. 

Balun.     See  Ballon. 

Bampton  (Oxon.),  175,  177,  178. 

(Devon),  Honour  of,  60. 

Banquo,  alleged  ancestor  of  the 
Stewarts,  116,  118,  132,  137, 
139,  142,  143. 

Barkly,  Sir  Henry,  194. 

Barnstaple  priory,  215. 

Barones  magni  of  Henry  I.,  196. 

Baronetcies,  degradation  of,  32. 

Baronia  used  for  one  knight's  fee, 
203. 

Barron,  Mr.  Oswald,  329. 

Bastards  not  distinguished  as  ille- 
gitimate, 125-6. 

Battle  Abbey  Roll,  the  so-called,  6 1 . 

Beauchamp  (of  Bedford),  Hugh  de, 

3<H- 
Beauchamp   of  Bedford,  arms   of, 

328-9. 
Bedford,  earls  and  dukes  of. 

Russell. 

Belhaven,  barony  of,  13. 
Bell£me,  Robert  de,  192. 
Belmethorpe  (Rutland),  303. 
Belvoir  castle,  descent  of,  73,  466. 
Berkeley  family,  origin  of,  72. 
Berkeley,  barony  of,  467-470. 

,  Sir  James  de  (1421),  468. 

, ,  lord  Berkeley,  435-6. 

,    (Mrs.    Milman)     baroness, 

436,  468-9. 

,  baroness,  470. 

-,  earldom  of,  436,  468. 


See 


198-9,  200. 


,  lords,  style  themselves  lords 

Mowbray  and  Segrave,  449. 


478 


INDEX 


Berkeley,   lords,    style  ^themselves 

lords  Braose,  456. 
,  Sir    Maurice,    created   lord 

Berkeley,  356-8. 
,  Thomas  lord,  *  sheepmaster/ 

281. 
Bernegger,  Monsieur,  of  Strasburg, 

242,  243. 
Berners,  barony  of,  338,  340. 

,  John  lord,  332. 

Bertie  family,  fabulous  history  of, 

46. 

Bertrand,  alleged  arms  of,  274-5. 
Betham,  Sir  William,  20,  68. 
Blackstone  on  the  heralds  and  their 

records,  315. 
'  Blanks '  signed    by  king,  408-9, 

415. 

Blood,  ennobling  the,  5-7,  100. 
Bolam   (Northumberland),   barony 

of,  190. 
Boleyn,  George.     See  Rochford. 

,  Sir  Thomas,  340,  356. 

,  Thomas.     See  Ormonde. 

Bolingbroke.     See  St.  John. 
Bone,  an  ancestral,  55—7. 
Boughton  Alulf  (Kent),  church  of, 

'S3- 

,  manor  of,  157-8,  162. 

Bouillon,  Godfrey  de,  152. 
Boulogne,  comti  of,  seized  by  Philip 

Augustus,  178. 
,    Eustace    ("  aux   grenons  ") 

count  of,  VII.-VIIL,  147-52, 

153-5,  1 60. 
, ,  *  Goda  '  (of  England) 

wife  of,  147-151,  156. 
,    ,    Ida    (de    Bouillon) 

second  wife  of,  1 5  1-4. 
,  Eustace  (the  younger)  count 

of»  153,  I54»  l63>  172. 

,  ,  Mary   (of  Scotland) 

wife  of,  163,  172. 

-,  Matilda  daughter  of. 


Boulogne,  Matilda  (wife  of  Stephen) 

countess  of,    159,   166,   172, 

174. 
,  Stephen  count  (jure  uxoris) 

of.     See  Stephen. 

,  Pharamus  of,  160. 

,  William  of,  160. 

,  William    (son   of  Stephen) 

count  of,  VIII.  159,160,172, 

174,  176. 
, ,    marries    heiress    of 

Warennes,  168-70,  172. 
, ,    his   gigantic    estates, 

167-71. 

, ,  his  death,  171. 

, ,  count  of  Mortain,  166, 

167,  171,  174. 
,  Eustace  (son  of  Stephen)  count 

of,  1 68,  172. 
,  Mary  (wife  of  count  Mathew) 

countess  of,  171,  172,  176. 
,  Mathew  (jure  uxoris)  count 

of,  162,  172,  179. 

-,  tries  to  invade  Eng- 


land,  173-4.  . 

,  -  ,   obtains   fresh    lands 

there,  175. 

,   -  ,   mortally    wounded, 


See  next  entry. 


--  ,  Ida  (his  daughter)  countess 
of,  175,  176,  178,  179. 

—  :  —  ,  -  ,  Reginald  de  Dam- 
martin  husband  of,  176-80. 

-  ,  Maud  (his  daughter),  176. 

-  ,  -  ,  Henry  ('  the  warrior 
of    Lorraine  ')    husband    of, 

176. 

-  ,  the  Honour  of,  155  et  seq., 
163  et  seq. 

-  ,  -  ,  return  of  its  fees,  1  64, 
165. 

-  ,  origin  of  its  Swan,  152. 

-  ,  its  money  standard  found  in 
England,  158. 

Boulonnais,  religious  houses   with 


479 


INDEX 


English  endowments  in  the, 

153,  161-3,  177- 
Boulonnais,  seigneurs  of  the,  have 

English  lands,  158-161. 
Bourchier,  barony  of,  440. 

,  viscountcy  of,  447. 

Boyd   family,  alleged   descent   of, 

125. 

Bracton  on  co-heiresses,  462. 
Braose,  barony  of,  441,  456. 
, ,  assumed  and  claimed, 

456. 

Bray,  Edmund  Bray  created  lord, 

336,  337,  349>  362-3. 
,  barony  of,  30,  351,  362-3, 

366,  469. 
Breteuil,  the  customs  of,  1 8  3-4. 

,  William  de,  205. 

Bretons  support  Henry  I.  (before 

his  accession),  124. 
Brewer,  Dr.,  39,  340. 
Brooke,  earldom  of,  27. 
Brougham,    Lord,    his    pedigree, 

86-7. 

Bryan,  barony  of,  446. 
Brydges,   Sir    Egerton,   289,  297, 

322. 
Buchan   earldom,  descent  of  the, 

93- 

Bulbeck,  '  viscountcy  '  of,  446. 

,  barony  of,  451,  452. 

Burgh  (of  Gainsborough),  Thomas 
lord,  336,  337,  349,  353. 

,  barony  of,  334~5»  35 1,  36^. 

Burke  family,  fabulous  origin  of, 
68. 

Burke9 s  Colonial  Gentry,  1 1 3-4. 

Burke*  s  Landed  Gentry,  24,  63,  64, 
112-3,  144-5,  310. 

Burke*  s  Peerage,  i,  7-8,  n,  13, 
14,  15,  20,  24,  25,  41-3, 
45-54,61,64-73,77-8,82, 
88-90,97-8,  104,  105,  106, 
108-114,  131-3,  144,  216, 
219,  249,  259,  264,  265, 

480 


266,    319,    320,   321,   436, 

464,  468,  469. 
Burton,  barony  of,  466. 
Busli,  Roger  de,  VII. 
Butlers,  possible  origin  of  the,  122. 
Buxton   (of  Derbyshire),  arms  of, 


(of  Essex),  arms  of,  319. 

(of     Norfolk),     arms     of, 
318-9. 


Cadbury  (Somerset),  North,   197, 

210. 

Caenby  (Line.),  162. 
Caerleon-on-Usk,   187,   188,  190, 

197. 
Caermarthenshire,  the  Normans  in, 

213-5- 

Caldecote  (castle),  187. 
Cannington  Priory,  260. 
Cantref  Bychan,  215. 
Cardigan,   the    Norman    lords   of, 

2II-2,  214. 

Carlyle,  Thomas,   hoaxed    by  the 

heralds,  133. 
Carringtons,     former      (previously 

Smith),  23-4,  64. 
Carringtons,      present      (formerly 

Smiths),  origin  of,  16,  22,  24. 
Castle,  a,  an  indivisible  inheritance, 

461-2. 

Castle  Carlton  (Line.),  302. 
Castle  Cary,  Honour  of,  60. 
Catholics.    See  Nuncio  ;  Worcester. 
Chaldon  Herring  (Dorset),  266-8. 
Chamberlain,  office  of  Great,  462. 
Charles  I.,  action  of,  in   Windsor 

case,  360. 
,   his  relations  with  Edward 

(Somerset),   *  Lord     Glamor- 
gan,' 367  et  seq. 
Charles     II.,    his     dealings    with 

Edward,    second    marquis    of 

Worcester,  375-7. 


INDEX 


Charles  VI.  (of  France),  pretended 

grant  by,  133-4,  '37,  '39, 

142. 

ChStellerault,  dukedom  of,  12. 
Chepstow  castle,  186,  212. 
Chester,  the  relief  of,  423-4. 
Cheverel  (Wilts),  Great,  192,  199, 

204,  206. 
Chichester,  Adam  Moleyns,  bishop 

of,  266. 
Churches,    introduction    of   sham 

genealogy  into,  84-7. 
Chutes  of  the  Vyne,  the,  2  5 . 
Clare,  family  of  de,  2 1 2-4. 
,    Baldwin    Fitz    Gilbert  de, 

,  Richard  (son  of  Gilbert)  de, 

211,  214. 

,  Walter  (son  of  Richard)  de, 

212,  214. 

,  Gilbert  (son  of  Richard)  de, 

214. 

Clavering,  arms  of,  327-9. 
Clerfait,  William  de,  48. 
Clifford    (1628),  barony  of,    loo, 

449,  450,  454- 

Cliffords,  the  founder  of  the,  215. 
Clinton,  Lord,  assumes  the  title  of 

Lord  Say,  454. 
,  ,  assigns   it    to   James 

Fiennes,  454. 
Clun,    church   of  St.    George  of, 

125. 
and      Oswaldestre,      alleged 

barony  of,  448,  453. 
Coat-armour,  how  degraded,  316. 

See  also  Arms. 
Cobden,    disastrous   result    of    his 

policy,  284. 

Cobham,  George  lord,  346. 
Coggeshall  (Essex),  162,  168. 
Co-heiresses.     See  Daughters. 
College   of   Arms.      See   Heralds' 

College. 
Colville,  Maud  de,  218,  227. 


Commons,  House  of,  long  associa- 

tion of  Russells  with,  278. 
Complete   Peerage,    The,  3,  8,  13, 

15,    1  6,    20,    22,    25,    27-31, 

33,  38,  43,  59,  70,  82-3, 
9°»  92>  93,  98,  I 


no,    210,   240, 


°,  101-8, 
339,  340, 
456, 
469, 


365,   436,  438,   447, 
462,  464,   467,   468, 
470,  471. 
Conyers,  barony  of,  466. 

-  ,  Christopher  lord,  345. 
Cooke,  Clarencieux  King  of  Arms, 

293,  315' 

Cormeilles,  Abbey  of,  184,  185. 
Coulthart  imposture,  the,  84. 
Counts.     See  Earls. 
Countship  of  the  Empire  assumed, 

247-9. 

-  ,  lord  Arundel's,  249. 
Coucy,   Enguerrand    de,    earl    of 

Bedford,  233. 

Courci,  John  de,  lord  of  Ulster, 
104,  106-7. 

-  ,  -  ,  his  alleged  descendants 
and  his  fictitious  geste,  ibid. 

Courcy.     See  Kingsale. 
Cowley  (Oxon.),  158. 

-  case,  the,  465. 
Cramond,  Mr.  William,  83,  87. 
Crest,  alleged  grant  of  a,  141,  142. 
Crests  assumed,  240. 
Cromartie,     earldom    of,    463-5, 

467,470,471. 
Cromwell,  '  baroness/  99,  455. 

-  ,  Gregory  lord,  354-5. 

-  ,  Oliver,  his  mother's  descent, 

133- 

-  ,  -  ,  his  grandfather's  win- 

dow, 138. 

-  ,  -  ,  his  statue,  294. 

-  ,  Thomas  (earl  of  Essex)  lord, 

333,  345,.  346,  354-5- 
Crown,  restrictions  on   its  powers 
in  peerage  dignities,  466-7. 


481 


II 


INDEX 


Crown,  recent  intervention  in  peer- 
age questions  of  the,  464-9, 
470. 

,  succession  to  the,  458  et  seq. 

Curtone,  family  of,  164. 

Dacre,  barony  of,  466. 

,  twin  baronies  of,  95. 

Dammartin,  Aubrey  de,  177. 

,  Reginald  de.     See  Boulogne. 

Darcy,    lord,   summoned   as    lord 

Meinill,  455. 
Daughters  as  heirs,  equal  rights  of, 

460,  463,  471. 
,  special  provision  needed  for 

succession   of  eldest,  461-2, 

471. 
'  De,J     interpolation     of     prefix, 

261,  277. 

,  revival  of  prefix,  16-19. 

Dearden  family,  sham  monuments 

of,  84. 

Debretfs  Peerage,  8,  14,  248. 
Deeds,  wholesale  forgery  of,  229- 

236,  238.     See  also  Records. 
DefFord      (Worcestershire),      296, 

298-301. 

De  La  Mare,  family  of,  304-5. 
De  La  Poer.     See  Power. 
De  La  Tour,  alleged  arms  of,  253, 

270. 
,  Alice  (alias  Eleanor),  257, 

262-3,  270,  271-4. 
Denbigh.     See  Feilding. 
,  Basil,  second  earl  of,  222, 

239,  241-3,  244-6. 
, ,  becomes  a  Hapsburg, 

39°- 
Depopulation,      rural,      due      to 

sheep-farming,  221. 
Derby,    Thomas  earl    of,  assumes 

titles,  446. 
,   William   earl    of,   assumes 

titles,  451. 
,  earls  of.     See  also  Stanley. 


Derham.     See  Russell. 
Derings,  fabulous  origin  of,  65. 
De  Ros.     See  Roos. 

,  barony  of,  n,  366. 

Despencer,    '  baroness J     Le,     99, 

455- 

,  barony  of  Le,  n,  30. 

, ,  ranking  of,  366. 

,  Hugh  (the  Justiciar),  296, 

301- 

, ,  Hugh,  son  of,  301, 302. 

Despencers,  the  baronial,  arms  of, 

289,  291. 
,  ,  differenced  arms  of, 

291-2,  293,  306,  327-9. 
, ,  alleged  descent  from, 

292-301,  306. 

, ,  origin  of,  303-5,  328. 

,  cadets  of,  296-306,  328-9. 

Devereux  pedigree,  the,  71. 

Devon,  earldom  of,  29. 

Digby,    George    lord,   399,   416, 

418. 

,  Sir  Kenelm,  388,  405. 

Dillon  family,  alleged  founder  of, 

68. 
Dircks,  Mr.,  incompetent  to  deal 

with  documents,  428. 
Dol,  Hugh,  'archbishop'  of,  127. 

,  John,  'archbishop'  of,  122. 

,  the  seneschals  of,  117,  122, 

123,  124,  126-7,  129,  130. 

,  the  lords  of,  121,  122,  127. 

Domesday    Book,   51,    57-8,    60, 

62-65,    69,    70,   147,    151, 

152,  187,  260. 
Donyland  (Essex),  East,  166. 
Dormant,  meaning  of,  37. 
Dorset,  Ballon  family  in,  209. 
Douai,  Walter  de,  60. 
Doudeauville,  family  of,  159. 
Dover  castle,  constableship  of,  1 60, 

161. 
,  provisioned  and  strengthened, 

174. 


482 


INDEX 


Dover  castle,  reserved  by  Henry  II., 

170. 
Drogo,  count  of  the  French  Vexin, 

148,  150. 
Droitwich,  St.  Nicholas'  church  at, 

175- 

Dudley,  'baroness,'  99,  455. 

,  duchess,  384. 

,  Suttons  lords,  338. 

Duff  family.     See  Fife. 
Dugdale,  Sir  William,  50,  51,  67, 
76-7,  128,  130,    189,    190, 

195,  210,  216-7,  221-2, 
228,  239,  240,  246,  26l, 

277,  3i3»  322,  332-3>  338- 
34°,  341*  345»  3^0,  364, 
392,  382-3,  384,  436. 

Duncombes,  origin  of  the,  29. 

Dunham  (Notts),  175,  177,  178, 
179. 

Dunkerton  (Somerset),  210. 

Dyrham.     See  Derham. 

Dyved,  213-4. 

Earl  Marshal,  dignity  of,  109. 
Earldom,  alleged  creation  "  before 

1014"  of  an,  90. 
Earldoms,  question  as  to  abeyance 

of,  463-5. 
Earls,    taking     their    styles    from 

towns,  150. 
Eaton  (Wilts),  201-4. 
Edward  the  Confessor,    147-151, 

182. 
Egremont,  barony  of  (Multon  of), 

446. 

,  earls  of,  44. 

Elizabeth,    succession     of    queen, 

472,  474. 
Ellis,  Sir  Henry,  151. 

,  Mr.  A.  S.,  120,  148,  195. 

Ely    Cathedral,     Steward    monu- 
ments in,  136,  137,  139. 
Ely,  the  dean  of,  135,  136. 
Empson,  Richard,  284. 


Esmond  family,  alleged  founder  of, 
68. 

Essex,  Devereux  earls  of,  assume 
titles,  447. 

, ,  restored,  448. 

Eton,  1 60. 

Eu,  William  of,  187. 

Eudo  '  Dapifer,'  devolution  of  his 
estates,  163,  167. 

,  Adam  brother  of,  1 66. 

Eure,  barony  of,  354. 

Eustace,  count.     See  Boulogne. 

Eustache  le  Moine,  153. 

Evidence.  See  Authorities ;  Deeds ; 
Forgery;  Garter-plates; ;  Fune- 
ral certificates  ;  Letters-mis- 
sive ;  Records. 

Evreux,  St.  Taurin  of,  215. 

Ewe   (Eu),  earldom  of,  assumed, 

447- 

Ewias,  Harold  of,  156,  165. 
Exeter,  Osbern  bishop  of,  205. 
Eye,  the  Honour  of,  167-8,  169, 

171*  *75»  176. 

Eyton,  Rev.  R.W.,  63,  116,  124, 
125,  126,  128,  130,  131, 
141,  149,  196. 

Fane  (or  Vane)  family,  origin  and 
pedigree  of,  309-10. 

Farnborough  (Warwickshire),  325. 

Faversham  (Kent),  166. 

Feilding,  arms  of,  238,  243,  247. 

,  crests  of,  240. 

,  antiquity  of  family  of,  247. 

,  name  of,  its  alleged  deriva- 
tion from  Rheinfelden,  228- 
229,  232,  234,  236. 

Feildings  claim  to  be  Hapsburgs, 
14-15,  216  etseq. 

Ferrers,  family  of,  32. 

Ferrers  of  Chartley,  barony  of,  31- 

32,437- 

Ffrench,  absurdity  of  the  form,  1 6. 
Fiennes  family,  origin  of,  161. 


483 


INDEX 


Fife,    duke  of,  his  fictitious  pedi- 
gree abandoned,  82-4. 
Fitzalan,    alleged  barony  of,  448, 

453- 
Fitz  Alan  family,  origin  of,  115, 

129. 

Fitz  Alan,  Jordan,  VII.  126. 
, ,  his  descendants,  VII. 

126-128. 

,   Walter    (steward    of  Scot- 
land), 115,  1 1 6,   128,    129, 

132. 

,  William,  125. 

Fitz    Count,    Brian    (of  Walling- 

ford),  189,  211,  212. 
,  Reginald  (son  of  Roger  earl 

of  Hereford),  201-3,  205-6. 
,  ,    his     son    William, 

198-9,  200,  205. 
, ,    his   other    children, 

202,  205. 
Fitz  Flaald,  Alan,  115,  116,  117, 

123,    124,    125,   126,   127- 

129,  131. 

Fitz  Geralds,  fabulous  origin  of,  69. 
Fitz  Osbern.     See  Hereford. 
Fitz  Payne,  barony  of,  446. 
Fitz  Rou  (Rolf),  Turstin,   188-9, 

190,    192,    193,    194,    195, 

196,  197,  210. 
Fitz- Walter,  barony  of,  31. 
Fitz-William,    family,    origin    of, 

46-50. 
Flodden    augmentation,    the,    39, 

321.     See  also  Howard. 
Fobbing  (Essex),  162. 
Forged  pedigrees,  308-9.     See  also 

Heralds. 
Forgery  of  documents,   141,  241, 

244-5,  246.     See  also  Wor- 
cester, Edward  marquis  of. 
Fortescue,  alleged  origin  of  name, 

61. 
Foster,  Mr.  Joseph,  3,  14,  83,  87- 

8,97- 


Fox-Da  vies,  Mr.,  20,  40,  42,  53, 
145,  247-8,  312,  314.1 

Freeby  (Leic.),  305. 

Freeman,  Professor,  I,  2,  4-7,  20, 
29,  46-7,  5o-5i>  52,  55, 
G*»  72,  73-75,  i",  IH, 
147-152,  154,  181-3,  187, 
190,  191,  203,  213,472. 

French,  origin  of  name,  1 6. 

Froude,  Mr.,  330. 

Froxmere,  arms  of,  253,  254,  269. 

Funeral  certificates  as  evidence, 
441,456. 

Furness  Abbey  founded  by  Ste- 
phen, 1 68. 

Gage,  Sir  Henry,  394. 

Gairdner,   Mr.  James,   332,   333, 

338,  352. 
Gardiner,  Mr.   S.  R.,    368,   370, 

371,     372-383,      385-399, 
401-405,    407-415,     417- 
420,  422,  424,  426-434. 
Garioch,  alleged  barony  of,  1 1 . 
Garter-King-of-Arms.      See    Ans- 
tis  ;  Dugdale  ;  Heard  ;  Segar  ; 
Wriothesley. 
Garter-plates    as    evidence,    439- 

441,  446,  451-2,  456. 
Genealogist,  The,  4,  125,  133,  135, 

136,  160,  165,  368,453. 
Genealogy,  the  new,  4, 1 1 2,  3  2  3-4. 
the  old,  134,  324. 
official,  88. 
the  eccentric,  1 1 8—9. 
monastic,  189,  198. 
the  romance  of,  70. 


Glamorgan,  earldom  of,  informally 
bestowed  on  Edward  (Somer- 
set) Lord  Herbert,  367-8, 
374,  38o,  390,  397-8. 

,  Lord.  See  Worcester,  Ed- 
ward marquis  of. 

Glass  window,  the  Steward,  133, 
136,  138-9,  220. 


484 


INDEX 


Glass  window,  the  Feilding,  219, 
240. 

Godfrey,  alleged  arms  of,  253,  269. 

Godstow,  gift  of  Eaton  to,  201-2, 
205. 

Gorges,  Alianore,  271-3. 

,  arms  of,  272-3. 

Gotha,  Almanac  dey  78,  83. 

Gotherington  in  Bishop's  Cleeve 
(Glouc.),  193. 

Gournai,  Hawise  de,  197. 

Gower,  peninsula  of,  Norman  oc- 
cupation of,  215. 

Graunt,  Walter,  287,  326. 

,  William,  287.  [324- 

Graziers,  fortunes  made  by,  284-5, 

Great  Governing  Families  cited,  278. 

Greenstreet,  Mr.  James,  274. 

Greyde  Powis,  Edward  lord,  346. 

Grey  de  Ruthyn,  barony  of,  447. 

Grimston  family,  alleged  founder 
of,  62. 

Guihenoc  (or  Wihenoc)  of  Mon- 
mouth,  121,  123,  185. 

Gwent,  1 86,  187,  189. 

,  Upper,  189,  192,211,  212. 

,  Nether,  192,  212. 

Hallam  cited,  342. 

Hamiltons,  origin  of  the,  89. 

Hampshire,  Ballon  family  in,  209. 

Hapsburg,  arms  of,  238,  243. 

descent  and  dignities,  claim 

of  Feildings  to,  14-15,  216 
et  sey. 

Hapsburgs,  alleged  Alsatian  origin 
of,  244. 

Harold.     See  Hereford. 

Harrowden.     See  Vaux. 

Hastings  family,  alleged  origin  of 
its  name,  63. 

Hastings,  barony  of,  447. 

, ,  its  precedence,  108-9. 

,  George  (earl  of  Hunting- 
don), lord,  333,  338. 


Hat,  Lord  Kingsale  and  his,  104-5. 
Havet,  M.  Julien,  245. 
Haye  family,  origin  of,  125. 
Heard,  Sir  Isaac,  Garter  King  of 
Arms,  300,  302,  308. 

-  Heirs  of  the  body,'  interpretation 

of,  459>463>  471,  47475.  . 

Heirs  male,  dignities  by  writ  di- 
verted in  favour  of,  360-361, 
453,465-6. 

,  limitation  to,  its  meaning, 

371-2. 

,  retain  baronies  in  fee,  450- 

453- 

Henry  I.,  213. 
bestows    Crown     lands    on 

Stephen,  168. 

Henry  II.,  grants  by,  1 60,  163. 
propitiates  Stephen  and  his 

son  William,  168,  169. 

subsequently  forces  William 

to   surrender   his  castles  and 
crown  lands,  170. 

seizes  the  Honour  of  Bou- 
logne and   comt'e  of  Mortain 
on  William's  death,  171-2. 

,  his  compromise  with  count 

Mathew,  173,  174. 
Henry   VII.,    king    in     his    own 

right,  472. 
Henry  VIII.,  his  will  disposes  of 

the  crown,  472,  473. 
,  his  creation  of  peers,    330 

et  seq. 
Heraldry,  39-42,  45,  49,  50,  79, 

136,     138-146,    207,    216, 

238-9,  240,  243,  248,251- 

3,   258,    269,    270,   272-5, 

289-293,     306-7,     312-3, 

316-321,  326-9. 
Heralds,   the,  squabble   over  fees, 

315-6. 
Heralds,  Elizabethan,  23,  43,  46, 

50,  76,  137,  143,  301. 

See  also  Cooke ;  Lee ;  Thynne. 


485 


INDEX 


Heralds'  College,  8,  71,  309. 


alters  its  '  recorded '  pedi- 
grees, 312. 

,  its  'records,'  314-5. 

,  doubtful  armorial  bearings 

on,  40. 

,  value  of  its  authorized  pedi- 
grees, 53,  58,  71-2,  80,  86, 
301-3,  311-2. 

,  its  defective  record  of  grants, 

312. 

,  fabulous  pedigrees  con- 
structed by  members  of,  76, 
79,  141,  251-2,  259,  261, 
292-6,  308. 

,  authorizes  spurious  arms, 

144,  291. 

,  authorizes  spurious  pedigree 

and  arms,  285,  309. 

,  its  vicious  system  of  granting 

arms,  145-6,  290,  317-321. 

,  its  book  of  "  benefactors," 

240. 

,  alleged   concocted  arms    in, 

275- 
Heralds'  Visitations,  character  and 

authority  of,   80,    132,    137, 

143, 220, 293,1298/309-3 14. 
Hereford,    Milo    (de    Gloucester) 

earl  of,  211,  215. 

,  Ralf  earl  of,  149,  182. 

, ,  his  son  Harold,  148, 

156,  164,  165. 
,    William   Fitz    Osbern  earl 

of,  181-7,  200,  205. 
,  Roger  (his  son)  earl  of,  186, 

187,  201,  205. 
, ,  his  sons  Reginald  and 

Roger,  20 1. 

,  viscount.    See  Devereux. 

,  customs  of,  183,  184. 

Herefordshire,    Ballon    family    in. 

See  Ballon. 
organized    on    a     military 

system  by  the  Normans,  182. 


Hereward  (falsely  called  "  the 
Wake "),  descents  claimed 
from,  73-5,  77-9,  80-1. 

Herring,  arms  of,  253. 

(wrongly  Herringham),  Dor- 
set family  of,  266,  268. 

Herringham.     See  Herring. 

Hesdin,  Ernulf  (or  Arnulf)  de, 
1 16,  192. 

,  Avelina  daughter  of,  1 1 6, 

128,  130. 

Hewison,  Mr.  J.  K.,  117-8. 

Higham  (Kent),  165—6. 

Hoax,  a  brilliant,  338-340. 

Hodnell  (Warwickshire),  281,  285, 
286,  287,  288,  325. 

Hope,  Mr.  St.  John,  329. 

Howard  arms,  the,  39-41,  321. 

Howard,  barony  of,  449. 

Howard  family,  origin  of,  73,  75- 

79; 

,  titles  of,  109,  452-3,  456. 

Howard,  Sir  Robert,  435—6. 

,  John,  created  duke  of  Nor- 
folk, 436,  441. 

, ,  440,  442,  443. 

,  Henry  Frederick,  sum- 
moned as  lord  Mowbray,  438. 

,  Thomas,  earl  of  Surrey  and 

(1514)  duke  of  Norfolk,  442. 

Howard  deWalden,  barony  of,  450. 

Howards,  co-heirs  of,  436. 

,  attainted,  442,  443,  444. 

,  restored,  442,  444,  448. 

assume  peerage  titles,  452-3. 

style  themselves  lords  Braose, 

456. 

,  the,  earls  of  Wicklow,  321. 

Howth.     See  St.  Lawrence. 

Hugglescote  (Leic.),  305. 

Hughenden  effigies,  the  sham,  84. 

Hungerford  (of  Heytesbury),  first 
lord,  333,  346. 

Hunter,  Rev.  Joseph,  48-50. 

Huntingdon,  Honour  of,  1 79. 


486 


INDEX 


Hussey   (of  Sleaford),  John    lord, 

336,  337,  348,  35i,  353- 
,  barony  of,  350,  366. 

Iddesleigh.     See  Northcote. 
Ingelric  the  priest,  155. 
Inglishcombe  (Somerset),  197. 
'  Ingulf  cited,  77-8. 
Ireland.    See  Rinuccini,  Worcester. 
,  influence  of  tribal  principle 

in,  101-2. 
Irish  baronies,  the  ancient,  peculiar 

history  of,  101-3. 
Irish  peerage,  the,  70. 
Irish  peerage  dignities,  13. 

,  assumption  of,  VII.  14,  18. 

Ixning  (Suffolk),  175,  177,  178. 

James   I.,  his    action    in   peerage 

cases,  453.  ^ 
,  his  succession  to  the  crown, 

472-3- 

John,  grant  by,  153. 
secures  alliance  of  count  of 

Boulogne,  177. 
loses  and  regains  it,  178-9. 

Kensington,  first  lord,  16. 
Kildare,  earldom  of,  453. 
Kings  of  arms,  their  suggestive 

prayer,  308. 

Kingsale,  barony  of,  103-8. 
, ,  Courcy  its  true  title, 

105. 
, ,  date  of  its  creation, 

1 06-8. 
Kingsale,  the  lords,  16.     See  a/so 

Courcy. 

Kingsley,  Charles,  74,  80. 
Kingston  Russell.     See  Russell. 
Kingsweston  (Somerset),  153,  154, 

'55- 

Kinloss,  baroness,  472. 
Kirkby  Fleetham,  3 1 4. 
Kirton-in-Lindsey,  175,  177,  178. 


Knight  service,  44. 
Knighthood    bestowed  on    ances- 
tors, 277,  300,  301. 
Kynton,  viscountcy  of,  445—6. 
Kytson,  Sir  Thomas,  293. 

Lancaster,  the  Honour  of,  1 68, 1 7 1 . 
Land,  alleged  inheritance  of,  from 

'  Saxon '  times,  65,  74. 
,    alleged    long    descent    of, 

72-3. 
Landed     gentry,    no    trustworthy 

work    on,    112-3.      $ee   a^so 

Burke. 

Latimer,  barony  of,  446. 
Laufenburg,    counts     of,     216-7, 

219,  223-4,  234-5- 

,  position  of,  224. 

Leadam,  Mr.,  282,  288,  322. 

Lecky,  Mr.,  342. 

Leconfield,  the  lords,  44. 

Le  Despencer.     See  Despencer. 

Lee,     Richard,     Clarencieux,    his 

Spencer  pedigree,  292—6,  299, 

302,  306-8,  325-6,  327. 
Leicester,  patent  (1784)  for  earl- 
dom of,  440,  453. 
Le  Neve,  Peter,  Norroy,  315. 
,  William,  York  Herald,  251, 

252,  258,  269. 
Le   Strange  family,  Breton    origin 

of,  123. 
Letters-missive,  evidence  of,    438- 

440,  444,  445,  449,  457. 
Licques,   Premonstratensian   abbey 

of,  163. 

Lillechurch  (Kent),  165-6. 
Limesi,  Ralf  de,  186,  187. 
Lincoln,  Lord  Clinton  created  earl 

of,  455-. 

Lindsay  (Windsor  Herald),  Mr. 
W.  A.,  117,  125,  310-311. 

Lisle,  Arthur  (Plantagenet),  vis- 
count, 345,  347,  356. 

Llandaff,  Book  of,  197. 


487 


INDEX 


Llandovery,  215. 

Llangennith  priory  founded,  215. 

Lords,  House  of,  unjustly  charged,  5 . 


— , ,  *  scene    in,  279. 

— , ,  abolished  by  Crom- 
well, 294. 

— , ,  changes  in,  under 

Henry  VIII.,  330  et  seq. 

-, ,  in  1523,  331. 

-, ,  in  1529,  331,  333- 

7,  341,  352. 

-, ,  its  decisions  in  peer- 
age cases  criticised,  334,456-7. 

-> »in  '534,  337-341- 

-, ,  in  1515,  340. 

-, ,  in  1 536,  344-6,  366. 

-, ,    use    of   proxies    in, 


344- 


— , ,  m  I539> 

, ,   precedence   in,  353, 

363,  366. 
Lorraine,   Godfrey   duke    of,    42. 

See  a/so  Boulogne. 
Lou,  Robert  le,   298,   299,   302, 

306. 

Loughborough,  305. 
Lovaine,  origin  of  title,  42. 
Lovayne,  alleged  barony  of,  447. 
Lovel   and   Holland,  baronies   of, 

27. 

Loxton  (Somerset),  154. 
Lucas  of  Crudwell,  patent  creating 

barony  of,  46 1 . 
Luci,  Richard  de,  173,  174. 
Lumley,  John  lord,  334. 
Lydney  (Glouc.),  185. 
Lyon     Office,     its    "proved    and 

registered  "  pedigree  of  Mar- 

joribanks,  87-8. 

Lyre,  La  Vieille,  abbey  of,  1 84. 
Lyttons    of    Knebworth   (formerly 

Wiggett),  the,  25-7. 


Macduff,  viscountcy.     See  Fife. 
Mackay,  sheriff,  1 1 7. 


Madan,  Mr.  F.,  370. 
Maidstone,  viscountcy  of,  28. 
Malet,  Robert,  his  fief  bestowed  on 

Stephen,  167,  171. 
Maltravers,  barony  of,  448,  453. 
— - — ,  Henry  Fitz-Alan  lord,  335, 

337- 

Manners  family,  the,  447. 

Mantes,  'Walter,'  count  of,  148- 
150. 

Mar,  earldom  of,  90-95. 

,  character  and  effect  of 

Restitution  Act,  90,  92-3. 

Marcle  (Herefordshire),  Much, 
204,  206-9. 

,  '  Honour'  of,  200. 

Marjoribanks  pedigree,  the  con- 
tested, 87-8. 

Markham  (Notts),  West,  VII. 

Marlborough,  Alvred  de,  156. 

,  heirs  of  first  duke  of,  38. 

,  patent  creating  dukedom  of, 

471- 

Marmoutier,  abbey  of,  its  char- 
ters, 122-3,  126. 

Martley.     See  Marcle. 

(Worcestershire),  296,  299, 

302,  306. 

Mary  I.,  succession  of,  472,  474. 

Mary  II.,  queen  by  statute,   459, 

473- 

Mascherel,  Walter,  167. 
Massy   of    Dunham    Massy,    the 

founder  of,  64. 
Meinill,   title    of,  assigned   to  the 

Darcys  in  writs,  455. 
Melcombe  Regis.     See  Weymouth. 
Merc  (i.e.  Marck),  family  of,  1 56-7, 

i64. 

Merleberg.     See  Marlborough. 
Meschamp.     See  Muschamp. 
Meynill.     See  Meinill. 
Moels,  Nicholas  de,  198. 
Monbegon,  Roger  de,  VII. 
Monmouth  (with  Troy),  185,  187. 


488 


INDEX 


Monmouth,  the    Breton  lords  of, 

120,   121. 

Montacute,  barony  of,  336. 
Montacute  priory,  196,  197. 
Montague,  Henry  Pole  lord,  336, 

337- 

Montdoubleau,  Payn  de,  192. 
Montfort,  Simon  de,  descent  falsely 

claimed  from,  85. 
Montgomery,  Arnulf  de,  2 1 4. 
Montmorency,  de,  name  and  arms 

wrongly  taken,  20. 
Monumental  effigies  altered,  shifted, 

and  forged,  83—7. 
Monuments,  heraldic  evidence  of, 

137-8,  252-3. 

Moray  earldom,  descent  of  the,  94. 
Mordaunt,  John  Mordaunt  icreated 

lord,  336,  337,  349,  353. 

,  barony  of,  351,  366. 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  cited,  286. 

Morley,  earldom  of,  23. 

Morres  becomes  De  Montmorency, 

20. 
Mortain,  comti  of,  held  by  Stephen, 

167. 
,   held   by   his  son  William, 

169,  171. 
,  promised  to  his  son-in-law 

Mathew,  175. 
Mortelay.     See  Marcle. 
Mortimer,  Isolde  daughter  of  Ed- 
mund de,  207,  208. 
Morville,  arms  of,  273. 
Mountjoy,  Charles  Blountlord,345. 
Mowbray,  barony  of,  435  et  sey., 

460. 

,  its  precedence,  108-9. 

,    Henry    Frederick    Howard 

summoned    (1640)    as    lord, 

337- 
Mowbray,   Segrave,  and   Stourton, 

lord,    37,    40,    41,    52,   54, 

56,  58,61. 
,  Alfred  lord,  437-9. 


Mowbrays,  Anne   heiress  of,  435, 

439- 

,  Isabel,  co-heiress  of,  435. 

,  Margaret,  co-heiress  of,  435. 

,  their  royal  descent,  435-6. 

style  themselves  lords  Braose, 

456. 
,   their    inheritance    divided, 

436,  443- 

Musard,  Robert,  306. 
Muschamp,  alleged  arms  of,  253. 

Names  of  supposed  ancestors  re- 
vived, 21-2,  216,  24.7,  261, 
308. 

Napton,  Agnes  de,  218,  220,  227. 

Nelson,  right  heir  of,  38. 

Neufmarche"  (Newmarch),  Henry 
de,  194,  195,  196,  209. 

,  James  de,  196,  198. 

,  William  de,  210. 

,  Sibyl,  daughter  of  Bernard 

de,  212. 

Newmarch.     See  Neufmarch£. 

,  Isabel,  255. 

Nichols*   Leicestershire,    217,    229, 

304- 

Nicolas,  Sir  Harris,  3,  9. 
Nobility.      See    Blood  ;     Peerage 

Dignities. 
Norfolk,  dukes  of,   38,  40,    109- 

no. 
,  dukedom  of,  its  precedence, 

109. 

See  also  Howard. 

Norfolk,  Margaret  countess  0^436. 
Northcote  pedigree,  the,  71. 
Northumberland,  earls  of,  assume 

titles,  446. 
,   origin  of    Percy   dukedom 

of,  45- 

Norton,  Cold  (Oxon.),  179. 
, ,  Augustinian  house  at, 


177. 
(Suffolk),  178. 


489 


INDEX 


Norwich  held  by  William  count  of 

Boulogne,  169,  170. 
Nuncio.     See  Rinuccini. 
Nutfield  (Surrey),  153,  161. 


Oeys  (i.e.  Oye),  Eustace  de,  157. 

Offaley,  barony  of,  95,  453,  466. 

Ogle,  barony  of,  338. 

Oman,  Mr.,  204. 

Ongar,  the  Honour  of,   171,1 74. 

Ormonde,  earldom  (1529)  of,  470. 

,  Thomas,  earl  of,  340. 

,  James  first  duke  of,  his 

relations  with  Charles  I.  and 
Lord  Glamorgan  (1644-7), 

392»    396,    398~9»    4OI~7> 

412-17,     419-20,     422-4, 

426-7,429-33. 
Ostrewic.     See  Austruy. 
Oxford  (De  Vere),  earldom  of,  450, 

451-2. 
Oxford,  Walter,  archdeacon  of,  202. 


Painter-stainers,  58,  60,  145. 

Pancevolt,  Bernard,  196. 

Parish  Register,  discovery  of  a  peer 

in,  70. 

,  falsified,  86. 

Parliament.    See  Lords ;  Commons. 
Parr  barony,  creation  of,  355. 
Patent,  creation  by,  354-5,  358-9. 
Patents  of  creation,  invalid  proviso 

in,  467. 
,  value  of  recitals  in,  62,  221, 

240,440,453. 
Paulett,  Sir  William,  created   lord 

St.  John,  361. 
Pauncefote,  family  of,  24. 
Paynel  family,  origin  of,  125. 
Paynel  (of  Somerset),  William,  206. 
Pedigree-makers,  pranks  of,  265. 
Pedigrees,  attempts  to  tinker,  252. 
,  how  concocted,  227  et  seq. 


Peerage  cases  : — 

Braye,  354,  359,  361,362,  365. 

Buckhurst,  466-7. 

Clifton,  6. 

Fitzwalter,  446,  450. 

Hastings,  9,  n,  109. 

Herries,  96. 

Howard  de  Walden,  450. 

Lindores,  100. 

Mar,  90-3. 

Moray,  94. 

Mowbray  and  Segrave,  VIII.  10,. 

no,  365,435  "" ?• 
Oxford  (earldom  of),  450,  451 - 

452,460. 
Sandys,  358. 
Scales,  437,  440. 
Sutherland,  94. 
Vaux,   354,    357,    358,    363, 

364-5- 

Wentworth,  361. 
Wharton,  354. 
Peerage  cases,  evidence  produced  in, 

361-5-  m 

Peerage  dignities  deemed  real  es- 
tate, 460,  465-6. 

,  their  descent  diverted,  93-5. 

,  purchase  of,  28,  33. 

,  wrongful  assumption  of,  99— 

101,  445-8,  449,  450-456. 

,  erroneous  recognition  by 

Crown  of,  VIII.  100,  447-8, 
449-456. 

,  Crown  cannot  alter  limita- 
tion of,  466. 

Peerage,     vulgarization     of     the, 

33-36. 
Pembroke,  Gilbert  (de  Clare)  earl 

Of,  212. 

Pepys  pedigree,  the,  311. 
Percy,  modern  barony  (1722)  of,. 
38,  100,  454. 

,  arms  of,  41-2. 

,  origin  of  family  of,  43-4. 

,  formerly  Smithson,  44. 


490 


INDEX 


Petre,  Lord,  40,  41. 
Petworth,  Honour  of,  44. 
Pevensey,  Honour  and    castle   of, 

169,  170. 
Peverel  of  Nottingham,  Honour  of, 

304- 

Piddington  (Beds),  178. 
Pike,  Mr.  L.  O.,  342,  360,  460, 

461,  462. 
Pilkington  family,  fabled  antiquity 

of,  66. 

Pitcombe  (Somerset),  193,  196. 
Plaids,  House  of  the,  1 20. 
Playford  (Suffolk),  171. 
Pleas  of  the  Crown,  1 84. 
Plunkett  family,  fabulous  origin  of, 

67-8. 

Poer,  barony  of  '  La,'  100. 
Poher,  le.     See  Power. 
Poitou,  Roger  of,  his  fief  bestowed 

on  Stephen,  168. 
Pons,  Richard  son  of,  215. 
Pope  (Innocent  X.),  alleged  letter 

of  Charles  I.  to,  409. 

,  possibly  hoaxed,  431. 

Porter,  Endymion,  VIII.  385. 
Power  becomes  De  La  Poer,  18. 
Precedence    erroneously  admitted, 

366,  454. 
Precedency    of    baronies,    special, 

469-470. 

Princedom  of  the  empire,  Marl- 
borough's,  38. 
Protestant,  meaning  of  a,  in  1 7th 

century,  403. 
,  English  Sovereign  must  be, 

459- 
Purton  (Glouc.),  185. 

Quarterings,  heraldic,  27,  138. 

, ,  wrongly  allowed,  79, 

3*3-4- 


Radbourne    (Warwickshire),    281, 
285,  286. 


Raleigh,  Sir  Edward,  325. 
Records,  imaginary,    cited,    71-2, 

107-8,     133-4,     H°»    276> 

338,  364- 

See  also  Domesday  Book. 
Red  Book  of  the  Exchequer,  The,  165, 

190-91. 

Redesdale,  Lord,  446. 
Redvers.     See  Reviers. 
Reviers,  Richard  de,  124-5. 
Rheinfelden,     alleged     counts    of, 

216-9,  230,  234,  239. 
,  position  and  history  of,  223, 

226,  228,  234-6. 
Rhuddlan,  customs  of,  183,  184. 
Rhyd-y-Gors,  castle  of,  2 1 2-2 1 4. 
Richard  L,  176. 

Richmond,  Breton  earls  of,  3 1 3-4. 
Riddell,  Mr.,  12,  95,  97,  115. 
Rinuccini,  papal  nuncio  to  Ireland, 

398-9,403,415,417,422- 

424,427-433. 
,   ,    alleged     letter     of 

Charles  I.  to,  399,  400, 405- 

9,421. 

Rivenhall  (Essex),  162. 
Robert  duke  of  Normandy,    191, 

192. 
Rochford,   George    (Boleyn)   lord, 

333,  334>335»337>339>353- 
,  barony  of,  335,  336,  337, 

454- 
,  Thomas  (earl  of  Ormond) 

lord,  340. 

Rollo,  barony  of,  96. 
Roos,   barony   of,   95,  447,   450, 

466. 
of  Belvoir  (1896),  barony  of, 

447- 

Rosel,  Hugh  de,  255,  256,  260. 

Ros,  barony  of  De,  ranking  of,  366. 

Rudinge  family  and  arms,  326—7. 

Rudolph  (of  Hapsburg),  the  em- 
peror (strictly  'King  of  the 
Romans'),  218,  228,  237. 


491 


INDEX 


Russell  barony  (1539),  creation  of, 

355- 
Russell  (of  Killowen),  arms  of  lord, 

320. 
,  John,  first   earl  of  Bedford, 

252,  264,  267. 

,  Francis,  second  earl  of  Bed- 
ford, 252,  253,  270. 
,  William,    lord    Russell    of 

Thornhaugh,  253. 
,  James  (father  of  first  earl), 

254,  264,  267,  268. 
,  John   (grandfather    of  first 

earl),  254,  257,  262-3,  267, 

268,  277. 
,  John,  speaker  of  the  House 

of     Commons,     255,      256, 

263-5. 
(of     Weymouth),     Henry 

(great-grandfather  of  first  earl 

of  Bedford),  263-9,  278. 

(of    Derham),     Theobald, 

257,  262-3,  270*  27I-4- 

,  Ralf  (son  of  Theobald),  274. 

(of  Kingston  Russell),  Ralf, 

198,  274. 

, ,  William,  277. 

(of  Strensham),  arms  of,  320. 

(of  Swallowfield),   arms  of, 

320-321. 

,  John,  gunner,  277. 

,  Odo,  256,  258,  259,  260, 

261. 

,  Stephen,  265. 

Russells,  the  (Bedford),  origin  of, 
250  et  seq. 

, ,  eminence  of,  250. 

, ,  herald's  official  pedi- 
gree of,  251-6,  303. 

, ,  alleged  Norman  origin 

of,  251,  255,  257-9,  263. 

, ,  arms  of,  252-3,  258, 

274-5,  290,  320- 

, ,  origin  of  their  name, 

261. 


Russells,  the  (Bedford),  their  long 

association    with     House    of 

Commons,  278. 
(of  Derham),  the  '  baronial,' 

254,  262,  269,  270,  278. 

, ,  arms  of,  273-4,  32°- 

Ruthven  of  Freeland,  barony   of, 

14,  95-100,  in. 
Rye,  Mr.  Walter,  19,  25,  76,  78- 

80,  134-6,  139,  316. 
Ryhall  (Rutland),  178,  303. 

Sackingen,  abbey  of,  224,  230, 231. 

St.  Clears  (Caermarthenshire),  215. 

St.  Florent  de  Saumur,  abbey  of, 
116,  120,121,122,125,126. 

St.  Frideswide's,  Robert  of  Crick- 
lade  prior  of,  202. 

St.  George,  Sir  R.,  Clarencieux,  311. 

St.  John  barony  (1539),  creation 

of,  355,  ?6i. 
St.   John    family,  origin  of,   VII. 

62,66-7,  125. 

St.  John,  John  (1230)  de,  306. 
St.  John   (of  Jerusalem),  prior  of, 

342,  346. 

St.  Lawrence  pedigree,  the,  70. 
St.  Legers,  alleged  founder  of  the, 

61-2. 
St.  Liz  barony,  creation  of,  217, 

222,  239,  240. 
St.  Martin Vle-grand,  156. 
St.  Osyth's  (Essex),  158-9. 
St.  Vincent  (Mans),  abbey  of,  190, 

193,  196. 
Sandford,  alleged  barony  of,  451, 

452. 
Sandfords     of     Sandford,     alleged 

founder  of,  63-4. 
Sandys  barony,  creation  of,  356-8. 
Savigny  abbey,  charters  of,  127. 
Say,  barony  of,  454-5. 
Saye  and  Sele,  barony  of,  455. 
Sayer    family,   alleged    descent  of 

Sears  from,  85. 


492 


INDEX 


Scandals,  sundry,  28-9. 
Scohies,  William  de,  188. 
Scotland,    assumption    of   peerage 
dignities  in,  12, 14,92,95-99. 
Scottish  genealogy,  83,  87-90. 
Scotts,  male  heirship  of  the,  89. 
Seal,  alleged  early  armorial,  49. 
,  evidence    of    an    armorial, 

273-4- 
,  forgery  of  the  great,  VIII. 

379,  4*2. 

Seals,  strange  adventures  of,  231. 
Segar,  Garter  King  of  Arms,  259, 

293,  297,  302,  308,  315. 
Segrave,  barony  of,  436-8,    439, 

448,  449,  456,  457. 

See  also  Mowbray. 
Serjeanties  of  the  count  of  Bou- 
logne in  England,  158. 
Seymour  arms,  40. 
Sharrington  (Norfolk),  127. 
Sheep,  complaints  of  their  ravages, 

281-284,  286-7. 
Sheldon  MSS.,  the,  241. 
Shifting  clause.     See  Patent. 
Shipway  pedigree  case,  the,  85-6, 

245,  276. 
Shirley's  Noble  and  Gentle  Men,  2 1 6, 

278,  296. 

Shopland  (Essex),  158,  159. 
Signet,  the,  415-7. 
Smith.     See  Carrington. 
Smith-Carington,   fabulous    origin 

of,  64. 
Snitterfield    (Warwickshire),    286, 

326. 

Snow,  Isaac,  285. 
Society,  "  good  suburban,"  316. 
,  plutocratic  development  of, 

33-6. 
Somerset,  Ballon  family  in,   209- 

210. 
(or  Somerset  and  Beaufort), 

dukedom     of,     Charles     I.'s 

alleged  creation  of,  367  et  seq. 


Somerset  family,  origin  of,  371. 
Sophia,  the  electress,  459. 
Spencer  (of  Cannon  Hall),  arms  of, 

317. 
,  Henry  (of  Badby),  294,  325, 

326. 
, ,  his  alleged  arms,  291, 

306,  328. 
,  Sir  John  (purchaser  of  Al- 

thorpe),  284-292,  306,  322, 

324- 
, ,  his  enclosed  pastures, 

282,  288-9. 
, ,  his  brother  Thomas, 

286,  289. 
, ,  his    father    William, 

286,  289. 

-,  a  grazier,  284,  287, 


288. 
-, ,   resides   at    Hodnell, 

287-8,  292. 
-,  ,    his   grant   of    arms, 

289-291. 

-, ,  his  monument,  291. 

-,  (grandfather    of  first 

lord),  281,  283,  290,  292-4. 
-,  monument  of,  292. 


,  John    (of   Hodnell),     286, 

323,  324- 

,  Richard,  323. 

,   Robert   first  lord,   279-80, 

285,  327. 
,  Thomas  (of  Hodnell),  286, 

287,  326. 

, (of  Everdon),  290. 

Spencers,    alleged   origin    of,    279, 

292-300,  306. 

,  true  origin  of,  285-8,  322. 

,  great  sheepmasters,  279-284. 

,  originally  i  graziers/  285. 

,  arms  granted   to,   289-291, 

307,  317. 

,  monuments  of,  293. 

— — ,  modesty  of  modern,  322. 
,  origin  of  their  name,  323. 


493 


INDEX 


Spencer-Churchills     a    branch    of 

Spencer,  327. 
Sporle  priory,  123,  129. 
Stanley   family,  alleged  origin    of, 

62-3. 

Stanley  Regis  (Glouc.),  307. 
Stapleton,  family  of,  its  pedigree, 

312-4. 

,  Mr.  Thomas,  314. 

Stapylton.     See  Stapleton. 
Stephen  king  of  England  and  (jure 

uxoris)    count    of    Boulogne, 

159,  162,166,171,172,174. 
Steward,  Augustine,    his    spurious 

pedigree,      134,     136,     137, 

142-3. 
,   Robert,  dean  of  Ely,  135, 

i36. 

Stewart  pedigree,  Lord  Crawford's 

collections  for,  1 18. 
Stewarts  succeed  to  English  throne, 

473-. 

,  origin  of  the,  1 1 5  et  seq. 

,   male  heirship   of  the,   89, 

132. 

Stourton,  descent  of,  60. 
family,  fabulous    origin    of, 

50-59,  61. 

See  also  Mowbray. 
Strange    (1628),   barony   of,    100, 

449,  45°,  454- 

,  Stanley  barony  of,  445-6, 

451. 

,  family  of.     See  Le  Strange. 

Stretton-on-Dunsmore,  130,  131. 

Stuart  "of  Hartley  Mauduit,"  fam- 
ily of,  131  et  seq. 

,  arms  of,  136  et  seq. 

Stubbs,  Dr.  (bishop  of  Oxford),  4, 

10,  343,  345- 
Stukeley,  Dr.,  244. 
Sturminster  Newton  castle  (Dorset), 

209. 
Stywards  develop  into  Stuarts,  144, 

146,  228,  239. 


Succession,  Acts  of,  459,  460,  471- 

475- 

Sumeri,  Roger  de,  1 64. 
Surrey,  Howard  earldom  of,   442, 

444. 
Sutton  (Wilts),  Great,    192,    204, 

206. 

Swan,  knight  of  the,  152. 
Swyre   (Dorset),   Berwick  in,  254, 

270,  271-2. 

Tailboys  (of  Kyme),  Gilbert  lord, 
332,  336,  337,  348,  35i, 
352- 

,  barony  of,  350,  359. 

Talbot,  Francis  Talbot  lord,  335, 

337- 
Temple  family,  fabulous  origin  of, 

45- 

,  arms  of,  45. 

Tenancies    under,    forfeited,    and 

bestowed  with  their  holders' 

tenancies-in-chief,  193-4. 
Tenure,  alleged  earldom  by,  453. 
Thynne,  Francis,  50. 
Thynnes,  origin  of  the,  250,  326. 
Tibenham  (Norfolk),  318,  320. 
Tichborne  family,  antiquity  of,  72. 
Tidenham,  185. 
Tintern  abbey,  212. 
Tiron,  abbey  of,  127. 
Tortworth  (Glouc.),  193. 
Townsend,  Mr.  (Windsor  Herald), 

292,  294,  296. 
Trafford,  the  imaginary  Randolphus 

de,  65. 

Tregoz,  Robert  de,  156,  165. 
Trelawny  family,  alleged  founder 

of,  65. 

Tring  (Herts),  158. 
Tudor  nobility,  the,  250. 
Tuxford  (Notts),  VII. 
Tudors,  economic    changes    under 

the,  282. 
Tweedmouth.     See  Marjoribanks. 


494 


INDEX 


VJ 


Ulster    office,    fabulous    pedigrees 

recorded  in,  21,  69. 
King  of  Arms.     See  Betham ; 

Burke. 
Uses,  statute  of,  352-3. 

Vaillant,  M.  V.-J.,  163. 
Valentia,  viscountcy  of,  13. 
Vanbrugh,  Sir  John,  Clarencieux, 

3i6. 

Vane.     See  Fane. 
Vaux,  barony  of,  30. 
(of     Harrowden),     Thomas 

lord,    336,    337,    357,    365, 

366. 
,   Sir   Nicholas,   created   lord 

Vaux,  356-8,  364-5. 
Vavasour  family,  origin  of,  62. 
Victoria  History  of  the  Counties  of 

England,  the,  323-4. 
Vignier,  Jer6me,  a  forger,  245. 
Vincent,    Augustine,     241,     302, 

308. 

,  John,  218,  240,  241,  244. 

Visitations.     See  Heralds. 

Wake.     See  Hereward. 

family,  origin  of,  73-5, 

Wales,    South,    invaded     by    earl 

William    Fitz    Osbern,    182, 

186-7. 

,  the  Clares  in,  211-4. 

,  invaded  from  Devon,  215. 

Walesby  (Notts),  VII. 

Warenne   fief,    devolution    of  the, 

172. 

Warennes,  heirship  of  the  De,  49. 
Warsop  (Notts),  VII. 
Warwick,  Henry    (de    Beaumont) 

earl  of,  215. 

,  earls  of,  22,  27. 

Warwickshire,    sheep    farming    in, 

280-284. 

Welsh  land  system,  1 86,  188. 
Wendover,  160. 


Wentworth,  Martha  Johnson  claims 

barony  of,  361. 
,  Thomas  Wentworth  created 

lord,  336,  348,  351,  353. 
,  barony  of,   351,    362,   363, 

366. 

Westerham  (Kent),  church  of,  153. 
Weston,  Segar's  (spurious)  pedigree 

of,  259,  308. 

Wettingen,  abbey  of,  225,  227. 
Wexford,  alleged  barony  of,  447. 
Weymouth,  gild  of  St.  George  at, 

266. 

,  Russells  at,  267-8. 

Weysford.     See  Wexford. 
Wharton,  barony  of,  354. 
Whitsand,  family  of,  1 59,  1 64. 
Wicken  (Northants),  289. 
Wiffen,  Mr.,  251,  257,  260,  261, 

263-6,  268,  271-8. 
Wihenoc.  See  Guihenoc. 
William  the  Conqueror,  46-7,  50, 

55-9»6l-3>  73,  154,  181. 
William  Rufus,  190,  192. 
William  III.,  king  by  statute,  459, 

473- 

Willington  family,  the,  221-2. 
Willoughby  of  Parham,  barony  of, 

100. 
Wimbish,    Mr.,    his    claim    to    be 

Lord  Tailbois,  350,  359. 
Winchester,  earls  of.     See  Despen- 

cer. 
Windsor  (of  Stanwell),  Andrew  first 

lord,    336,    337,    348,    353, 

364- 
,  barony  of,  350,    359-361, 

365-6,  437,  461,  462,  465, 

469,  470. 
Winterbourne-Wast  (Dorset),  153, 

162. 

Winton,  Scottish  earldom  of,  1 1 . 
Wolseley     of    Wolseley,    fabulous 

origin  of,  64-5. 
Wolston  priory,  128. 


495 


EXPI     FOREIGN  NOTES 

AND  COMMENT. 


14 


yards. 


.,0  at  her  grand  old  English  country  sea; 
n    .     )h   historic   interest   has    come   intc 
^ntr     'i|J/'?/rket-     Chartley  Hall,  the  an 
Jtalfan  jal     ur;sV  th-e  Earl  of  Ferrers,  after  having 
down   a       re*,  rferedj  for  rent,   is  now  about  to  b'| 
•«co         Way.     a     h°Jast  /  for  sale  at  public  auction.     Chart] 
ail  f h      ^aturelv     fvy  t  very  flne  old  piace!  which  remain! 
™ree  som      •       d/s-  /what    it    was    in   the    time    of    t 


genets,     The   house    of   Shirley, 
Ix>rd  Ferrers  is  the  chief,  tracesi 


'•'/  "*   %^?ed  Si'0*1 

./  *>ad]y  cut    •      *"oiing.    g^fj1  arm  torn'  J*'1"1  /nt    in    an    unbroken    line    from    t 

/  £re      ei^S*   fcu^e^ ^  *J>°    Were f    *  lof  mn*  Edward  the  Confessor,  a 
tr^Pe"    &    tJ£ed      for     7at  s%ht|,LSO  l^een,  established  throughout  all  th, 


y  hundred  years  at  Chartley. 


W  ttr 

,8p        '         - 
h      to  Th* 
nfrJest° 
*  in 


Wash 


C 


l 
'  c- 


t 

*  ar<j 


'D. 


hODe.< 


contract00^'  t  1200,   but  Chartley  Hall,  close  by, 
old   timbered   building,    still   encirc 
its  moat,  containing  apartments  wlr 
lam.        Iry  Queen  of  Scots   occupied   for  scm< 
Va..     «„_  jars     It  is  on  record  that  she  rode  am 

wked)  in  the   primeval   park   by   whiei 
hall  is  surrounded,    and  even  in   he] 
y,    the    wild    white    cattle    of    Chartle? 
ere  accounted'  of  very  ancient  descent 
nd'eie/J,   of  their  origin  nothing  is  know^ 
eyon.di     the     tradition     that     they 
riven   into    the   park   from    the   victnag 
f    Needwood   during   the   reign    of   Km; 


l«te 

Yorjf 

' 


%fch 

'" 


£•§*•* 


;?w;s.J«:s:,'-"Ss 


—„  otiea  Th 

-^ee^-n^9.    -,, 

•  in   the 


"•  «•«  in,i.y  for  three  hundred  yean*,  and 
7-k  of  several  thousand  acros. 
ster  of  Lord  Durham,  is  an  ex- 
id    brilliant    woman,    who    has 
iveral  books,  including  one  which  went 
amber  of  editions,  entitled  "Caprict-ios." 
•  wer   than    four   daughters, 
•-ier  debut  this  y^ar.  she  h«s  only 
ni  two  years  ago,  who  bears  the  cour- 
Marquis  of  Carmarthen,   by  which  his 
is  one  of  the  wittiest  and  most  wide- 
bers  of  the  peerage,  was  known  until 

-     »U~     /-iLlrArlnni  1  .Ot     TTIP     fldfl      that     hfj 


Perfo      °f  J 

}f  this  city  *^h^ev'  ^-  /;Jtlenry  -111-    Tne  cattle  are  of  a  dull  crean 
'v^.-l,   ^Te  bride  //color,  their  horns,  muzzles,  and  ears  bem; 
^s-e*      ^u-~^    '  tipped   with    black,    and    they    have    pre- 
sented so  picturesque  an  appearance  tha. 
it  is  a  pity  that  owing  to   interbreedin: 
they    have    now    become    almost    extincl 
In  fact,   the  Chartley  herd  of  wild  cattl 
may  be  said  to  be  perishing  of  unmitigat 
ed  antiquity,    and  there  are  only  a  ver; 
few  herds!  of  it  left. 

There  are  only  three  other  herds  of  wil 
cattle  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  bes 
known,  perhaps,  being  that  of  the  Earl  o 
Tankerville  at  Chillingham,  in  Northum 
berland.  The  present  Lord  Tankerville  i 
married'  .  to  an  American  woman,  wh 
was  Miss  Van  Marter,  of  Tacoma,  Wash 
The  Duke  of  Hamilton  likewise  has 
herd  of  wild)  cattle,  while  on  the  cor.ttnen 
the  best  known,  perhaps,  is  that  of  th 
Czar,  on  his  great  sporting  estate  nea 
the  Polish  border. 

It  was  the  fourth  Earl  of  Ferrers  wh 
was  hanged  in  May,  1760,  for  the  murde 
of   his    steward,    a   man    of   the  name   o 
Harold.     The  earl,  who  killed  the  man  i: 
the  most  cold-blooded  fashion,   was  trie 
by  his  peers  in  the  House  of  Lord 
found!  guilty  unanimously,  the  sentence  o 
death  being  pronounced  upon  him  by  Lor 
High  Chancellor  Henley,  who  presided  r. 
the    trial    as    Lord!    High    Steward.      Th 
earl  was  allowed  to  drive  to  the  gallow 
in   his  own  state   carriage,   drawn   i 
horses,   which  was  followed  by  a 
and  six;  and  it  is  on  record)  that  the  rop 
with  which   he   was   hanged  was   < 
instead    of    hemp,    this    concession    beiu: 
due  to   his   rank.     Indeed,    the   sill, 
u sc^li    on    that    occasion    was    still    in    ex 
istence  towards  the  middle  of  the  last  cen 


ORD  AILESBURY 

AND  ANCESTORS. 

Lord  Ailesbury,  who  has  sailed  for  New 
ork  with   the   object  of  paying  anoth< 
sit  to  this  country,  and  who  arrives  to- 
i  arrow,    was    here    formerly      as    Lord 
en-ry   Bruce,    prior   to    his   accession   to 
ie   marquis-ate    and    estates    of   his   dis 
jputable  nephew,  who  attained  the  un- 
iviable  distinction  of  being  "warned  off 
fewmarket  Heath-  and)  all   race  «r-«ff  a 
nder  the  control  of  the  Jockey  :Ilza- 
ecree  of  the  steward®  of  tha 
wi-Lord  Ailesbury  *£ 
nrtnmwfcjespect  of  his^  to  provlde  her 
nd    all 


regnn|f 

ouse  with  ivory  goblets  'whenever  they 
ame  to  Savernake  Forest. 

It   would  be  too  long  a  story  to   trace 

je-4s-Sce-*\+  of  the  (Marquis  of  Allosburv 
j-t**-  —  -     *,"*_  /»  __         vt» 


erveau-  y   that 


ances  or  e  *e  'shortcomings  of  the 

ever,  the  least  or  tr  pubiiciy  boast! 

late  marquis,  who  iisea  ^  t   hls  , 

that   his   ^e.I0Swhas    Enounced   in   the  I 
father,    and  whoff^7rOm    the    bench    for 
strongest  JWW^n5SSrf  the  intoxica-  | 
j.a-ving  ^^Tntoner  of  the  name 
tlon  of  a  Scotch  dVhim  of  a  sum  of 

of  Maxwell  to  defraud,  him  ^  ghip 

$50,000  at  a  game  01  c  •  ^  ^  a&  tfcft 

Hotel  at  Brighton.    ^  w       nished    a    fa- 
••coster    marquis,       ana  of  the 

House   o«  ^  Lords   and  of 
H  .ouse  W  widow>  , 

«  name  of  Dolly 
married  a  Scotch 
1"  of  Webster  at 


vorite  — 
abolition  < 
hereditary 
music  hall 


Baroa    Aeneas    Mackay,    former 
minister    of    the    Netherlands,     am 
has  Just  been  appointed  by  a  decree 
ing   the    signature   of    Queen   Wilh< 
to  the  presidency  of  the- lower  ho 
the   rxutch   Parliament,    is   the   nex 
to  the  Scotch  peerage,  as  well  as 
Nova    Scotia    baronetcy    of    his    < 
Lord  Reay,  and  on  the  latter' s  deal 
als'o   succeed   to  the  chieftainship 


John  Horace 

in  peerage  and 


nne 

daughters,    ^ad^    ^^   ports   with   her 
sionally   visits    Am«  L  rlcan   P  merchant 

husband,  who  is  ^asttehre°fE?st  ^ndia    and 
vessel    engaged    in    ™  was  a  very 

China  trade.     Her   ma  fl  by  her  fa. 

romantic  one    and  was  opp^  yacht3-  I 

ther  and  by  her  fami^    Anautlcal  school 

woman,  she  ^W^J/Jw^t  of  securing  a 
at  Liverpool  with  the  owe  quaH_ 

master's  ^J^a^f  her  yacht.  At. 
fled  to  take  cQtninana  ot  Hunt) 

the  school  ^^^^yelrs  at  sea,  first 
who,  having  «P«n*  8a°  Seaward  as  a  mate, 
as  an  apprentice  no.  a  master's  cer- 

was  likewise  studyl"g,ntancO  ripened  into 
eir 


TY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


was 

I    tificate.     Their 
affection,  and 
I  married    at 
Church.     Soon 
e 


a 

ripened  into 
were  quietly 


Hunt   was  ap- 

urc.  n_ailing  vessel,    and 

inted   skipper   of   a  saiunK  u_