BARONETAGE
Last updated 17/07/2014
Names of baronets shown in blue 
have not yet proved succession and, as a
result, their name has not yet been placed on
the Official Roll of the Baronetage.
Date Type Order Name Born Died  Age
COX of Dunmanway,Cork
21 Nov 1706 I 1 Richard Cox 25 Mar 1650 3 May 1733 83
Lord Chancellor [I] 1703-1707. Chief
Justice [I] 1711-1714
3 May 1733 2 Richard Cox 23 Nov 1702 2 Feb 1766 63
2 Feb 1766 3 Michael Cox c 1730 18 Jul 1772
18 Jul 1772 4 Richard Eyre Cox c 1765 6 Sep 1783
For information on the death of this baronet,
see the note at the foot of this page
6 Sep 1783 5 Richard Cox 6 Jun 1769 Sep 1786 17
Sep 1786 6 John Cox 4 Apr 1771 23 Dec 1832 61
23 Dec 1832 7 George Matthias Cox 24 Feb 1777 28 Jun 1838 61
28 Jun 1838 8 Richard Cox 7 May 1846
7 May 1846 9 Francis Cox 23 Jul 1769 6 Mar 1856 86
6 Mar 1856 10 Ralph Hawtrey Cox 1808 12 Apr 1872 63
12 Apr 1872 11 Michael Cox 1810 15 Jun 1872 61
15 Jun 1872 12 Francis Hawtrey Cox c 1816 17 Oct 1873
to     Extinct on his death
17 Oct 1873   For further information regarding subsequent      
assumptions of this title and an attempt to 
    claim the title in 1915,see the note at the foot      
of this page
    COX of Old Windsor,Berks
22 Jan 1921 UK 1 Reginald Henry Cox c 1864 27 Mar 1922
to     Extinct on his death
27 Mar 1922
COXEN of Seal,Kent
29 Jan 1941 UK 1 William George Coxen 23 Mar 1867 7 Apr 1946 79
to     Extinct on his death
7 Apr 1946
CRADOCK-HARTOPP of Freithby,Leics
12 May 1796 GB 1 Edmund Cradock-Hartopp    21 Apr 1749 10 Jun 1833 84
MP for Leicestershire 1798-1806
10 Jun 1833 2 Edmund Cradock-Hartopp    17 May 1788 3 Apr 1849 60
3 Apr 1849 3 William Edmund Cradock-Hartopp 2 Dec 1794 16 Oct 1864 69
16 Oct 1864 4 John William Cradock-Hartopp 1829 25 May 1888 58
25 May 1888 5 Charles Edward Cradock-Hartopp 1858 20 Feb 1929 70
20 Feb 1929 6 Charles William Everard Cradock-Hartopp 4 Sep 1893 14 Mar 1930 36
14 Mar 1930 7 Frederick Cradock-Hartopp 11 Jul 1869 26 Feb 1937 67
26 feb 1937 8 George Francis Fleetwood Cradock-
Hartopp 20 Jul 1870 5 Sep 1949 79
5 Sep 1949 9 John Edmund Cradock-Hartopp 8 Apr 1912 7 Aug 1996 84
7 Aug 1996 10 Kenneth Alston Cradock-Hartopp 26 Feb 1918 8 Jun 2000 82
to     Extinct on his death
8 Jun 2000
CRAIG of Carmichael,Scotland
30 Sep 1831 UK See "Gibson-Craig"
CRAIG of Stormont,Down
5 Feb 1918 UK 1 James Craig 8 Jan 1871 24 Nov 1940 69
He was subsequently created Viscount
Craigavon (qv) in 1927 with which title
the baronetcy remains merged
 
CRAIG of Alsager,Cheshire
1 Jul 1927 UK 1 Ernest Craig 7 Aug 1859 9 Apr 1933 73
to     MP for Crewe 1912-1918 and 1924-1929
9 Apr 1933 Extinct on his death
CRAIK of Kennoway,Fife
27 Jan 1926 UK 1 Sir Henry Craik 18 Oct 1846 16 Mar 1927 80
MP for Glasgow & Aberdeen Universities
1906-1918.  PC 1918
16 Mar 1927 2 George Lillie Craik 10 Oct 1874 9 Jul 1929 54
9 Jul 1929 3 Henry Duffield Craik 2 Jan 1876 26 Mar 1955 79
to     Governor of the Punjab 1938-1941
26 Mar 1955 Extinct on his death
CRAMPTON of Dublin
14 Mar 1839 UK 1 Philip Crampton 7 Jun 1779 10 Jun 1858 79
10 Jun 1858 2 John Fiennes Twisleton Crampton 12 Aug 1805 5 Dec 1886 81
to     Extinct on his death
5 Dec 1886
CRANE of Chilton,Suffolk
11 May 1627 E 1 Robert Crane 17 Feb 1643
to     MP for Sudbury 1614,1624-1625,1628-1629,
17 Feb 1643 1640 and 1640-1643 and Suffolk 1621-1622
and 1626
Extinct on his death
CRANE of Woodrising,Norfolk
20 Mar 1643 E 1 Richard Crane Mar 1645
to     Extinct on his death
Mar 1645
CRAUFORD of Kilbirney,Ayr
8 Jun 1781 GB 1 Alexander Crauford c 1729 15 Dec 1797
15 Dec 1797 2 James Crauford (Gregan-Crauford from 1812) 11 Oct 1761 9 Jul 1839 77
9 Jul 1839 3 George William Crauford 10 Apr 1797 24 Feb 1881 83
24 Feb 1881 4 Charles William Frederick Crauford 28 Mar 1847 24 Sep 1939 92
24 Sep 1939 5 George Standish Gage Crauford 19 Nov 1872 6 Jan 1957 84
6 Jan 1957 6 Quentin Charles Alexander Crauford 11 Feb 1875 8 May 1957 82
8 May 1957 7 Alexander John Fortescue Crauford 22 Mar 1876 10 Jul 1966 90
10 Jul 1966 8 James Gregan Crauford 23 Feb 1886 7 Apr 1970 84
7 Apr 1970 9 Robert James Crauford 18 Mar 1937
CRAVEN of Spersholt,Berks
4 Jun 1661 E 1 Anthony Craven 5 Mar 1626 c May 1713 87
to     Extinct on his death
c May 1713
CRAVEN
21 Jan 1942 UK 1 Charles Worthington Craven 10 May 1884 18 Nov 1944 60
18 Nov 1944 2 Derek Worthington Clunes Craven 6 Jun 1910 3 Feb 1946 35
to     Extinct on his death
3 Feb 1946
CRAWFORD of Kilbirney,Ayr
14 May 1628 NS 1 John Crawford 1662
to     On his death the baronetcy became dormant
1662
19 Jul 1765 2 Hew Crawford 1 Jul 1794
Title recognized 1765
1 Jul 1794 3 Robert Crawford (Crawford-Pollok from 1820) 1762 7 Aug 1845 83
7 Aug 1845 4 Hew Crawford-Pollok 1794 5 Mar 1867 72
5 Mar 1867 5 Hew Crawford-Pollok 1843 14 Dec 1885 42
to     On his death the baronetcy again became 
14 Dec 1885 dormant
For further information on this baronet, see
the note at the foot of this page
CRAWLEY-BOEVEY of Flaxley Abbey,Gloucs
22 Jan 1784 GB 1 Charles Barrow 1708 10 Jan 1789 80
MP for Gloucester 1751-1789
10 Jan 1789 2 Thomas Crawley-Boevey 14 Feb 1744 11 Aug 1818 74
11 Aug 1818 3 Thomas Crawley-Boevey 28 Nov 1769 10 Jan 1847 77
10 Jan 1847 4 Martin Hyde Crawley-Boevey 25 May 1812 14 Oct 1862 50
14 Oct 1862 5 Thomas Hyde Crawley-Boevey 2 Jul 1837 15 Mar 1912 74
15 Mar 1912 6 Francis Hyde Crawley-Boevey 25 Apr 1868 6 Oct 1928 60
6 Oct 1928 7 Launcelot Valentine Hyde Crawley-Boevey 26 Apr 1900 4 Jul 1968 68
4 Jul 1968 8 Thomas Michael Blake Crawley-Boevey 29 Sep 1928
CRESPIGNY of Champion Lodge,Surrey
31 Oct 1805 UK See "Champion de Crespigny"
CREWE of Calke Abbey,Derby
8 Sep 1626 E See "Harpur-Crewe"
CRISP of Bungay,Suffolk
5 Feb 1913 UK 1 Sir Frank Crisp 25 Oct 1843 29 Apr 1919 75
29 Apr 1919 2 Frank Morris Crisp 13 Mar 1872 5 Apr 1938 66
5 Apr 1938 3 John Wilson Crisp 28 May 1873 11 Oct 1950 77
11 Oct 1950 4 John Peter Crisp 19 May 1925 20 Mar 2005 79
20 Mar 2005 5 John Charles Crisp 10 Dec 1955
CRISPE of Hammersmith,Middlesex
14 Apr 1665 E 1 Nicholas Crispe c 1598 26 Feb 1666
MP for Winchelsea 1640-1641 and 1661-1666
26 Feb 1666 2 Nicholas Crispe c 1643 Nov 1698
Nov 1698 3 John Crispe c 1676 18 Jan 1728
18 Jan 1728 4 Nicholas Crispe c 1718 1 Jun 1730
1 Jun 1730 5 Charles Crispe c 1680 9 Jul 1740
to     Extinct on his death
9 Jul 1740
CRITCHETT of Harley Street,London
28 Nov 1908 UK 1 Sir George Anderson Critchett 18 Dec 1845 9 Feb 1925 79
9 Feb 1925 2 George Montague Critchett 7 Jun 1884 30 May 1941 56
30 May 1941 3 Ian George Lorraine Critchett 9 Dec 1920 19 Jun 2004 83
19 Jun 2004 4 Charles George Montague Critchett 2 Apr 1965
CROFT of Croft Castle,Hereford
18 Nov 1671 E 1 Herbert Croft c 1652 3 Nov 1720
MP for Herefordshire 1679 and 1690-1698
3 Nov 1720 2 Archer Croft 3 Mar 1684 10 Dec 1753 69
MP for Leominster 1722-1727, Winchelsea
1728 and Beeralston 1728-1734
10 Dec 1753 3 Archer Croft 1731 30 Nov 1792
30 Nov 1792 4 John Croft c 1735 4 Dec 1797
4 Dec 1797 5 Herbert Croft 1 Nov 1751 25 Apr 1816 64
25 Apr 1816 6 Richard Croft 9 Jan 1762 13 Feb 1818 56
13 Feb 1818 7 Thomas Elmsley Croft 2 Sep 1798 20 Oct 1835 37
20 Oct 1835 8 Archer Denman Croft 7 Dec 1801 10 Jan 1865 63
10 Jan 1865 9 Herbert George Denman Croft 25 Jul 1838 11 Feb 1902 63
MP for Herefordshire 1868-1874
11 Feb 1902 10 Herbert Archer Croft 5 Sep 1868 11 Aug 1915 46
11 Aug 1915 11 James Herbert Croft 24 May 1907 15 Aug 1941 34
15 Aug 1941 12 Hugh Matthew Fiennes Croft 10 May 1874 15 Jun 1954 80
15 Jun 1954 13 Bernard Hugh Denman Croft 24 Aug 1903 Feb 1984 80
Feb 1984 14 Owen Glendower Croft 26 Apr 1932
CROFT of Cowling Hall,Yorks
17 Dec 1818 UK 1 John Croft c 1778 5 Feb 1862
5 Feb 1862 2 John Frederick Croft 31 Aug 1828 24 May 1904 75
24 May 1904 3 Frederick Leigh Croft 14 Feb 1860 31 Mar 1930 70
31 Mar 1930 4 John William Graham Croft 30 May 1910 2 Feb 1979 68
2 Feb 1979 5 John Archibald Radcliffe Croft 27 Mar 1910 16 Nov 1990 80
16 Nov 1990 6 Thomas Stephen Hutton Croft 12 Jun 1959
CROFT of Knowle
28 Feb 1924 UK 1 Henry Page Croft 22 Jun 1881 7 Dec 1947 66
He was subsequently created Baron Croft
(qv) in 1940 with which title the baronetcy
remains merged, although, as at 30/06/2014, it
does not appear on the Official Roll of the 
Baronetage
CROFTON of the Mote,Roscommon
1 Jul 1661 I 1 Edward Crofton 1624 1675 51
1675 2 Edward Crofton c 1662 24 Nov 1729
24 Nov 1729 3 Edward Crofton 25 May 1687 11 Nov 1739 52
PC [I] 1733
11 Nov 1739 4 Edward Crofton 12 Apr 1713 26 Mar 1745 31
26 Mar 1745 5 Oliver Crofton 1710 9 Nov 1780 70
to     Extinct on his death
9 Nov 1780
CROFTON of the Mote,Roscommon
12 Jun 1758 I 1 Marcus Lowther-Crofton c 1716 16 Jan 1784
16 Jan 1784 2 Edward Crofton 11 Oct 1748 30 Sep 1797 48
30 Sep 1797 3 Edward Crofton 23 Oct 1778 8 Jan 1816 37
8 Jan 1816 4 Edward Crofton 1 Aug 1806 27 Dec 1869 63
He subsequently succeeded to the Barony
of Crofton (qv) in 1817 with which title 
the baronetcy remains merged,although,as at
30/06/2014,the baronetcy does not appear on
the Official Roll of the Baronetage
CROFTON of Mohill Castle,Leitrim
10 Aug 1801 UK 1 Morgan Crofton 25 Mar 1733 12 Feb 1802 68
12 Feb 1802 2 Hugh Crofton 17 Jul 1763 6 Jan 1834 70
6 Jan 1834 3 Morgan George Crofton 21 Dec 1788 24 Jun 1867 78
24 Jun 1867 4 Morgan George Crofton 5 Apr 1850 26 Feb 1900 49
26 Feb 1900 5 Hugh Denis Crofton 11 Nov 1878 4 Feb 1902 23
4 Feb 1902 6 Morgan George Crofton 27 Nov 1879 9 Dec 1958 79
9 Dec 1958 7 Patrick Simon Crofton 2 Dec 1936 15 May 1987 50
15 May 1987 8 Hugh Denis Crofton 10 Apr 1937
CROFTON of Longford House,Sligo
18 Aug 1838 UK 1 James Crofton 8 Aug 1776 1849 72
1849 2 Malby Crofton 21 Dec 1797 15 Dec 1872 74
15 Dec 1872 3 Malby Crofton 20 Aug 1857 17 Sep 1926 69
17 Sep 1926 4 Malby Richard Henry Crofton 18 Sep 1881 21 Jan 1962 80
21 Jan 1962 5 Malby Sturges Crofton 11 Jan 1923 20 Jan 2002 79
20 Jan 2002 6 Henry Edward Melville Crofton 15 Aug 1931 24 Jun 2003 71
24 Jun 2003 7 Julian Malby Crofton 6 Nov 1958
CROFTS of Stow,Suffolk
16 Mar 1661 E 1 John Crofts 1635 Dec 1664 29
to     Extinct on his death
Dec 1664
CROKE of Chilton,Bucks
c 1642 E 1 John Croke c 1610 14 Mar 1679
For further information on this baronet,see
the note at the foot of this page
14 Mar 1679 2 Dodsworth Croke c 1644 16 Jan 1728
to     Extinct on his death
16 Jan 1728
CROMIE of Stacombrie
3 Aug 1776 I 1 Michael Cromie c 1744 14 May 1824
14 May 1824 2 William Lambart Cromie c 1780 27 Mar 1841
to     Extinct on his death
27 Mar 1841
CROMPTON of Wood End,Yorks
1838 UK 1 Samuel Crompton    Jul 1785 27 Dec 1848 63
to     MP for East Retford 1818-1826 and Thirsk 
27 Dec 1848 1834-1841
Extinct on his death
CROOKE of Baltimore,Cork
19 Apr 1624 I 1 Thomas Crooke c 1584 1630
1630 2 Samuel Crooke c Mar 1666
to     Extinct on his death
c Mar 1666
CROPLEY of Clerkenwell,Middlesex
7 May 1661 E 1 John Cropley 5 Nov 1676
5 Nov 1676 2 John Cropley 15 Jul 1663 22 Oct 1713 50
to     MP for Shaftesbury 1701-1710
22 Oct 1713 Extinct on his death
CROSBIE of Maryborough,Queen's Co.
24 Apr 1630 NS 1 Walter Crosbie 4 Aug 1638
4 Aug 1638 2 John Crosbie c 1695
c 1695 3 Warren Crosbie 30 Jan 1759
30 Jan 1759 4 Paul Crosbie Nov 1773
Nov 1773 5 Edward William Crosbie 5 Jun 1798
For further information on this baronet, see
the note at the foot of this page
5 Jun 1798 6 William Crosbie 18 May 1794 3 Oct 1860 66
3 Oct 1860 7 William Richard Crosbie 30 Sep 1820 6 May 1877 56
6 May 1877 8 William Edward Douglas Crosbie 13 Oct 1855 30 Dec 1936 81
to     Extinct on his death
30 Dec 1936
CROSFIELD of Highgate,London
24 Jun 1915 UK 1 Arthur Henry Crosfield 5 Apr 1865 22 Sep 1938 73
to     MP for Warrington 1906-1910
22 Sep 1938 Extinct on his death
For further information on this baronet,see
the note at the foot of this page
CROSS of Marchbankwood,Dumfries
5 Jul 1912 UK 1 Alexander Cross 4 Nov 1847 13 Feb 1914 66
MP for Camlachie 1892-1910
13 Feb 1914 2 William Coats Cross 28 May 1877 5 Dec 1947 70
5 Dec 1947 3 Alexander Cross 4 Apr 1880 12 May 1963 83
to     Extinct on his death
12 May 1963
CROSS of Bolton-le-Moors,Lancs
15 Aug 1941 UK 1 Ronald Hibbert Cross 9 May 1896 3 Jun 1968 72
to     MP for Rossendale 1931-1945 and Ormskirk
3 Jun 1968 1950-1951. Minister of Economic Warfare
1939-1941. Minister of Shipping 1940-1941
Governor of Tasmania 1951-1958.  PC 1940
Extinct on his death
CROSSE of Westminster,London
13 Jul 1713 GB 1 Thomas Crosse 29 Nov 1664 27 May 1738 73
MP for Westminster 1701,1702-1705 and 1710-
1722
27 May 1738 2 John Crosse c 1700 12 Mar 1762
to     MP for Wootton Bassett 1727-1734,
12 Mar 1762 Lostwithiel 1736-1747 and Westminster 
1754-1761
Extinct on his death
CROSSLEY of Halifax,Yorks
23 Jan 1863 UK 1 Francis Crossley 26 Oct 1817 5 Jan 1872 54
MP for Halifax 1852-1859,Yorkshire West
Riding 1859-1865 and Yorkshire West Riding
North 1865-1872
5 Jan 1872 2 Savile Brinton Crossley 14 Jun 1857 25 Feb 1935 77
He was subsequently created Baron 
Somerleyton (qv) in 1916 with which title
the baronetcy remains merged
CROSSLEY of Combermere Abbey,Salop
16 Nov 1909 UK 1 William John Crossley 22 Apr 1844 12 Oct 1911 67
MP for Altrincham 1906-1911
12 Oct 1911 2 Kenneth Irwin Crossley 17 Feb 1877 22 Nov 1957 80
22 Nov 1957 3 Christopher John Crossley 25 Sep 1931 10 Jul 1989 57
10 Jul 1989 4 Nicholas John Crossley 10 Dec 1962 13 Apr 2000 37
13 Apr 2000 5 Julian Charles Crossley 11 Dec 1964 5 Dec 2003 38
5 Dec 2003 6 Sloan Nicholas Crossley 20 Mar 1958
CROWE of Llanherne,Carmarthen
8 Jul 1627 E 1 Sackville Crowe 1683
MP for Hastings 1625 and Bramber 1628-
1629
1683 2 Sackville Crowe c 1637 21 Jun 1706
to     Extinct on his death
21 Jun 1706
CUFFE of Leyrath,Kilkenny
30 Dec 1800 I See "Wheeler-Cuffe"
CULLEN of East Sheen,Surrey
17 Jun 1661 E 1 Abraham Cullen c 1624 28 Aug 1668
MP for Evesham 1661-1668
28 Aug 1668 2 John Cullen 22 Oct 1652 1677 24
1677 3 Rushout Cullen 12 Aug 1661 15 Oct 1730 69
to     MP for Cambridgeshire 1697-1710
15 Oct 1730 Extinct on his death
CULLUM of Hastede,Suffolk
18 Jun 1660 E 1 Thomas Cullum c 1587 6 Apr 1664
6 Apr 1664 2 Thomas Cullum 26 Dec 1628 16 Oct 1680 51
16 Oct 1680 3 Dudley Cullum 17 Sep 1657 16 Sep 1720 62
MP for Suffolk 1702-1705
16 Sep 1720 4 Jasper Cullum 6 Aug 1674 4 Nov 1754 80
4 Nov 1754 5 John Cullum 7 May 1699 16 Jan 1774 74
16 Jan 1774 6 John Cullum 21 Jun 1733 9 Oct 1785 52
9 Oct 1785 7 Thomas Gery Cullum 30 Nov 1741 8 Sep 1831 89
8 Sep 1831 8 Thomas Gery Cullum 23 Oct 1777 26 Jan 1855 77
to     Extinct on his death
26 Jan 1855
CULME-SEYMOUR of High Mount,Limerick
31 May 1809 UK 1 Michael Seymour                      8 Nov 1768 9 Jul 1834 65
9 Jul 1834 2 John Hobart Seymour (Culme-Seymour from 
6 May 1842)                                      24 Mar 1800 17 Sep 1880 80
For further information on this baronet,see
the note at the foot of this page
17 Sep 1880 3 Michael Culme-Seymour         13 Mar 1836 11 Oct 1920 84
For further information on this baronet, and more
particularly his daughters, see the note at the
foot of this page.                            
11 Oct 1920 4 Michael Culme-Seymour         29 Aug 1867 2 Apr 1925 57
2 Apr 1925 5 Michael Culme-Seymour            26 Apr 1909 1999 90
1999 6 Michael Patrick Culme-Seymour            28 Apr 1962
CUMMING of Culter,Scotland
28 Feb 1695 NS 1 Alexander Cumming c 1670 7 Feb 1725
MP for Aberdeenshire 1709-1722
7 Feb 1725 2 Alexander Cumming 1690 23 Aug 1775 85
23 Aug 1775 3 Alexander Cumming c 1737 c 1793
to     On his death the baronetcy became either
c 1793 extinct or dormant
CUMMING-GORDON of Altyre,Elgin
21 May 1804 UK See "Gordon-Cumming"
CUNARD of Bush Hill,Nova Scotia,Canada
9 Mar 1859 UK 1 Samuel Cunard 21 Nov 1787 28 Apr 1865 77
28 Apr 1865 2 Edward Cunard 1 Jan 1816 6 Apr 1869 53
6 Apr 1869 3 Bache Edward Cunard 15 May 1851 3 Nov 1925 74
3 Nov 1925 4 Gordon Cunard 22 May 1857 25 Apr 1933 75
25 Apr 1933 5 Edward Cunard 25 Nov 1891 2 Jul 1962 70
2 Jul 1962 6 Henry Palmes Cunard 12 Sep 1909 16 Jun 1973 63
16 Jun 1973 7 Guy Alick Cunard 2 Sep 1911 17 Jan 1989 77
to     Extinct on his death
17 Jan 1989
CUNINGHAME of Corsehill,Ayr
26 Feb 1672 NS 1 Alexander Cuninghame c 1643 Mar 1685
Mar 1685 2 Alexander Cuninghame 1730
1730 3 David Cuninghame 4 Jul 1770
4 Jul 1770 4 Walter Montgomery-Cuninghame Mar 1814
Mar 1814 5 David Montgomery-Cuninghame Nov 1814
Nov 1814 6 James Montgomery-Cuninghame Mar 1837
Mar 1837 7 Alexander David Montgomery-Cuninghame 8 Jun 1846
8 Jun 1846 8 Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame 30 Aug 1870
30 Aug 1870 9 William James Montgomery-Cuninghame VC 20 May 1834 11 Nov 1897 63
MP for Ayr 1874-1880
For further information on this baronet and VC
winner, see the note at the foot of this page
11 Nov 1897 10 Thomas Andrew Alexander Montgomery-
Cuninghame 30 Mar 1877 5 Jan 1945 67
5 Jan 1945 11 Andrew Malcolm Martin Oliphant
Montgomery Cuninghame 14 Jul 1929 18 Feb 1959 29
18 Feb 1959 12 John Christopher Foggo Montgomery
Cuninghame 24 Jul 1935
CUNINGHAME-FAIRLIE of Robertland,Ayr
25 Nov 1630 NS See "Fairlie-Cuninghame"
CUNLIFFE of Liverpool,Lancs
26 Mar 1759 GB 1 Ellis Cunliffe 12 Apr 1717 16 Oct 1767 50
MP for Liverpool 1755-1767
16 Oct 1767 2 Robert Cunliffe 17 Mar 1719 1778 59
1778 3 Foster Cunliffe 8 Feb 1755 15 Jun 1834 79
15 Jun 1834 4 Robert Henry Cunliffe 22 Apr 1785 10 Sep 1859 74
10 Sep 1859 5 Robert Alfred Cunliffe 17 Jan 1839 18 Jun 1905 66
MP for Flint 1872-1874 and Denbigh 1880-
1885
18 Jun 1905 6 Foster Hugh Egerton Cunliffe 17 Aug 1875 19 Jul 1916 40
19 Jul 1916 7 Robert Neville Henry Cunliffe 8 Feb 1884 1 May 1949 65
1 May 1949 8 Cyril Henley Cunliffe 3 Mar 1901 12 Feb 1969 67
12 Feb 1969 9 David Ellis Cunliffe 29 Oct 1957
CUNLIFFE-OWEN of Weir Bank,Berks
2 Feb 1920 UK 1 Hugo Cunliffe-Owen 16 Aug 1870 14 Dec 1947 77
14 Dec 1947 2 Dudley Herbert Cunliffe-Owen 27 Mar 1923 17 Jul 1983 60
17 Jul 1983 3 Hugo Dudley Cunliffe-Owen 16 May 1966
CUNNINGHAM of Cunninghamhead,Ayr
4 Jul 1627 NS 1 William Cunningham 24 Nov 1601 Jun 1640 38
Jun 1640 2 William Cunningham 1670
1670 3 William Cunningham c 1665 Oct 1722
to     On his death the baronetcy became dormant
Oct 1722
CUNNINGHAM of Auchinhervie,Ayr
23 Dec 1633 NS 1 David Cunningham Feb 1659
to     On his death the baronetcy became dormant
Feb 1659
CUNNINGHAM of London
21 Jan 1642 NS 1 David Cunningham Feb 1659
to     Extinct on his death
Feb 1659
CUNNINGHAM of Lambrughton,Ayr
19 Dec 1669 NS See "Dick-Cunyngham"
CUNNINGHAM of Auchinhervie,Ayr
3 Aug 1673 NS 1 Robert Cunningham Feb 1674
Feb 1674 2 Robert Cunningham 7 Aug 1662 c Aug 1674 12
to     Extinct on his death
c Aug 1674
CUNNINGHAM of Hyndhope,Selkirk
7 Jul 1942 UK 1 Andrew Browne Cunningham 7 Jan 1883 12 Jun 1963 80
He was subsequently created Viscount
Cunningham of Hyndhope (qv) with which
title the baronetcy then merged until its
extinction in 1963
CUNNINGHAM of Crookedstone,Killead
22 Nov 1963 UK 1 Samuel Knox Cunningham 3 Apr 1909 29 Jul 1976 67
to     MP for Antrim South 1955-1970
29 Jul 1976 Extinct on his death
CUNYNGHAME of Milncraig,Ayr
3 Feb 1702 NS 1 David Cunynghame 28 Jan 1708
28 Jan 1708 2 James Cunynghame c 1685 1 Feb 1747
MP for Linlithgowshire 1715-1722
1 Feb 1747 3 David Cunynghame 1 Aug 1700 10 Oct 1767 67
10 Oct 1767 4 William Augustus Cunynghame 19 Apr 1747 17 Jan 1828 80
MP for Linlithgowshire 1774-1790
17 Jan 1828 5 David Cunynghame 14 Aug 1769 19 May 1854 84
19 May 1854 6 David Thurlow Cunynghame 16 Sep 1803 12 Nov 1869 66
12 Nov 1869 7 Edward Augustus Cunynghame Jan 1839 24 Jan 1877 38
24 Jan 1877 8 Francis Thurlow Cunynghame 11 Aug 1808 27 Oct 1877 69
27 Oct 1877 9 Francis George Thurlow Cunynghame 19 Apr 1835 12 Nov 1900 65
12 Nov 1900 10 Percy Cunynghame 21 Feb 1867 7 Jan 1941 73
7 Jan 1941 11 Henry David St.Leger Brooke Selwyn
Cunynghame 7 Feb 1905 6 Aug 1978 73
6 Aug 1978 12 Andrew David Francis Cunynghame 25 Dec 1942
CURLL of Soberton,Hants
20 Jun 1678 E 1 Walter Curll c 1679
to     Extinct on his death
c 1679
CURRE of Itton Court,Monmouth
24 Jan 1928 UK 1 William Edward Carne Curre 26 Jun 1855 26 Jan 1930 74
to     Extinct on his death
26 Jan 1930
CURRIE of Wickham Bishops,Essex  
11 Jan 1847 UK 1 Frederick Currie 3 Feb 1799 11 Sep 1875 76
11 Sep 1875 2 Frederick Larkins Currie 18 Apr 1823 13 Nov 1900 77
13 Nov 1900 3 Frederick Reeve Currie 13 May 1851 27 Feb 1930 78
27 Feb 1930 4 Walter Louis Rackham Currie 16 Mar 1856 5 Feb 1941 84
5 Feb 1941 5 Walter Mordaunt Cyril Currie 3 Jun 1894 30 Jul 1978 84
30 Jul 1978 6 Alick Bradley Currie 8 Jun 1904 26 Jan 1987 82
26 Jan 1987 7 Donald Scott Currie 16 Jan 1930 9 Feb 2014 84
9 Feb 2014 8 Bradley Mark Higgins Currie 15 Jun 1983
CURSON of Water Perry,Oxon
30 Apr 1661 E 1 Thomas Curson 3 Apr 1611 25 Jan 1682 70
25 Jan 1682 2 John Curson c 1657 17 Dec 1727
17 Dec 1727 3 Francis Curson c 1678 29 May 1750
29 May 1750 4 Peter Curson 31 Jul 1687 25 Feb 1765 77
to     Extinct on his death
25 Feb 1765
CURTIS of Gatcombe,Hants
10 Sep 1794 GB 1 Roger Curtis 14 Nov 1816
14 Nov 1816 2 Lucius Curtis 3 Jun 1786 14 Jan 1869 82
14 Jan 1869 3 Arthur Colin Curtis 1858 Jun 1898 39
For further information on this baronet, see the
note at the foot of this page.
Jun 1898 4 Roger Colin Molyneux Curtis 12 Sep 1886 7 Jan 1954 67
to     Extinct on his death
7 Jan 1954
CURTIS of Cullands Grove,Middlesex
23 Dec 1802 UK 1 William Curtis 25 Jan 1752 18 Jan 1829 76
MP for London 1790-1818 and 1820-1826
and Bletchingley 1819-1820
18 Jan 1829 2 William Curtis 2 Mar 1782 16 Mar 1847 65
16 Mar 1847 3 William Curtis 26 Aug 1804 7 Nov 1870 66
7 Nov 1870 4 William Michael Curtis 11 Nov 1859 19 Dec 1916 57
19 Dec 1916 5 Edgar Francis Egerton Curtis 18 Dec 1875 9 Aug 1943 67
9 Aug 1943 6 Peter Curtis 9 Apr 1907 28 Sep 1976 69
28 Sep 1976 7 William Peter Curtis 9 Apr 1935 25 Apr 2014 79
25 Apr 2014 8 Edward Philip Curtis 25 Jun 1940
CURTIUS of Sweden
2 Apr 1652 E 1 William Curtius 1678
 
1678 2 Charles Curtius after 1688
to     Nothing further is known of this baronetcy
after 1688
CURWEN of Workington,Cumberland
12 Mar 1627 E 1 Patricius Curwen c 1602 15 Dec 1664
to     MP for Cumberland 1625-1626,1628-1629,
15 Dec 1664 1640-1644 and 1661-1664
Extinct on his death
CURZON of Kedleston,Derby
18 Jun 1636 NS 1 John Curzon c 1599 13 Dec 1686
11 Aug 1641 E 1
13 Dec 1686 2 Nathaniel Curzon c 1640 4 Mar 1719
4 Mar 1719 3 John Curzon c 1674 7 Aug 1727
MP for Derbyshire 1701-1727
7 Aug 1727 4 Nathaniel Curzon c 1676 18 Nov 1758
MP for Derby 1713-1715, Clitheroe 1722-
1727 and Derbyshire 1727-1754
18 Nov 1758 5 Nathaniel Curzon 19 Jan 1727 5 Dec 1804 77
He was subsequently created Baron
Scarsdale (qv) in 1761 with which title
the baronetcies then merged,although,as at
30/06/2014,the baronetcies do not appear on 
the Official Roll of the Baronetage
CUSACK-SMITH of Tuam,King's Co.
28 Aug 1799 I 1 Michael Smith 7 Sep 1740 17 Dec 1808 68
PC [I] 1801
17 Dec 1808 2 William Cusack-Smith 23 Jan 1766 21 Aug 1836 70
Solicitor General [I] 1800-1801
21 Aug 1836 3 Michael Cusac-Smith 21 Dec 1793 16 May 1859 65
16 May 1859 4 William Cusack-Smith 1822 15 Apr 1919 96
15 Apr 1919 5 (Thomas) Berry Cusack-Smith 16 Feb 1859 7 Jul 1929 70
7 Jul 1929 6 William Robert Dermot Joshua Cusack-Smith 6 Dec 1907 10 Apr 1970 62
to     Extinct on his death
10 Apr 1970
CUST of Stamford,Lincs
29 Sep 1677 E 1 Richard Cust 23 Jun 1622 30 Aug 1700 78
MP for Lincolnshire 1653 and Stamford
1679-1681
30 Aug 1700 2 Richard Cust 30 Oct 1680 25 Jul 1734 53
25 Jul 1734 3 John Cust 29 Aug 1718 24 Jan 1770 51
MP for Grantham 1743-1770. Speaker of the
House of Commons 1761-1768 and 1768-1770
PC 1762
24 Jan 1770 4 Brownlow Cust 3 Dec 1744 25 Dec 1807 63
He was subsequently created Baron
Brownlow (qv) in 1776 with which title the
baronetcies then merged
CUST of Leasowe Castle,Cheshire
26 Feb 1876 UK 1 Edward Cust 17 Mar 1794 14 Jan 1878 83
MP for Grantham 1818-1826 and Lostwithiel
1826-1832
14 Jan 1878 2 Leopold Cust 22 Jul 1831 3 Mar 1878 46
3 Mar 1878 3 Charles Leopold Cust 27 Feb 1864 19 Jan 1931 66
to     Extinct on his death
19 Jan 1931
CUTLER of London
12 Nov 1660 E 1 John Cutler c 1607 15 Apr 1693
to     MP for Taunton 1679-1680 and Bodmin
15 Apr 1693 1689-1693
Extinct on his death
CUTTS of Childerley,Cambs
21 Jun 1660 E 1 John Cutts c 1634 1670
to     Extinct on his death
1670
CUYLER of St John Lodge,Herts
29 Oct 1814 UK 1 Cornelius Cuyler 1741 8 Mar 1819 77
8 Mar 1819 2 Charles Cuyler 29 Jan 1794 23 Jul 1862 68
23 Jul 1862 3 Charles Henry Johnes Cuyler 22 Jan 1826 17 Aug 1885 59
17 Aug 1885 4 Charles Cuyler 15 Aug 1867 1 Oct 1919 52
1 Oct 1919 5 George Hallifax Cuyler 23 Apr 1876 30 Apr 1947 71
to     Extinct on his death
30 Apr 1947
Sir Richard Eyre Cox, 4th baronet
'The Morning Herald and Daily Advertiser' of 10 September 1783:-
'The following melancholy accident happened lately in the West of Ireland. As Sir Richard Cox,
Bart., with some of his friends, was pleasuring on a large pond, near his mansion-house, at
Donmanway, he held a wager that he would row 'round it in a short time; upon which he took
the oar from one of his men, and began to row; but he had not gone far before the oar
broke, which occasioned his being thrown under the boat, and he was drowned before any
assistance could be given him. The deceased was within a month of being of age, and is 
succeeded in title and estate by the eldest son of the late worthy Col. Michael Cox, of the
guards, now Sir Richard, a very promising youth about sixteen years of age.'
The baronetcy of Cox of Dunmanway, Cork
The later history of this baronetcy (from 1838 onwards) is quite obscure. In not one instance
did the baronetcy descend to an eldest son, and in only two instances (the 3rd and 4th
baronets) did it descend to a son at all. In all other cases, the baronetcy descended to 
brothers or cousins. Even on the death of the 12th baronet in 1873, there is a degree of
uncertainty, since, according to 'The Complete Baronetage.' it was sometimes said that, on
the death of the 12th baronet, he was succeeded by a brother named William Saurin Cox,
who died shortly thereafter.
After the death of the 12th baronet in 1873, the baronetcy was assumed by two parties - one,
named Edmund Cox, claimed descent from a younger son of the 1st baronet, and the other,
John Hamilton Cox, was the son of General William Cox, who features prominently in the note
below. After John Hamilton Cox's death in 1887, his son, John Hawtrey Reginald Cox, assumed 
the title, and it is with his attempts to prove his right to it that this note is concerned.
The following (edited) article appeared in 'The Weekly Irish Times' on 13 March 1915:-
'The Privy Council on Baronetcies on Monday heard the petition of Major John Hawtrey Reginald 
Cox, of the 13th Middlesex Regiment, claiming to be the rightful heir to the baronetcy of Cox……
'Major Cox….said he believed he was the rightful heir to the dignity, and that he had taken the
necessary steps to bring his petition. In November, 1912, he presented script to the Ulster
King-of-Arms, who in turn had placed it before the Home Secretary, praying that the title and
degree of baronet under the style of Cox of Dunmanway in the Irish baronetcy, might be
declared to belong to him, and that his name might be placed on the official roll of baronets.
The petition had been referred to the Privy Council on September 21st of last year.
 
The Baronetcy of Cox...was created by Letters Patent, the petitioner went on, dated Nov. 21
1706, in the person of Sir Richard Cox, Kt., Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, to hold the same 
to him and the heirs male of the body of Richard Cox, the eldest son of the first Baronet, until
the year 1838, when the elder line of the first Baronet became extinct upon the death, without
issue, of Sir George Matthias Cox, the seventh Baronet. Upon the failure of the elder line the
baronetcy descended in error, the petitioner submitted, upon the heirs male of the Most Rev.
Michael Cox, Archbishop of Cashel, and was enjoyed after a break of some years, in which the
title remained dormant, by Richard Cox, of Castletown, a great grandson of Michael Cox, and
successively by Richard's uncle, Francis, and his three cousins, Ralph, Michael and Francis 
Hawtrey Cox, until the year 1873.
'Upon the death of Francis Hawtrey [Cox], the claimant's father, Major-General John Cox, C.B., 
a first cousin of Francis, claimed the dignity. The petitioner's present claim to the title rested
on the fact that he claimed to be the great grandson of John Cox…….and that claim was 
admitted by the Ulster King-of-Arms. He (the petitioner) further claimed that John Cox was a 
son of Richard Cox, the eldest son of Sir Richard Cox, the first baronet, by Elinor Cox, otherwise
Jeffreys, his third wife, and that, therefore, the dignity should have descended to John's
eldest son, Thomas, in 1838, and subsequently his brother, General William Cox, in 1853, and
afterwards to William's son, Major-General John Cox, C.B. in 1857, instead of to the
descendants of the Most Rev. Michael Cox, Archbishop of Cashel.
'General William Cox never claimed the title, as was pointed out in a memorandum to the
petitioner by the Attorney-General of Ireland and Ulster King-at-Arms, but the General allowed
in the first instance, not Ralph Hawtrey Cox, but Richard Cox, of Castletown, to assume the
dignity as the eighth baronet, as he was the son of the General's guardian and "greatest 
friend," who had brought him up at Castletown and put him in the Rifle Brigade. In fact, 
General William owed everything to Richard's father, Michael. Richard was the holder of the
property and all the family papers, and even if William were in the country (he was in 1838 in
Canada and did not return until 1843, and Richard did not take up the title until that year) was
Richard, the petitioner asked, waiting to be sure that William had no intention of claiming the
title before he did so?
'In these circumstances it would have been more than extraordinary if William had put forward 
a claim to the dignity. Richard never produced to the Ulster Office evidence that he was the
rightful heir to the dignity. The contention that the dignity should have descended to William,
and not to Richard, was strongly supported. The petitioner's father. Major-General John Cox,
C.B., was never given any information by his father, William, even when asked on his death,
as to the title of his father, and consequently the petitioner's father made no objection to
Dr. Michael or Captain Francis Hawtrey, his first cousins, assuming the title.'
 
The article continues at length, mainly discussing the legitimacy of William Cox and the inability
of the petitioner to discover the marriage certificate of William Cox's parents, who were 
allegedly married at a date prior to the existence of the marriage register at their alleged place
of marriage. In the end, all of the petitioner's arguments were in vain, since the Court 
announced that their lordships "would humbly advise His Majesty that the name of the 
petitioner ought not to be entered on the official roll of the baronetcies."
Sir Hew Crawford-Pollok, 5th baronet
On 30 May 1867, the following brief notice appeared in 'The Chicago Tribune', apparently
reprinted from the 'Scottish American Journal' :-
'Some time ago the death of Sir Hew Crawford Pollok was announced, and it was stated that
his son, the heir, had gone away of his own accord, and could not be heard of by his relatives.
Mr. Crawford (now Sir Hugh) sailed from Liverpool to New York by the Inman line of steamers,
in the fall of 1865, and it is now supposed that he is travelling incognito in the United States.
Without any apparent reason he has kept his whereabouts secret from his family and friends:
and if this paragraph should meet his eye it is hoped that it will stimulate him to look after his
interests. He is heir to Pollok Castle and £5,000 a year.'
The campaign to find the missing heir was successful, as can be seen from this report which
appeared in 'The Chicago Tribune' of 4 October 1867, reprinted from 'The New York Herald':-
'A romantic little incident has just come to my knowledge. The facts as given to me are as
follows: Two years ago Hugh Crawford Pollok, a young gentleman then about twenty years
old, suddenly disappeared from his home in Scotland, much to the dismay of his relatives and
acquaintances. It subsequently became known that he had come to this country with five
hundred pounds in his pocket. He sported about New York and other cities until his funds
commenced to run short, when, in a fit of desperation, he enlisted in the Fifth United States
Cavalry as a private soldier, and in this humble capacity struggled against hardships, and
deprivations to which he had been wholly unused. In the meantime his father died some four
months ago, leaving Hugh heir to a baronetcy and a snug little income of £5,000 per annum,
or about $25,000 in gold. The young baronet was duly sought for, and, after an expenditure
of $800 in advertisements, it was ascertained that he was stationed at Camp Verde, Texas,
discharging the duties of a farrier. Colonel William S. Hillyer, of New York, who became
interested in the case, induced Sir Frederick Bruce [the senior British diplomat in Washington
at that time] to procure the discharge of Pollok, which was promptly acceded to by General
Grant. The young Sir Hugh Crawford Pollok has, therefore, been telegraphed for, and has 
given up the occupation of shoer and curer of horses to enter upon a Scotch baronetcy and
5,000 pounds a year. Such is life.'
After his return to Scotland, the young baronet managed to appear in the newspapers for
other, less savoury, reasons. In 1878, he was successfully sued by his former housemaid for
damages for alleged seduction and breach of promise of marriage, the baronet having 
fathered a son by her. On 31 July 1882, his home, Pollok Castle, was burnt to the ground.
Finally, when he died suddenly, aged only 42, in 1885, the jury at the subsequent inquest
found that his death was due to excessive drinking.
Sir John Croke, 1st baronet
Sir John was a central figure in a conspiracy against one Robert Hawkins, in which Hawkins
was falsely accused of theft. The story of this conspiracy is told in 'The Newgate Calendar.'
'The Subject of a foul Conspiracy on the Part of Henry Larrimore and Sir John Croke that failed 
at Aylesbury Assizes, 11th of March, 1669. A foul conspiracy against the life of a clerk in holy
orders was laid bare at the assizes at Aylesbury on 11th of March, 1669, when Robert Hawkins,
clerk of Chilton, was indicted with breaking into the dwelling-house of Henry Larrimore and 
stealing his gold rings and other articles. Larrimore deposed that on Friday, 18th of September,
1668, between twelve and one o'clock at noon, he locked up his doors and went into a hemp-
plat, about two furlongs from his house, with all his family, to pull hemp. Coming home an hour
and a half before sunset he found his doors open, and ran upstairs to a loft over the chamber
where he lay, and, looking through the chinks of the boards, there he saw the prisoner rifling a
box, in which, among other goods, was a white holland apron and a purse, in which were two
gold rings of the value of ten shillings each, two ten-shilling pieces of gold, and nineteen
shillings in silver. The prisoner hearing some noise, the deponent saw him glance by the stair-
foot door, and so run out of his house, down the yard, with a great bunch of keys; and the
deponent saw the prisoner hide himself in a close where there were some beans and weeds. 
The next day he procured a warrant from Sir Richard Piggot to search for his rings and money, 
and, with the constable of the place, and some others, he went to search the prisoner's house, 
who, refusing to open his doors, the constable broke them open, and in a basket filled with 
paper, rags and other trumpery he found one of the rings, and a five-shilling piece of silver, 
which he positively swore were the same which he had seen the prisoner the day before take 
out of his purse.
'HAWKINS: Why did not Larrimore, when he saw his doors open, which he expected to have 
found locked, call some of his neighbours to assist in searching the house and securing me, or
whoever the person it was that he found robbing him? To this Larrimore answered he did not
then well consider what he did. HAWKINS: If he saw me commit the robbery in his house, why
then did he search other houses for the goods he saw me steal? LARRIMORE: I had been robbed 
at several other times.
 
'HAWKINS: How came he not to charge me positively with the felony before Sir Richard Piggot, 
of whom he had the warrant, if he had been sure I robbed him? To this Larrimore made no direct
answer. Henry Larrimore, the son, and Joan Beamsley gave evidence as to seeing Hawkins run
from the house, where upon Lord Chief Baron Hales said: "Here is evidence enough to hang 
twenty men."  HAWKINS: I doubt not but to clear myself, notwithstanding this evidence. Pray,
Sir Richard Piggot, when Larrimore came for the warrant to search, did he not say he suspected
several persons of robbing him of them, and that I was but one of the suspected persons? Sir
Richard Piggot, being upon the bench, acknowledged this to be true.
'HAWKINS: And yet Larrimore swears he saw me steal them out of his house on the 18th of
September, an hour and a half before sunset, which I desire the Court and the jury would take
notice of.  John Chilton was called, and said that Mr Hawkins brought him a pair of boots to put
new legs to them, and that he told the prisoner he would lay them in his shop window, and he 
might take them as he came by, for he should be abroad; which accordingly the prisoner did, 
and paid him for doing them, at Sir John Croke's; but that when the prisoner came to demand his 
tithes, and sued for them, then this Larrimore, Mr Dodsworth Croke, Richard Maine the constable,
and others, came to the deponent and plagued him night and day to charge the prisoner with
felony for stealing the boots; and they would have forced him to fetch a warrant to search for
them, and threatened, in case he would not, that Sir John Croke would indict him at the assizes,
as accessory to the stealing his own goods; and Larrimore said he would make him swear that 
Mr Hawkins had stolen his boots, and subpoenaed him to the assizes for that purpose.
LARRIMORE: My Lord, this fellow is hired by Mr Hawkins to swear this.  CHILTON: I am not hired 
to swear by Mr Hawkins; but Thomas Croxton told me last Monday, if I would swear Mr Hawkins 
stole my boots, he would bear me out against Mr Hawkins as far as one hundred pounds would 
go; and if that would not do, as far as five hundred pounds would go; and if I doubted it, he
would give me a bond to make good his promise. HAWKINS: My Lord, this is an easy way for the 
fanatics to pay their tithes. If they can but hang up the clergy, they may cease their pleas for 
liberty of conscience. I desire the Court and the jury will observe that this Chilton is one of 
Larrimore's witnesses, and yet he swears that Croxton and others used their utmost endeavours 
to persuade him to charge me with felony.  Mr Hawkins added that Larrimore was a notorious 
Anabaptist, and an enemy to the Church of England, and ministry in general, but particularly to
himself, he having sued him for tithes, and indicted him for not coming to church or baptizing
his children; that Larrimore's malice had sufficiently appeared before this, by dissuading those
who owed him money from paying him, and persuading others, whom he owed money to, to
arrest him; by dissuading those he had sued for tithes from agreeing with him, and telling them 
Sir John Croke would force him to run his country, etc. And if the jury doubted of any of these
particulars, he was ready to prove them.  Proceeding in his defence, he said it was very unlikely
he should commit a robbery in his own parish in the daytime, where everybody that saw him
must needs know him; and that if he had been conscious of his guilt he had twenty-four hours
time to have made his escape; and it was strange he could find no other place to conceal this
ring and five-shilling piece but in a little basket that hung up upon a pin; and that if Larrimore
had seen him rob him, it was strange he did not tell his neighbours of it, or take any care to
secure him till the next day; nor did he declare it to Sir Richard Piggot, from whom he fetched
the warrant to search, as might appear by the contents of it. Hereupon my Lord Chief Baron
ordered the constable to produce the warrant; and it being delivered to my Lord, he observed
that it bore a date before the robbery was committed. Turning to Larrimore he said: "Thou art
very cunning, to be provided with a warrant a day before you were robbed. It seems you knew
upon the 17th day that you should be robbed on the 18th, and that this person now at the bar
should rob you. But, Mr Hawkins, if you were innocent of this robbery, why did you refuse to
open your doors and let your house be searched?" HAWKINS: Most of those persons present
were my inveterate enemies. As for Sir John Croke and Larrimore, they had often threatened
to pull down my house, and hired people to make a forcible entry upon it; particularly they
hired one Jaires to get down the chimney and open my doors when we were all abroad; they 
had also contracted with one Tyler for the same purpose. Besides, they had an execution 
against me which Larrimore's son had a few days before executed in part, and he was then 
present; and my Lord, I offered at the same time that Mr Sanders, the other constable, who 
lived but next door, might search as narrowly as he pleased.  These statements having been 
corroborated the Lord Chief Baron said the business appeared very foul; and looking towards Sir
John Croke asked if that were the Sir John Croke concerned in that business. HAWKINS: I doubt 
not to make appear to the world that Sir John is deeply concerned in this conspiracy. Mr Brown
was called, and said that Sir John Croke and this Larrimore had threatened that if he came 
down to this assizes to testify what he had heard of this conspiracy they would ruin him and his 
family, and for that reason he dare not speak; but the Court promising him protection, he gave
this evidence:  Being entrusted by Sir John Lentall as keeper to Sir John Croke, who is a 
prisoner in the King's Bench, on Wednesday, the 16th of September last, as I was in bed at Sir
John Croke's house in Chilton, I heard a great noise, and fearing they were contriving Sir John
Croke's escape, I started out of bed in my shirt and stood at the dining-room door behind the
hangings, and there I heard this Larrimore tell Sir John Croke that he had undone him by causing
him to contend with the parson; for that he had entered him in most of the courts of England,
and summoned him into the Crown Office and Chancery, and he could not maintain so many 
suits. Sir John replied: "Is that all? Come, brother Larrimore, be contented; we will have one
trick more for Hawkins yet, which shall do his work." Larrimore answered: "You have put me 
upon too many tricks already -- more than I can manage -- and the parson is too hard for us
still." Sir John replied: "If thou wilt but act, I will hatch enough to hang Hawkins. Cannot thou
convey some gold or silver into his house, and have a warrant ready to search his house? --
and then our work is done"; and, says he: "Do you but go to Sir John Piggot and inform him
you have lost your money and goods, and desire his warrant to search for them; and take
Dick Maine the constable, who is one of us, and will do what we desire him, and search the 
house, and when you find these things, charge him with flat felony, and force him before me,
and I will send him to jail without bail, and we will hang him at the next assizes." On the Sunday
morning I went to the ale-house, where they had kept Mr Hawkins all night, and saw them
carrying him to jail. I said to Sir John, when I came home. "They have carried the poor parson
to jail," and he answered, "Let him go, and the devil go with him, and more shall follow after.
Have I not often told you," says he, "if my brother Larrimore and I laid our heads together,
nobody could stand against us?" And I replied: "Yes, Sir John, I have often heard you say so,
but never believed it till now."  THE LORD CHIEF BARON: Is all this true, which you have 
related?  BROWN: Yes, my Lord; and there sits Sir John Croke (pointing at him), who knows
that every word I have said is true.  Soon after Sir John Croke stole off the bench, without
taking leave of the Chief Baron. LARRIMORE: My Lord, what I have sworn as to Mr Hawkins
is true.  THE LORD CHIEF BARON: Larrimore, thou art a very villain; nay, I think thou art a
devil. Gentlemen, where is this Sir John Croke?
'It was answered he was gone.  THE LORD CHIEF BARON: Gentlemen, I must acquaint you Sir
John Croke sent me this morning two sugar loaves, to excuse his absence yesterday, but I
sent them back again I did not then so well know what he meant by them as I do now. Surely
Sir John does not think the King's justices will take bribes. Somebody may have used his name
(here the Chief Baron showed Sir John's letter). Is this his hand?
 
'Some of the justices on the bench said they believed it might be; and it being compared with
mittimus, the hands appeared to be the same. His Lordship, summing up, said that it appeared
upon the evidence, and from all the circumstances, to be a most foul and malicious conspiracy
against the life of Mr Hawkins. Then the jury, without stirring from the bar, gave their verdict,
that the prisoner was not guilty.  Mr Hawkins moved that he might be discharged without 
paying his fees, for that he was very poor -- this, and other troubles the prosecutors had 
brought upon him, having cost him a great deal of money. My Lord Chief Baron answered he 
could not help it; he could not give away other people's rights: if they would not remit their
fees, he must pay them.  As soon as the trial was over, Sir John Croke, Larrimore the 
prosecutor, and their accomplices in the conspiracy, fled privately out of town.'
of town.'
 
Sir Edward William Crosbie, 5th baronet
The closing years of the eighteenth century were a period of major political and social unrest
in Ireland. For the previous 100 years, Ireland had been to a large extent controlled by a
Protestant minority which ruled the Roman Catholic majority through a system of 
institutionalised sectarianism. As the eighteenth century reached its final quarter, events such
as the American Revolution and later the French Revolution provided an impetus for reform.
The United Irishmen was an organisation founded in 1791 and led by Theobald Wolf Tone and 
other young radicals. It was originally founded as a liberal political organisation that sought
parliamentary reform. The organisation was not based upon any religious beliefs - Tone, for
example, was an Anglican and most of its early leaders were Presbyterians - but it
sympathised with the interests of the Irish Catholics.
The organisation spread rapidly until it was banned in 1793 following the declaration of war
between Britain and France. It then went underground and waited for French aid in a planned
uprising, which eventually broke out in May 1798. For further information on this rebellion, see
the entries in the standard encyclopaedias or on Wikipedia.
One of the victims of the rebellion was Sir Edward William Crosbie, 5th baronet. His fate was
sealed when a number of United Irishmen met on his estate at Viewmount, in county Carlow
on the night before a disastrous attack on the town of Carlow, which left about 600 of their
number dead. Crosbie was arrested, tried before a military court for high treason and 
executed on 5 June 1798.
There seems to be universal agreement that Crosbie was the victim of judicial murder. The 
following article is taken from the no-doubt biased 'The Chartist Circular' of 13 June 1840:-
'This gentleman [Sir Edward Crosbie] was brought to trial before a Court-martial assembled
in the town of Carlow, charged with "traitorous and rebellious conduct, in aiding and abetting
a most villainous conspiracy for the overthrow of his Majesty's crown, and the extinction of
all loyal subjects." Sir Edward Crosbie was a man warmly attached to the liberties of his
country, and a foe to oppression in every shape. It was never insinuated by his enemies
that he had borne arms, nor was any proof adduced of his having embraced the United
system. An unsuccessful attempt had been made to surprise the town and garrison of Carlow,
near which Sir Edward Crosbie resided. The plan was badly arranged, and the consequences
were most disastrous to the assailants. A considerable popular force had assembled near Sir
Edward's demesne, from whence they commenced their march upon the town. This, whatever
might have been his disposition, he had not the power to prevent. His servants, who were
implicated in the transaction, were tortured to give evidence against their master. Some had
the firmness to resist, and preferred the excruciating lash to the impeachment of innocence.
Others, who had witnesses the agony of their companions, had not the courage to imitate
their conduct, and a feeling of self-preservation led them to give testimony, but to a very
limited extent, against the unfortunate Baronet. The witnesses whom he called in the course
of his trial, and whose testimony, as it appears by subsequent investigation, must have
confirmed the falsehood of the charge, were not permitted the enter the Court! A verdict
of guilty was pronounced against him. The sentence was confirmed by Sir Charles Asgill,
General of the district; and, at a late and unusual hour, with the most shameful precipitancy,
carried into immediate execution.  The body was mutilated, and the head fixed on a pike 
and elevated from the top of the county jail, within the immediate view of his family mansion.
On a representation of this circumstance to Lord Camden, he had the humanity to order the
body to be given up to the disconsolate widow. Lady Crosbie could not procure for it the
right of Christian burial. No minister of the Established Church, of which Sir Edward was a
member, would perform this last solemn duty; she was necessitated to deposit the
mutilated remains of her husband within the precincts of her own garden. The insults
offered, by the military, to this excellent lady, became so alarming, that she was obliged,
for personal security, to abandon her home and fly for refuge to England.'
On the hundredth anniversary of the attack on Carlow, the Dublin-based 'Freeman's Journal
and Daily Commercial Advertiser' on 27 May 1898 published an article which included the
following:-
'The murder of Sir Edward Crosbie, which was prompted by the fiendish massacre at Carlow,
is thus recorded by Mr. Lecky [presumably William Edward Hartpole Lecky, the Irish historian].
"Amongst the victims," he [Lecky] writes, "of martial law in Carlow was Sir Edward Crosbie,
who was tried with indecent haste by a court-martial, of which only one member was above
the rank of captain, and whose execution appears to have been little better than a judicial
murder. He had been a Parliamentary reformer of the school of [Henry] Grattan, he was a
benevolent and popular landlord and he had a few months before the Rebellion given money
for the support of some political prisoners who were in a state of extreme destitution in
Carlow jail, but there was no reason to believe that he was either a United Irishman or a
Republican. He certainly took no part in the attack on Carlow and it does not appear that he
had any previous knowledge of the intention of the rebels to assemble in his town. The point
on which the court-martial seems to have specially insisted was that he had not gone at once
to Carlow to give information. It was urged, probably with truth, that it was impossible for
him to have done so for all his servants had declared themselves United Irishmen, he was
surrounded by armed men, and even if he had himself succeeded in escaping his family would
almost certainly have been murdered. Crosbie had only an hour given him to prepare his
defence. He had no proper counsel, and some intended witnesses in his favour afterwards
swore that they had tried in vain to obtain admission into the barracks. He was hanged and
decapitated, and his head was fixed on a pike outside Carlow jail. It was afterwards stolen
during the night by an old faithful servant, who brought it to the family burying place." '
Sir Arthur Henry Crosfield, 1st and only baronet
Sir Arthur died when he fell from a train in France in September 1938. The following obituary
appeared in 'The Scotsman' of 23 September 1938:-
'Sir Arthur Henry Crosfield, Bt., died today soon after he was found with a fractured skull on the
railway line after falling from a train near Le Muy, on the Toulon-St.Raphael line. The train does
not stop at Le Muy, which is a small village. A ticket found in his pocket showing he was going
to Cannes. Lady Crosfield was travelling with him.
'Sir Arthur had lived at Cannes for the last 20 years. He shares with King Gustav of Sweden the
distinction of being the oldest competitor still playing in tennis tournaments. He had no child, 
but adopted a boy who is now eight [because he was adopted he could not succeed to the 
baronetcy].
'Sir Arthur, who was 73, was created a baronet in 1915. He was formerly chairman of Joseph
Crosfield & Sons, Ltd., Warrington, and from 1906 to 1910 was Liberal M.P. For Warrington, his
family home. He was defeated when re-contesting the seat in 1910.
'He married in 1907, the daughter of M. Elliadi, of Smyrna and Southport, a distinguished Greek 
magnate, who traced his descent from Homer. She is a close friend of Madame Venizelos, widow
of the Greek statesman [Eleftherios Venizelos, several times Prime Minister of Greece], who 
stayed with them at their London home. There is no heir to the baronetcy.
'For many years Sir Arthur was a leading figure in the playing fields movement and was first
chairman of the National Playing Fields Association.
'Sir Arthur was extremely fond of music - a love shared by his wife - and guests at their home
have frequently been charmed by Sir Arthur's compositions for the piano and violin.
'His recreation were golf, lawn tennis, and climbing. He was one of several English golfers who
helped to establish the game on the Continent by participating in the French Open Amateur
Championship which, instituted in 1904, was in its early days practically an English monopoly. 
Sir Arthur reached the final in 1905 at La Boulie and beat Sir Edgar Vincent [later Viscount
D'Abernon] 7 and 5.
'In 1929 the G.B.E. was conferred on him, and another honour conferred on him was the First
Class Order of the Redeemer of Greece.
'Sir Arthur was an authority on Greek and Near-East problems. A few years ago, he suggested
a World Commission of Statesmen, to be selected by the International Court of Justice, to 
settle trade problems.
'When it was proposed that Ken Wood - the last fragment of the vast Middlesex forest - should
be used as a building site, the Ken Wood Preservation Committee was formed in 1919, with Sir
Arthur as chairman. As a result of the Committee's work, 130 acres of the wood were bought 
for the nation from the Earl of Mansfield and opened as a public park by King George V and 
Queen Mary in July 1925.'
Sir John Hobart Culme-Seymour, 2nd baronet
Sir John, together with his second son, were charged with the heinous crime of stealing three
plums and one peach with a total value of 7d., as reported in the 'York Herald' of 11 October
1856:-
'On Saturday, at Hailsham, Sussex, the Rev. Sir John Culme Seymour, Bart., and J[ohn] H[obart]
C[ulme] Seymour, Esq., his son, were charged, the former with stealing one plum, valued at 1d.,
and the latter with stealing two plums, valued at 2d., and one peach, valued at 4d., the
property of Henry Winchester. It appeared that the complainant Winchester occupies a garden
attached to Herst Monceaux Castle, and visitors are in the habit of frequenting it to purchase 
fruit.  On the 1st of September the Rev. Sir J. Seymour and his son went to this garden,
intending to purchase some fruit. They called for the gardener, but he did not come, and while
they were waiting they picked, as above stated, three plums and one peach between them.
The gardener then made his appearance, and they went up to him and stated that they had
picked some fruit, and desired to know how much they had to pay. The gardener was very 
angry at their picking the fruit without his leave, and was so excited that he refused to listen
to any explanation. The defendants assured him that they came to purchase the fruit, and they
had not the slightest intention of robbing him; but nothing would satisfy him, and he therefore
brought these charges against the defendants. He said if they had rung the bell some one 
would have come to them. The Chairman said the bench quite absolved the defendants from 
any intention of stealing the fruit, but there was a degree of impropriety in their conduct in not
waiting until the gardener appeared. He should therefore convict them in the penalty of 1s.
and costs for improperly taking the fruit. Some surprise was manifested at the decision.'
Sir Michael Culme-Seymour, 3rd baronet
The correct pronunciation of the family name is 'Cullum-Seamer.'
Like the 1st baronet before him, and the 4th baronet after him, Sir Michael was an admiral in
the British navy. Sir Michael commanded the Channel Squadron between 1890 and 1892, and
the Mediterranean Fleet between 1893 and 1896. His elder daughter was Mary Elizabeth 
Culme-Seymour, who was born in 1871 and his younger daughter was Laura Grace, who died
in 1895, aged 22. These young ladies would become two of the central figures in our story.
Also featuring prominently is King George V. Readers with a knowledge of British history will be
aware that King George had an elder brother, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, who died
in 1892. At the time of his death, Clarence was engaged to be married to Princess Victoria 
Mary of Teck, but he died six weeks after the engagement was announced. The Princess then 
became engaged to Prince George, then Duke of York and later King George V, and they were
married on 6 July 1893.
For many years rumours circulated regarding a secret marriage that was alleged to have taken
place between Mary Culme-Seymour and the Duke of York. The following article appeared in
the 'Chicago Daily Tribune' on 13 May 1898:-
'The Duke and Duchess of York spent a day at Portsmouth last week for the purpose of 
visiting the hospitals and charitable institutions of England's greatest naval station. It must 
have been a rather embarrassing trip, as they were the guests of Admiral Sir Michael Culme-
Seymour, the Governor of the port and father of Miss Mary Seymour, the young lady who is
asserted to have contracted a secret marriage with the Duke of York at Malta and to have
borne him two children before he was compelled by dynastic reasons to take advantage of
that clause of the constitution which declares null and void every union contracted by any
member of the reigning family in England without the consent of both sovereign and parliament.'
Matters came to a head In November and December 1910, when there appeared in Paris a 
leaflet entitled The Liberator, published by a Edward Holden James. The leaflet included an 
article headed 'Sanctified Bigamy' which contained the following passage……
'During the year 1890, in the island of Malta, the man who is now the King of England was 
united in lawful holy wedlock with the daughter of Sir Michael Culme-Seymour, an Admiral of 
the British Navy. Of this marriage offspring were born. At the time of that marriage the Duke 
of Clarence, the eldest brother of the present King, was Heir to the Throne. Subsequently the 
Duke of Clarence died, leaving the present King Heir to the Throne. It is now that we are 
offered the spectacle of the immorality of the Monarchy in all its sickening, beastly 
monstrosity. In order to obtain the woman of Royal blood for his pretended wife George 
Frederick foully abandoned his true wife, the daughter of Sir Michael Culme-Seymour of the 
British Navy, and entered into a sham and shameful marriage with the daughter of the Duke of 
Teck in 1893.
'The said George Frederick not having obtained a divorce from his first wife, who, by the
common law of England and by the law of the Christian Church, remained, and, if she lives, 
remains, his true wife, committed the crime of bigamy, and he committed it with the aid and 
complicity of the prelates of the Anglican Church. This is the sickening and disgusting crime 
which has been committed by the English Church, which has married one man to two women. 
Our very Christian King, the Defender of the Faith, has a plurality of wives, just like any 
Mahomedan Sultan, and they are sanctified by the English Church. The daughter of Sir Michael 
Culme-Seymour, if she still lives, is by the unchangeable law of the Christian Church, as well 
as by the common law of England, the rightful Queen of England, and her children are the only 
rightful heirs to the English throne.'
In a later issue of The Liberator, there is a short snippet which reads 'The Daily News of 
London informs us that the King plans to visit India with his wife. Would the newspaper kindly 
tell us which wife?'
It should be noted that The Liberator article does not name which of the two daughters of 
the Admiral allegedly married Prince George. The younger daughter, Laura Grace, as noted 
above, died in 1895, well before the article was published. The elder daughter, Mary Elizabeth, 
married in 1899, [Vice Admiral Sir] Trevylyan Napier (1867-1920). Mary died in October 1944.
The person charged with the distribution of The Liberator in London was Edward Mylius, who 
was arrested in possession of a large number of copies of the leaflet on 26 December 1910. He
was subsequently charged with three counts of criminal libel against the King. He was tried at 
the High Court before the Lord Chief Justice on 1 February 1911.
At the commencement of the trial, Mylius demanded that the King be present in the Court. He
argued that every accused person has the right to be confronted with his accuser. He
further argued that it would be highly unusual to try an action for libel without the allegedly
libelled party being present. Both arguments were rejected, on the basis that it would be
unconstitutional for the King to appear in court.
The prosecutor was able to prove that
* Prince George had never visited Malta at any time between October 1888 and July 1893,
   when he married Princess Victoria Mary
* Sir Michael's daughters first visited Malta in October or November 1893, after the date when
   Prince George married Princess Victoria Mary.
* The Malta marriage registers showed no marriage had been recorded.
The jury did not even leave the box before delivering a guilty verdict. Mylius was sentenced to
the maximum term that could be inflicted upon him - twelve months' imprisonment.
Sir William James Montgomery-Cuninghame VC, 9th baronet
Montgomery-Cuninghame served in the Crimean War as a Lieutenant in the Rifle Brigade. On
20 November 1854, he, together with another Lieutenant named Claude Thomas Bourchier,
was in a party ordered to clear some Russian soldiers from some rifle pits. Attacking in the 
dark, the party drove the Russians from their positions, but during this action the officer in
command of the party was killed.  Montgomery-Cuninghame and Bourchier withstood the 
Russian counter-attacks during the night and held their position until they were relieved the 
following day. Both Montgomery-Cuninghame and Bourchier were awarded Victoria Crosses for 
their bravery. 
Montgomery-Cuninghame later represented Ayr Burghs in the House of Commons between
1874 and 1880.
Sir Arthur Colin Curtis, 3rd baronet
On 30 January 1899, leave was sought in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Court to presume
the death of Sir Arthur Colin Curtis. Evidence was given that, early in 1898, Sir Arthur Curtis 
joined an expedition which a Mr Roger Pocock was leading to the goldfields of British Columbia
and the Klondike. On 3 March 1898, Sir Arthur made a will in favour of his wife, naming her as 
sole executrix. He left Liverpool on 10 March, arriving in Vancouver on 27 March 1898, where 
he met Pocock and started out for the goldfields. On 4 June, the party arrived at Quesnelle 
and four days later encamped on the banks of the Mud River. Here, some horses strayed, and 
most of the party went to look for them, Sir Arthur remaining in camp as the expedition's cook. 
According to the evidence later given by Pocock…….
'Sir Arthur was still in camp after the rest had left. Indeed, I did not expect him to take part in
the search, because he had always shown a curious inaptitude for brush work, getting 
puzzled and lost very easily. Nature intended him for the sea, and his tastes always led him 
afloat or shooting or mining, in which he was keenly interested. This morning, however, after 
he had arranged his saddle and gear for the day's march, he lit his pipe and walked briskly out 
of camp, before even taking breakfast, evidently intending to join in the horse hunting, as he 
had remarked earlier that nobody had looked up the valley.
'He was never afterward seen. A search party was organised that evening, great fires were
lighted on the hills, and guns were fired to if possible attract the attention of the lost noble-
man. All day the woods rang for miles with gunshots and calls, and night after night the
searchers returned dispirited and hopeless to the camp. On the sixth day after Sir Arthur's
disappearance a band of wandering Indians were engaged to trace him, if possible.
'That day they found his tracks, here a rotten log crushed in, there a branch torn down to
keep off the flies, marks of a bewildered man wandering in circles. Then the tracks struck off
guided by the sun northeast, about in the one direction which would lead to neither trail nor
river, the one possible course which could lead to no earthly succour. A strong man, he had
been walking steadily, showing no signs of madness on that first day of his straying.
'Then at the end of fifteen miles or so was a trampled place where he had slept against a
tree, heel marks sunk in the moss, and without a fire. We knew already that he had neither 
weapon nor compass. Now we knew that he was without matches and could make no smoke
to drive away the terrible flies. A man may fight them through the long hot night, and all the
blazing day, but the hands must grow weary at last, and the swarms will settle. Then comes
blindness.
'On the eighth morning of the search the Indians returned discouraged and would search no
more. They had seen the marks of coyotes following the lost man's tracks. They had heard a
black bear and smelled a grizzly, but there were no signs of the digging up of herbs or scraping
of bark for food. But the signs led over vast reaches of deadfall [i.e. a tangled mass of fallen
trees and branches] to a creek, and beyond there was nothing.
'On the ninth morning I had to pronounce sentence of death, to say the words which brought
the search to an end. We could only suppose that, blinded by the flies and mad, the dying 
man hid himself away from any rescue.'
The Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Court, having considered the evidence put forward to it,
granted leave to presume Sir Arthur's death on or after 10 June 1898.
Proving that conspiracy theories are not a new invention, the following article, upon which the 
reader will form his or her own judgment, appeared in the New Zealand 'Otago Witness' on 30 
December 1908:-
'After an absence of over ten years, Sir Arthur Curtis has been discovered in the wilds of
British Columbia, according to a story brought by T. W. Cole, one of the party with the British
baronet when he so mysteriously went off with an Indian guide while making his way to 
Klondyke with a bunch of horses. Despite most diligent search, no tidings of the missing 
baronet could be found at the time, and eventually a skeleton was brought out by Indians
which was identified as being the remains of the missing baronet. Cole asserts that he knew
before he left Vancouver that Curtis would disappear before reaching the Klondyke, on
account of family complications in England, which Curtis told him had been the means of
driving him to Canada, and making him trek northwards with the party engaged in the horse
trade.
'In support of the story told by Cole is the fact that within six months of the day Curtis left
the party, his wife, Lady Curtis, had applied for and received an order from the British courts
declaring the missing man dead, and shortly afterwards she married Colonel Robert M. Brady,
an Irishman, who is alleged by many to be the real cause of the disappearance of Curtis.
'Incidentally, the story brought down by Cole from Ashcroft district was received but a few
days before the provincial police had received fresh instructions from the Department of
Justice at Ottawa to spare no pains to find Curtis.
'Cole says Curtis is now living the life of a trapper, and is virtually a hermit, living on what
he can catch or trap, and trading skins for such necessities of life as tobacco, tea, flour, etc.
'The party with which Curtis went north was organised by Roger Pocock, founder of the
Legion of Frontiersmen, and in "The Frontiersman" book, written by Pocock [the book's title
is actually "A Frontiersman; An Autobiographical Narrative" published by Methuen & Co.,
London, 1903], he takes full responsibility for having driven Curtis away by abusing him for
laziness and not doing his share of the work of the party. For many years Pocock has been
looked upon by many as having been responsible for the death of Curtis, but the story and
the proofs brought down by Cole will clear him of the stigma, which has made his life 
miserable for the past ten years.'
Copyright @ 2003-2014  Leigh Rayment