PEERAGE
Last updated 25/08/2014
Date Rank Order Name Born Died Age
ASHCROFT
20 Oct 2000 B[L] 1 Michael Anthony Ashcroft 4 Mar 1946
Created Baron Ashcroft for life 20 Oct 2000
PC 2012
ASHDOWN
3 Jan 1975 B[L] 1 Arnold Silverstone 28 Sep 1911 24 Jul 1977 65
to Created Baron Ashdown for life 3 Jan 1975
24 Jul 1977 Peerage extinct on his death
ASHDOWN OF NORTON-SUB-HAMDON
10 Jul 2001 B[L] 1 Jeremy John Durham Ashdown 27 Feb 1941
Created Baron Ashdown of Norton-sub-
Hamdon for life 10 Jul 2001
MP for Yeovil 1983-2001 PC 1989
ASHFIELD
9 Jan 1920 B 1 Sir Albert Henry Stanley 8 Nov 1874 4 Nov 1948 73
to Created Baron Ashfield 6 Jan 1920
4 Nov 1948 MP for Ashton under Lyne 1916-1920.
President of the Board of Trade 1916-1919
PC 1916
Peerage extinct on his death
ASHFORD
10 Feb 1697 B 1 Arnold Joost van Keppel 1670 30 May 1718 47
Created Baron Ashford,Viscount Bury
and Earl of Albemarle 10 Feb 1697
See "Albemarle"
**************
5 Sep 1876 William Coutts Keppel 15 Apr 1832 28 Aug 1894 62
He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of
Acceleration as Baron Ashford 5 Sep 1876
He succeeded as 7th Earl of Albemarle (qv) in 1891
ASHLEY
20 Apr 1661 B 1 Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper 22 Jul 1621 21 Jan 1683 61
Created Baron Ashley 20 Apr 1661
He was subsequently created Earl of
Shaftesbury (qv) in 1672
ASHLEY OF STOKE
10 Jul 1992 B[L] 1 Jack Ashley 6 Dec 1922 20 Apr 2012 89
to Created Baron Ashley of Stoke for life
20 Apr 2012 10 Jul 1992
MP for Stoke on Trent South 1966-1992
CH 1975 PC 1979
Peerage extinct on his death
ASHTON
25 Jul 1895 B 1 James Williamson 31 Dec 1842 27 May 1930 87
to Created Baron Ashton 25 Jul 1895
27 May 1930 MP for Lancaster 1886-1895
Peerage extinct on his death
ASHTON OF HYDE
28 Jun 1911 B 1 Thomas Gair Ashton 5 Feb 1855 1 May 1933 78
Created Baron Ashton of Hyde
28 Jun 1911
MP for Hyde 1885-1886 and Luton 1895-1911
1 May 1933 2 Thomas Henry Raymond Ashton 2 Oct 1901 21 Mar 1983 81
21 Mar 1983 3 Thomas John Ashton 19 Nov 1926 2 Aug 2008 81
2 Aug 2008 4 Thomas Henry Ashton 18 Jul 1958
ASHTON OF UPHOLLAND
2 Aug 1999 B[L] 1 Catherine Margaret Ashton 20 Mar 1956
Created Baroness Ashton of Upholland
for life 2 Aug 1999
Lord President of the Council 2007-2008 PC 2006
ASHTOWN
27 Dec 1800 B[I] 1 Frederick Trench 17 Sep 1755 1 May 1840 84
Created Baron Ashtown 27 Dec 1800
For details of the special remainder included in the
creation of this peerage,see the note at the
foot of this page
1 May 1840 2 Frederick Mason Trench 25 Dec 1804 12 Sep 1880 75
12 Sep 1880 3 Frederick Oliver Trench 2 Feb 1868 20 Mar 1946 78
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of this page
20 Mar 1946 4 Robert Power Trench 27 Apr 1897 3 Nov 1966 69
3 Nov 1966 5 Dudley Oliver Trench 11 Jul 1901 19 Aug 1979 78
19 Aug 1979 6 Christopher Oliver Trench 23 Mar 1931 27 Apr 1990 59
27 Apr 1990 7 Nigel Clive Cosby Trench 27 Oct 1916 6 Mar 2010 93
6 Mar 2010 8 Roderick Nigel Godolphin Trench 17 Nov 1944
ASKWITH
24 Mar 1919 B 1 Sir George Ranken Askwith 17 Feb 1861 2 Jun 1942 81
to Created Baron Askwith 24 Mar 1919
2 Jun 1942 Peerage extinct on his death
ASQUITH
9 Feb 1925 V 1 Herbert Henry Asquith 12 Sep 1852 15 Feb 1928 75
Created Viscount Asquith and Earl of
Oxford and Asquith 9 Feb 1925
See "Oxford and Asquith"
ASQUITH OF BISHOPSTONE
23 Apr 1951 B[L] 1 Sir Cyril Asquith 5 Feb 1890 24 Aug 1954 64
to Created Baron Asquith of Bishopstone
24 Aug 1954 for life 23 Apr 1951
Lord Justice of Appeal 1946-1951, Lord of
Appeal in Ordinary 1951-1954. PC 1946
Peerage extinct on his death
ASQUITH OF YARNBURY
21 Dec 1964 B[L] 1 Lady Helen Violet Bonham-Carter 15 Apr 1887 19 Feb 1969 81
to Created Baroness Asquith of Yarnbury
19 Feb 1969 for life 21 Dec 1964
Peerage extinct on her death
ASTLEY (of Astley)
23 Jun 1295 B 1 Andrew de Astley 1301
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Astley 23 Jun 1295
1301 2 Nicholas de Astley c 1314
c 1314 3 Thomas de Astley c 1359
c 1359 4 William de Astley after 1359
to Peerage probably fell into abeyance on
after 1359 his death
ASTLEY (of Reading)
4 Nov 1644 B 1 Sir Jacob Astley 1651
Created Baron Astley of Reading
4 Nov 1644
1651 2 Isaac Astley 1662
1662 3 Jacob Astley 1688
to Peerage extinct on his death
1688
ASTON
28 Nov 1627 B[S] 1 Sir Walter Aston,1st baronet 9 Jul 1584 13 Aug 1639 55
Created Lord Aston 28 Nov 1627
13 Aug 1639 2 Walter Aston 1609 23 Apr 1678 69
23 Apr 1678 3 Walter Aston 1633 20 Nov 1714 81
Lord Lieutenant Staffordshire 1687-1689
20 Nov 1714 4 Walter Aston 1660 4 Apr 1748 87
4 Apr 1748 5 James Aston 23 May 1723 24 Aug 1751 28
to Peerage probably became dormant on
24 Aug 1751 his death
ASTOR
23 Jun 1917 V 1 William Waldorf Astor 31 Mar 1848 18 Oct 1919 71
Created Baron Astor 26 Jan 1916 and
Viscount Astor 23 Jun 1917
18 Oct 1919 2 Waldorf Astor 19 May 1879 30 Sep 1952 73
MP for Plymouth 1910-1918 and Sutton
1918-1919
30 Sep 1952 3 William Waldorf Astor 13 Aug 1907 8 Mar 1966 58
MP for Fulham East 1935-1945 and Wycombe
1951-1952
8 Mar 1966 4 William Waldorf Astor 27 Dec 1951
ASTOR OF HEVER
21 Jan 1956 B 1 John Jacob Astor 20 May 1886 20 Jul 1971 85
Created Baron Astor of Hever
21 Jan 1956
MP for Dover 1922-1945
20 Jul 1971 2 Gavin Astor 1 Jun 1918 28 Jun 1984 66
Lord Lieutenant Kent 1972-1982
28 Jun 1984 3 John Jacob Astor 16 Jun 1946
ATHENRY
1172 B[I] 1 Robert Bermingham by 1218
Created Lord Athenry 1172
by 1218 2 Peter Bermingham 1244
1244 3 Meiler Bermingham 1212 1262 50
1262 4 Peter Bermingham 4 Apr 1307
4 Apr 1307 5 Richard Bermingham 1322
1322 6 Thomas Bermingham 1374
1374 7 Walter Bermingham 1428
1428 8 Thomas Fitzwalter Bermingham c 1473
c 1473 9 Thomas Bermingham c 1500
c 1500 10 Meiler Bermingham 1529
1529 11 John Bermingham c 1547
c 1547 12 Richard Bermingham 1580
1580 13 Edmond Bermingham 1540 c 1612
c 1612 14 Richard Bermingham 1570 1645 75
1645 15 Edmond Bermingham after 1645
He resigned the peerage in favour of
his brother -
c 1645 16 Francis Bermingham 12 Apr 1677
12 Apr 1677 17 Edward Bermingham May 1709
Lord Lieutenant Mayo. Outlawed 1691
but pardoned 1700
May 1709 18 Francis Bermingham 1692 4 Mar 1750 57
4 Mar 1750 19 Thomas Bermingham 16 Nov 1717 11 Jan 1799 81
to PC [I] 1755
11 Jan 1799 Created Earl of Louth 23 Apr 1759
Peerage became dormant on his death
ATHLONE
4 Mar 1692 E[I] 1 Godert de Ginkell 1644 11 Feb 1703 58
Created Baron of Aghrim and Earl of
Athlone 4 Mar 1692
11 Feb 1703 2 Godert de Ginkell 1668 15 Aug 1729 61
15 Aug 1729 3 Godert Adrian de Ginkell Feb 1716 8 Oct 1736 20
8 Oct 1736 4 Godert de Ginkell 1717 Nov 1747 30
Nov 1747 5 Frederick William de Ginkell 1748
1748 6 Frederick Christian Rhynhart de Ginkell 31 Jan 1743 Dec 1808 65
Dec 1808 7 Frederick William de Ginkell 21 Oct 1766 5 Dec 1810 44
5 Dec 1810 8 Renaud Diederick de Ginkell 2 Jul 1773 31 Oct 1823 50
31 Oct 1823 9 George Godert de Ginkell 21 Nov 1820 2 Mar 1843 22
2 Mar 1843 10 William Gustauf de Ginkell 21 Jul 1780 21 May 1844 63
to Peerage extinct on his death
21 May 1844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 May 1890 D 1 Albert Victor Christian Edward 8 Jan 1864 14 Jan 1892 28
to Created Earl of Athlone and Duke of Clarence
14 Jan 1892 and Avondale 24 May 1890
Eldest son of Edward VII. KG 1883 KP 1887
Peerage extinct on his death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 Jul 1917 E 1 Alexander Augustus Frederick William
to Alfred George Cambridge 14 Apr 1874 16 Jan 1957 82
16 Jan 1957 Created Viscount Trematon and Earl
of Athlone 16 Jul 1917
Governor General of South Africa
1923-1930, Governor General of Canada
1940-1946. KG 1928, PC 1931
Peerage extinct on his death
ATHLUMNEY
14 Dec 1863 B[I] 1 Sir William Meredyth Somerville,5th baronet 1802 7 Dec 1873 71
Created Baron Athlumney [I] 14 Dec
1863 and Baron Meredyth [UK]
3 May 1866
MP for Drogheda 1837-1852 and
Canterbury 1854-1865. Chief Secretary
for Ireland 1847-1852. PC 1847. PC [I] 1847
7 Dec 1873 2 James Herbert Gustavus Meredyth
to Somerville 23 Mar 1865 8 Jan 1929 63
8 Jan 1929 Peerages extinct on his death
ATHOLL (ATHOLE)
1115 E[S] 1 Madach after 1124
after 1124 2 Malcolm after 1186
after 1186 3 Henry after 1214
after 1214 4 Isabel c 1231
c 1231 5 Patrick de Galloway 1242
1242 6 Fernelith c 1250
c 1250 7 Ada c 1260
c 1260 8 David de Strabolgi 1269
1269 9 John de Strabolgi 1284
1284 10 John de Strabolgi 7 Nov 1306
to He was executed in 1306 and the peerage
7 Nov 1306 forfeited - for 11th Earl, see below
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1306 E[S] 1 Ralph de Monthermer c 1325
Created Earl of Athole 1306
He had previously been summoned to Parliament
as Earl of Gloucester (qv) in 1299. He resigned the
Earldom of Athole in favour of the son of
the 10th earl above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c 1307 E[S] 11 David de Strabolgi 28 Dec 1327
to He rebelled against King Robert Bruce in
1314 1314 when his peerage was forfeited. He was
later summoned to [the English] Parliament
as Lord Strabolgi (qv) 20 Oct 1318
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c 1320 E[S] 1 Sir John Campbell 29 Jul 1333
to Created Earl of Athole c 1320
29 Jul 1333 Peerage extinct on his death
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Jul 1341 E[S] 1 Sir William Douglas 1353
to Created Earl of Athole 18 Jul 1341
1342 Soon after the creation,he resigned the
peerage in favour of -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 Feb 1342 E[S] 1 Robert Stewart 2 Mar 1316 19 Apr 1390 74
to Created Earl of Athole 16 Feb 1342
1371 He succeeded to the throne of Scotland
in 1371,when the peerage merged with
the Crown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 Apr 1398 E[S] 1 David Stewart,Duke of Rothesay 26 Mar 1402
to Created Earl of Athole 28 Apr 1398
26 Mar 1402 Peerage extinct on his death
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Sep 1403 E[S] 1 Robert Stewart,Duke of Albany c 1340 3 Sep 1420
to Created Earl of Athole 8 Sep 1403
1406 The creation was only made during the
life of King Robert III on whose death in
1406 the peerage became extinct
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c 1409 E[S] 1 Walter Stewart Apr 1437
to Created Earl of Athole c 1409
Apr 1437 Sixth son of Robert II of Scotland
He was executed in 1437 when the peerage
was forfeited
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c 1457 E[S] 1 Sir John Stewart c 1440 19 Sep 1512
Created Earl of Athole c 1457
19 Sep 1512 2 John Stewart 9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513 3 John Stewart 1542
1542 4 John Stewart 24 Apr 1579
Chancellor of Scotland 1577
24 Apr 1579 5 John Stewart 28 Aug 1595
to On his death the peerage reverted to
28 Aug 1595 the Crown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Mar 1596 E[S] 1 John Stewart 13 Apr 1605
Created Earl of Athole 6 Mar 1596
13 Apr 1605 2 John Stewart 1625
to Peerage extinct on his death
1625
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Feb 1629 E[S] 1 John Murray Jun 1642
Created Earl of Atholl 17 Feb 1629
Jun 1642 E[S] 2 John Murray 2 May 1631 7 May 1703 72
17 Feb 1676 M[S] 1 Created Lord Murray,Balvany and
Gask,Viscount of Balquhidder,Earl of
Tullibardine and Marquess of Atholl
17 Feb 1676
He succeeded in Jan 1670 as 5th Earl of
Tullibardine (created 1606)
KT 1687
7 May 1703 M[S] 2 John Murray 24 Feb 1660 14 Nov 1724 64
30 Jun 1703 D[S] 1 Created Lord Murray,Viscount
Glenalmond and Earl of Tullibardine
for life 27 Jul 1696 and Lord Murray,
Balvenie and Gask,Viscount of
Balwhidder,Glenalmond and Glenlyon,
Earl of Strathtay and Strathardle,
Marquess of Tullibardine and Duke of
Atholl 30 Jun 1703
Lord Privy Seal 1703 and 1713-1714
KT 1704 PC 1712
Lord Lieutenant Perthshire 1715
14 Nov 1724 2 James Murray 28 Sep 1690 8 Jan 1764 73
MP Perth 1715-1724. Lord Privy Seal
1733-1763. KT 1734 PC 1734
He succeeded as 7th Baron Strange in 1736. On
his death that peerage passed to his daughter
Charlotte
8 Jan 1764 3 John Murray 6 May 1729 5 Nov 1774 45
MP Perth 1761-1764. KT 1767
5 Nov 1774 4 John Murray 30 Jun 1755 29 Sep 1830 75
Created Baron Murray of Stanley and
Earl Strange 18 Aug 1786
Lord Lieutenant Perth 1794-1830. PC 1797
KT 1800
29 Sep 1830 5 John Murray 26 Jun 1778 14 Sep 1846 68
14 Sep 1846 6 George Augustus Frederick John Murray 20 Sep 1814 16 Jan 1864 49
He had previously [1837] succeeded as 2nd
Baron Glenlyon (qv)
KT 1853
16 Jan 1864 7 John James Hugh Henry Stewart-Murray 6 Aug 1840 20 Jan 1917 76
Lord Lieutenant Perth 1878-1917. KT 1868
20 Jan 1917 8 John George Stewart-Murray 15 Dec 1871 16 Mar 1942 70
MP Perthshire West 1910-1917. Lord
Lieutenant Perth 1917-1942. KT 1918,
PC 1921
16 Mar 1942 9 James Thomas Murray 18 Aug 1879 8 May 1957 77
On his death the Barony of Murray of Stanley
and the Earldom of Strange became extinct
8 May 1957 10 George Iain Murray 19 Jun 1931 27 Feb 1996 64
27 Feb 1996 11 John Murray 19 Jan 1929 15 May 2012 83
15 May 2012 12 Bruce George Ronald Murray 6 Apr 1960
ATHOLSTAN
5 May 1917 B 1 Sir Hugh Graham 18 Jul 1848 28 Jan 1938 89
to Created Baron Atholstan 5 May 1917
28 Jan 1938 Peerage extinct on his death
ATKIN
6 Feb 1928 B[L] 1 Sir James Richard Atkin 28 Nov 1867 25 Jun 1944 76
to Created Baron Atkin for life 6 Feb 1928
25 Jun 1944 Lord Justice of Appeal 1919-1928, Lord of
Appeal in Ordinary 1928-1944. PC 1919
Peerage extinct on his death
ATKINSON
19 Dec 1905 B[L] 1 John Atkinson 13 Dec 1844 13 Mar 1932 87
to Created Baron Atkinson for life 19 Dec 1905
13 Mar 1932 MP for Londonderry North 1895-1905.
Solicitor General for Ireland 1889-1892,
Attorney General for Ireland 1892 and
1895-1905. Lord of Appeal in Ordinary
1905-1928. PC [I] 1892, PC 1905
Peerage extinct on his death
ATON
30 Dec 1324 B 1 Gilbert de Aton c 1289 1342
Summoned to Parliament as Lord Aton
30 Dec 1324
1342 2 William de Aton after 1372
to Peerage fell into abeyance on his death
after 1372
ATTENBOROUGH
30 Jul 1993 B[L] 1 Sir Richard Samuel Attenborough 29 Aug 1923 24 Aug 2014 90
to Created Baron Attenborough for life
24 Aug 2014 30 Jul 1993
Peerage extinct on his death
ATTLEE
16 Dec 1955 E 1 Clement Richard Attlee 3 Jan 1883 8 Oct 1967 84
Created Viscount Prestwood and Earl
Attlee 16 Dec 1955
MP for Limehouse 1922-1950 and
Walthamstow West 1950-1955. Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster 1930-1931,
Postmaster General 1931, Lord Privy Seal
1940-1942, Secretary of State for Dominions
1942-1943, Lord President of the Council
1943-1945, Prime Minister 1945-1951,
Secretary of State for Defence 1945-1946,
PC 1935 CH 1945 OM 1951 KG 1956
8 Oct 1967 2 Martin Richard Attlee 10 Aug 1927 27 Jul 1991 63
For further information on this on this peer, see
the note at the foot of this page.
27 Jul 1991 3 John Richard Attlee 3 Oct 1956
AUBIGNY
5 Mar 1580 B[S] 1 Esme Stuart c 1542 26 May 1583
5 Aug 1581 B[S] 1 Created Lord Darnley,Aubigny and
Dalkeith and Earl of Lennox 5 Mar 1580
and Lord Aubigny,Dalkeith,Torboltoun
and Aberdour,Earl of Darnley and
Duke of Lennox 5 Aug 1581
See "Lennox"
AUCHINDOUN
3 Nov 1684 B[S] 1 George Gordon,4th Marquess of Huntly c 1643 7 Dec 1716
Created Lord Badenoch,Lochaber,
Strathavon,Balmore,Auchindoun,
Garthie and Kincardine,Viscount of
Inverness,Earl of Huntly and Enzie,
Marquess of Huntly and Duke of
Gordon 3 Nov 1684
See "Gordon" - extinct 1836
AUCHMOUTIE
29 May 1680 B[S] 1 John Leslie,7th Earl of Rothes 1630 27 Jul 1681 51
to Created Lord Auchmotie and
27 Jul 1681 Caskieberry,Viscount of Lugtoun,Earl
of Leslie,Marquess of Ballinbreich and
Duke of Rothes 29 May 1680
Peerage extinct on his death
AUCHTERHOUSE
1469 B[S] 1 Sir James Stewart c 1495
Created Lord Auchterhouse and Earl
of Buchan 1469
See "Buchan"
AUCKLAND
18 Nov 1789 B[I] 1 William Eden 3 Apr 1744 28 May 1814 70
22 May 1793 B 1 Created Baron Auckland [I] 18 Nov
1789 and Baron Auckland 22 May 1793
MP for Woodstock 1774-1784 and
Heytesbury 1784-1793. PC [I] 1780 PC 1783
Chief Secretary [I] 1780-1782. Postmaster
General 1709-1804. President of the
Board of Trade 1806-1807
28 May 1814 2 George Eden 25 Aug 1784 1 Jan 1849 64
21 Dec 1839 E 1 Created Baron Eden of Norwood and
to Earl of Auckland 21 Dec 1839
1 Jan 1849 MP for Woodstock 1810-1812 and
1813-1814. President of the Board of Trade
1830, First Lord of the Admiralty 1834.
Governor General of India 1835-1841. PC 1830
On his death both creations of 1839 became
extinct
1 Jan 1849 3 Robert John Eden 10 Jul 1799 25 Apr 1870 70
25 Apr 1870 4 William George Eden 19 Jan 1829 7 Feb 1890 61
7 Feb 1890 5 William Moreton Eden 27 Mar 1859 31 Jul 1917 58
31 Jul 1917 6 Frederick Colvin George Eden 21 Feb 1895 16 Apr 1941 46
16 Apr 1941 7 Geoffrey Morton Eden 17 Feb 1891 21 Jun 1955 64
21 Jun 1955 8 Terence Eden 3 Nov 1892 14 Sep 1957 64
14 Sep 1957 9 Ian George Eden 23 Jun 1926 28 Jul 1997 71
28 Jul 1997 10 Robert Ian Burnard Eden 25 Jul 1962
AUDLEY
8 Jan 1313 B 1 Nicholas Audley 1317
Summoned to Parliament as Baron
Audley 8 Jan 1313
1317 2 James Audley c 1313 1 Apr 1386
1 Apr 1386 3 Nicholas Audley 22 Jul 1391
to On his death the barony fell into abeyance
22 Jul 1391
21 Dec 1405 4 John Tuchet 1371 19 Dec 1408 37
Summoned to parliament as Baron Audley
21 Dec 1405, thus terminating the abeyance
19 Dec 1408 5 James Tuchet 1398 23 Sep 1459 61
23 Sep 1459 6 John Tuchet 26 Dec 1491
Lord Treasurer 1484
26 Dec 1491 7 James Tuchet 28 Jun 1497
to Beheaded and peerage forfeited
28 Jun 1497
1512 8 John Tuchet c 1557
Restored to the title 1512
c 1557 9 George Tuchet 1560
1560 10 Henry Tuchet 30 Dec 1563
30 Dec 1563 11 George Tuchet 1551 20 Feb 1617 65
Created Baron Audley of Orier and Earl of
Castlehaven [I] 6 Sep 1616
20 Feb 1617 12 Mervin Tuchet,2nd Earl of Castlehaven 1593 14 May 1631 37
to Attainted and beheaded, when peerages
14 May 1631 forfeited
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of the page which contains
details of the Castlehaven peerage.
1678 13 James Tuchet,3rd Earl of Castlehaven c 1617 11 Oct 1684
Restored to the peerages 1678
11 Oct 1684 14 Mervin Tuchet,4th Earl of Castlehaven 2 Nov 1686
2 Nov 1686 15 James Tuchet,5th Earl of Castlehaven 12 Aug 1700
12 Aug 1700 16 James Tuchet,6th Earl of Castlehaven 12 Oct 1740
12 Oct 1740 17 James Tuchet,7th Earl of Castlehaven 15 Apr 1723 8 May 1769 46
1769 18 John Talbot Tuchet,8th Earl of Castlehaven 2 Aug 1724 22 Apr 1777 52
22 Apr 1777 19 George Thicknesse-Touchet 4 Feb 1758 24 Aug 1818 60
24 Aug 1818 20 George John Thicknesse-Touchet 23 Jan 1783 14 Jan 1837 53
14 Jan 1837 21 George Edward Thicknesse-Touchet 26 Jan 1817 18 Apr 1872 55
to On his death the Barony fell into abeyance
18 Apr 1872
17 May 1937 22 Mary Thicknesse-Touchet 13 Aug 1858 27 May 1942 83
Abeyance terminated 17 May 1937
27 May 1942 23 Thomas Percy Henry Touchet
Touchet-Jesson 15 Sep 1913 3 Jul 1963 49
3 Jul 1963 24 Rosina Lois Veronica Tuchet-Macnamee 10 Jul 1911 24 Oct 1973 62
24 Oct 1973 25 Richard Michael Thomas Souter 31 May 1914 27 Jun 1997 83
to On his death the Barony again fell into
27 Jun 1997 abeyance
AUDLEY
20 Nov 1317 B 1 Hugh Audley 10 Nov 1347
to Summoned to Parliament as Lord
10 Nov 1347 Audley 20 Nov 1317
Peerage probably extinct on his death
AUDLEY OF ORIER
6 Sep 1616 B[I] 1 George Tuchet,11th Baron Audley 1551 20 Feb 1617 65
Created Baron Audley of Orier and
Earl of Castlehaven 6 Sep 1616
The peerage remained united with that of
Castlehaven (qv) until its extinction
in 1777
AUDLEY (of Stratton Audley)
15 May 1321 B 1 Hugh Audley c 1325
to Summoned to Parliament as Lord
c 1325 Audley 15 May 1321
Peerage extinct on his death
AUDLEY OF WALDEN
29 Nov 1538 B 1 Thomas Audley c 1487 30 Apr 1544
to Created Baron Audley of Walden
30 Apr 1544 29 Nov 1538
MP for Essex 1523. Speaker of the House
of Commons 1529. Lord Keeper 1532.
Lord Chancellor 1533-1544. KG 1540
Peerage extinct on his death
AUMALE
29 Sep 1397 D 1 Edward Plantagenet,Earl of Rutland 25 Oct 1415
to Created Duke of Aumale 29 Sep 1397
3 Nov 1399 The peerage was withdrawn 3 Nov 1399
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Jul 1412 E 1 Thomas Plantagent,Duke of Clarence 22 Mar 1421
to Created Earl of Aumale 9 Jul 1412
22 Mar 1421 Peerage extinct on his death
AUNGIER
29 Jun 1621 B[I] 1 Francis Aungier c 1562 8 Oct 1632
Created Baron Aungier 29 Jun 1621
8 Oct 1632 2 Gerald Aungier c 1586 1655
1655 3 Francis Aungier c 1632 22 Dec 1700
He was subsequently created Earl of
Longford (qv) in 1677 with which title this
peerage then merged until its extinction
in 1704
AUSTIN
16 Jul 1936 B 1 Sir Herbert Austin 8 Nov 1866 23 May 1941 74
to Created Baron Austin 16 Jul 1936
23 May 1941 MP for Kings Norton 1918-1924
Peerage extinct on his death
For further information on this peer,see the
note at the foot of this page
AVA
17 Nov 1888 E 1 Frederick Temple Hamilton-Temple-
Blackwood,1st Earl of Dufferin 21 Jun 1826 12 Feb 1902 75
Created Earl of Ava and Marquess of
Dufferin and Ava 17 Nov 1888
See "Dufferin and Ava"
AVANDALE (OR AVONDALE)
1437 E[S] 1 James Douglas,7th Earl of Douglas 1371 24 Mar 1444 72
Created Earl of Avandale 1437
Peerage forfeited 1455
24 Mar 1444 2 William Douglas,8th Earl of Douglas c 1425 22 Feb 1452
22 Feb 1452 3 James Douglas,9th Earl of Douglas 1426 1488 62
He was attainted and the peerages forfeited
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1459 B[S] 1 Andrew Stewart 1488
to Created Lord Avondale 1459
1488 Chancellor of Scotland 1460-1482
Peerage extinct on his death
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c 1499 B[S] 1 Andrew Stewart 9 Sep 1513
Created Lord Avondale c 1499
9 Sep 1513 2 Andrew Stewart 1548
to In 1543 he exchanged the peerage for that
1543 of Lord Ochiltree (qv)
AVANE
28 Oct 1581 E[S] 1 James Stewart 1596
Created Lord of Avane and Hamilton,
and Earl of Arran 28 Oct 1581
He was attainted 1585 when the peerage
was forfeited
AVEBURY
22 Jan 1900 B 1 Sir John Lubbock,4th baronet 30 Apr 1834 28 May 1913 79
Created Baron Avebury 22 Jan 1900
MP for Maidstone 1870-1880 and University
of London 1880-1900. PC 1890
28 May 1913 2 John Birkbeck Lubbock 4 Oct 1858 26 Mar 1929 70
26 Mar 1929 3 John Lubbock 13 May 1915 21 Jun 1971 56
21 Jun 1971 4 Eric Reginald Lubbock 29 Sep 1928
MP for Orpington 1962-1970
AVELAND
26 Feb 1856 B 1 Sir Gilbert John Heathcote,5th baronet 16 Jan 1795 6 Sep 1867 72
Created Baron Aveland 26 Feb 1856
MP for Boston 1820-1830, Lincolnshire
South 1832-1841 and Rutland 1841-1856
Lord Lieutenant Lincolnshire 1862-1867
6 Sep 1867 2 Gilbert Henry Heathcote-Drummond-
Willoughby 1 Oct 1830 24 Dec 1910 80
He succeeded as 23rd Lord Willoughby de Eresby
in 1888
Created Earl of Ancaster 22 Aug 1892 (qv)
The barony of Aveland became extinct on the
death of the 3rd Earl of Ancaster in 1983
AVEN
12 Apr 1643 B[S] 1 James Hamilton 19 Jun 1606 9 Mar 1649 42
Created Lord Aven and Innerdale,Earl
of Arran and Cambridge,Marquess of
Clydesdale and Duke of Hamilton
12 Apr 1643
See "Hamilton"
AVON
12 Jul 1961 E 1 Sir Robert Anthony Eden 12 Jun 1897 14 Jan 1977 79
Created Viscount Eden and Earl of
Avon 12 Jul 1961
MP for Warwick 1923-1957. Lord Privy
Seal 1934. Foreign Secretary 1935-1938,
1940-1945 and 1951-1955. Secretary of
State for Dominions 1939-1940. Secretary
of State for War 1940. Prime Minister
1955-1957. PC 1934, KG 1954
14 Jan 1977 2 Nicholas Eden 3 Oct 1930 17 Aug 1985 54
to Peerage extinct on his death
17 Aug 1985
AVONMORE
29 Dec 1800 V[I] 1 Barry Yelverton 28 May 1736 19 Aug 1805 69
Created Baron Yelverton 15 Jun 1795
and Viscount Avonmore 29 Dec 1800
Attorney General for Ireland 1782, Lord
Chief Baron of the Exchequer [I] 1784-1805
PC [I] 1782
19 Aug 1805 2 William Charles Yelverton 5 Apr 1762 28 Nov 1814 52
28 Nov 1814 3 Barry John Yelverton 21 Feb 1790 24 Oct 1870 80
24 Oct 1870 4 William Charles Yelverton 27 Sep 1824 1 Apr 1883 58
For further information on this on this peer, see
the note at the foot of this page.
1 Apr 1883 5 Barry Nugent Yelverton 11 Feb 1859 13 Feb 1885 26
13 Feb 1885 6 Algernon William Yelverton 19 Nov 1866 3 Sep 1910 43
to Peerages became dormant on his death
3 Sep 1910
AYLESFORD
19 Oct 1714 E 1 Heneage Finch c 1649 22 Jul 1719
Created Baron of Guernsey 15 Mar
1703 and Earl of Aylesford 19 Oct 1714
Solicitor-General 1679-1686, MP for Oxford
University 1679,1689-1698 and 1701-1703
and Guildford 1685-1687. Chancellor of
of the Duchy of Lancaster 1714-1716
PC 1703 PC [I] by 1716
22 Jul 1719 2 Heneage Finch 27 Aug 1683 29 Jun 1757 73
MP for Maidstone 1704-1705 and Surrey
1710-1719
29 Jun 1757 3 Heneage Finch 6 Nov 1715 9 May 1777 61
MP for Leicestershire 1739-1741, Maidstone
1741-1747 and 1754-1757
9 May 1777 4 Heneage Finch 4 Jul 1751 21 Oct 1812 61
MP for Castle Rising 1772-1774 and
Maidstone 1774-1777 PC 1783
21 Oct 1812 5 Heneage Finch 24 Apr 1786 3 Jan 1859 72
MP for Weobly 1807-1812
3 Jan 1859 6 Heneage Finch 24 Dec 1824 10 Jan 1871 46
MP for Warwickshire South 1849-1857
10 Jan 1871 7 Heneage Finch 21 Feb 1849 13 Jan 1885 35
For further information on this peer, see
the note at the foot of this page
13 Jan 1885 8 Charles Wightwick Finch 7 Jun 1851 16 Sep 1924 73
16 Sep 1924 9 Heneage Michael Charles Finch 31 Oct 1908 28 May 1940 31
28 May 1940 10 Charles Daniel Finch-Knightly 23 Aug 1886 20 Mar 1958 71
20 Mar 1958 11 Charles Ian Finch-Knightly 2 Nov 1918 19 Feb 2008 89
Lord Lieutenant West Midlands 1974-1993
19 Feb 2008 12 Charles Heneage Finch-Knightly 27 Mar 1947
AYLESTONE
20 Sep 1967 B[L] 1 Herbert William Bowden 20 Jan 1905 30 Apr 1994 89
to Created Baron Aylestone for life 20 Sep 1967
30 Apr 1994 MP for Leicester South 1945-1950 and
Leicester South West 1950-1967. Lord
President of the Council 1964-1966.
Secretary of State for Commonwealth
Affairs 1966-1967. PC 1962 CH 1975
Peerage extinct on his death
AYLMER
1 May 1718 B[I] 1 Matthew Aylmer c 1650 18 Aug 1720
Created Baron Aylmer 1 May 1718
MP for Dover 1697-1713 and 1715-1720
18 Aug 1720 2 Henry Aylmer 26 Jun 1754
MP for Rye 1720-1727
26 Jun 1754 3 Henry Aylmer 21 May 1718 7 Oct 1766 48
7 Oct 1766 4 Henry Aylmer 22 Oct 1785
22 Oct 1785 5 Matthew Aylmer 24 May 1775 23 Feb 1850 74
23 Feb 1850 6 Frederick Whitworth Aylmer 12 Oct 1777 5 Mar 1858 80
5 Mar 1858 7 Udolphus Aylmer 10 Jun 1814 29 Nov 1901 87
29 Nov 1901 8 Matthew Aylmer 28 Mar 1842 11 Jun 1923 81
11 Jun 1923 9 John Frederick Whitworth Aylmer 23 Apr 1880 4 Nov 1970 90
4 Nov 1970 10 Kenneth Athalmer Aylmer 23 Jun 1883 1 May 1974 90
1 May 1974 11 Basil Udolphus Aylmer 20 May 1886 13 Mar 1977 90
13 Mar 1977 12 Hugh Yates Aylmer 5 Feb 1907 6 Dec 1982 75
6 Dec 1982 13 Michael Anthony Aylmer 27 Mar 1923 2 Aug 2006 83
2 Aug 2006 14 Anthony Julian Aylmer 10 Dec 1951
AYR
2 Feb 1622 V[S] 1 William Crichton 1643
12 Jun 1633 V[S] 1 Created Lord of Sanquhar and
Viscount of Ayr 2 Feb 1622 and Lord
Crichton,Viscount of Ayr and Earl of
Dumfries 12 Jun 1633
See "Dumfries"
The special remainder to the Barony of Ashtown
From the "London Gazette" of 6 January 1801 (issue 15326, page 40):-
"His Majesty has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of this Kingdom [Ireland] to the
several Gentlemen hereafter mentioned, and the Heirs Male of their respective Bodies lawfully
begotten, by the following Names, Styles, and Titles, viz. ....To Frederick Trench, of Woodlawn,
in the County of Galway, Esq; the Dignity of Baron Ashtown, of Moate, with Remainder to the
Heirs Male of the Body of his Father Frederick Trench, deceased."
Frederick Oliver Trench, 3rd Baron Ashtown
The 3rd Baron Ashtown was the target of an assassination attempt while staying in his
shooting-box in Ireland in August 1907. The following report appeared in "The Times" on
15 August 1907:-
'In the early hours of yesterday morning a daring attempt, carefully planned and coolly carried
out, was made to wreck Glenahira-lodge, Lord Ashtown's shooting seat in Co. Waterford,
through the agency of gunpowder and to burn the place with paraffin oil.
'Lord Ashtown, who usually has a numerous party of guests for the shooting, came down by
himself on Monday evening, and was staying in the lodge with James Graham, his head game-
keeper, the other occupants of the house being Graham's wife and two maids. Lord Ashtown
was out shooting on Tuesday, and returned early to the house. He went to bed about 10
o'clock. At about 2 o'clock he was awaked by a terrible explosion, his bedroom being
immediately afterwards lighted up with a vivid flash. His first impression was that a thunderstorm
was raging, but the noise of falling timber and breaking glass caused him to jump out of bed
and to rush out on the landing, where he met Graham, who had also been aroused. The fumes of
powder and oil ascended from the ground floor, and together Lord Ashtown and Graham made
their way downstairs, amid broken glass and timber, to the drawing-room, which they found in
flames. Water was procured and thrown on the fire, and it was extinguished within five minutes.
An examination was then made, which disclosed the extent of the damage done; and Graham at
once went to the police at Ballymacarberry and next into Clonmel and reported the matter.
'A Press representative who visited Glenahira-lodge yesterday afternoon found the exterior of
the western side of the house all shattered and stained, and the interior a heap of debris as if
the house had suffered from a violent earthquake. Nothing had been disturbed, pending the
arrival of the police. Glenahira-lodge is a substantial two-storey stone building, painted with a
peculiar yellowish wash, and is a striking landmark for miles. It is picturesquely situated in a
valley, within half a mile of the village of Ballymacarberry, and about seven miles from Clonmel.
The drawing-room is on the ground floor and on the left-hand side of the hall, and has one window
facing the front and two at the side facing south-west. Lord Ashtown's bedroom is over the
drawing-room, and is of equal size. It was at one of the side windows of the drawing-room that
the explosion occurred. The window was shattered, the woodwork charred, and all the side of the
yellow-washed wall stained by the explosion, while the other windows in the drawing-room and
the windows in the dining-room on the other side of the hall were also broken. The door of the
drawing-room was wrecked off its hinges and shattered into matchwood, which was thrown
against the dining-room door. The floor of the latter apartment was littered with broken glass
and timber.
'The powder was evidently placed on the window sill in a metal pot, portions of which were
scattered all about the spot, and there were also the remains of a number of quart bottles,
smelling of paraffin oil, and sacks saturated with paraffin, while a line of posts, measuring about
25ft., was laid on the field. Immediately the explosion had taken place, the oil and sacks, which
were hurled into the drawing-room, were set ablaze and the carpet and curtains were ignited.
Almost everything in the room was shaken to atoms, including a heavy iron fireguard. Portions of
the drawing-room furniture were hurled by the force of the explosion right through the doors,
across the hall, and through the dining-room, while portions of a heavy mahogany hall chair were
also swept into the dining-room. In Lord Ashtown's room upstairs the windows and shutters were
broken to pieces, a heavy marble mantelpiece was wrenched from the wall, and the frame of the
dressing-room door, close to the bedstead was shattered. Those who planned the outrage had,
perhaps, an idea of placing the explosive on the sill of the bedroom window, as a ladder was found
on the ground outside the kitchen broken into pieces by the explosion. The bedroom window is,
however, about 18ft. from the ground, while the ladder did not measure more than 6ft.
The perpetrators of the outrage were apparently familiar with the local police arrangements.
Owing to the trouble in Belfast all the available constables had been drafted away for duty, only
a sergeant and a constable being left at Ballymacarberry station. Consequently there was no
night patrol. The dogs about the place gave no warning of the approach of the assailants.
District Inspector Tweedy, of Clonmel, visited the place yesterday, and, with the assistance of
the local police, is making enquiries; but so far there is no clue.'
In November 1908, Lord Ashtown was elected as a Representative Peer for Ireland, but following
his bankruptcy in October 1915, he was no longer eligible to continue in that role.
Martin Richard Attlee, 2nd Earl Attlee
Martin was a more convivial man than his father, Clement, the Labour Prime Minister between
1945 and 1951. Martin Attlee kept his many friends entertained by his idiosyncratic career
choices and unusual views. In the House of Lords he campaigned vigorously against drug
dealers, arguing on one occasion that they should be forcibly injected with heroin to give them
a taste of their own medicine. Wishing to emphasize that he spoke as an authority, he
confessed to his lordships that he had experience of drug abuse himself. Once, while on holiday
in Portugal, he had inadvertently smoked cannabis, thereafter finding himself on a 'high'. He was
able to tell the House that he had fought hard against the sensation, which he found to be
disagreeable.
After completing his education, Attlee served in the merchant navy for five years, and then
stumbled into the public-relations business. From 1970 to 1976 he was assistant PR officer
at Waterloo Station, but this employment was discontinued when he published a humorous
book, Bluff Your Way in PR, which was amusingly dedicated to 'those clients I'd most like to
handle - Gina Lollobrigida and Miss World.'
After he lost his job at Waterloo, Attlee had the idea of selling identity talismans to the armed
forces in Saudi Arabia. He was disappointed to discover that Muslim law discouraged the wearing
of personal jewellery. Despite such setbacks, he continued to enjoy a challenge. He spent most
of 1985 working on a way to improve helicopter safety and could often be seen running up and
down his garden with a model helicopter on a stick.
Shortly before his death, Attlee took up a campaign against the unnecessary brutality dealt out
by the Metropolitan Police. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, he drew attention to 'horrific
stories of police arrogance, especially when it comes to picking up boys with a public school
accent'. It later emerged that he himself had had a disagreeable encounter with uniformed
authority. Having fallen asleep on an underground train and woken up at the end of the line, he
had made his way to a police station to enquire about late-night taxi services. Here, he had
been bundled into a cell before being charged with being drunk and disorderly.
Herbert Austin, 1st and only Baron Austin
The following biography of Baron Austin appeared in the Australian monthly magazine "Parade"
in its issue for November 1965:-
'On May 23,1903, a fantastic collection of motor cars and cycles started from Paris on a road
race to Madrid. Of the original 314 entries, 39 broke down before they reached the starting line.
Representing 80 different makes from nine countries, the other vehicles ranged from a mammoth
90-horsepower Panhard to a Serpollet steam car and a pushbike with a half-litre auxiliary engine.
The road, which was built in the days of Napoleon Bonaparte, had once been excellent for
coaches, artillery caissons and farm wagons. But as little had been done to it for nearly a
century, it had degenerated into an 850-mile stretch of cobbles, potholes, sand-drifts and bogs.
At intervals there were a few miles of macadam to tempt fast drivers to destruction.
'Scarcely had the first intrepid competitors left Paris than the race turned into a shambles.
Skidding off unbanked turns, cars hurtled into ditches or wrapped themselves round telegraph
poles. Some hit foot-deep ruts and ricocheted into village shops or the cottages of infuriated
peasants. One of the first to lose his life was Maurice Renault, who was burnt to death when
his car overturned in a drain. Swerving to avoid a dog, Leon Barrow hit a tree and was killed
when his ponderous Lorraine-Dietrich exploded. Paul Tourval drove his Brouhot into a group of
spectators, killing himself, a soldier, two civilians and a child.
'By the time the survivors, led by Marcel Gabriel in his 70-horsepower Mors, had thundered into
Bordeaux, the road was lined with wrecks and the French Government had stopped the contest.
The authorities were so incensed that they ordered the competitors to ship their cars back to
Paris by train rather than let them loose on the road again.
'Among those who reached Bordeaux was 37-year-old Herbert Austin, driving the only one of
three Wolseleys to remain on wheels. The first fell out when the engine seized at Tours, while
the second hit a stone wall, killing the mechanic and injuring the driver.
'Originally organised to popularise motoring, the race heightened the prejudice against cars both
in Britain and on the Continent. French provincial bureaucrats tried to legislate motorists off the
roads while the British Motor Car Act of 1903 was designed to make their lives so onerous that
they would return to the horse.
'The resulting controversy did not perturb Herbert Austin. Despite the horrors of the Paris-
Madrid race, he had confidence in the future of mechanical transport. Living to see his faith
justified, he became one of the men who put the world behind a steering wheel.
'When Herbert Austin was born in Buckinghamshire in 1866, anyone who foresaw the end of the
horse-and-buggy era would have been called a visionary. Migrating to Australia during the boom
years of the 1880s, young Austin was apprenticed to the engineering firm of R. L. Parkes in
South Melbourne. At 19 he entered a competition for a new bridge over the Yarra. Although he
did not win, his design was placed high by the judges who were astonished to learn it was the
work of a student.
'In 1885 destiny revealed itself in the form of an ingenious Irishman named Frederick York
Wolseley, who brought a model of a sheep-shearing machine to the Parkes foundry. Wolseley,
who had come to Australia in 1854, was managing a sheep station in the Riverina, where he
spent his spare time devising agricultural machinery. Among his inventions were a horse-scoop
and a post-hole digger, but his most important work was in the field of machine shearing.
'Machine shearing had been a squatter's dream for years before Wolseley brought his model to
the Parkes foundry. Back in 1868 a Melbourne compositor took out a patent for some form of
mechanical shears but they were not a success. Later attempts to adapt power-driven horse
clippers to shearing were no better, as the wool clogged the cutters. Wolseley persevered
along his own lines and in 1877 registered his first patent. The machine remained in the
experimental stage for seven years when John Howard, a practical mechanic from Birmingham,
helped Wolseley improve it.
'Finally the pair asked R. L. Parkes to build a complete plant for demonstration purposes. When
the machine proved far from perfect, Parkes suggested that young Austin was the ideal man to
iron out the remaining troubles. Getting to work at once, Austin had the machine ready for the
the first trial, which took place in Goldsbrough, Mort & Co.'s Melbourne wool store in 1885. It
was so successful that just before Christmas the following year a full-scale demonstration was
given at Wolseley's homestead, near Walgett, NSW.
'At that time of the year the sheep available were shaggy stragglers who missed the regular
shearing and were overgrown with wool. The machine made light of the difficult fleece. To the
surprise of spectators, the first sheep was shorn in 4 and a half minutes. The second took 30
seconds less. Greatly impressed by the smooth clip the onlookers were astonished when a
wether, previously shorn by a blade shearer, was given a second trimming by the machine and
yielded another 12 ounces of wool.
'Employed to further improve the machine, Austin, now 21 years old, took charge of the factory
in Melbourne and later Sydney. In 1889, Wolseley, with a view to world-wide sales, established
a factory in Birmingham and sent for the indispensable Austin to manage it.
'At that time the internal combustion engine was beginning to make headway. Having had
experience of the new petrol-driven prime mover for driving shearing plants, Austin became
deeply interested in its application to road transport. Convinced that there would be a big
profit in it for the Wolseley company, he built the first British car, a three-wheeled contraption
like a king-size bath-chair in which driver and passenger sat back to back. It was steered by a
long lever, while the single-cylinder engine was mounted under the seat. Austin usually tested
the machine early in the morning, rattling slowly through the back streets of Birmingham behind
a man waving a red flag. The ancestor of all British-built cars, the motorised bath-chair is now
housed in the British Museum.
'The Wolseley factory turned out a number of cars, including the juggernaut Austin drove in the
ill-fated Paris-Madrid race. As it became obvious that neither indifferent roads, unreliable
vehicles nor restrictive legislation could check the growing popularity of the automobile, Austin
went into the business on his own account. In 1906, when he was 39, he established a factory
in Longbridge, Birmingham, on a modest capital of 15,000. A year later the Austin car was born.
In the first year 120 cars rolled out of the works. At the time this was regarded as a startling
achievement. The 1963 tally was 325,517.
'The motorist of pre-1914 vintage had more than 200 makes from which to choose. Eighty were
built in Britain, 59 were French and 23 American. The remainder were divided up between
various continental countries. Despite this opposition the Austin car soon became one of the
best-known makes in the world, while the industry raised Birmingham to a new level of
prosperity. As the number of employees rose from week to week, word got around the
Midlands that the motor trade offered work for all. One applicant, formerly a circus strong-man,
returned disappointed. "They don't want any lifting done," he reported. "The boss said that
Carbolic Jack does it all."
'Turned over to munitions during World War I, the Austin plant, which now employed 23,000
hands, produced millions of shells as well as fleets of ambulances and mobile searchlights. But
the war gave the British motor industry a body blow. When it was over Austin, now Sir Herbert,
found himself in financial difficulties. The position became so acute that for the first time the
motor show at Olympia opened without an Austin vehicle on display. Austin's gloom was not
lightened by the thought that just before the war he had declined an offer of 700,000 for his
interest in the business. But he was not the man to sink into the doldrums.
'He heaved himself out by the introduction of the Austin Seven, the famous "baby" car which
first appeared in 1922 and achieved instant world-wide popularity. There had been several
continental baby cars before, like the 1912 six-horsepower Peugeot. But none of them
developed enough power to make them reliable. The first car of its size to pull a full load up a
1 in 7 hill, Austin's pygmy was designed to supply the lower income group with economical
transport. It achieved its purpose, particularly in Britain, where cars were taxed at the yearly
rate of a 1 per horsepower. Seven pounds a year was within the reach of most aspiring car
owners, but 20 or 30 left a big gap in the average bankrolls of the time.
'Like the T-model Ford before it, the Austin Seven became the delight of humorists and
cartoonists. Plutocrats were depicted driving lordly limousines which carried Baby Austins slung
from davits like ship's boats. There was also the story of a man who toured England in a Rolls-
Royce without out noticing the Austin which had accidentally become hooked to his rear
bumper. No one appreciated these jests more than Austin himself as he watched the sales
graph rise. The design of the Baby Austin was so sound that it remained virtually unaltered
until 1938. By then about 750,000 had been put on the road. Some are still there. [The
number of 750,000 seems to be far too high - the Wikipedia article on the Austin Seven puts
the number at closer to 300,000].
'Like all men of his type, Austin possessed enormous energy. At the height of his career he
would spend his mornings at his office in Birmingham, then catch the midday express to
London and take his seat in the House of Commons [He was MP for King's Norton 1918-1924].
It was strenuous living, but Austin kept it up until 1936, when he was raised to the peerage
and took his seat in the House of Lords. Though 73 years of age, Austin was still hard at work
in 1939 when his huge factory once more became part of the war effort.
'The former Melbourne foundry apprentice died in 1941 aged 75. The title died with him as his
only son had been killed at the battle of Mons 26 years before.'
William Charles Yelverton, 4th Viscount Avonmore
On a summer's evening in 1852, a party of friends and relatives stood on the quayside at
Boulogne in France to farewell Theresa Longworth, an English girl returning home after
completing her education in a French convent. As the gangplank was being drawn up,
Theresa's sister threw her a shawl from the wharf. The shawl fell on the deck and was
retrieved by a tall, handsome officer, Major the Honourable William Charles Yelverton, son and
heir of the third Viscount Avonmore. The major politely wrapped the shawl around Theresa's
shoulders, an insignificant gesture which ultimately led to one of the causes celebre of the
Victorian era.
After reaching London, the friendship between Yelverton and Theresa ripened. Yelverton,
captivated by the vivacious Theresa, courted her until early the following year, when his
regiment was posted to Malta. Then began an exchange of passionate letters. In one, she
complained to Yelverton that "nasty rumours" were spreading in London about their romance.
Yelverton promptly reassured her by writing that "if you can find anyone of the male sex calling
himself a gentleman who has given you pain by conjunction of our names, I will get leave and
come home to fight him" (presumably in a duel).
After his posting to Malta, Yelverton was transferred to Egypt and, in 1854, to Sebastapol upon
the outbreak of the Crimean War. When that war broke out, Theresa joined a volunteer nursing
unit and ultimately reached a hospital at Galata in the Crimea. There she was able to contact
Yelverton and their affair was resumed. Yelverton suggested that they be married in a small
Greek chapel in Balaclava, but Theresa decided to wait for a normal English wedding and
returned home in early 1855 to await her lover. She heard nothing from him until about a year
later when she learned that he had returned some months previously and was now stationed in
Edinburgh. She immediately rushed to Edinburgh and reminded him of his marriage promise.
On Easter Sunday morning 1856, Theresa and Yelverton read the marriage service together. By
strict Scottish law of matrimony this was sufficient to make them man and wife, IF there had
been a witness. However, Yelverton had been careful to ensure that no witnesses were present,
although a friend of Yelverton's in the next room was to later testify that he had heard them
reading something "in an earnest tone."
Theresa continued to live in Edinburgh lodgings and was regularly visited by Yelverton. In the
summer of 1857, he obtained 3 month's leave and took Theresa to Ireland. Although he
carefully kept Theresa away from his father, on 15 August 1857 he and Theresa went through
another marriage ceremony which was conducted by a priest in a Roman Catholic chapel in
the village of Rostrevor. At that time, it was the law in Ireland that a marriage performed by a
Catholic priest was valid ONLY if both parties were professing Catholics. Theresa was certainly
a Catholic but Yelverton described himself as "not much of anything."
After a lengthy honeymoon, Yelverton returned to his regiment in Scotland and Theresa visited
her sister in France. By now Theresa was pregnant and she wrote to Yelverton insisting that,
for the sake of their unborn child, he announce their marriage and introduce her to his family.
Yelverton replied forbidding any such announcement. His letters then stopped and Theresa
learned that he had become engaged to a Mrs Forbes, a wealthy Edinburgh widow. The shock
so upset her that she lost the baby.
As soon as she was well enough, she travelled to Edinburgh, but Yelverton refused to meet her
and sent his brother as an intermediary to buy her off with a passage to Australia and a regular
allowance. She refused this offer and travelled to London to consult her lawyers. In the
meantime, Yelverton and Mrs Forbes were married.
On legal advice she went to Dublin and, as Mrs Yelverton, ran up a large bill (249) for board
and lodging. When she said she could not pay, her landlord Thomas Thelwall, sued Yelverton for
the debt.
In October 1858 the case of Thelwall v. Yelverton was heard in the Irish Court of Common
Pleas. The long story of Theresa's love affair with Yelverton was detailed and the priest who
performed the marriage at Rostrevor was called to give evidence. Public sympathy
was certainly on Theresa's side. Yelverton, on the other hand, was hissed and booed in Court.
Even the judge admitted personal prejudice against the defendant.
Yelverton's defence was that he had never truly loved Theresa and had merely wanted a
companion (i.e. a mistress). He said he had never proposed to her, had never gone through
any marriage ceremony in Scotland and stated that the Irish ceremony was void as he was not
a Catholic.
The jury took little time in finding that both the Scottish and Irish ceremonies were indeed valid
and that, as a result she was legally married to Yelverton (and that Yelverton was liable to pay
Thelwall for Theresa's debts.) When the verdict was announced Theresa, in typical Victorian
fashion, "fainted in a flood of tears." When she recovered, she was escorted to her carriage,
where an enthusiastic crowd of supporters uncoupled the horses and drew the carriage through
the streets to her hotel.
But she had only won the first round....
Yelverton struck back in July 1859 when he brought an action before the Scottish courts to
have the supposed marriage ceremony in Scotland declared invalid because of insufficient
evidence and the Irish marriage set aside because he was a Protestant. The Court decided in
Yelverton's favour.
Theresa was not beaten yet. She took a job as a governess and saved her wages until such
time as she could afford to continue her crusade.
In December 1862, she re-opened the case with an appeal to the Scottish Court of Session.
Again all the details were paraded. When Yelverton's love letters were produced, he claimed
that Theresa had tampered with them by cutting pieces out and writing words in. In one letter
he had used an Italian expression "sposa bella mia" (my beautiful wife). His lawyers spent three
days trying to prove that he knew no Italian and could not therefore have written these words.
The judges, however, were not convinced, and found that there was sufficient evidence to
justify Theresa's claim to be the lawful wife of William Yelverton. One judge commented that
"there was clearly a secret marriage. Mindful of the suffering that it will cause to others, I must
pronounce them man and wife."
By this time Yelverton and the former Mrs Forbes had three children and Yelverton could have
been charged with bigamy. He was however not charged.
Yelverton then appealed the decision to the House of Lords where, on 28 July 1864 by a 3-2
majority the judges ordered that the Scottish decision be annulled. Three years later, Theresa
made a final appeal to the House of Lords on technical grounds but her appeal was disallowed
thus bringing the Yelverton saga to a final end.
After this final appeal was lost, Theresa published a book and many pamphlets outlining her
case before dying a pathetic half-mad woman in South Africa in 1881.
Heneage Finch, 7th Earl of Aylesford
Aylesford was one of the central characters in what was arguably one of the greatest scandals
of the Victorian era, when he sought a divorce from his wife on the grounds of her adultery
with the Marquess of Blandford, who later became the Duke of Marlborough.
The following edited report is taken from 'The Derby Mercury' of 10 July 1878:-
'In the Probate and Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice, on July 3, the case of
Aylesford v Aylesford and Blandford came before Sir James Hannen and a special jury. It was a
petition presented by Heneage, Earl of Aylesford, for the dissolution of his marriage with his
wife Edith, on the ground of her misconduct with the Marquis of Blandford. Both the respondent
and co-respondent had filed answers denying the charge, and the Queen's Proctor intervened
and alleged collusion, and further, that the petitioner himself had been guilty of misconduct. The
Earl of Aylesford denied the allegation. [The Queen's Proctor represents the Crown in cases of
probate or divorce. The Proctor may intervene in divorce petitions and has the power to show
cause against a divorce decree being made absolute, most often on receipt of information
indicating that the court has been, or may be, misled into granting such a decree. This power
is amply illustrated in the Aylesford case].
'Lord and Lady Aylesford were married on Jan. 8, 1871. Lord Aylesford, who had not then
succeeded to his title, was about twenty-two years of age, and Lady Aylesford was also young.
They lived and cohabited together first at Diddington, and afterwards at Packington Hall, Lord
Aylesford's seat in Warwickshire, and two children, daughters, were born to them. In the
autumn of 1875 Lord Aylesford was invited to join the party of the Prince of Wales, who was
then about to visit India. The party started for India in November, 1875 and Lord Aylesford
remained abroad until early in the following year, when information reached him in regard to
Lady Aylesford's conduct which hastened his return to England. On his arrival he discovered
that during his absence in India Lady Aylesford had formed a criminal intimacy with Lord
Blandford, who is himself a married man, and who was one of his most intimate friends.
Anxious to avoid the scandal which the publicity of her infidelity would occasion, and acting
on the advice and under the pressure of friends, Lord Aylesford was content with a separation
on the assurance of Lady Aylesford, who was then living with one of her married sisters, that
her intimacy with Lord Blandford should cease. A deed of separation between them was
accordingly executed on May 22, 1877, and under it an annuity of 500 a year for life was
secured to Lady Aylesford. Later on in the year it came to Lord Aylesford's knowledge that,
contrary to her promises, Lady Aylesford had renewed her intimacy with Lord Blandford, and
that they were living together at Paris under the assumed name of Spencer, and he thereupon
resolved to institute proceedings for a divorce.
'In support of the petition, James James [yes, really], house steward to Lord Aylesford, was
called. He stated that during Lord Aylesford's absence in India Lady Aylesford remained at
Packington Hall, and that she was frequently visited by Lord Blandford, who sometimes reached
the hall about midday, and remained alone with Lady Aylesford until between ten and eleven
o'clock at night. The witness further stated that in Jan. 1876 one of the chambermaids made
a communication to him, and that about three weeks afterwards Lady Aylesford left the hall,
directing on her departure two small parcels to be put away in the strong room. Other witnesses
were examined in Paris on commission, and it appeared from their depositions that Lord
Blandford and Lady Aylesford took apartments at the Hotel de Rivoli in Sept. 1877, and that
they lived together as man and wife as Mr. and Mrs. Spencer. With these depositions the
petitioner's case closed.
'The Attorney-General then proceeded to give an outline of the case which it was intended to
submit to the jury on behalf of the Queen's Proctor in bar of the petitioner's prayer for a
divorce. The marriage of Lord and Lady Aylesford, he said, ought to have been a happy one,
but he feared it was not so, and not in consequence of the conduct of Lady Aylesford, but of
the gross misconduct of Lord Aylesford himself. Shortly after their marriage, they came up to
London, and the life which Lord Aylesford then commenced to lead was this:- He would dine
at home; after dinner he would go to a theatre or the Alhambra [a music hall situated on the
east side of Leicester Square], and thence to Cremorne [Gardens, a notorious pleasure garden
by the side of the Thames in Chelsea], supping there with loose women and forming vulgar
amours with them. On leaving Cremorne he would call at his club, where he would remain until
three or four o'clock in the morning, returning to his home generally in a state of intoxication.
This, the Attorney-General said, was the course of his lordship's life on week-days and on
Sundays, also, Cremorne was his favourite resort. With regard to the charge of adultery with
Mrs. Dilke, Lord Aylesford had been long acquainted with her husband, Mr. Dilke, who was
possessed of considerable property in Warwickshire, and whose residence, Maxstoke Castle,
was within a few miles of Packington Hall. Lord Aylesford was a frequent visitor at the
castle before his departure for India. He renewed the visits on his return from India, and an
intimacy then grew up between him and Mrs. Dilke, which caused her husband such
unhappiness that he sought relief in drink and became for a time of unsound mind owing to
intemperance. In April 1877 he attempted suicide by throwing himself into the Thames at
Lambeth, and he died by his own hand on August 3 following at Ilfracombe, whither he had
gone with his medical attendant in the hope of improvement. During the period of her
husband's illness Mrs. Dilke accompanied Lord Aylesford and a party of friends, ladies and
gentlemen, to Bognor, during the Goodwood Races. The whole party, it is said, led a
riotous life there, and on the night the news of Mr. Dilke's death reached them Mrs. Dilke
occupied Lord Aylesford's bed. It was not suggested that she shared it with Lord Aylesford,
but next morning about a dozen wine-glasses were found on the table in the room, showing,
the Attorney-General said, that the riotous life in which she had participated had been
continued up to the moment of her departure from Bognor. Since then, wherever Mrs. Dilke
was, there also was Lord Aylesford, and all the circumstances connected with their intimacy
would show, according to the statement of the Attorney-General, that it was of a criminal
character.
'In support of the charge of collusion, Lady Aylesford's solicitor was called. In the course of his
examination objection was taken to his being questioned in relation to the communications
which passed between him and Lady Aylesford, on the grounds that they were privileged, and
the objection was allowed. Lady Aylesford, however, released him from the restriction, and he
then answered all the questions that were put to him. He stated that under her marriage
settlement a life interest in a sum of 5,000, which was to be brought into settlement on the
death of her father, and a jointure of 2,000 a year on the death of Lord Aylesford were
secured to her. Under the deed of separation, in which her brother was named trustee, Lord
Aylesford covenanted to pay her an annuity of 500 a year without any restriction or
condition, and the deed also provided that she might live as if she were unmarried. He admitted
that Lady Aylesford was desirous of a divorce, and that he had furnished Lord Aylesford's
solicitors with her address at Paris; but he did so, he said, to avoid as much scandal as possible,
and because her cohabitation with Lord Blandford was well-known; and he denied that she had
gone to Paris with Lord Blandford by arrangement, in order to furnish grounds for the petition.
He only knew of Lord Aylesford's alleged immorality from report, and he was not aware of the
result of inquiries in relation to them instituted by Lord Blandford through a person named Levy.
'In respect of the charge of adultery with women other than Mrs. Dilke, Frederick Gillat, who
was coachman to Lord Aylesford for four years, was called. He stated that entered Lord
Aylesford's service in 1871, and that after dinner he generally drove his lordship alone to a
place of amusement, sometimes to a theatre, sometimes to the Alhambra, and sometimes to
Cremorne; and several waiters at Cremorne deposed to having seen Lord Aylesford at the
gardens talking to and treating women who frequented the place. Evidence was also given in
support of specific acts of adultery charged against him in the petition, and the inquiry as it
related to Mrs. Dilke was entered upon.
'On the sitting of the Court of July 4, Sir H. James said that he and his learned friends who
were acting with him on behalf of Lord Aylesford had not had until that morning a sufficient
opportunity of full consultation with their client. They had had before coming into court that
opportunity, and they had placed before him the legal bearing of the case in all its different
aspects. Lord Aylesford felt that as a man of honour he was bound to state nothing save
that which was entirely true, and he could not, if placed in the box, give a complete denial
to all the questions which might be put to him in relation to the general charge alleged
against him, his counsel considered it was due to the Court and the jury that they should
be informed of the fact, and that the public time should not be wasted in prolonging the
inquiry, when they felt that the petition could not be maintained. The admission disposed of
Lord Aylesford's legal right to the relief which he sought by his petition; but there was a
question of paramount importance to him, and that was in relation to the charge which had
been made against him in connection with Mrs. Dilke. That charge he felt he could deny with
truth and honour, and he asked that he and Mrs. Dilke might be allowed, by the permission of
the Court, to deny on oath that there was any foundation for the charge of an improper
intimacy between them. With regard to the minor question of collusion, it appeared to him
and his learned friends that on the evidence the question was one more of legal definition
than any contest arising on the facts. Without, therefore, making any admission with regard
to it, he should merely say that he was not in a position to offer evidence in reply to the
statements of Mr. Powle [Lady Aylesford's solicitor], and that he should leave the case as it
stood.
'The Attorney-General observed that he had very little to say in the matter. He conceived that
it was the Queen's Proctor's imperative duty, in the circumstances of the case, to intervene,
and upon the information that he received to say that there was collusion between Lord
Aylesford and Lord Blandford, and that Lord Aylesford had been guilty of adultery. He gathered
from the observations of his learned friend (Sir H. James) that both charges - collusion and
adultery - were confessed, and it therefore appeared to him that the duty of the Queen's
Proctor was discharged in this case. With regard to Mrs. Dilke, he had opened the case as he
believed it would be proved. So far as the Queen's Proctor was concerned, he did not withdraw
any of the charges he had made; but after what had been stated he felt that he would not be
justified in occupying the time of the Court and the jury in offering further evidence in the case.
With regard to the application in relation to Lord Aylesford and Mrs. Dilke, he, on behalf of the
Queen's Proctor, placed himself entirely in his lordship's hands.
The President - I am of [the] opinion that the Attorney-General has one duty in these cases to
perform; it is to see that a petitioner who, by his conduct, has disentitled himself to the relief
afforded by this Court does not obtain a decree for the dissolution of his marriage. That is
accomplished when it has once been established that the petitioner has himself been guilty of
adultery, and it is not necessary for the Attorney-General to go on and establish every charge
in the case which he may think he might be able to establish. I therefore think that, in the
interest of the public, it is not necessary, after the admission on behalf of the petitioner, that
the matter should be further gone into. With regard to the issues, therefore, upon which the
verdict of the jury will be taken, they will be these - that the petitioner has been guilty of
adultery; and, further, it will be found that he has been guilty of collusion with Lord Blandford.
I say that, because in my view of the matter there has been evidence offered which, unless
contradicted, would have established the second charge. I do not say that the evidence
would have established the charge of collusion with Lady Aylesford. Whether the charge would
have been established if the case went on it is not for me to say. With regard to the
application that Lord Aylesford and Mrs. Dilke be allowed to go into the box and deny on oath
the charge which has been made against them, that is a matter in my discretion. I cannot
allow any questions to go to the jury on that issue; but as, if the case proceeded to its
ordinary termination, Lord Aylesford and Mrs. Dilke would be entitled to come into the box
and deny on oath that they committed adultery, I do not see why I should not allow them to
do so. Their statement, however, must be confined to a simple denial of the charge, and the
allowing them to do so is a mere indulgence on my part.
'Both Mrs. Dilke and Lord Aylesford then went into the witness box, and solemnly denied that
there had been any misconduct.
'The President then addressed the jury, who found that the Countess of Aylesford had
committed adultery with the Marquis of Blandford; that Lord Aylesford and the Marquis of
Blandford had acted in collusion in reference to this suit; and that Lord Aylesford had himself
committed adultery. The petition for divorce was therefore dismissed with costs against Lord
Aylesford and the Marquis of Blandford.
*********************
The Earl of Aylesford died of dropsy while in Texas in January 1885. Later in that year, the
Countess petitioned on behalf of her infant son, Guy Bertrand Finch, for the Aylesford peerage
title. She was opposed by another petitioner, Charles Wightwick Finch, brother of the late Earl,
who denied that Guy Bertrand was the son of his deceased brother, and claimed that his
brother had left no male issue.
The case was heard before the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords in July 1885.
Charles Finch based his case on the allegation the Earl and Countess had ceased to live
together after the end of 1876 and, since Guy Bertrand was reportedly born on 4 November
1881, in Paris, the Earl of Aylesford could not possibly be the father. Further, Charles alleged
that the Marquis of Blandford, who by this time had succeeded as Duke of Marlborough was
the child's father, and that he had paid 10,000 to the Countess, which she settled upon her
son, with the proviso that the money was to be returned to the donor at the Countess's
death should her son predecease her.
After repeating all the details of the affair between Lady Aylesford and the then Marquess of
Blandford, the counsel for Charles Finch called a series of witnesses, each of whom confirmed
that Lord and Lady Aylesford had had no physical contact whatsoever since the time the
Countess had moved to Paris with Lord Blandford, some four years before the birth of Guy
Bertrand. These witnesses included Lady Aylesford's maid, her doctor, a former valet of Lord
Aylesford and the baby's nurse, to whom Lady Aylesford had written letters in which she spoke
of Lord Blandford as the father. In reply, Lady Aylesford's counsel said that he was "unable
to produce any evidence which could influence their lordships' minds in favour of the case of
the infant." Accordingly, the Committee of Privileges had little difficulty in finding that Charles
Finch had successfully made out his claim to the earldom. Indeed, given the well-known
story of Lady Aylesford and Lord Blandford, one wonders how the Countess could ever have
considered she had a chance of convincing the Committee that Lord Aylesford was the father
of the child.
Copyright @ 2003-2014 Leigh Rayment