NOTES ON THE INFERIOR TITLES OF LIVING PEERS Every existing inferior title, whether borne by an eldest son or not, provided it differ in name from the siiperior title, will be found in its alpha- betical position, with a reference to the head under which further particulars may be discovered ; tJiis will be found to answer, by a single search, all the questions for which the reader was pre- viously in the habit of consulting a variety of lists — as of second titles — of Peers sitting in the House of Lords by one title and commonly addressed by another, etc. Before this Index was added to the other contents of the volume of 1851, it was impossible, in any work relating to the Peerage, to ascertain why and how some hundreds of well-known titles had disappeared. A few readers might imagine that they were extinct ; others might conjecture that they had merged in higher honours. But by ichat superior titles they had been eclipsed, or u-here they were now to be found, no book could tell. Readers had asked themselves, " What has become of the Earl of Beverley ? " No such name was to be found in the latest Peerage books. " Where is the Earl of Burlington, where the Earl of Mornington, Lord Seymour, Lord Panmure, Lord Glenlyon, Lord Barham, Lord King, Lord Oriel, Lord Ferrard, and other well-remembered persons ? " Sometimes the courtesy titles borne by eldest sons might be expected to assist the reader in these difficulties. But they would help lim in none of the instances above-mentioned, lor in a multitude of analogous cases, for peers 3f high degree often enjoy sixteen or seventeen nferior titles, while only one becomes known hrough the medium of an eldest son : — thus, the Duke of Atholl has 19 ; the Duke of Argyll, 17 ; he Duke of Hamilton, 16 ; the Marquess of Bute, 15 ; the Duke of Buceleuch 15 ; the Duke of Aber- ■orn and the Marquess of Lansdowne, each 12 ; he Marquesses of Huntly and Lothian, each 1 1 ; the Duke of Montrose and the Earl of Wemyss, ■ach 10 ; the Duke of Beaufort, 9 ; while smaller lumbers occur in profusion throughout the Peer- ige. Nor can it be forgotten, that in the case of dl Viscounts and Barons, the inferior or additional lonovirs vested in them are never borne as cour- esy titles by their issue. And even amongst he second titles actually used by eldest sons no •ertainty exists ; thus the heir apparent of the jansdowne family in alternate generations is tyled Earl of Kerry ; and then the well-known itle of Shelburne disappears from view : an eldest ion of the Marquess of Lothian has been calledLord ledburgh instead of Earl of Ancrum, and there ire upwards of twenty Peers whose heirs apparent )r grandsons use titles which have no existence vhatever amongst the family honours, or are mly derived from these by indirect course or
- ome modification of the real title, such as occurs
n the cases of Lord Mahon, Lord Inverurie, Lord Trafalgar, Lord Corry, Lord Bingham, Lord Bertie, ^ord Crichton, Lord Bennet, etc. Furthermore, nany peers happen to have no male issue to enjoy hese courtesy distinctions. At present nearly one lundred Peers are in this state without sons, a lumber which is more than one-third of the whole lody possessed of the privilege ; for it does not xtend below the rank of Earl. In these and a multiplicity of other cases, there- ore, the reader was left in total ignorance respect- ng the fate of some of the most famous names in nistory. They were to be found neither amongst xtinct nor existing titles. 33 In the creation of new Peers, also, it was frequently important to ascertain with facility whether or not the title selected was already in the possession of another as a subordinate desig- nation ; but such a search was scarcely possible to any but professional genealogists, and, even to them, only after great trouble and a lengthened investigation. Thus, in all probability, it was not extensively known in 1838, when Lord Methuen was raised to the Peerage, that there was already a Baron Methuen in the person of the Duke of Richmond ; nor were the public very generally aware in 1839, when Lord Monteagle received his title, that there was already a Barony of Monteagle in the possession of the Marquess of Sligo. The curious reader may observe in casting his eye over this list, that the following are the only English Counties at present unapproiDriated as titles : — Dorset, Gloucester, Hampshire, Middlesex, Monmouth, Oxford, and Shropshire. also un- The following important places are appropriated : — Brighton, London, Cheltenham, Norwich, Croydon, Oldham, Greenwich, The Isle of Thanet, Lambeth, The Isle of Wight. The following Scotch Counties are in the same state : — Banff. Clackmannan, Dumbarton, Forfar, Two Welsh Counties Merioneth : and, finally. Clare, King's County, Monaghan, Kirkcudbright, Stirling, and Wigtown. are vacant — Flint and the Irish Counties of Queen's County, Roscommon, and Wexford, are likewise unoccupied as titular designations. To this enumeration it may be added, that there are many instances of the same title being held by different persons at once ; thus there are several — Lords Boyle, Lords Hill, Lords Bruce, Lords Howard, Lords Douglas, Lords Montagu, Lords Grey, Lords Murray, Lords Hamilton, Lords Stewart or Lords Hay, Stuart, etc.. Lords Herbert, together with duplicates in abundance and many resemblances, such as — An Earl Amherst and a Baroness Amherst, An Earl of Bandon and a Baron of Bandon Bridge, An Earl of Berkeley and a Barone-^s Berkeley, A Bowmont and a Beaumont. A Camden and a Campden, An Earl of Desart and an Earl of Dysart, A Duke of Deonsliire and an Earl of Devon, A Ferrers and a Ferrard, A Gillford and a Guilford. An Inverurie and an Inverary, A Baron Jedburgh and a Baron of Jedburgh- Forest,
