The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-19 00:00:00

THE BERKELEY PEERAGE.

A petition has been addressed to the House of
Lords of a remarkable character. It is not, in
any ordinary sense of the word, a plea for redress ;
still less is it an expression of suffering, impovet ish-
ment, or misfortune. The petitioner is as well
endowed, as well descended, and as loftily placed
as most grandees in Europe; with the exception
of one single prerogative, and to this prerogative
he asserts his title in the case before us. The
whole story is so full of curious interest, and in-
volves so many points of true historical import-
ance, that our readers will thank us, we are sure,
for a glimpse of the facts.
Among the noble families of this kingdom few
can pretend to superiority of extraction or position
over that of Berkeley. An antiquity ascending
to the very earliest times of the Plantagenets, and
a lineage ennob'ed even then ; vast territorial
possessions, and a seat associated but too closely
with the events of mediaeval history, combine to
render this house conspicuous in the muster-roll
of the English aristocracy. From the 12th cen-
tury to the year last past the Lords of Berkeley
have sat as Peers in the great C mncil of the
nation. The first of the list, Robert Fitzhardinge,
died in 1170 ; the second, Maurice, in 1189. They
lived in Berkeley Castle before King Henry 11.
lived at Woodstock, or built a bower for Fair
Rosamond. Baron after Baron, --alternately a
Thomas and a Maurice, they appear from the days
of Magna Charta to the days of the Reformation,
when Henrys and Georges, still Lords of Berke-
ley, enter into the list. immediately after the
Restoration they were made Viscounts and Earls,
and when, in the year 1755, Frederick Augustus
Berkeley succeeded to these titles, he was the 234
Peer upon the long and ancient roll. It was with
this noblonan, who survived to represent the
family till the year 1810, that the complications
commenced which have produced the question be-
fore us, and which at present, without any extinc-
tion of lineage or abatement of honours, have
practically removed this famous title from the
British Peerage.
Earl Frederick was, it is slated, married in the
year 1785 ; but eleven years afterwards—that is to
say, in 1796, he was undoubtedly united in lawful
wedlock, either for the first or the second time, to
the same lady. By this lady, the Countess Mary,
he had a numerous family, six of whom were born
before 1796, and the remainder after that epoch.
Of the first division, the eldest was a son named
William ; the next, another son named Maurice.
In the second diviiion, the first-born was also a son
named Thomas. After the Earl's death the circum-
stances attending his marriage were investigated in
the House of Lords, and the decision arrived at
had the effect of excluding' the first division of the
family from the titular honours of the name, so
that Thomas, the seventh child, became, by virtue
of that sentence, the lawful Lord of Berkeley. It
happened, however, that in the family itself other
views were entertained. Earl Frederick devised by
will his lands, his money, aad his grand old castle
to his eldest children, William and Maurice, in
succession, and Thomas, with more than fraternal
magnanimity, supported the same cause. He de-
clined to assume the title thus devolving upsn him,
and has persisted in that honourable self-denial to
the present day. The consequence therefore was,
that a complete severance between the estates and
honours of the family was only avoided by the for-
bearance of one of its members. Hal Thomas
availed himself of the powers as,igned him by law,
one Berkeley would have been sitting in Parliament
with the title, while another would have been
ruling in the castle without it. As it is, the
Berkeley in the caste is not confronted with
another Berkeley at Westminster, but meanwhile
there is no Lord of Berkeley at all.
For a time these embarrassmen's were eluded

by as easy expedient. William, the first-born
child of Frederick, was raised to the Peerage in
his own right by the title of Baron Segrave, and
was afterwards promoted as Earl Fitzhardinge, aril
he therefore sat in Parliament without reference to
the position of Thomas. But last year Lord Fitz-
hardinge died, unmarried, and though the estates
and castle passed in due course, by Earl Frederick's
will, to Maurice, the new title did not so pass, but
became extinct, so that the original predicament
ensuing after Eetl Frederick's decease has been
created anew. Maurice Frederick Fitzhardinge
Berkeley is Lord of Berkeley Castle, its broad lands
and its fair domains, but he is not a Peer of the realm.
Thomas is the Peer, but he declines the dignity, as
before. We have been expatiating so freely in the
old fields of history and feudalism, that a word or
two may be necessary to bring our characters to the
level of every day life. Maurice Fitzhardinge Ber-
keley not only sits in the seat of all the Maurices
before him, hut be is a distinguished member of
an hononrab'e profession, being, in fact, none other
than the gallant officer of that name, once a Lord
of the AdniraLy, and now a Vice-Admiral of the
White, whose views on the general organisation of
the navy we have often been called upon to discuss.
This gentleman, not being Lcrd Fitzhardinge, or
legally Lord Berkeley, claims in the petition under
review to enter the House of Peers by another
avenue, but it is only by preliminary explanation
ca, reeeece tlre peat of eur try
At the opening of Anglo-Norman history all
Barons were summoned to Parliament in virtue of
their holdings—that is to say, the lord of particular
lands, whoever he might be, was the lord of Parlia-
ment. The estate carried the dignity with it, irre-
spectively of the owner's extraction ; the honour
was exclusively territorial, not personal. Towards
the close of the 13th century the practice com-
menced of summoning barons by writ, or, in
other words, by the King's mandate, dire:ted to
certain persons at his discretion, without reference
to territorial tenure ; and about a century later
still baronies by writ began to give way in their
turn to baronies by patent. The writ, as is evident,
extended the disc-etion of the sovereign; the patent
is regarded in conflicting opinions as basing aug-
mented the dignity by confirming the rights of in-
heritance, or restricted it by confining those rights
to heirs specified instead of heirs general. It has
never been positively decided how far the privileges
of baronies by tenure were superseded by the in- ,
troduction of bsrories by writ. In most cases the
two titles would beemerged in the claim of a single
individual, and the old dignity
of tenure would be
lost or forgotten ; but pee baps the reader may re-
collect to have heard that certain castles are still
r,por.ed to po.sess the power of converting their
owners into peers. One of these is Arundel Castle,
the possessor of which is
popularly thought to' be
Earl of Arundel in virtue of that feudal residence ;
another is Berkeley Castle, and upon this ground
the present Sir Maurice takesl his stand. He may
not Le Earl Berkeley in right of the patent, or
Lord Berkeley beeright of writ, but he is undoubt-
edly the Lord of Berkeley Castle, arid, as such, now
petitions to be called to Parliament as Baron Ber-
keley by tenure.
It will neither be expected nor desired that wa
should charge ourselves with a technical discussion
of this curious claim. There can be no doubt that
Berkeley Castle is indeed one of those lordships
which conferred nobility in times of old—in fact,
the first five Barons of Berkeley sate by this very
tenure. It is also certain that Maurice is now
the tenant of ;his lordelrip, but the question of the
tenure itself involves many le trued arguments.
Perhaps we may briefly de- eribe the state of the
case by observing that, on the one hand, no claitn
to a barony by tenure has ever yet b ten allowed ;
while, on the other hand, no sent once extinguishing
such claims for the future base -er been pronounced:
As respects the particular example before us, it is
remaekeble that the claim, though more than
once advanced, arid never admitted, has still never
been definitely rejected, but has been always inter-
rupted by some incident dispensing with the pro-
to sit by tenure, and not by writ, claimed
pro-
ceedings. Gl. orge, 19.1eBeron of Berkeley, assum-
ingprecedence of Barons who, if writs only were recog-
nised, would certainly have been his seniors ; but
this demand was set at rest by his elevation to
the rank of Karl. William, Earl Frederick', eldest
son, also advanced his rights of tenure; but his
plea was rendered needles; by his promotion under
the new ttle of Baron Segrave. It is not, there-
fore, for the first time that the privileges Qf