The Washington herald., 1907-08-18
Few Names in the Peernge Can Be
Traced Back to the Eleventh Gem
tury-Premier baron Dates TO the
Reign of Henry IH-NOrthumber.
lands Record the Longest.

UAltt AtVutAMs anu " AAV A4ANDhoA1NA aDA'
extent brand new.
There Is no peerage in existence which
Is representative Of any baron who sat
In the Grand Council of William the Con-
queror or his successors. There must be
an end OF names and dignIties and what
soever is terrene." said Lord Chief JUS
tice Crewe nearly three centuries since.
And why not of de We're? For where is
Behun? Where's Mowbray? Where's
Mortimer? Nay. which Is more ana most
Of all, where is Plantaganet?' With the
forgotten and unrepresented dead.
E. A. Freeman, an industrious and
careful student OF such matters, was
wont to contend that no pedigree could
be trusted II II went back further than
the eleventh century. There is no peer
age which goes back so far. The oldest
is that OF Lord de Ros. who Is the pre-
mier baron OF England. It dates from
1854; that is 10 say, from the reign OF
Henry III. But the present bearer Of
the title is not a de Ros, though that has
been assumed as the family name. The
baT0ny was in allegiance from 1851 TO
1906. The present peer is one OF the Ger
aldines He is descended from Lord Hen
~ Fitzgerald. the brother OF the unfor
tunate Lord Edward. and is, therefore,
related in different degrees TO the Duke
OF Leinster and Mr.. George Wyndham.
The Longest Pedigree.
Almost the longest pedigree in Burke is
that of the Duke Of Northumberland. II
carries the family back on one side to
Manfred, a Danish chieftain. one OF the
companions OF Role and on the other to
.Charlemagne. Hardly anything could be
much more illustrious. But there never
was a Percy in Northumberland, and the
actual family name OF the present duke IS
Smithson. The earldOm OF Northumber-
land dates from the reign Of George II.
and the dukedom dates only from the
reign OF George III
There were previous Easls Of Northum-
berland. famous IN history, but they were
not OF the Percy or Smithson stock,
though TO say this IS not according 10
Cocker" otherwise Burke. At the time
Of the agitation for the first reform bill
il was said with perfect truth that the
antiquity Of the families OF the existing
peeragg Is a farce The HeTalds' College
and the Alienation Office are the man
ayers OF this noble melodrama- When
line becomes extinct by some trick Of
marriage or by some Interpretation Of
patent A trap door is struck, and out
comes a representative Of the Marches or
the Mowbrays.
ITO such an extent Is this carried that
the same family name is changed almost
every year In the peerage, and some peers
do not know their own names. For in
stance. Lord Oriel wished to vote against
the reform bill His real name is Foster
He signed his proxy Ferrard. He ought
to have written Skeffngton. There was
one vote less against the people"
There is only one existing peerage as
old as the reign Of Henry III. There are
four dating back 20 that Of Edward l.
The only peerage OF the reign OF Edward
III Is that OF Baron Courtenay, now rep
resented by the Earl Of Devon. There
survive one peerage from the reign Of
Henry VII. that Of Willoughby de Broke;
and two from the reign OF Edward VI.
that Of Baron Paget. now Marquis Of
AngIesev. and that of Baron Herbert.
now Earl Of Pembroke. Among Mary 5
peerages only that Of the Earl OF Guild
ford. formerly Baron North, nov sur
wives. There are more survivals from the
re!gns Of Elizabeth, James I, and Charles
l and IL Il was James l who was the
earliest of our kings to put peerages up
TO sale. He also had the happy thought
OF inventing the baronetage for the same
| financial reasons.
Lords Are Modern.
How modern an institution the House of
| Lords is in its present constitution will
be clearly seen from what follows. When
Elizabeth assembled the throne there were.
exclusive OF the Bishops, rather more
/ than thirty peers. OF the members Of the
/ House OF Lords in the reign OF Charles I
! the Earl Of Clarendon says, despite the
numerous recent creations: They were
| few in number. and used to adjourn for
/ two or three days together for want Of
business" Yet Charles father had Gre
ated sixty-two peerages, more than double
/ the number in existence at the time of
| his accession.
Charles I created thirty. and Charles il
| eighty-seven. At the death OF William III
there were 1872 peers. Under Anne the
number arose to 209, under George l TO
PIG, and under George II to 229. And then
came the deluge. The lords had them
selves anticipated 1t at the Hanover
ian succession. They then resolved that
their number should thenceforward be
limited, and that the crown should be de-
prived of its prerogative to make new
creations. But this resolution was passed
over without serious notice, Il not without
remark. Probably George I would not
have understood IL even If It had been
translated to him, and under George II q
peerage was Walpole's highest pride.
1t is to George III. however, that We
| owe a most disprOpOrtionate share OF ouI
existing peerage Simon de Mortfort sum.
| moned twenty-three temporal peers to HIS
memorable Parliament. George III ere
ated 22l. William Pitt, said a contempo-
rary. made them out OF "second-ratt
squires and fat grazlers. caught them II
the alleys Of Lombard street and clutche6
them from the counting houses of Corn.
hill"
There were representatives of las o.
George rs peers in the House Of Lords Al
the time of the first reform bill, and tn.
bulk Of them, of course, voted agains
that measure.
George Tvs Creations.
The creations Of George " numbered
sixty-four, and those of William " mum.
bered forty. When Queen Victoria hat
been twelve years on the throne there
were AS peers. In a little over twenty
years the number had passed the FIVE
hundredth milestone and now-thost
who talk Of a conference between the
two houses may like TO know-the mum
Der is so great and the Tory preponder.
ance is so heavy that a conference would
place Mr.. Balfour in a majority, ever
with House Of Commons like the
| present
The hereditary peerage is like the eabi
net. 1t has grown UP outside the law
There Is nothing in the constitution con
ferring on the holder of a peerage tn,
right to SIT in Parliament and take par