Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/489

 PEERAGE 467 .11 Of )ll (li- of Lords had been for centuries a chamber consisting of hereditary councillors of the crown,&quot; and that &quot; the crown could not change its constitution by admitting a life-peer to a seat in parliament.&quot; Three pages further on he found out that the House of Lords contained other members whose seats were not &quot;hereditary&quot; in the modern sense, and we can hardly think that he used that word in its ancient meaning. The crown yielded to the pretensions of the lords ; Lord Wensleydale received a fresh creation by a patent extending to his imaginary heirs, and it is to be presumed that he was thereby &quot;ennobled in blood&quot; to the satisfaction of those with whom he had to sit. While the question of life-peerage was left in abeyance, the official peerages referred to at the beginning of this article were created by an act of 1876. These are the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, paid officers who hold their office, like other judges, during good behaviour, who are lords of parliament, with a right to a writ of summons to sit and vote so long as they hold office, and who rank for life as barons with such titles as the crown may appoint. In the case therefore of the resignation or removal from office of a lord of appeal we should have the non- parliamentary baron revived. Whether in such a case he would be entitled to be tried in the king s court in parliament does not appear. Nor does the Act rule whether the lord so created is a peer, either while he is a lord of parliament or after he ceases to be such. The doctrine of &quot; ennobling of blood &quot; would seem to imply that, as his title is not hereditary, he is not a peer. It would follow then that a lord of appeal who has resigned or has been removed, though &quot; entitled to rank as a baron for life,&quot; is a baron who is neither a peer nor a lord of parliament. A peerage, by the decisions of 1G40 and 1678 (Lords Report, ii. 25, 49) cannot be either surrendered to the crown or alienated to any other person. It can be for feited only by attainder or by Act of Parliament. Of this last process there seems to be only one case, that of George Neville, duke of Bedford, degraded by parliament in the reign of Edward IV., as not being wealthy enough to support his dignity. This of course, like attainder by Act of Parliament, comes under the general principle that parliament may do anything. It is further held (Historic Peerage, Ixviii.) that, while an attainder for high treason extinguishes a peerage of any kind, an attainder for felony only extinguishes a peerage by writ, but not a peerage by patent. A peeress in her own right by descent or creation has all the privileges of a peer, except that of sitting in parliament, which is suspended while the peerage is held by a female, but revives when it passes to a male heir. The wife or widow of a peer, not being a peeress in her own right, has also the same privileges ; but she loses them if she marries a commoner. By social usage she keeps her title, but, if charged with treason or felony, she is tried by a jury and not by the lords. If a peerage which passes to heirs-general, like the ancient baronies by writ, is held by a man who leaves no son, but more than one daughter, the peerage goes into abeyance ; that is, it is held by no one till the abeyance is terminated. If there comes to be only one person representing the claims of all the sisters, he can claim the termination of the abeyance as a matter of right. The crown also can terminate it at any moment in favour of any of the persons between whom it is in abeyance, that is, in favour of the representative of any of the sisters. It is by this transmission through females that the ancient baronies have mainly lived on, often overshadowed by higher but more modern titles. Those peers who can show a direct succession in the male line from 1295 are few indeed. By female succession also the titles of these and other ancient baronies have in most cases got parted from the original surnames of the holders. This seems to have led to the practice, which of late has been rather the rule than the exception, of creating peers with fancy titles, often very strange ones, sometimes neither their own surnames nor the name of any place with which they have anything to do. Yet, by a survival of the ancient notion of barony, the baron is always created Lord A of B (per haps more strictly Lord A, Baron of B), though the place named is by no means always his own manor. The earl of course could originally be only the earl of a shire the name of the shire and of the shire-town being often used indifferently. But, as the order of earls became more numerous, and as the official character of the earldom was quite forgotten, men were made earls of places of all kinds, and in modern times a surname has often been the title of both earls and marquesses. It is needless to say that the titles of marquesses, when territorial, have had no necessary reference to the original meaning of the title, as keeper of a march. The titles of dukedoms seem always to have been territorial, unless in the singular case of &quot;Duchess Dudley&quot; in the reign of Charles I. Dudley was the lady s surname ; she does not seem to have been in any sense duchess of the town of Dudley. Clarendon always talks of &quot; Duke Hamilton &quot; ; but here the surname is taken from a place. Viscounts take their titles both from names and places; but the viscount who has a territorial title is never spoken of as viscount of A, as the duke is always, and the marquess and the earl in language which is at all formal. Children of peers have a definite precedence and an Position elaborate system of courtesy titles and epithets which of. perplexes foreigners and sometimes natives. The eldest clul&amp;lt;lren son of a peer ranks immediately after peers of the rank next below that of his father ; the younger sons rank after peers of the next degree below that. Thus a duke s eldest son ranks next after marquesses ; a marquess s eldest son ranks next after earls, and a duke s younger son next after eldest sons of marquesses. The precedence of daughters follows the general principle, the principle implied in the doctrine of abeyance, that all daughters rank with the eldest son. Then again the eldest sons of dukes, mar quesses, and earls bear by courtesy the second title of their fathers, and the eldest sons of the eldest sons of dukes and marquesses bear what may be called the grand father s third title. All these, though called by a title of peerage, are, as we have already had need to insist, legally commoners ; but the eldest sons of peers have been not uncommonly summoned to the House of Lords by the title of some barony held by their fathers. Their pre cedence is in no Avay affected by the title which they may happen to bear. The eldest son of a duke always ranks next after -marquesses, Avhether his courtesy title, that is the second title of his father, is marquess or baron. The younger sons of dukes and marquesses bear the courtesy title of Lord with the Christian and surname, and, on the principle which regulates the precedence of daughters, the title of Lady extends to the daughters of earls as well as to those of dukes and marquesses. The daughter of a peer married to a commoner keeps her rank ; but, if she marries a peer, she takes the rank of her husband, whether that be higher or lower than the rank which she has by birth. In all these matters the substantial privileges of the peerage and its mere honorary titles and precedence are often at curious cross purposes with one another. All sons of peers are esquires of right. By courtesy all children of peers who do not bear any higher title are entitled to the conventional epithet of &quot;honour able &quot; ; &quot; noble &quot; they are not in any, even conventional, sense. The style formerly was, with perfect correctness, &quot;Hon. A B, Esq.&quot; The &quot;Esq.&quot; is now left out; it is not easy to see why.