Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 2.djvu/53

 52 BUCCLETJCH. [Walter Henry Montagu-Douglas-Scott, styled Earl of Dal- keith, s. and h. ap., h. 17 Janv. 1S61, in Helgrive sq. (No. 37) and hap. 4 March at Westm. Abbey, eel. at Eton and at Ch. Ch. Oxford. Well known (till ISS4 as Lord Eskdale) as a cricketer and a sportsman. He it. num. and v. p. IS Sep. 18SG, being killed by the accidental discharge of his gasa while deer-stalking in Aehnacarry forest, co. Inverness. Bur. in St. Mary's Chapel, Dalkeith.] [John Charles Montagu-Douglas-Scott, styled Earl or Dalkeith, 3d but 1st surv. s. and h. ap., 6. 30 March 1864 at Hamilton I'lace, Midi., and ban. 21 May at Westm. Abbey. Family estates. — These, which, in point of value, are by far the moat considerable in the Kingdom, consisted, in 1SS3 (besides those in tlie suburbs of London) of above 433,000 acres in Scotland, valued at above £173,000 a year, and above 23,000 acres in England, valued at above £4 1,000 a year. Total I60",10S acres valued at £217,103 a year. In Dumfriesshire are above 25*0,000 acres ; in Roxburghshire above 100.000 in Selkirkshire above 6,000 ; in Lanarkshire above fi,000 ; in Midlothian above 3.000 (valued at above £16,000 a year), A'c. [S.] ; in Northamptonshire about 18,001) acres ; in Warwickshire about 7,000 ; in Huntingdonshire above 1,000 ; in Bucks about Onu ; in Lancashire nbovtt 370 ; and in Surrey 7, those 7 being valued at £70S a year. Minerals, Sc.; valued at above £4,000, and Grantou Harbour, valued at above £10.000 a year. The estates of 3 different families have become united in this family, viz. those of the family of Scott, Dukes of Buccleueh [S.] ; of Douglas, Dukes of Queens- berry [S.] and of Montagu, Dukes of Montagu. The estates in Dumfriesshire same principally from the Douglas family of Drumlanrig ; those in England came chiefly of the greatest amount of income, as those noblemen who possess land in or near London or other great towns would come to the front. The head would certainly be (1) the Duke of Westminster, who, tho' possessing under 20,000 acres, exclusive of the property in Westminster, " owns what is commonly supposed the most valuable. London estate held by any." JVo return of the property in or near London having been made in " the Modern [1873] Domesday Book," it is difficult to arrange such proprietors in order, but (2) the Duko of BEDFORD, the owner of the valuable estate of Bloomsbury and Covent Garden, and of about S6.000 acres elsewhere (of which lasta/onc the income, calculated in 1883, was over £140,000) would not improbably lank as high in rental as the Duke of Buceleueh. The income of (3) the Earl of Derby was given [1S83] at above £ 63,000, from about 69,000 acres, " occlusive of 000 acres [near Liverpool] leased for buildings and returned in the tenants' names;" that of (4) Lord Calthoiu'E (owner of under 6,500 acres) was [18S3] above £122,000, he being " Lord of the Manor of Edgbaston the Belgravia of Birmingham " ; that of (5) the Earl of Seiton (owner of about 20,000 acres) wax [INS3] £43,000, but " this does not include building land in or close to Liverpool, the value of which is increasing." The estates of (6) the Viscount I'ortman at Marvlebone ; of (") the Marquess Camden at Kentish Town ; of (8) the Earl CadoOAN at Chelsea ; of (0) the Lord KENsrNOTON and (10) the Dow. Baroness Holland, both at Kensington ; of (11) the Marquess of Salis- bury and (12) the Marquess of Exeter, both in the neighbourhood of The Strand, West- minster ; of (13) the Earl of Radnor from property in and near Holbom, of (14) the Duke of Buccleueh, as inherited from the family of Montagu, and of many others would greatly alter the amount of rental given in the return of 1873. Again the income of such Peers as are owners of mines is greatly in excess of many who hold a much larger amount of acreage, e.ij. in 1S83, that of (]) the Earl of Dudley (about 25,000 acres) was above £123,000 ; of (2) the .Marquess of Londonderry (about 50,000 acres) above £100.000 ; of (3) tho Earl of Durham (about 30,000 acres) above £71,000 ; of Lord Penrhyn (about 50,000 acres) also (slightly) above £71,000, &c. Again, the income of some Peers possessing under 100,000 acres is, from land alone, often much greater than that of others with a larger acreage, more especially if such larger acreage is in Scotland or Ireland, c.'/.the income of the Duke of Rutland from about 70,000 acres [E.] was, in 1883, above £07,000, being about double that of the Duke of Argyll from above 175,000 acres [S.], more than three times that of Lord Lovat from above 181,000 acres [S.], more than four times that of the Duke of Mon- trose from above 103,000 acres [S.] and more than live times that of the Marquees of Sligo from above 114,000 acres [I.]