Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 1 Vol 4.djvu/394

 KINGSALE. XX, or XXI. 20 or 21. John (de CooRcr), Baron Kingsalb, &c. 10b.J. Elleu, 1st .lit. of Charles Mc Caktht Rkaoh, hy Eleanor, sister of Douogli, 1st EABL of Clancahty [I.], and da. of C'ormac Oge (Ale Cahtht), 1st Viscount Muskehuy [I.] He was a Roman Catholic. He d. of the small pox 19 May 1667, seized of the manor of Ringroue, &c. Iwj. post mortem at Kingsale, 4 Oct. 1667. XXI, or XXII. 21 or 22. Patrick (de Courcy), Baron Kingsale, &c. [I.], s. and h., aged seven years in 1667. He d. a minor and num. 1669. 1GG7. XXII, or XXIII. 22 or 23. Almericus (de Cotjbgy), Baron King- 1 pen sale, &c. [I.], br. and h-, about five years old in 1669 ; matric. lt)bt '- at Oxford.(') He had a pension of £300 a year from Charles II., continued by James II., for whom in 1690 he commanded a troop of horse and was afterwards Lieut. Col in Sarsfield's Horse. For this lie was outlawed in 1691 which sentence, however, was reversed, and he sat in Pari. [I.] 25 Oct. 1692, and again 20 May 1712. He m. 2 March 1698, at St. Martin's, Ludgate, London, Anne, da. of Robert DltlNO, of Tsleworth, Midx. He d, s.p. 9 Feb. 1719/20, and was bur. 14th in Westm. Abbey. ( b ) Will in which he styles himself " Almarick de Courcy, Baron of Kinsale and Rinrone" dat. 20 Oct. 1699 to 16 Oct. 1713, pr. 21 July 1720. His widow d. at Isleworth 25 April 1724, and was bur. 5 May in Westm. Abbey with her husband. Will dat. 21 Sep. 1 720, pr. 6 Feb. 1724/5. ( a ) Dr. Fell, Dean of Ch. Ch., in his letters 1677-78, says of him that he was " addicted to the tennis court, proof against all Latin assaults and prone to kicking, beating, and domineering over his sisters, fortified in the conceit that a title of honour was support enough, without the pedantry and trouble of book learning." See D Alton's " Irish Army List, 16S9," p. 145. ( b ) The alleged "DE COURCY PRIVILEGE" of remaining covered in the presence of Royalty was (according to Lodge) put into operation (apparently for the first time, tho' stated to have been granted about 500 years previously) by this Peer. Four subsequent instances of this exhibition are recorded, the total number, apparently, of the performances being five, as below, viz. (1) Almericus, Lord Kingsale [1669 — 1720] " by walking to and fro with his hat on his head " in tho presence chamber of William III. (no exact date is given to this exploit) is said to have attracted that kiDg's attention, to whom he explained his conduct by stating that he did so to assert the ancient privilege of his family, " granted to John de Courci, Earl of Ulster, and his heirs, by John, King of England." (2) His successor, Gerald, Lord Kingsale [1720—1759] executed the like chivalrous movement, 19 Juno 1720, before George L, and again (3) on 22 June 1727, before George II. (4) The next peer in succession, John, Lord Kingsale, [1759 — 1778], performed the (now fast becoming celebrated) "hat trick," 15 September 1762, before George III.; and that, too, notwithstanding the prophecy of George Montagu, in a letter to Horace Walpole, dated 6 February, in the same year, that " our peers need not fear him assuming his privilege of being covered, for, till the King gives him a pension, he cannot buy the offensive Hat." See ' Eighth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical MSS.' (18S1) second appendix, p. 115 ; and see alBO Archdall's edition of Lodge's 'Peerage of Ireland ' (1789), vol. vi, p. 156, Sic. After the lapse of about a century (during which period we hear [N. and Q., 6th S. xii. 336] of the premeditated omission of this ceremony before George IV. when in Ireland in 1821) one is somewhat surprised to find it reproduced (5), 25 June 1859, before the Queen, though apparently without notice, inasmuch as such notice, in these days of more accurate investigation as to the " hat-right " of these Lords, would probably have been fatal to its performance. The exhibitor of this date was the great- great-grandson, and the fourth peer in succession, to the (once hatless) "Hatter" of 1762. Passing over the statement that the alleged grantee was (which he was not) Earl of Ulster, the matter of this questionable " right " would be greatly elucidated if answers could be furnished to the following queries, vh. (1), Is there any trustworthy