Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 3.djvu/569

 CROMARTIE or CROMARTY 549 Earldom and all his other peerage dignities fell into abeyance. His widow, who was b. 21 Jan. 1856, at 23 Berkeley Sq.,w.,70ct. 1895, at St. Paul's] Knightsbridge, Reginald Frederick Cazenove, sometime Lieut. 6th Dragoon Guards, who d. s.p.., 5 Sep. 1905, at Boscombe, aged 33. She was living at North Lodge, Ascot, Berks, 19 13. VL 1895. 3. The Hon. SiBELL Lilian Mackenzie, elder of the two daughters and coheirs; b. 14 Aug. 1878, at Stafford House; became, by letters patent,('') 25 Feb. 1895, terminating the abeyance of her fiither's peerage in her favour, suo jure COUNTESS OF CRO- MARTIE, VISCOUNTESS TARBAT, BARONESS MACLEOD OF CASTLE LEOD and BARONESS CASTLEHAVEN. She m., 1 6 Dec. 1899, at St. Margaret's, Westm., Edward Walter Blunt, Major R.A. He was b. 19 May i860. [Roderick Grant Francis Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, styled Viscount Tarbat, s. and h. ap., b. 24 Oct., and bap. 2 Dec. 1904, at Adderbury Church, Oxon.] Family Estates. — The amount of acreage in Ross-shire, in 1883, under the Duke of Sutherland (with the statement in Bateman's Great Land- owners that almost all the Ross-shire estate belongs to the Duchess) was 149,999, worth £s^i9il '^ year. Principal Residence. — Castle Leod, near Dingwall. CROMER BARONY. I. Evelyn Baring, 9th s. of Henry B., being 6th s. by his 2nd wife, Cecilia Anne, da. of Vice Adm. William L 1892. Windham, of Felbrigge Hall, Norfolk, which Henry (who d. 13 Apr. 1848, aged 71) was a yr. br. of Alexander, ist Baron Ashburton. He was b. at Cromer Hall, Norfolk, 26 Feb., and bap. 13 Apr. 1 841, at Felbrigge; ed. at Woolwich, entered the Royal Artillery 1858, retiring as Major, 1879; A.D.C. to the Gov. of the Ionian islands, 1861; Private Sec. to the Viceroy of India, 1872-76; C.S.I. 7 Mar. 1876; Commissioner of the Egyptian Public Debt, 1877-79, being Comptroller {') The issue of these letters has been relied on as evidence that the doctrine of abeyance applies to Earldoms precisely as it does to Baronies, but the action of the Crown in this instance was based on a report from the Attorney Gen., not from the House of Lords : consequently the question was treated as an open one in the Earldom of Norfolk case, which was disposed of on another point. The question was again raised in the Earldom of Oxford case (19 12), but this also was disposed of on another point before the question of abeyance was reached. An elaborate argument in favour of the application of the doctrine of abeyance to Earldoms was appended to the Petitioner's Case, a counter-memorandum being prepared for the Crown by J. H. Round, who has kindly furnished this note. V.G.