BARONETAGE
Last updated 30/10/2018 (4 Oct 2025)
Date	Type	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
Names of baronets shown in blue have not yet been placed on the Official Roll of the Baronetage.
Dates in italics in the "Born" column indicate that the baronet was baptised on that date; dates in italics in the "Died" column indicate that the baronet was buried on that date.
MALET of Wilbury
24 Feb 1791	GB	1	Charles Warre Malet	30 Dec 1752	24 Jan 1815	62
24 Jan 1815		2	Alexander Malet	23 Jul 1800	28 Nov 1886	86
28 Nov 1886		3	Henry Charles Eden Malet	25 Sep 1835	16 Jan 1904	68
16 Jan 1904		4	Edward Baldwin Malet PC 1885	10 Oct 1837	29 Jun 1908	70
29 Jun 1908		5	Edward St. Lo Malet	4 Sep 1872	24 Dec 1909	37
24 Dec 1909		6	Charles St. Lo Malet	1 Nov 1906	21 Nov 1918	12
21 Nov 1918		7	Harry Charles Malet	21 Sep 1873	14 Oct 1931	58
14 Oct 1931		8	Edward William St. Lo Malet	27 Nov 1908	9 Oct 1990	81
9 Oct 1990		9	Harry Douglas St. Lo Malet	26 Oct 1936
MALLABY-DEELEY of Mitcham Court, Surrey
28 Jun 1922	UK	1	Harry Deeley Mallaby‑Deeley MP for Harrow 1910‑1918 and Willesden East 1918‑1922	27 Oct 1863	4 Feb 1937	73
4 Feb 1937		2	Guy Meyrick Mallaby Mallaby‑Deeley	23 May 1897	21 Jan 1946	48
21 Jan 1946 to     1 Dec 1962		3	Anthony Meyrick Mallaby‑Deeley Extinct on his death	30 May 1923	1 Dec 1962	39
MALLINSON of Walthamstow, Surrey
6 Jul 1935	UK	1	William Mallinson	6 Jul 1854	5 May 1936	81
5 May 1936		2	William James Mallinson	25 Jul 1879	26 Feb 1944	64
26 Feb 1944		3	William Paul Mallinson	6 Jul 1909	18 Mar 1989	79
18 Mar 1989		4	William John Mallinson	8 Oct 1942	17 Nov 1995	53
17 Nov 1995		5	William James Mallinson	22 Apr 1970
MANDER of The Mount, Staffs
8 Jul 1911	UK	1	Charles Tertius Mander	16 Jul 1852	8 Apr 1929	76
8 Apr 1929		2	Charles Arthur Mander	25 Jun 1884	25 Jan 1951	66
25 Jan 1951		3	Charles Marcus Mander	22 Sep 1921	9 Aug 2006	84
9 Aug 2006		4	Charles Nicholas Mander	23 Mar 1950
MANN of Linton Hall, Kent
3 Mar 1755	GB	1	Horace Mann	c 1701	6 Nov 1786
6 Nov 1786 to     2 Apr 1814		2	Horatio Mann MP for Maidstone 1774‑1784 and Sandwich 1790‑1807 Extinct on his death	2 Feb 1744	2 Apr 1814	70
MANN of Thelveton Hall, Norfolk
29 Dec 1905	UK	1	Edward Mann	2 Mar 1854	29 Sep 1943	89
29 Sep 1943		2	Edward John Mann	26 Jan 1883	17 Sep 1971	88
17 Sep 1971		3	Rupert Edward Mann	11 Nov 1946
MANNINGHAM-BULLER of Dilhorne Hall, Staffs
20 Jan 1866	UK	1	Edward Manningham-Buller MP for Staffordshire North 1833‑1841 and 1865‑1874, and Stafford 1841‑1847	19 Jul 1800	22 Sep 1882	82
22 Sep 1882		2	Morton Edward Manningham-Buller	31 May 1825	27 Apr 1910	84
27 Apr 1910		3	Mervyn Edward Manningham-Buller MP for Kettering 1924‑1929 and Northampton 1931‑1940	16 Jan 1876	22 Aug 1956	80
22 Aug 1956		4	Reginald Edward Manningham-Buller He was subsequently created Viscount Dilhorne in 1964 with which title the baronetcy then merged	1 Aug 1905	7 Sep 1980	75
MANNIX of Richmond, Cork
4 Sep 1787 to     Nov 1822	I	1	Henry Mannix Extinct on his death	1740	Nov 1822	82
MANNOCK of Giffords Hall, Suffolk
1 Jun 1627	E	1	Francis Mannock		20 Nov 1634
20 Nov 1634		2	Francis Mannock		26 Apr 1687
26 Apr 1687		3	William Mannock		26 Jan 1714
26 Jan 1714		4	Francis Mannock	20 Jan 1675	27 Aug 1758	83
27 Aug 1758		5	William Mannock		16 Mar 1764
16 Mar 1764		6	William Anthony Mannock	28 May 1759	24 Mar 1776	16
24 Mar 1776		7	Francis Mannock	17 Sep 1710	17 Sep 1778	68
17 Sep 1778		8	Thomas Mannock		2 Sep 1781
2 Sep 1781 to     3 Jun 1787		9	George Mannock Extinct on his death		3 Jun 1787
MANSEL of Margam, Glamorgan
22 May 1611	E	1	Thomas Mansel		20 Dec 1631
20 Dec 1631		2	Lewis Mansel	c 1594	4 Apr 1638
4 Apr 1638		3	Henry Mansel	c 1629	c 1640
c 1640		4	Edward Mansel MP for Glamorganshire 1660, 1670‑1679 and 1681‑1689	c Oct 1637	17 Nov 1706	69
17 Nov 1706		5	Thomas Mansel He was subsequently created Baron Mansell in 1712 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1750	9 Nov 1667	10 Dec 1723	56
MANSEL of Muddlescombe, Carmarthen
14 Jan 1622	E	1	Francis Mansel		c 1628
c 1628		2	Walter Mansel	c 1588	12 Apr 1640
Apr 1640		3	Francis Mansel		c 1650
c 1650		4	Edward Mansel		c 1680
c 1680		5	Richard Mansel	6 Jan 1641	28 Aug 1691	50
Aug 1691		6	Richard Mansel For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of this page		c 1700
c 1700		7	William Mansel	15 Mar 1670	c 1732
c 1732		8	Richard Mansel		20 Feb 1749
Feb 1749		9	William Mansel MP for Carmarthenshire 1784‑1790	1 Mar 1739	14 Jan 1804	64
Jan 1804		10	William Mansel	29 Apr 1766	20 May 1829	63
20 May 1829		11	John Bell William Mansel	5 Oct 1806	14 Apr 1883	76
14 Apr 1883		12a	Richard Mansel	2 Dec 1850	2 Jun 1892	41
Feb 1903		12b	Edward Berkeley Mansel	2 Feb 1839	8 Jan 1908	68
2 Jun 1892 8 Jan 1908		13	Courtenay Cecil Mansel MP for Penryn & Falmouth 1923‑1924 For further information regarding the succession of this baronetcy, see the note at the foot of this page	25 Feb 1880	4 Jan 1933	52
4 Jan 1933		14	John Philip Ferdinand Mansel	22 Aug 1910	6 Apr 1947	36
6 Apr 1947		15	Philip Mansel	3 Mar 1943
MANSEL of Trimsaran, Carmarthen
22 Feb 1697	E	1	Edward Mansel		19 Feb 1720
19 Feb 1720		2	Edward Mansel		4 Nov 1754
4 Nov 1754		3	Edward Vaughan Mansel		Jan 1788
Jan 1788 to     6 Apr 1798		4	Edward Joseph Shewen Mansel Extinct on his death		6 Apr 1798
MAPLE of Childwick Bury, Herts
30 Aug 1897 to     24 Nov 1903	UK	1	Sir John Blundell Maple MP for Dulwich 1887‑1903 Extinct on his death For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of this page	1 Mar 1845	24 Nov 1903	58
MAPLES of Stow, Hunts
30 May 1627	E	1	Thomas Maples		13 Feb 1635
13 Feb 1635 to     before 1655		2	Thomas Maples Extinct on his death		before 1655
MAPPIN of Thornbury, Yorks
27 Aug 1886	UK	1	Frederick Thorpe Mappin MP for East Retford 1880‑1885 and Hallamshire 1885‑1906	16 May 1821	19 Mar 1910	88
19 Mar 1910		2	Frank Mappin	6 Sep 1846	30 May 1920	73
30 May 1920		3	Wilson Mappin	14 Jan 1848	8 Jun 1925	77
8 Jun 1925		4	Charles Thomas Hewitt Mappin	7 Mar 1909	8 Nov 1941	32
8 Nov 1941		5	Samuel Wilson Mappin	20 Oct 1854	12 Dec 1942	88
12 Dec 1942 to     25 Jan 1975		6	Frank Crossley Mappin Extinct on his death	15 Aug 1884	25 Jan 1975	90
MARJORIBANKS of Lees, Berwick
6 May 1815	UK	1	John Marjoribanks MP for Buteshire 1812‑1818 and Berwickshire 1818‑1826	13 Jan 1763	5 Feb 1833	70
5 Feb 1833		2	William Marjoribanks	15 Dec 1792	22 Sep 1834	41
22 Sep 1834		3	John Marjoribanks	4 May 1830	18 Nov 1884	54
18 Nov 1884 to     22 Feb 1888		4	William Marjoribanks Extinct on his death	9 Mar 1832	22 Feb 1888	55
MARJORIBANKS of Guisachan, Beauly, Inverness
25 Jul 1866	UK	1	Dudley Coutts Marjoribanks He was subsequently created Baron Tweedmouth in 1881 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1935	29 Dec 1820	4 Mar 1894	73
MARKHAM of Sedgebroke, Lincs
15 Aug 1642	E	1	Robert Markham	1597	2 Feb 1667	69
2 Feb 1667		2	Robert Markham MP for Grantham 1678‑1679 and Newark 1679‑1685	1644	27 Oct 1690	46
27 Oct 1690		3	George Markham MP for Newark 1695‑1698 and 1701	27 May 1666	9 Jun 1736	70
9 Jun 1736 to     1779		4	James John Markham Extinct on his death	1693	1779	86
MARKHAM of Beachborough Park, Kent
10 Jul 1911	UK	1	Arthur Basil Markham MP for Mansfield 1900‑1916	25 Aug 1866	7 Aug 1916	49
7 Aug 1916		2	Charles Markham	28 Aug 1899	7 Sep 1952	53
7 Sep 1952		3	Charles John Markham	2 Jul 1924	5 Jun 2006	81
5 Jun 2006		4	Arthur David Markham	6 Dec 1950
MARLING of Stanley Park and Sedbury Park, Gloucs
22 May 1882	UK	1	Samuel Stephens Marling MP for Gloucestershire West 1868‑1874 and Stroud 1875‑1880	10 Apr 1810	22 Oct 1883	73
22 Oct 1883		2	William Henry Marling	1 Jul 1835	19 Oct 1919	84
19 Oct 1919		3	Percival Scrope Marling VC For further information on this baronet and VC winner, see the note at the foot of this page	6 Mar 1861	29 May 1936	75
29 Mar 1936		4	John Stanley Vincent Marling	26 Jul 1910	20 Sep 1977	67
20 Sep 1977		5	Charles William Somerset Marling	2 Jun 1951
MAROW of Berkswell, Warwicks
16 Jul 1679 to     c 1690	E	1	Samuel Marow Extinct on his death	c 1652	c 1690
MARR of Sunderland, Durham
12 May 1919	UK	1	James Marr	9 Sep 1854	24 Nov 1932	78
24 Nov 1932		2	Leslie Lynn Marr	14 Aug 1922	4 May 2021	98
4 May 2021		3	Allan James William Marr	8 Oct 1965
MARRIOTT of Sydling St Nicholas, Dorset
1 Jun 1774	GB		See "Smith-Marriott"
MARSDEN of Grimsby, Lincs
4 Mar 1924	UK	1	John Denton Marsden	9 Nov 1873	26 Apr 1944	70
26 Apr 1944		2	John Denton Marsden	25 Aug 1913	22 Jul 1985	71
22 Jul 1985		3	Nigel John Denton Marsden	26 May 1940	16 Nov 1997	57
16 Nov 1997		4	Simon Neville Llewelyn Marsden	1 Dec 1948	22 Jan 2012	63
22 Jan 2012		5	Tadgh Orlando Denton Marsden	25 Dec 1990
MARSH of Dublin
1839 to     1 Dec 1860	UK	1	Henry Marsh Extinct on his death	1790	1 Dec 1860	70
MARSHALL
21 May 1658	NS	1	William Marshall	c 1602	Aug 1658
Aug 1658		2	George Marshall		c 1710
c 1710		3	William Marshall		1772
1772 to     1816		4	Charles Marshall Extinct on his death		1816
MARSHAM of Cuckston, Kent
16 Aug 1663	E	1	John Marsham MP for Rochester 1660‑1661	23 Aug 1602	25 May 1685	82
25 May 1685		2	John Marsham	15 Sep 1637	31 Dec 1692	55
31 Dec 1692		3	John Marsham	12 Oct 1679	13 May 1696	16
13 May 1696		4	Robert Marsham MP for Maidstone 1698‑1702	16 Dec 1650	25 Jul 1703	52
25 Jul 1703		5	Robert Marsham He was subsequently created Baron Romney in 1716 with which title the baronetcy remains merged	17 Sep 1685	28 Nov 1724	39
MARTIN of Long Melford, Suffolk
28 Mar 1667	E	1	Roger Martin	1639	8 Jul 1712	73
8 Jul 1712		2	Roger Martin	1667	3 Mar 1742	74
3 Mar 1742		3	Roger Martin	1689	4 Jun 1762	72
4 Jun 1762		4	Mordaunt Martin	1740	24 Sep 1815	75
24 Sep 1815 to     16 Dec 1854		5	Roger Martin Extinct on his death	22 Feb 1778	16 Dec 1854	76
MARTIN of Lockynge, Berks
28 Jul 1791	GB	1	Henry Martin MP for Southampton 1790‑1794	28 Aug 1733	1 Aug 1794	60
1 Aug 1794		2	Henry William Martin	20 Dec 1768	3 Feb 1842	73
3 Feb 1842		3	Henry Martin	3 Oct 1801	4 Dec 1863	62
4 Dec 1863		4	William Fanshawe Martin	5 Dec 1801	24 Mar 1895	93
24 Mar 1895 to     21 Feb 1910		5	Richard Byam Martin Extinct on his death	28 Apr 1841	21 Feb 1910	68
MARTIN of Cappagh, Dublin
2 Jun 1885 to     18 Oct 1901	UK	1	Richard Martin PC [I] 1896 Extinct on his death	17 Mar 1831	18 Oct 1901	70
MARTIN of Overbury Court, Gloucs
12 Dec 1905 to     23 Aug 1916	UK	1	Richard Biddulph Martin MP for Tewkesbury 1880‑1885 and Droitwich 1892‑1906 Extinct on his death	12 May 1838	23 Aug 1916	78
MARWOOD of Little Bushby, Yorks
31 Dec 1660	E	1	George Marwood MP for Malton 1659 and Northallerton 1660‑1661	28 Apr 1601	19 Feb 1680	78
19 Feb 1680		2	Henry Marwood MP for Northallerton 1685‑1689	c 1635	1 Nov 1725
1 Nov 1725		3	Samuel Marwood	c 1672	31 Oct 1739
Oct 1739 to     23 Feb 1740		4	William Marwood Extinct on his death	c 1681	23 Feb 1740
MARWOOD-ELTON of Widworthy Court, Devon
1 Aug 1838 to     18 Apr 1884	UK	1	Edward Marwood-Elton Extinct on his death For information on a possible claimant to this baronetcy, who was convicted of a sensational Australian murder, see the note at the foot of this paqe	1801	18 Apr 1884	82
MARYON-WILSON of Eastbourne, Sussex
4 Mar 1661	E	1	William Wilson	c 1608	9 Dec 1685
9 Dec 1685		2	William Wilson	c 1644	26 Dec 1718
26 Dec 1718		3	William Wilson	c 1704	23 Jan 1724
23 Jan 1724		4	Thomas Wilson	c 1682	6 Oct 1759
6 Oct 1759		5	Edward Wilson	c 1725	24 Jun 1760
24 Jun 1760		6	Thomas Spencer Wilson MP for Sussex 1774‑1780	25 Jan 1727	29 Aug 1798	71
29 Aug 1798		7	Thomas Maryon Wilson	c 1773	22 Jul 1821
22 Jul 1821		8	Thomas Maryon Wilson	14 Apr 1800	4 May 1869	69
4 May 1869		9	John Maryon Wilson	12 Dec 1802	11 May 1876	73
11 May 1876		10	Spencer Maryon Wilson	4 Dec 1829	31 Dec 1897	68
31 Dec 1897		11	Spencer Pocklington Maryon Wilson (Maryon‑Wilson from 1899) For further information, see the note at the foot of this page	19 Jul 1859	12 May 1944	84
12 May 1944		12	George Percy Maryon Maryon‑Wilson	22 Feb 1898	10 Jul 1965	67
10 Jul 1965 to     13 Sep 1978		13	Hubert Guy Maryon Maryon‑Wilson Extinct on his death	27 Jul 1888	13 Sep 1978	90
MASHAM of High Lever, Essex
20 Dec 1621	E	1	William Masham MP for Maldon 1624‑1626, Colchester 1628‑1629 and 1640 and Essex 1640‑1653 and 1654‑1655	c 1592	c 1656
c 1656		2	William Masham		c 1663
c 1663		3	Francis Masham MP for Essex 1690‑1698 and 1701‑1710	c 1646	7 Feb 1723
7 Feb 1723		4	Samuel Masham He had previously been created Baron Masham of Otes in 1712 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1776	c 1679	16 Oct 1758
MASON of Compton Pauncefoot, Somerset
3 Jul 1918	UK	1	William James Peake Mason He was subsequently created Baron Blackford in 1935 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1988	11 Nov 1862	21 Jul 1947	84
MASSEY of Donass, Clare
9 Mar 1782	I	1	Hugh Dillon Massey MP [I] for Clare County 1783‑1790	c 1740	29 Apr 1807
29 Apr 1807		2	Hugh Dillon Massey MP [I] for Clare County 1797‑1800; MP for co. Clare 1801‑1802	9 Nov 1767	28 Mar 1842	74
28 Mar 1842 to     29 Oct 1870		3	Hugh Dillon Massey Extinct on his death	6 Jan 1797	29 Oct 1870	73
MASSINGBERD of Braytoft Hall, Lincs
22 Aug 1660	E	1	Henry Massingberd	26 Aug 1609	Sep 1680	71
Sep 1680		2	William Massingberd For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of this page	23 Jan 1650	1719	69
1719 to     1 Dec 1723		3	William Massingberd MP for Lincolnshire 1721‑1723 Extinct on his death	25 Sep 1677	1 Dec 1723	46
MATHER-JACKSON of Birkenhead, Lancs
4 Nov 1869	UK		See "Jackson"
MATHESON of The Lews, Ross and Achany, Sutherland
c Dec 1850 to     31 Dec 1878	UK	1	James Matheson MP for Ashburton 1843‑1847 and Ross & Cromarty 1847‑1868; Lord Lieutenant Ross & Cromarty 1866‑1878 Extinct on his death	17 Oct 1796	31 Dec 1878	82
MATHESON of Lochalsh, Ross
15 May 1882	UK	1	Alexander Matheson MP for Inverness Burghs 1847‑1868 and Ross & Cromarty 1868‑1884	16 Jan 1805	27 Jul 1886	81
27 Jul 1886		2	Kenneth James Matheson	12 May 1854	25 Jan 1920	65
25 Jan 1920		3	Alexander Perceval Matheson	6 Feb 1861	6 Aug 1929	68
6 Aug 1929		4	Roderick Mackenzie Chisholm Matheson	26 Dec 1861	24 Jul 1944	82
24 Jul 1944		5	Torquhil George Matheson	4 Feb 1871	13 Nov 1963	92
13 Nov 1963		6	Torquhil Alexander Matheson	15 Aug 1925	9 Apr 1993	67
9 Apr 1993		7	Fergus John Matheson	22 Feb 1927	27 Jan 2017	89
27 Jan 2017		8	Alexander Fergus Matheson	26 Aug 1954
MATHEWS of London
14 Feb 1917 to     6 Jan 1920	UK	1	Sir Charles William Mathews Extinct on his death	16 Oct 1850	6 Jan 1920	69
MATHIAS of Vaendre Hall, Monmouth
28 Jun 1917	UK	1	Sir Richard Mathias MP for Cheltenham 1910‑1911	1 Jun 1863	26 Oct 1942	79
26 Oct 1942 to     4 Jan 1991		2	Richard Hughes Mathias Extinct on his death	6 Apr 1905	4 Jan 1991	85
MATTHEWS of Gobions, Essex
15 Jun 1662	E	1	Philip Matthews	c 1642	7 Dec 1685
Dec 1685 to     11 Jul 1708		2	John Matthews Extinct on his death		11 Jul 1708
MAUDE of Dundrum, co. Tipperary
9 May 1705	I	1	Robert Maude MP [I] for Gowran 1703‑1713, St. Canice 1713‑1727 and Bangor 1727‑1750	1677	4 Aug 1750	73
4 Aug 1750		2	Thomas Maude, later [1776] 1st Baron de Montalt MP [I] for Tipperary County 1761‑1776; PC [I] 1768	1726	17 May 1777	50
17 May 1777		3	Cornwallis Maude He was subsequently created Viscount Hawarden in 1791 with which title the baronetcy remains merged	19 Sep 1729	23 Aug 1803	73
MAULEVERER of Allerton, Yorks
4 Aug 1641	E	1	Thomas Mauleverer MP for Boroughbridge 1640‑1653	9 Apr 1599	c Jun 1655	56
c Jun 1655		2	Richard Mauleverer MP for Boroughbridge 1661‑1675	c 1623	25 Jul 1675
Jul 1675		3	Thomas Mauleverer MP for Boroughbridge 1679‑1689	c 1643	13 Aug 1687
Aug 1687		4	Richard Mauleverer		11 May 1689
May 1689 to     27 Mar 1713		5	Richard Mauleverer Extinct on his death	18 Mar 1689	27 Mar 1713	24
MAWBEY of Botleys, Surrey
30 Jul 1765	GB	1	Joseph Mawbey MP for Southwark 1761‑1774 and Surrey 1775‑1790	2 Dec 1730	16 Jun 1798	67
16 Jun 1798 to     28 Aug 1817		2	Joseph Mawbey Extinct on his death	c 1770	28 Aug 1817
MAXWELL of Calderwood, Lanark
28 Mar 1627	NS	1	James Maxwell		c 1670
c 1670		2	William Maxwell	c 1640	30 Apr 1703
30 Apr 1703		3	William Maxwell		before 1716
before 1716		4	William Maxwell		1750
1750		5	William Maxwell		2 Jan 1789
2 Jan 1789		6	William Maxwell	7 Jan 1748	12 Aug 1829	81
12 Aug 1829		7	William Maxwell	4 Dec 1754	16 Mar 1837	82
16 Mar 1837		8	William Alexander Maxwell	30 Apr 1793	4 Apr 1865	71
4 Apr 1865		9	Hugh Bates Maxwell	14 Feb 1797	9 Feb 1870	72
9 Feb 1870		10	William Maxwell	11 Aug 1828	4 Dec 1885	57
4 Dec 1885		11	James Pierce Maxwell He had previously succeeded to the Barony of Farnham in 1884 with which title the baronetcy remains merged	1813	26 Oct 1896	83
MAXWELL of Pollock, Renfrew
25 Nov 1630 to     1 Nov 1647	NS	1	John Maxwell On his death the baronetcy became either extinct or dormant	c 1583	1 Nov 1647
MAXWELL of Orchardtoun, Kirkcudbright
30 Jun 1663	NS	1	Robert Maxwell		by Oct 1681
by Oct 1681		2	Robert Maxwell		24 Jan 1693
24 Jan 1693		3	George Maxwell		1719
1719		4	Robert Maxwell		1729
1729		5	George Maxwell		28 Dec 1746
28 Dec 1746		6	Thomas Maxwell		3 Feb 1761
3 Feb 1761 to     21 Sep 1786		7	Robert Maxwell On his death the baronetcy became dormant		21 Sep 1786
MAXWELL of Monreith, Wigtown
8 Jan 1681	NS	1	William Maxwell	c 1635	Apr 1709
Apr 1709		2	Alexander Maxwell MP for Wigtown 1713‑1715		23 May 1730
23 May 1730		3	William Maxwell	c 1715	22 Aug 1771
22 Aug 1771		4	William Maxwell		Feb 1812
Feb 1812		5	William Maxwell MP for Wigtownshire 1805‑1812 and 1822‑1830	5 Mar 1779	22 Aug 1838	59
22 Aug 1838		6	William Maxwell	2 Oct 1804	29 Mar 1877	72
29 Mar 1877		7	Herbert Eustace Maxwell MP for Wigtownshire 1880‑1906; Lord Lieutenant Wigtown 1903‑1935; PC 1897	8 Jan 1845	30 Oct 1937	92
30 Oct 1937		8	Aymer Maxwell	7 Dec 1911	8 Jul 1987	75
8 Jul 1987		9	Michael Eustace George Maxwell	28 Aug 1943	28 Dec 2021	78
28 Dec 2021		10	John Hamilton Maxwell	1945
MAXWELL of Springkell, Dumfries
7 Feb 1683	NS		See "Heron-Maxwell"
MAXWELL of Cardoness, Kirkcudbright
9 Jun 1804	UK	1	David Maxwell		1825
1825		2	David Maxwell	18 Jun 1773	13 Nov 1860	87
13 Nov 1860		3	William Maxwell	13 Feb 1809	27 Jun 1886	77
27 Jun 1886 to     26 Jan 1924		4	William Francis Maxwell Extinct on his death	19 Jun 1844	26 Jan 1924	79
MAXWELL MACDONALD of Pollock, Renfrew
12 Apr 1682	NS	1	John Maxwell	Jan 1648	4 Jul 1732	84
4 Jul 1732		2	John Maxwell	1686	24 Dec 1752	66
24 Dec 1752		3	John Maxwell	27 Mar 1720	14 Sep 1758	38
14 Sep 1758		4	Walter Maxwell	15 Feb 1732	29 Apr 1762	30
29 Apr 1762		5	John Maxwell	27 Nov 1761	25 Jul 1762	-
25 Jul 1762		6	James Maxwell	26 Mar 1735	3 May 1785	50
3 May 1785		7	John Maxwell MP for Paisley 1832‑1834	31 Oct 1768	30 Jul 1844	75
30 Jul 1844		8	John Maxwell MP for Renfrewshire 1818‑1830 and Lanarkshire 1832‑1837	12 May 1791	7 Jun 1865	74
7 Jun 1865		9	William Stirling (Stirling‑Maxwell from Mar 1866) MP for Perthshire 1852‑1868 and 1874‑1878; KT 1876	8 Mar 1818	15 Jan 1878	59
15 Jan 1878 to     30 May 1956		10	John Maxwell Stirling-Maxwell MP for College 1895‑1900; KT 1929 On his death the baronetcy became dormant	6 Jun 1866	30 May 1956	89
30 May 1956		11	Anne Maxwell Macdonald She was recognised by the Lyon Court in 2005 as being the 11th holder of the baronetcy. She therefore became only the fifth female baronet - see also Bolles created 1635, Dalyell created 1685, Dunbar created 1706 and Wishart created 1706	8 Sep 1906	21 Apr 2011	104
21 Apr 2011		12	John Ronald Maxwell Macdonald	22 May 1936	24 Dec 2023	87
24 Dec 2023		13	John Ranald ["Jock"] Maxwell Macdonald	16 Sep 1965
MAXWELL-SCOTT of Haggerston Castle, Northumberland
15 Aug 1642	E	1	Thomas Haggerston		7 Mar 1674
Mar 1674		2	Thomas Haggerston		c 1710
c 1710		3	Carnaby Haggerston	c 1700	20 Jul 1756
Jul 1756		4	Thomas Haggerston	11 Sep 1722	1 Nov 1777	55
1 Nov 1777		5	Carnaby Haggerston	May 1756	3 Dec 1831	75
3 Dec 1831		6	Thomas Haggerston	13 Jul 1785	11 Dec 1842	57
11 Dec 1842		7	Edward Haggerston	c 1797	6 May 1857
6 May 1857		8	John Haggerston	18 Aug 1798	8 Mar 1858	59
8 Mar 1858		9	John de Marie Haggerston	27 Nov 1852	29 Nov 1918	66
29 Nov 1918		10	Edward Charlton de Marie Haggerston	8 Feb 1857	1 Apr 1925	68
1 Apr 1925		11	Hugh Carnaby de Marie Haggerston	Mar 1906	11 Sep 1971	65
11 Sep 1971		12	Raphael Stanley de Marie Haggerston	6 Aug 1912	3 Jan 1972	59
3 Jan 1972		13	Michael Fergus Maxwell-Scott	23 Jul 1921	29 Nov 1989	68
29 Nov 1989		14	Dominic James Maxwell-Scott	22 Jul 1968
MAXWELL-SCOTT of Abbotsford, Roxburgh
23 Jun 1932 to     3 Apr 1954	UK	1	Walter Joseph Constable Maxwell‑Scott Extinct on his death	10 Apr 1875	3 Apr 1954	78
MAY of Mayfield, Waterford
30 Jun 1763	I	1	James May MP [I] for Waterford County 1759‑1797	6 Nov 1723	8 Nov 1811	88
8 Nov 1811		2	James Edward May MP [I] for Belfast 1800; MP for Belfast 1801‑1814	5 Oct 1751	23 Jul 1814	62
23 Jul 1814		3	Humphrey May		early 1819
early 1819 to     1834		4	George Stephen May Extinct on his death	c 1763	1834
			For information on a claim made to this baronetcy in 1886, see the note at the foot of this page
MAY of the Eyot, Surrey
27 Jan 1931	UK	1	George Ernest May He was subsequently created Baron May in 1935 with which title the baronetcy remains merged, although as at 30/06/2014 the baronetcy does not appear on the Official Roll of the Baronetage	20 Jun 1871	10 Apr 1946	74
MAYNARD of Eaton Parva, Essex
29 Jun 1611	E	1	William Maynard He was subsequently created Baron Maynard in 1620 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1775	by 1589	17 Dec 1640
MAYNARD of Walthamstow, Essex
1 Feb 1682	E	1	William Maynard MP for Essex 1685	6 Oct 1641	7 Nov 1685	44
7 Nov 1685		2	William Maynard	c 1676	15 Dec 1715
15 Dec 1715		3	Henry Maynard		16 Nov 1738
16 Nov 1738		4	William Maynard MP for Essex 1759‑1772	19 Apr 1721	18 Jan 1772	50
18 Jan 1772		5	Charles Maynard He subsequently succeeded to the Viscountcy of Maynard in 1775 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1865	9 Aug 1751	10 Mar 1824	72
MAYNE of Marston Morlain, Beds
			This baronetcy was gazetted (Issue 10304, page 6) as being of Marston Morlain, although the village is actually named Marston Mortaine
22 Apr 1763	GB	1	William Mayne He was subsequently created Baron Newhaven of Carrick Mayne in 1776 with which title the baronetcy then merged until its extinction in 1794	1722	28 May 1794	71
MAYNEY of Linton, Kent
29 Jun 1641	E	1	John Mayney	c 1608	c 1676
c 1676 to     1706		2	Anthony Mayney Extinct on his death		1706
MEADE of Ballintubber, co. Cork
29 May 1703	I	1	John Meade MP [I] for Tipperary County 1692‑1693, 1695‑1699 and 1703‑1707	1642	12 Jan 1707	64
12 Jan 1707		2	Pierce Meade	1693	18 Jul 1711	18
Jul 1711		3	Richard Meade MP [I] for Kinsale 1725‑1744	1697	26 May 1744	46
26 May 1744		4	John Meade He was subsequently created Earl of Clanwilliam in 1776 with which title the baronetcy remains merged	21 Apr 1744	19 Oct 1800	56
MEDLYCOTT of Venn House, Somerset
3 Oct 1808	UK	1	William Coles Medlycott MP for Milborne Port 1790‑1791	22 Oct 1767	25 May 1835	67
25 May 1835		2	William Coles Medlycott	31 Jul 1806	23 Dec 1882	76
23 Dec 1882		3	William Coles Paget Medlycott	6 Jun 1831	8 Jan 1887	55
8 Jan 1887		4	Edward Bradford Medlycott	29 Sep 1832	17 Feb 1902	69
17 Feb 1902		5	Mervyn Bradford Medlycott	20 Sep 1837	27 Mar 1908	70
27 Mar 1908		6	Hubert James Medlycott	9 Dec 1841	25 May 1920	78
25 May 1920		7	Hubert Mervyn Medlycott	29 Sep 1874	2 Sep 1964	89
2 Sep 1964		8	James Christopher Medlycott	17 Apr 1907	11 Apr 1986	78
11 Apr 1986 to     22 Jun 2021		9	Mervyn Tregonwell Medlycott Extinct on his death	20 Feb 1947	22 Jun 2021	74
MELLOR of Culmhead, Somerset
24 Jan 1924	UK	1	Sir John Paget Mellor	13 Mar 1862	4 Feb 1929	66
4 Feb 1929		2	John Serocold Paget Mellor MP for Tamworth 1935‑1945 and Sutton Coldfield 1945‑1955	6 Jul 1893	15 Jul 1986	93
15 Jul 1986 to     8 Nov 1990		3	John Francis Mellor Extinct on his death	9 Mar 1925	8 Nov 1990	65
MELVIN of Olton, Warwicks
31 Jul 1933 to     11 May 1952	UK	1	Sir Martin John Melvin Extinct on his death	8 Jun 1879	11 May 1952	72
MENTETH of New Cumnock, Ayr
11 Aug 1838	UK		See "Stuart-Menteth"
MENZIES of Castle Menzies, Perth
2 Sep 1665	NS	1	Alexander Menzies		c Apr 1695
c Apr 1695		2	Alexander Menzies		c 1730
c 1730		3	Robert Menzies		4 Sep 1786
4 Sep 1786		4	John Menzies		26 Mar 1800
26 Mar 1800		5	Robert Menzies	before 1760	8 Mar 1813
8 Mar 1813		6	Neil Menzies	16 Aug 1780	20 Aug 1844	64
20 Aug 1844		7	Robert Menzies	26 Sep 1817	22 Apr 1903	85
22 Apr 1903 to     21 Dec 1910		8	Neil James Menzies Extinct on his death	5 Mar 1855	21 Dec 1910	55
			For further information regarding a claim to the baronetcy made between 1913 and 1916, see the note at the foot of this page
MERCES of France
2 Apr 1660	E	1	Anthony de Merces Nothing further is known of this baronetcy
MEREDITH of Stainsley, Denbigh
13 Aug 1622	E	1	William Meredith	c 1596	10 Apr 1675
10 Apr 1675		2	Richard Meredith MP for Kent 1656‑1658 and Sandwich 1659		5 Sep 1679
5 Sep 1679		3	William Meredith	c 1666	28 May 1681
28 May 1681		4	Richard Meredith		29 Aug 1723
29 Aug 1723 to     3 Jan 1739		5	Roger Meredith MP for Kent 1727‑1734 Extinct on his death	c 1677	3 Jan 1739
MEREDITH of Marston, Devon
2 Jan 1639	NS	1	Amos Meredith		5 Dec 1669
5 Dec 1669		2	William Meredith	6 Dec 1665	19 Jan 1732	66
Jan 1732 to     2 Jan 1790		3	William Meredith MP for Wigan 1754‑1761 and Liverpool 1761‑1780; PC 1774 On his death the baronetcy became dormant	c 1725	2 Jan 1790
MEREDITH of Montreal, Canada
14 Nov 1916 to     24 Feb 1929	UK	1	Vincent Meredith Extinct on his death	28 Feb 1850	24 Feb 1929	78
MEREDYTH of Greenhills, Kildare
20 Nov 1660	I	1	William Meredyth	c 1620	14 Feb 1665
Feb 1665		2	Richard Meredyth	1657	8 Oct 1743	86
Oct 1743		3	Robert Meredyth	c 1704	18 Feb 1747
Feb 1747		4	Richard Meredyth	Jan 1733	1777	44
1777		5	Paul Meredyth	c 1720	1783
1783		6	Moore Meredyth	c 1722	8 Nov 1789
8 Nov 1789		7	Barry Colles Meredyth	c 1749	14 Oct 1813
14 Oct 1813		8	Joshua Colles Meredyth	1 Jun 1771	27 Jul 1850	79
27 Jul 1850		9	Edward Newenham Meredyth	1 May 1776	23 Mar 1865	88
23 Mar 1865 to     8 Oct 1904		10	Edward Henry John Meredyth Extinct on his death For further information on this baronetcy, see the note at the foot of this page	29 May 1828	8 Oct 1904	76
MEREDYTH of Catherines Grove, Dublin
5 Sep 1787	I		See "Gorges-Meredyth"
MEREDYTH of Carlanstown, Meath
26 Jul 1795	I	1	John Meredyth	late 1740	27 Oct 1799	58
27 Oct 1799		2	Thomas Meredyth	Jul 1770	c Feb 1815	44
c Feb 1815		3	Henry Meredyth	Jun 1775	2 May 1859	83
2 May 1859		4	Henry Meredyth	1802	4 Aug 1889	87
4 Aug 1889 to     30 Sep 1923		5	Henry Bayly Meredyth Extinct on his death	14 Jan 1863	30 Sep 1923	60
METCALFE of Chilton, Berks
21 Dec 1802	UK	1	Thomas Theophilus Metcalfe MP for Abingdon 1796‑1807	8 Jan 1745	17 Nov 1813	68
17 Nov 1813		2	Theophilus John Metcalfe	19 Sep 1783	15 Aug 1822	38
15 Aug 1822		3	Charles Theophilus Metcalfe, later [1845] 3rd Baron Metcalfe	30 Jan 1785	5 Sep 1846	61
5 Sep 1846		4	Thomas Theophilus Metcalfe	2 Jan 1795	3 Nov 1853	58
3 Nov 1853		5	Theophilus John Metcalfe	28 Nov 1828	8 Nov 1883	54
8 Nov 1883		6	Charles Herbert Theophilus Metcalfe	8 Sep 1853	29 Dec 1928	75
29 Dec 1928		7	Theophilus John Massie Metcalfe	19 Jun 1866	11 Sep 1950	84
11 Sep 1950 to     11 Feb 1979		8	Theophilus John Metcalfe Extinct on his death	14 Oct 1916	11 Feb 1979	62
METHUEN of Haslemere, Surrey
10 Jul 1916 to     20 Sep 1924	UK	1	Algernon Methuen Marshall Methuen Extinct on his death	23 Feb 1856	20 Sep 1924	68
MEUX of Kingston, Isle of Wight
11 Dec 1641	E	1	John Meux MP for Newtown (IOW) 1640 and 1640‑1644		12 Feb 1657
Feb 1657		2	William Meux		c 1697
c 1697 to     13 Mar 1706		3	William Meux Extinct on his death	25 Jun 1683	13 Mar 1706	22
MEUX of Theobalds Park, Herts
30 Sep 1831	UK	1	Henry Meux	8 May 1770	7 Apr 1841	70
7 Apr 1841		2	Henry Meux MP for Hertfordshire 1847‑1859 For further information on this baronet, see the note at the foot of this page	28 Dec 1817	1 Jan 1883	65
1 Jan 1883 to     12 Jan 1900		3	Henry Bruce Meux Extinct on his death	21 Nov 1856	12 Jan 1900	43

	Sir Richard Mansel, 6th baronet
	The following extract is from the records of the Central Criminal Court in London and is dated 13 July 1693:-
	Sir Richard Mansell, Baronet, was indicted and tried for the Murther of William Pickering on the first day of February last [1 Feb 1693]. The Matter of Fact appeared upon the Evidence thus:
	Mr. Pickering being an Apothecary, there was some Monies due to him from Sir Richard Mansell; and in order to be satisfied, and to come to an amicable Account, they agreed to meet at Squires's Coffee-house in Fuller's Rents, where being met, they did not long continue, but for more privacy went down into Grays-Inn Walks; and being in the High-walk, they could not accommodate the matter, although Sir Richard offer'd Mr. Pickering to give him security by his Bond to pay him in a reasonable time, as soon as his Returns came out of the Countrey; yet Mr. Pickering would not be contented, but would have his Money presently, and began to be angry, and to reply upon Sir Richard after a morose manner, giving him very Scurrilous Language, which was altogether unfit to give to a Person of Quality, which provoked Sir Richard to draw his Sword upon him, upon which Mr. Pickering withdrew himself from Sir Richard, and Sir Richard followed him; which Mr. Pickering perceiving, he (to prevent the danger that might come upon him) leapt over the Wall down into the Lower Walks, and broke his Leg short-off; Sir Richard followed him, but did him no other hurt; upon this Mr. Pickering was removed to his place of Abode, and there he languished of the said Wound till the 13th of February, and then died. The Surgeons gave their Opinion that the Wound was the occasion of his death etc. Sir Richard being asked what he had to say in his defence, he answered that it was a Misfortune that happened much against his will, and that he was heartily sorry for it; and that he had no design of doing him any hurt, and desired that the Judges would be of Counsel to him, and was willing to submit his Case to the Court; Then the Judges gave their Opinion, and did agree that the Matter should be found special, because it was a new Cause; Matter of Law did arise thereupon, therefore it was resolved that a time should be set aside for the Judges to consult the matter. Then Sir Richard Mansell moved, that he might continue upon Bail, but the Court told him that could not be granted.
	The Court's records show that a "Special Verdict" was given. Such verdicts were occasionally given because a legal issue had arisen which needed to be debated by the Judges. In such cases, the Jury ruled on the facts of the matter, but it was up to the Judges to resolve any legal issues. As a result, final judgement was deferred and the eventual verdict and punishment were usually reported in a subsequent edition of the proceedings of the Court, although I have been unable to find the eventual outcome of Sir Richard's trial.
	Sir Courtenay Cecil Mansel, 13th baronet
	On the death of the 11th baronet in 1883, the next heir was his kinsman Edward Berkeley Philipps [later Mansel], who was the son of Courtenay Philipps [later Mansel], son of Richard Mansel, younger brother of the 10th baronet. Courtenay Philipps's first marriage was long thought to be irregular and, as a result, Edward Berkeley Phillips was thought to be illegitimate and hence unable to assume the title. Accordingly, his half-brother Richard Philipps [later Mansel] assumed the title on the death of the 11th baronet in 1883. When he, in turn, died in 1892, the title was assumed by Courtenay Cecil Mansel, as 13th baronet. In February 1903, the 13th baronet discovered evidence that Edward Berkeley Mansel was not illegitimate and gave up the use of the title in favour of his uncle.
	A report in The Times on Saturday 10 November 1906 states that:-
	In the Court of Session, Edinburgh, yesterday, Lord Dundas heard evidence in an action for declarator of marriage and legitimation at the instance of Sir Edward Berkeley Mansel, of Old Cotton-house, near Norwich, the defender called being Courtenay Cecil Mansel of Maes y Crugian-manor, Carmarthen. The Dean of Faculty and Mr. Brodie-Innes appeared for the pursuer; there was no defence. Dame Julia Vertue Mansel, wife of the pursuer, was the first witness. She said she was married to the pursuer at St George's, Hanover-square, on 7 May, 1870. Her father, the late Rev. Henn Evans-Lombe, of Bylaugh-park, Norfolk, withheld his consent at first because doubts had been raised as to whether her husband's father and mother were married when her husband was born. But her father was afterwards satisfied that a Scottish marriage had taken place in 1838 between her intended husband's mother and father when the last mentioned, who has a major in the 15th Hussars, was stationed with his regiment at Hamilton, in Scotland. After the marriage no further question was raised about the matter until about 1877, when an action came into the English Courts arising out of a dispute about her father-in-law's will. Again, in 1883, when the witness's husband inherited the baronetcy the matter came up, and the baronetcy was claimed by her husband's younger brother, Richard. At that time the pursuer did not take legal steps to clear the matter up owing to his serious ill-health. Other witnesses examined were Mrs. Eliza Cole, of Southampton. A sister of the pursuer, and Mr Courtenay Cecil Mansel, a nephew of the pursuer and his brother Richard's only son. Mr Courtenay Cecil Mansel said he assumed the title of baronet at his father's death in 1892, but in February, 1903, he discovered a declaration signed by his grandfather stating that the witness's grandfather and grandmother had lived together as husband and wife in Scotland. The witness made some inquiries and saw a trust deed dated in 1858, in which his grandfather recognized the pursuer as his eldest son. Afterwards the witness had an interview with the pursuer, and was shown letters written by his grandfather and grandmother. As a result of his inquiries the witness felt perfectly satisfied that his uncle was the eldest legitimate son of his (the witness's) grandfather and grandmother, and he thought it right in consequence to discontinue the use of the title of baronet. Recently he had been informed that his uncle had been advised to institute proceedings to obtain a declaration of the validity of the grandfather's Scottish marriage, and the witness, having given up the title, had no objection to support that application. The pursuer's evidence was before the Court, having been taken on commission, and, after hearing the Dean of Faculty, Lord Dundas granted the decree as craved.
	When Sir Edward Berkeley Mansel died in 1908, Courtenay Cecil Mansel, as the next heir, resumed the use of the title.
	Sir John Blundell Maple, 1st baronet
	One notice of Sir John's death, to be found in the Chicago Daily Tribune of 5 January 1904, states that
	Sir John was a typical English retail shop-keeper, possessed of all the virtues and the prejudices as well as the shortcomings of his class. He dropped his aspirates in the most terrific manner, entertained the most holy horror and distrust of everything foreign, and was much distressed when his only daughter, who was the apple of his eye, insisted upon marrying Baron Eckardstein, who will be remembered at Washington, where he spent some time, as a wonderfully good looking, stalwart man. Foreign nobility was of no account whatsoever in the eyes of Sir John, who, it is said, after receiving the honour of knighthood in recognition of his immense contributions to the campaign fund of his political party, put forward an extraordinary pretension to descent from Blondel, the troubadour who sought out King Richard Coeur de Lion from his Austrian prison, and helped to rescue him from his captivity.
	It may be remembered that according to the legend Blondel visited every castle where he thought that the king may be incarcerated singing the favorite songs of the monarch, finally discovering it through Richard taking up his song and singing the second verse. It is stated that when Richard heard the song he exclaimed, "Blondel m'appel" (Blondel calls me), and Sir John insisted that the names "Blundel Maple" were merely a corruption of this exclamation of the king, which afterward became the motto of the family founded by the troubadour.
	Sir Percival Scrope Marling VC, 3rd baronet
	Marling was a Lieutenant in the 3rd Battalion of the King's Royal Rifle Corps, stationed in Sudan, when he took part in the Battle of Tamai, which was fought on 13 March 1884 between a British force under Sir Gerald Graham and a Mahdist army led by Osman Digna. Although they suffered heavy losses, the British forces won the day.
	A supplement to the London Gazette of 21 May 1884 contains Marling's citation for the Victoria Cross, as follows:-
	Lieutenant Percival Scrope Marling, 3rd Battalion, King's Royal Rifle Corps, late Mounted Infantry - For his conspicuous bravery at the battle of Tamai, on 13th March last, in risking his life to save that of Private Morley, Royal Sussex Regiment, who having been shot, was lifted and placed in front of Lieutenant Marling on his horse. He fell off almost immediately, when Lieutenant Marling dismounted, and gave up his horse for the purpose of carrying off Private Morley, the enemy pressing close on to them until they succeeded in carrying him about eighty yards to a place of comparative safety.
	Edward Marwood Elton, who claimed to be the nephew of Sir Edward Marwood-Elton [1st and only baronet], and the Sandridge Murder of 1870
	One of the most sensational Australian crimes of the 19th century was the Sandridge Murder, in which a 2-year-old boy's throat was cut. The murderer's name was Edward Marwood Elton, and he claimed to be the nephew of the English baronet. The murder was reported in at least one English paper, the Exeter Western Times, which includes the following extract from a report in the Geelong Advertiser:-
	We have it on undoubted authority that he [the murderer] is the nephew and heir-of-entail of Sir Edward Marwood Elton, of Widworthy Court, in the County of Devon, one of the oldest families in that county, having been settled there - as Burke's Baronetage states - since the county history began. The present possessor of the title and estates is an old man, and in the ordinary course of nature the murderer would have become the possessor of a title, and of estates stated to be worth £15,000 a year. Family quarrels led to his leaving England some years ago, and since his arrival in the colony he has followed the humble profession of waiter, being apparently unfitted by nature and education for a higher position.
	The following account of the murder is taken from the Perth Truth of 28 January 1905:-
	In the year 1870 (and since) there were two families of some note in England, named Elton, both enjoying baronetcies, the one created in 1838, the other in 1717. The latter at the present time shows no signs of extinction, as there is a long list of sons and grandsons to keep up the family name and record. The family seat of these Eltons is Clevedon Court, Somersetshire.
	The baronetcy of 1838 was conferred on the son of James Marwood Elton, Esq., of Widworthy Court, near Honiton, Devon. This gentleman's name was Edward Marwood Elton, born in 1801; a Deputy-Lieutenant for Devonshire, and High Sheriff for the shire in 1858. He was a Master of Arts of Brasenose College, Oxford. This baronet was unmarried, his heir-presumptive - under a special remainder - being his brother, Henry, formerly a captain in the 13th Light Dragoons, who was born in 1804. [This is somewhat puzzling - there is no reference to any special remainder in the entry in the London Gazette (issue 19631, page 1488, published on 3 Jul 1838) - indeed the notice contains a listing of a number of baronetcies to be created, and states that each baronetcy is granted to "the respective heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten".] Sir Edward Marwood Elton died in 1884, when the baronetcy became extinct - at least there is no such baronetcy now noted in any of the books which usually contain such information. [His obituary, which appeared in "The Western Times" [Exeter] on 23 April 1884, states that "He was created a baronet in 1838, with a special remainder to his brothers, all of whom, however, pre-deceased him", but there was, as far as I can tell, no such special remainder.]
	About the year 1863 there arrived in Melbourne a young man [he was described elsewhere as being aged about 25 or 26] who passed under the name of Edward Marwood Elton, who claimed to be a nephew of the English baronet of the same name. There was no proof, however, beyond his own assertion that he was related to the Devonshire baronet. Certain persons asserted that the father of the young man was a drawing-master of some note. The young man was, at any rate, well educated and possessed of considerable abilities, but was subject to fits of despondency and melancholia. He had stated that he came from Kensington. London.
	About the year 1868 he consulted Dr. Beaney - "Diamond" Beaney [James George Beaney 1828‑1891] At that time Elton was "very queer" in his manner, and while under treatment asked the doctor to tell him at once if his case was incurable (it will be seen later on what the illness was), in which case he would cut his throat or drown himself, rather than continue to live in a state of disease.
	Shortly after this Elton was managing an hotel in Gippsland, and was paying court to a young music teacher, but he did not find favour in the lady's eyes: in fact, she was rather afraid of him on account of his extraordinary behaviour at times. She knew then that "he was not right in his head", and he was subject to gloomy fits, which would last for weeks, during which he would scarcely utter a word, and, when he did speak, was extremely incoherent. When told by the young lady that he had no chance of success in his courtship, he at first became very violent, but afterwards this music teacher recommended to his attention Felicia Sarah Darbyshire, who was very fond of him, and she thought would make him a good wife.
	Miss Darbyshire had requested the music teacher to speak to Elton on her behalf. He at first would not hear of the idea, but subsequently became very friendly with the young woman, who was, it was said, employed as nursemaid and needlewoman at Garton's Hotel, Swanston-street, at the same time that Elton was engaged there in the humble capacity of waiter. The other young woman whom Elton had first courted became Mrs. Carter, wife of the landlord of the Happy Home Hotel, Sandridge [Port Melbourne now]. Mrs. Carter had lost sight of the two until early in 1869, when she heard that Miss Darbyshire had had an illegitimate child, but not by Elton. The next she heard of them was that the pair were married in February of 1870. Elton had frequently shown her letters from his mother, and had told her that one of his sisters was married to a captain in India. He had often threatened to drown himself.
	About 5 o'clock on Monday evening, September 10, 1870, Sandridge was thrown into a state of excitement by the announcement that a brutal and cowardly murder of a boy between two and three years had been committed by the child's stepfather, Edward Marwood Elton. When Elton married Miss Darbyshire he knew of the existence of this child, then two years old. The child was known as Thomas Henry Darbyshire, and had been reared by a Mrs. Jackson, a laundress living in Station-street, Sandridge. Some months after his marriage Elton went to Geelong, where he got employment as a waiter at the Black Bull Inn, taking his wife and the child with him. He remained there until late in August, when he was discharged on account of slackness in trade. All three returned to Melbourne, Mrs. Elton and the child going to live at Mrs. Jackson's, in Sandridge.
	Elton was in the habit of coming to the house, and on Monday visited the place about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, when he complained of not feeling well, and his wife gave him a cup of tea, which he drank. Soon afterwards, saying he felt better, he said he would go for a walk upon the pier, and take the boy with him. The mother accordingly washed and dressed the little fellow, and the man went away with him at 3.30. At about half-past 4 o'clock Elton came running back, and meeting Mrs Jackson and his wife at the door, threw down a razor on the footpath and said to his wife: "I have murdered your ----- bastard, and there," pointing to the razor, "is what I have done it with." Mrs. Elton inquired where the child was, and Elton volunteered to show her. He then proceeded to Sandridge beach - an historic spot in the criminal old hulk days - about a mile from any dwelling, followed by the mother, who had alarmed all the neighbours, and a crowd of men, women and children. The child was found dead: its throat cut from ear to ear.
	The police, hearing of the murder, quickly arrived, Elton quietly awaiting the arrival of the constables. Sergeant O'Brien arrested him, and cautioned him, but there was no need of caution. Elton admitted the deed, and in response to an observation by the sergeant that he must have been mad when he committed the murder, said that he had been mad for some time. The police had some difficulty in keeping Elton from the clutches of the mob. He was perfectly sober, cool and collected, and was lodged in the lock-up at about 5 o'clock. At the Coroner's Court the movements were carefully traced. Apart from his confession, the crime was sheeted home, and he was committed for trial.
	Edward Marwood Elton was brought to trial on Tuesday, October 25, in the old Court House in La Trobe-street, Justice [Sir] Edward Eyre Williams [1813‑1880] presiding, J[oseph] H[enry] Dunne [1821‑1877] for the Crown, G.P. Smith for the accused, who pleaded not guilty in a low, but firm voice. The facts as to the murder were not in dispute. The mother was not examined at the trial, but evidence was given that she was then enceinte [i.e. pregnant]. In cross-examination by G.P. Smith, Elizabeth Jackson stated that on the night before the marriage of the Eltons the man told her he was not fit to marry, and said he would give her £10 if she would persuade Sally (Mrs. Elton) not to marry him. Mrs. Jackson asked him if he could keep away from the woman, and he admitted that he could not, therefore Mrs. Jackson declined to interfere. When he came back from Geelong he told Mrs. Jackson that if he did not get a billet for a fortnight, and if the child his wife expected did not resemble him, he would make away with himself.
	Dr. Plummer, who made the post-mortem examination of the child, also examined Elton, at the request of the police. The accused told the doctor that he had been suffering from seminal weakness; that he had several times meant to destroy himself by drowning, but every time he reached the water his courage failed. He had also gone to the Public Library and studied the effects of several poisons, but that after he had obtained them he was afraid to use them. Next day he told the doctor that he well knew what he had done, and that he wanted the law to do for him what he had not the pluck to do for himself.
	Dr. McCrea (Chief Medical Officer), Dr. Paley (Inspector of Lunatic Asylums) and John T. Harcourt (proprietor of Richmond Lunatic Asylum) were called by the Crown. The three had been appointed a commission to inquire into Elton's sanity. Dr. McCrea said that the disease from which Elton was suffering very often made people insane, and would tend to create a belief in his mind that he was impotent, although he (Dr. McCrea) did not think he was. McCrea considered that Elton killed the child in order to procure his own execution. Dr. Paley had five interviews with Elton, and considered that he knew that he was violating the law when he killed the child, though he admitted that he was suffering from mania at the time. The disease from which he was suffering would have a tendency to develop homicidal mania. In answer to the judge, Dr. Paley said that spermatorrhoea [excessive, involuntary ejaculation, which in the 19th century was regarded as a disorder which had corrupting and devastating effects on the mind and body] was, in his opinion, the proximate cause of insanity in Elton. Mr. Harcourt was of opinion that the accused committed the crime under a momentary impulse, and was not conscious that he was violating the law.
	For the defence, Mr. Smith called Drs. T. Aubrey Bowen and James George Beaney, both of whom had been treating the accused man for spermatorrhoea and other nerve troubles. According to Dr. Beaney, Elton was "suffering from impotency". Suicidal mania, and mania of all kinds, might follow any disease accompanied by great nervous exhaustion. He was afraid that the prisoner would commit homicide, as he was frequently in a very excited state. When Elton told Dr. Beaney that he meant to get married, the doctor advised him to wait a while.
	The jury, after an hour's retirement, found a verdict of guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of the disease from which he suffered. The foreman was a commercial broker well known on 'Change. He would face any commercial "spec" undaunted, but as read the recommendation his voice faltered, and the paper shook in his hand like a leaf in the wind.
	Being asked the usual question whether he had anything to urge why sentence should not be passed, Elton (who laboured under much excitement, which towards the conclusion of his remarks increased to a perfect paroxysm of rage) said he had no reason to urge, but would like to give a little outline of his line. From his birth he had been a very delicate child, and was sent to the colonies for the benefit of his health, and because he could not make a fortune at home. He had been singularly unfortunate in all he undertook, and not a man in the colony could have experienced a harder life than he had undergone. He had wronged no one except the woman he had given his name to: he believed he had wronged her fearfully, but for that he was to answer with his life. He had counted the cost, and was willing to pay the sacrifice. He had come to the colony without a single penny, and the country upon which he had thrown himself for his trial had found him guilty, but the recommendation to mercy which the jury had given he scorned to accept. Did they think that, after he had been found guilty of wilfully committing the crime with which he was charged, he would live with such an action on his mind? No: he was born an honest man. He had no desire for mercy, except to ask that the penalty for the crime of which he had been found guilty might be speedily carried out. He denied that he was innocent, as alleged, and had not the slightest doubt that the child which would be born was his. It was true that he had been married much against his will. He had told his wife on their marriage that in seven days he meant to commit suicide, but he had not the courage to do it, and he ran away from her and went to Geelong, where he obtained employment at the rate of 10s per week, and a friend let his wife know where he was, and she rejoined him. He was not afraid to meet his death, for he fully believed that, by the mercy of God, he was really prepared to meet it. He had not the slightest fear of hanging, for he believed he could meet his death at his country's hands honestly and fairly. He had wronged his family most fearfully, but he bore a noble name - one of the first in England - and had never disgraced it yet by any action of his, nor would he now: but as for that blasted recommendation to mercy, he said, "damn the jury that gave it."
	Justice Williams said that the fearful way in which the prisoner was proceeding only showed that he did not deserve the recommendation to mercy, but it would be forwarded to the Executive: he would not prolong the scene, but would simply pass the sentence prescribed by the law.
	In those days the prisoners were removed from the dock into the open space behind the Court House, admission being had to the gaol by a small door in the southern wall. A crowd had assembled outside, and through the lane formed Elton walked, talking excitedly and with much gesticulation, followed at some yards distance by a solitary warder. Mrs. Elton was in the crowd, weeping. The condemned man spoke kindly and laughingly to her, and bade the crowd a loud "Good-bye" as he passed into the gaol.
	Elton was not executed. The McCulloch Ministry [formed by Sir James McCulloch 1819‑1893] considered that there were some grounds for considering him insane, and on the Chief Secretary's warrant he was transferred to the Yarra Bend Lunatic Asylum, where it was thought he would stay for the remainder of his days. But he did not, for about 12 years after his conviction he was officially reported to have recovered his sanity, and was transferred to Pentridge Prison. This he vehemently protested against, on the ground that, as he was deemed insane at the time he committed the murder, and therefore unaccountable, he ought to be discharged on recovering his sanity. The authorities, however, did not see it in the same light, and to Pentridge Elton went. What his ultimate fate was I know not, but there is not now in England an acknowledged representative of the Devonshire baronet.
	Sir Spencer Pocklington Maryon Maryon-Wilson, 11th baronet
	From the Townsville (Queensland) Daily Bulletin of 9 April 1938:-
	A man who stands for his rights is Sir Spencer Pocklington Maryon Maryon‑Wilson, Lord of the Manors of Charlton and Hampstead, 11th Baronet of East Borne [sic - Eastbourne], in the county of Sussex.
	Other men may be content to be called 'Sir'. Not so, Sir Spencer. He insists on being addressed as 'Sir Baronet'. This week he explained the reason why: "I don't care a damn what the world thinks or says about me. I'm looked on as a crank, but I've just got moral courage. That's what it is."
	Sir Spencer is the only baronet in Britain who insists on the full form of address to which he is entitled. Every one of the two-score servants on his estate, from gamekeepers to butlers, must address him as 'Sir Baronet'. Among themselves and to strangers they refer to him generally as 'The Baronet'.
	"I'm a diehard and I don't mind," he continued. "I've seen letters addressed to my butler, my gamekeeper, yes, even my odd man, addressing them as 'Dear Sir'. Now, why the devil should any baronet be addressed in the same way. A baronetcy is fifth in the noble degree. I and all other baronets have a right to be addressed as 'Sir Baronet', just as peers have the right to be called 'My Lord'. My title is 300 years old. It was earned at the risk of the head of my ancestor, who helped Charles II in his restoration. But don't forget I don't insist on my right any more than I consider all other baronets should similarly insist."
	Sir William Massingberd, 2nd baronet
	According to tradition, Sir William's daughter fell in love with a postillion in her father's service and planned to elope with him. Sir William, however, wished his daughter to marry a man of higher status and he therefore allegedly shot the daughter's lover and dumped his body in a pond. Visitors to Sir William's house at Gunby Hall, near Burgh le Marsh in Lincolnshire, remark to this day about a sudden sensation of extreme coldness when walking on the path near the pond.
	The May baronetcy created in 1763
	On 23 May 1885 (and repeated on 26 May) the following advertisement appeared in The Times:-
	Reward of £100 - Whereas Sir James May, of Mayfield, Representative in Parliament for the County of Waterford, was, in the year 1763, created a Baronet of Ireland, with limitation to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, and the said Sir James May had five sons, the issue of his marriage, namely James Edward, Humphrey, Thomas, Charles, and George Stephen, and dying in or about the year 1811, was succeeded by his eldest son called Sir Edward May, at whose death, three years subsequently, the title devolved on Sir Humphrey May as third baronet, and was enjoyed by him until his decease in 1819, when (his next brother, Thomas, having predeceased without issue in 1809, and the existence of Charles May, next in succession, or any issue male of his body, being ignored) the baronetcy was reputed to, rather than assumed by, George Stephen May, the fifth and youngest son of the 1st baronet, who at that date (1819) and till his death in 1834 was of unsound mind.
	And whereas in certain suits in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, dating from or about the year 1814 to 1844, and known as "May versus May, Carew and Medlicott and others", "May versus Pennefather and others", "May versus Medlicott", and "Marjoribanks versus Medlicott" - the objects of which were, amongst others, the distribution of and otherwise dealing with the estate of the said Sir James May under the terms of his marriage settlement and will - in all of which proceedings, as in the decrees made thereon, the aforesaid Charles May is treated as having died without issue and intestate, though the evidences, if any, upon which that position was supported and maintained do not appear to have been preserved and cannot now be found.
	And whereas Thomas Paine May, a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, but lately of Maylawn, Louisiana, in the United States of America, claims (as the only surviving son of Thomas May, of Maylawn aforesaid, deceased, who was the son and heir of Patrick May, of Ballinalack, in the county of Westmeath, deceased) to be the great-grandson and heir-at-law of the aforesaid Charles May.
	Now notice is hereby given, that - as it is required by Sir Bernard Burke … Ulster King of Arms, that evidence rebutting the assumption of the death without issue male and intestate of the said Charles May be produced to his satisfaction - the sum of ONE HUNDRED POUNDS will be paid to anyone who shall give such INFORMATION as will lead to the proof that the said CHARLES MAY DID NOT DIE WITHOUT ISSUE MALE as alleged.
	Application to be made to Stephen Tucker, Esquire, Somerset Herald, Herald's College, London; Arthur L. Barlee, Esq., Solicitor, No. 30, Westland-row, Dublin, or to us, DEANE, CHUBB & CO., Solicitors to the said Thomas Paine May. No. 14, South-square, Gray's-inn, London, W.C.
	Thomas Paine May (17 Jul 1842-Jan 1887) argued that he succeeded to the baronetcy as 6th baronet in 1852, but he did nothing to establish his claim until he inserted the above advertisement in 1886. Nothing appears to have come from his advertisement, and, when he died early the following year, the claim lapsed.
	The Menzies baronetcy claim 1913‑1916
	Between 1913 and 1916, a claim for the Menzies baronetcy was pursued through various Scottish courts. The following extracts from The Times show the history of this claim:-
	15 January 1913:
	A claim to the baronetcy of Menzies is the subject of an action in which the record has been closed by Lord Ormidale in the Court of Session, Edinburgh.
	The claimant is David Prentice Menzies, Plean Castle, Stirlingshire, and the defenders are the Home Secretary, the Lord Advocate, Sir James Balfour Paul (Lyon King of Arms), and Sir William P. Byrne (Registrar of the Baronetage). The purpose of the action is to have it declared that the claimant is the nearest lawful heir male of line of Captain James Menzies of Comrie, Perthshire, who was born at Castle Menzies, in the parish of Weem, Perth, about 1663, and died in 1748. Sir Neil James Menzies, eighth baronet, died in 1910, and the title was then supposed to have become extinct.
	Mr. Menzies's claim has been disallowed by the defenders, who are the officials nominated by Royal Warrant to prepare an official roll of baronets. The last holder of the title was descended from Neil, third son of Captain James Menzies. The claimant avers that he is descended from Robert, fourth son of Captain James. This would make him the great-great-great grandson of Captain James. The defence to the action is found in a letter in which the Lyon King of Arms states that, while Captain James had a son Robert, born in 1699, there was no proof that this was the Robert Menzies from whom the claimant is descended. There were probably many persons named Robert Menzies existing at the time.
	17 January 1914:
	Judgment was given yesterday in the Second Division of the Court of Session in Edinburgh in an appeal against the judgment of Lord Ormidale dismissing an action by David Prentice Menzies, of Plean Castle, Stirlingshire. The plaintiff sued the Home Secretary, the Lord Advocate, the Lyon King of Arms, and the Registrar of the Baronetage, and asked the Court to declare that he was the nearest lawful heir male of line of Captain James Menzies, of Comrie, Perthshire, who was born in Castle Menzies, Perth, in 1663, and who died in 1748. The plaintiff claims succession to the vacant baronetcy of Menzies as the descendant of Robert, the fourth son of Captain James Menzies. His application to the defendants to be entered on the Roll of Baronets was refused. The defendants maintained that the action was incompetent and that the plaintiff's proper course was to apply to the Sheriff of Chancery in the Outer House [of the Court of Session]. Lord Ormidale dismissed the action as incompetent, and the Second Division adhered to that judgment.
	Lord Salveson [with Lords Guthrie and Dewar concurring] said the plaintiff's object was to establish his claim to a baronetcy which lapsed by the death of Sir Neil Menzies, of Menzies. He thought it had been quite settled that the proper Court in which a person who wished to serve as heir male of line, or on any other footing, to a deceased person should proceed was the Court of Chancery. Counsel, however, contended that a change had been effected by a Royal Warrant of February 15, 1910, the object of which was to secure the purity of the Roll of Baronets of Nova Scotia, which prima facie excluded the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, even if it had not been already excluded by the common law. The appellant admitted that even if he obtained a decree in the Court of Session his claim must still be established in the manner regulated by the Royal Warrant; but he was anxious to get such a decree in order that he might present it as prima facie evidence in support of his claim. The Court of Session, however, was not in the habit of granting decrees in order that they might simply be evidence in some other Court.
	30 November 1915:
	The claim of Mr. D.P. Menzies, of Plean Castle, Stirlingshire, to the chiefship of the Clan Menzies and to the Nova Scotia baronetcy, the last holder of which was Sir Neil Menzies, who died in 1910, was considered by the Lyon King of Arms at Edinburgh yesterday. The claim was opposed by Miss Menzies of Menzies, sister of the late baronet.
	Mr. Menzies said he was descended from the son of Captain James Menzies of Comrie, and he submitted certain documentary evidence, including papers referring to an account and discharge given by Rob Menzies, son of Captain James Menzies of Comrie, in 1743 and 1754. He got those papers from Mr. John Macgregor, of Edinburgh, who purchased them at a sale. They were in exactly the same condition now as when the witness got them.
	Counsel for the respondent moved that his Lordship should dismiss the petition. He submitted that the child of Captain James Menzies of Comrie, from whom the petitioner claimed descent, died in infancy. The documentary evidence, he said, fell to be entirely disregarded, and he moved his Lordship to lay the documents before the proper authorities in order to ascertain who was responsible for them. Judgment was reserved.
	21 December 1915:
	In Lyon Court, Edinburgh, yesterday, Lyon King of Arms delivered judgment in the claim by Mr. David P. Menzies, of Plean Castle, Stirlingshire, to the Chiefship of the Clan Menzies and to the Nova Scotia baronetcy held by Sir Neil Menzies, who died in 1910. The claim was opposed by Miss Menzies, of Menzies, sister of Sir Neil Menzies.
	Lyon King of Arms held that the petitioner had failed to prove his case, and that the petition should be refused. He said that the first baronet, Sir Alexander Menzies, had two sons, Robert and Captain James, of Comrie, and the petitioner averred descent from Captain James through a fourth son, Robert, who was not mentioned in the entail executed in 1779 nor in Nisbet's Heraldry in 1742. He discussed in detail documents produced in support of the petitioner's claim, and expressed the view that certain words seemed to have been written subsequent to the date of the documents themselves. With regard to the letter written by Sir Robert Menzies [i.e. the 7th baronet] to the petitioner, which had been put in to show that Sir Robert in 1902 acknowledged the petitioner to be descended from Captain James Menzies, his Lordship commented on the illegibility of the writing, which leant itself to quite another reading.
	But by now the authorities, especially the Lyon King of Arms, had smelled a rat …
	10 October 1916:
	In the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh yesterday, before the Lord Justice-General (Lord Strathclyde), David P. Menzies, of Plean Castle, Bannockburn, Stirlingshire, pleaded "Not Guilty" to an indictment charging him with uttering fabricated documents in connexion with a petition presented by him to the Court of the Lyon King of Arms for the matriculation in his favour of the arms of Menzies, baronet.
	The Menzies baronetcy has been in abeyance since the death of Sir Neil Menzies, and if the arms claimed by Mr. David Menzies had been granted it would have been a step towards the revival of the baronetcy in his favour. The Lyon King of Arms rejected the claim, and being dissatisfied with certain documents sent them to the Crown Office.
	The Solicitor-General [for Scotland] (Mr. T.B. Morison, K.C.) appeared for the Crown; and Mr. Macmillan, K.C., for the defence.
	Mr. Francis James Grant, Lyon Clerk, said that the accused presented his petition in person, together with various documents. Some of these were backed with the words "Robert, son of Captain James Menzies, of Comrie", and were dated 1754. The accused wanted to establish that fact that by descent from Robert, son of Captain James, he was the heir to the title.
	Sir James Balfour Paul, Lyon King of Arms, said it was by his instructions that the papers were sent to the Crown Office.
	Mr. Bruce, a solicitor, who acted for Mr. Menzies after the petition had been lodged, gave evidence, and in cross-examination agreed that Mr. Menzies consulted experts as to the date of the handwriting on the documents before he put them in.
	Mr. William M. Smith, copperplate engraver, said that in his opinion the words on the back of a bill dated 1719, "Robert, son of Captain James Menzies of Comrie", were a recent addition to the document. They were obviously written with a steel pen, and steel pens did not come into existence until after 1810. Further, the ink of the added portion was of a different colour and quality from that of the original writing. Shown a number of documents, the witness gave it as his opinion that words had been added by another and later hand. Cross-examined, the witness said the additions to the writings were all of equal date and by the same hand. He could not understand why a genealogy should be added to a business document.
	After further evidence had been heard, the Court adjourned.
	I have been unable to discover the outcome of Menzies's trial. However, it is apparent that another claimant to the baronetcy later emerged, since the following notice appeared in the London Gazette on 30 October 1930:-
	Notice is hereby given that the name of Thomas Chalmers Menzies, styling himself a baronet, is not entered on the official roll of the baronetage, and that no claim on his part to the rank, title and dignity of baronet has been established.
	Thomas Chalmers Menzies had married in 1930 Mary Ann Bonar [or Bonnar or Bonner], a widow. For the remainder of her life she styled herself Lady Menzies, in the belief that her husband was entitled to the baronetcy. She, together with her daughter from her first marriage, met a grisly end in February 1954 when both were murdered in a house in Ealing, which they conducted as a "Home for Elderly Gentlefolk". "Lady" Menzies had been strangled with a ligature, and her daughter, Isobel Chesney, had been drowned in a bath. At the subsequent inquest, the jury found that both women had been murdered by Ronald John Chesney, Isobel Chesney's husband. However, Ronald Chesney was never brought to justice - his body was found at Cologne in Germany five days after the discovery of the bodies of the two women. At his side was a Colt pistol with which he shot himself. Ronald John Chesney was no stranger to murder: under his real name of John Donald Merrett he had murdered his mother in Edinburgh in 1926. At his trial in February 1927, the verdict was the peculiarly Scottish outcome of "Not Proven". For further information on Merrett/Chesney, I recommend Murder Not Proven by Jack House [Richard Drew Publishing, Glasgow 1984] or cut and paste the following page into your browser … http://strangeco.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/the-matricidal-mr-merrett.html
	The Meredyth baronetcy created in 1660
	Grave doubts exist as to whether this baronetcy survived beyond the death of the original grantee in 1665. After his death the baronetcy was not assumed until 1789 or after. The baronetcy is omitted in the Catalogue of Baronets of Ireland in 1688, nor was it apparently recognised by the Ulster King of Arms. It is now generally agreed that the baronetcy, if it was still extant, became extinct on the death of the 10th baronet in October 1904.
	The following article appeared in the Hobart Mercury of 18 November 1904:-
	That fact is sometimes stranger than fiction was exemplified yesterday, when an old identity of Hobart, who has been earning his livelihood in our midst for over 50 years as a storeman, deck hand, policeman, shoemaker, and cab-driver, suddenly - or rather not suddenly, since he had been expecting it for half a lifetime - found himself the holder of a baronetcy, which dates from the time of Charles II, the owner of an estate in Ireland, worth several hundreds a year, and the bearer of a title which gives him the privilege for the rest of his life of being addressed as "Sir". Having gleaned so much a representative of "The Mercury" started off to see the new baronet, and to get a glimpse of romance as it was being made. After hunting half over Sandy Bay [a suburb of Hobart], where the ex-cab proprietor - Mr. (now Sir) George Augustus Jervis Meredyth - lived for many years, "The Mercury" representative found a married daughter of the old gentleman, Mrs. Nightingale, living in a cosy little cottage, gay with arum lilies, in a retired street at Sandy Bay. The good woman had not heard of the demise of the old baronet at Windsor, for whose death they had been on the lookout for many years past, and she could hardly realise that it was true. Her father, she said, used to live in a little cottage in King-street, close by, which he had left since his wife died a year ago, and it was now let as a grocer's shop. "That is his eldest son," said Mrs. Nightingale, pointing to a portrait on the wall. "He is the heir to the baronetcy now." Charles George, the son - who, by the way, is no longer a young man himself having been born in 1856 - was a guard on the railway for 20 years, she said, and is still connected with it in some way or other. He, it seems, is married, and has a son and heir. "Perhaps you might like to look at that," said the daughter, pushing forward an extract from "Dodd's [sic] Peerage", containing a full account of the just deceased baronet - Sir Edward Henry John Meredyth. The account was rather a long one, and wound up as follows:- "Heir presumptive, his cousin, George Augustus Jervis, son of Major Charles Burton Meredyth, by his second wife, Maria, daughter of Henry Jervis; born 1831, married 1854 Helen Lampton." [The entry in the 1899 edition of 'Dod's' actually reads 'nephew' and not 'cousin'.]
	"Yes, that was my mother's maiden name," said Mrs. Nightingale. "She married my father over 50 years ago at St. George's Church, Battery Point, made him a good wife, and died last year, leaving the son and another married daughter besides myself, a Mrs. Jones, living at Pyrmont, Sydney. About four years ago Sir Edward's people tried to disinherit my father, and pretended he was illegitimate. Sir Edward pretended he could not find my grandmother's marriage lines, whereupon my father sold up his business as cab proprietor and went to England, interviewed Sir Edward and his wife at Windsor, where they lived, and proved his legitimacy by producing his mother's marriage certificate, which he obtained from the church where she was married. When Sir Edward looked at my father, whom he had not seen for very many years, he shook hands with him and said. "There is no doubt about it. You are the man. I have been wrong." Sir Edward recognised my father as being a relative from his family likeness."
	Having obtained the above preliminary information, together with the statement from Messrs. Dobson, Mitchell and Allport, the solicitors, that they had written many letters during the past ten years for "Mr. Meredyth" to enquire after the health of the deceased baronet, "The Mercury" representative hied him to a draper's shop opposite Adams's Brewery, where he was informed the new baronet might be found. "Yes," said the cabman, "it is quite true. I have been waiting for this event for fifty years." Our representative stared. Fifty years is a tremendous time to wait for a dead man's shoes! It was a little, waxen-faced hard-of-hearing old man who spoke, 74 years of age, tough and wiry, and who looked as if he had had a very hard struggle to keep himself going while waiting to step into the deceased baronet's place. Sir George pointed to the following letter, received yesterday from the editor of the "Peerage and Baronetage", which explains the position of affairs in a nutshell - "Dear Sir, I write, according to promise, to inform you of the death of Sir Edward Meredyth, Bt., which took place this morning at Windsor Castle. Doubtless before this letter reaches you you will have seen the announcement of his death in the newspapers (As a matter of fact, he had not, this being the first intimation the new baronet received of his cousin's demise). By the death of your cousin you succeed to the baronetcy, and I will, of course, make the necessary changes in the account in the 'Peerage and Baronetage', placing your name as the eleventh baronet at the head of the article."
	The letter was dated October 8, and was addressed - the first letter he has received of the kind -"Sir George Augustus Jervis Meredyth, etc, Baronet."
	The editor of "Debrett's Peerage" wrote a similar letter dated October 10, informing Sir George of the further fact that the death of the baronet, which took place on October 8, at Lower Ward, Windsor Castle, was noticed in "The Times" of October 10 [although I couldn't find any sign of such a notice on that date].
	The new baronet proved very chatty and communicative. He was born in Bow-street, London, he said, in 1831, and was christened in Old Stepney Church. (He produced his certificate of baptism to Sir Edward, when the latter pretended he was illegitimate, as well as his mother's marriage certificate from the church at St. Mary's, Old Lambeth, on the occasion already referred to by Mrs. Nightingale.) Sir George had interesting recollections of his father, who had been in eight general naval engagements, including the battles of Copenhagen and Trafalgar, and was in the next vessel to Nelson when he fell. He was wounded three times, and was finally pensioned off. The new baronet was very satirical when referring to the old one. "He had the devil's own luck," said Sir George, referring to Sir Edward, "He bought a commission in the 87th Royal Irish Fusiliers for £50 when he was a young man, was absent on a year's leave during the Indian Mutiny, when all his brother officers were carved into mincemeat; was promoted rapidly without seeing an hour's service, and eventually sold his commission for £2,000." The new baronet then gave some interesting details of his past life - how he had come to Hobart in 1850, and again in 1852, served here as a storeman for 18 years, as a policeman for 14, as a deck hand, stoker at £12 a month, shoemaker, which was his proper trade, cab proprietor, and half a dozen other occupations besides, either in Hobart or close by. "Three unsuccessful attempts have been made to disinherit me," said Sir George. "First they put the case in the four courts of Dublin, and I beat them there, my lawyer succeeding in winning the case. Then Lady Mary tried to substitute an heir, so as to do me out of the property; but I put a detective on the track, who interviewed the lady's mother, and the youngster died to suit the purpose." Exactly what he meant by this the old gentleman did not explain, except that the death of trumped-up heir - if he ever lived - suited him to a T. The third attempt to disinherit him, and its unsuccessful issue, had already been related.
	Having extracted the above information, the representative of "The Mercury" took his departure, congratulating the old gentleman on the attainment of his ambition after such a long and weary wait.
	The publication of the above article provoked an immediate response from a knowledgeable reader of the newspaper, since, on the very next day, the following letter appeared:-
	To the Editor of "The Mercury" - Sir, The transformation of a cabman into a baronet is another and remarkable instance of the "vicissitudes of families", of which the history of hereditary titles affords numerous examples.
	There is apparently no doubt whatever that Mr. George Augustus Jervis Meredyth is the rightful heir-male of the lately deceased "Sir" Edward Meredyth, "Baronet" : but, before formally establishing that heirship, it may be worth his while to ascertain whether the baronetcy which he is said to inherit really exists at all - that is, whether there is any baronetcy for him to inherit.
	The genuineness and legality of several "doubtful" baronetcies have been recently the subject of searching official investigation, and as it was stated in an article reproduced in your columns recently from a London paper that no less than 65 so-called baronets are today using a title to which they have no right, the necessity for such investigation is manifest. The inquiries into the Meredyth baronetcy have produced evidence that casts grave doubts on its genuineness. The history of the title has been published in a recent work of the highest authority [presumably Cokayne's "Complete Baronetage"] and can be briefly summarised as follows -.
	On the 20th of November, 1660, William Meredyth, of Greenhills, Co. Kilkenny, was created a baronet of Ireland, with remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten. He died in February, 1665. In his will, dated June 2, 1664, and proved April 11, 1665, he makes no mention of any children. No successor to the title appeared, and nothing further was heard of it for 125 years, when (in 1789) a Mr. Barry Colless Meredyth assumed it, proving his descent from a Richard Meredyth, whom he alleged was a son of the Sir William who was created a baronet, as above stated. But this alleged man, Richard, never called himself, or was known as a baronet; nor his son Robert, nor his son Richard, nor the heirs of the last Richard. And not only did these alleged male descendants ignore for 125 years the title to which, if legitimate, they would have been entitled, but there is evidence to show that Sir William's brother, Charles, was his heir in 1666, when is so described by the commissioners of the Act of Settlement. The inference, of course, is that Sir William had no male issue, and that consequently the title became extinct at his death in 1665. It certainly does not appear in the official list of baronets in 1688 in the office of the Ulster King of Arms. It was thus non-existing 23 years after the grantee's decease.
	The Council of the Baronetage in dealing with the doubtful baronetcies, do not desire to compel the 65 wearers of them to abandon in their lifetime a title that, in ignorance or otherwise, they have been using, but in the case of any new assumption by reason of the death of the person so using it, the usual proofs of legitimate male descent and heirship from the original grantee will have to be submitted to the proper authorities, and duly substantiated. I need hardly say Debrett, or any other editor, is not a constituted authority.-Yours, etc., -X
	In the light of the comment in the paragraph above, it seems fairly safe to assume that George Meredyth was unable to furnish the necessary proofs to the Council of the Baronetage, and, as a result, was not permitted to assume the title and dignity of a baronet.
	Sir Henry Meux, 2nd baronet [UK 1831]
	Sir Henry Meux (pronounced "Mews") was found to be insane following an inquiry into his state of mind in 1858, as reported in the London Daily News of 9 June 1858:-
	A commission of lunacy was opened yesterday at the Thatched House Tavern, St. James's-street, before Mr. Commissioner Barlow, to inquire into the state of mind of Sir Henry Meux, Bart., M.P., of Theobald's Park, Hertfordshire, and Belgrave-square. The proceedings excited much interest, and a number of gentlemen, relatives and friends of Sir Henry were present.
	A jury of merchants having been empanelled, the Commissioner briefly explained the character of the inquiry.
	Mr. Chambers stated the case for the petitioners [Lord and Lady Malden and Mrs. Arabin]. The main and important question which they should have to consider was not the present condition of Sir Henry Meux, for of that there could not be the slightest doubt, but the time his mind was first affected and he became imbecile and unable to manage his own affairs.
	Sir Henry was the eldest and only son of the late Sir Henry Meux, the very wealthy brewer. He was first placed at Eton, and then went to Christ Church, at Oxford, and on the death of his father, in 1841, he came into possession of a very large fortune - he became the owner of an extensive estate in Hertfordshire, and had a very large share in the brewery. He did not take any particular active part in the duties of the business, but he attended and inspected the quarterly accounts.
	Sir Henry had three sisters, who necessarily were much interested in this inquiry. The oldest married Mr. Arabin, the second Lord Malden, and third to Sir Edward Bowyer Smyth. In 1855, Sir Henry became much attached to the daughter of Lord Ernest Bruce, and at the close of that year, he was married to that lady at Paris, and it would be elicited in evidence by one of the domestics that, about the time of his marriage, or just after, he noticed a peculiar change in the manner and walk of Sir Henry. He thought it wise to mention this circumstance to the medical gentleman who had been in the habit of attending Sir Henry, and on his return in 1856, it would be shown that a very serious disease of the brain had set in and had made considerable progress.
	Matters went on, and at the end of the year he went down to Hertfordshire, and exchanged visits with General Hall. He was rather of sporting habits; he went out shooting and it was observed by General Hall and another gentleman who was with him, that there was an alteration in his manner, he shot in what they thought rather a reckless manner, and there were other circumstances which induced them to come to the opinion that a great change had taken place in him. Indeed, so much struck were they with his manner, that they communicated with his medical adviser, and in December, 1856, a consultation took place with Dr. Williams, Dr. Watson, Dr. Ferguson, and Mr. Adams upon the real state of his mind.
	The result of that consultation would be stated in evidence. It was very desirous that Sir Henry should be kept quiet, and properly treated; he, however, sent a letter saying that he was quite well, and that he did not wish to see them again. He then came under the notice of Mr. Skey, and it was thought a somewhat different treatment might have a beneficial effect upon him. He went to Theobald's Park [Sir Henry's country seat] in January; there were a series of entertainments and shooting parties got up. This, however, instead of checking the progress of the disease, seriously added to it.
	Then came an event in March which had great effect upon the state of his mind. As the jury would know there was a dissolution of Parliament in 1857. Sir Henry was one of the members who represented the county of Hertford, and upon the approach of the general election it became a matter of consideration to avoid a contest, and the reform and conservative party proposed an arrangement that one reform member should be returned. A committee was appointed to arrange which member should retire, Sir Henry agreeing with the other members to the proposal. The committee names Sir Henry as the member who should retire. He refused to acquiesce. He had canvassed the electors, and was much excited. There was no contest, however. Sir Henry was returned, one of the other members retiring, but it was evident that the excitement he had gone through consequent upon the election had seriously added to his malady.
	Towards the latter end of April, or the beginning of May, he manifested more decided symptoms of insanity, and they would find one incident detailed to them which would clearly show that he was not conscious of what he was doing, and had no judgment of what was passing. There was a butler in his service. Sir Henry rang the bell violently, and pointing to a painting in the dining-room, told the domestic to take some crumbs off the picture, which had been left by birds. There were no crumbs, nor had there been any birds, and the man endeavoured to explain that there were none. Sir Henry, however, got into a violent rage, and insisted on the man wiping off the crumbs, or he would discharge him; and the domestic had to go through the form of removing the crumbs, in order to pacify his master. A day or so afterwards he again rang the bell, and complained of all the doors in the house being open. There were no doors open; but he said he would dismiss the man if he did not shut them, and the servant had again to go through the form of closing them.
	In August, he was taken to a review of the Yeomanry Cavalry, being a captain of a troop. He was taken in his carriage and lifted on his horse. He however was quite unconscious of what was passing, he did not give any order of command, and everything that devolved upon him as part of his duty was obliged to be performed by somebody else. Sir Henry was lifted off his horse into his carriage, and on leaving remarked to Lord Verulam, without any previous conversation, "I am obliged to go to town."
	On the 12th of August he proceeded to the Highlands. He was out shooting, and laboured under the delusion that he had shot all the birds and killed one hundred stags during the day. On his return from Scotland in December, Sir B[enjamin] Brodie and other medical gentlemen held a consultation as to his state of mind, and the result would be given to them [the jury]. Last May some medical gentlemen saw him, and while they were with him he was quite childish, and endeavoured to cut his corn with a paper-knife, and he did other acts confirming his insanity. After they had heard all the facts, he believed they would be satisfied that there was a breaking down of the mind of the unfortunate gentleman before the general election, that there was a gradual increase of the disease, and that he was incapable of managing his own affairs.
	General Hall, M.P. for Buckingham, was then examined, and gave evidence of the peculiar conduct of Sir Henry Meux on his shooting excursions, as stated in the learned counsel's address. Sir Henry shot very wild; and, in fact, had injured several persons. He also remembered seeing Sir Henry previous to the last Hertfordshire election. He was then in a very excited state in consequence of a committee. Lord Charles Clinton also spoke of the strange demeanour of Sir Henry.
	When the Commission of Lunacy met again later in the month, its proceedings were described by the Cheshire Observer and General Advertiser on 26 June 1858:-
	It appears that, on the death of his father, in 1841, Sir Henry became possessed of great wealth and a large capital embarked in the brewery. He had three sisters, Lady Malden, Mrs. Arabin, and Lady Bowyer Smijth. In 1855 he married a daughter of Lord Ernest Bruce, a girl of nineteen, and soon after this, the petitioners allege, his manner became noticeably altered and it was found that disease of the brain attended by slow paralysis, had set in.
	Sir Henry was fond of sporting, went to the seat of a friend in Cambridgeshire, for the sake of shooting. There, as well as subsequently at his own seat at Theobald's Park, Hertfordshire, it was observed that he shot in a strange and random way - so much so, indeed, that he wounded five or six persons with whom he went out, though he appeared to be quite unconscious of doing so. At the general election, last year, Sir Henry, who had represented Hertfordshire for ten years, was greatly excited; became subject to delusions; and subsequently sunk into a state of utter imbecility.
	[Then follows an analysis of Sir Henry's will and the various legacies and bequests made to his sisters and widow. Initially half of his estate would go to his widow, and the remaining half would be shared by his three sisters. After the birth of his son, however, he made a codicil to the will, which had the effect of leaving all his property to his son or sons, failing which to his daughters, if any. If there were no children, all his property was left to his widow. This had the effect of cutting out his three sisters from any share of his estate, with the result that they petitioned to have Sir Henry declared insane, thus making the codicil inoperative.]
	Evidence was called on both sides, the witnesses generally agreeing that Sir Henry's intellect was much impaired in August [1857], when he went to Scotland, though their testimony as to his insanity in July was very conflicting. Many of the witnesses were physicians, who differed much as physicians generally differ, as to the nature of Sir Henry's malady; though the general inference is, that it was brought on by the pleasures of the table.
	The commission assembled on Thursday at the Thatched-house Tavern. The jury could not agree as to the period when Sir Henry's insanity commenced. Ultimately the commissioners took their verdict, to the effect that they were unanimous about the present insanity of Sir Henry Meux, but that they were unable to fix the date when such insanity began. The question, therefore, remains now exactly where it was before the inquiry began. In other words, while the jury were agreed as to the unfortunate gentleman's insanity at the present time, they were not able to say whether he was in a sound state of mind when he wrote the codicil to his will, by which the whole of his vast fortune, at his death, come into the possession of his wife and child.

	Copyright © 2003-2018 Leigh Rayment
	Copyright © 2020-2025 Helen Belcher OBE