PEERAGES
Last updated 05/11/2018 (10 Mar 2024)
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
EAMES
25 Aug 1995	B[L]		Robert Henry Alexander Eames Created Baron Eames for life 25 Aug 1995 OM 2007	27 Apr 1936
EARDLEY
24 Sep 1789 to     25 Dec 1824	B[I]	1	Sir Sampson Eardley, 1st baronet Created Baron Eardley 24 Sep 1789 MP for Cambridgeshire 1770‑1780, Midhurst 1780‑1784, Coventry 1784‑1796 and Wallingford 1796‑1802 Peerage extinct on his death	10 Oct 1744	25 Dec 1824	80
EARLSFORT
20 May 1784	B[I]	1	John Scott Created Baron Earlsfort 20 May 1784, Viscount Clonmell 18 Aug 1789 and Earl of Clonmell 6 Dec 1793 See "Clonmell"	8 Jun 1739	23 May 1798	58
EASTNOR
17 Jul 1821	V	1	John Sommers Cocks, 2nd Baron Somers Created Viscount Eastnor and Earl Somers 17 Jul 1821 See "Somers" - this peerage extinct 1883	6 May 1760	5 Jan 1841	80
EATON
21 Jul 2010	B[L]		Dame Ellen Margaret Eaton Created Baroness Eaton for life 21 Jul 2010	1 Jun 1942
EATWELL
14 Jul 1992	B[L]		John Leonard Eatwell Created Baron Eatwell for life 14 Jul 1992	2 Feb 1945
EBBISHAM
5 Jul 1928	B	1	Sir George Rowland Blades, 1st baronet Created Baron Ebbisham 5 Jul 1928 MP for Epsom 1918‑1928	15 Apr 1868	24 May 1953	85
24 May 1953 to     12 Apr 1991		2	Rowland Roberts Blades Peerage extinct on his death	3 Sep 1912	12 Apr 1991	78
EBRINGTON
1 Sep 1789	V	1	Hugh Fortescue, 3rd Baron Fortescue Created Viscount Ebrington and Earl Fortescue 1 Sep 1789 See "Fortescue"	12 Mar 1753	16 Jun 1841	88
EBURY
15 Sep 1857	B	1	Lord Robert Grosvenor Created Baron Ebury 15 Sep 1857 MP for Shaftesbury 1822‑1826, Chester 1826‑1847 and Middlesex 1847‑1857; PC 1831	24 Apr 1801	18 Nov 1893	92
18 Nov 1893		2	Robert Wellesley Grosvenor MP for Westminster 1865‑1874	25 Jan 1834	13 Nov 1918	84
13 Nov 1918		3	Robert Victor Grosvenor	28 Jun 1868	5 Nov 1921	53
5 Nov 1921		4	Francis Egerton Grosvenor	8 Sep 1883	15 May 1932	48
15 May 1932		5	Robert Egerton Grosvenor For information on his death, see the note at the foot of this page	8 Feb 1914	5 May 1957	43
5 May 1957		6	Francis Egerton Grosvenor He succeeded to the Earldom of Wilton in 1999 when the peerages merged	8 Feb 1934
ECCLES
1 Aug 1962 14 Jan 1964	B V	1 1	Sir David McAdam Eccles Created Baron Eccles 1 Aug 1962 and Viscount Eccles 14 Jan 1964 MP for Chippenham 1943‑1962; Minister of Works 1951‑1954; Minister of Education 1954‑1957; President of the Board of Trade 1957‑1959; Minister of Education 1959‑1962; Paymaster General 1970‑1973; PC 1951; CH 1984	18 Sep 1904	24 Feb 1999	94
24 Feb 1999		2	John Dawson Eccles [Elected hereditary peer 2005-]	20 Apr 1931
ECCLES OF MOULTON
10 May 1990	B[L]		Diana Catherine Eccles [wife of 2nd Viscount Eccles] Created Baroness Eccles of Moulton for life 10 May 1990	4 Oct 1933
ECHINGHAM
19 Dec 1311 to     Jun 1326	B	1	William de Echingham Summoned to Parliament as Lord Echingham 19 Dec 1311 Peerage extinct on his death		Jun 1326
EDDISBURY
12 May 1848	B	1	Edward John Stanley Created Baron Eddisbury 12 May 1848 He succeeded to the Barony of Stanley of Alderley in 1850 with which title this peerage then merged	13 Nov 1802	16 Jun 1869	66
EDEN
12 Jul 1961	E	1	Robert Anthony Eden Created Viscount Eden and Earl of Avon 12 Jul 1961 See "Avon"	12 Jun 1897	14 Jan 1977	79
EDEN OF NORWOOD
21 Dec 1839 to     1 Jan 1849	B	1	George Eden, 2nd Baron Auckland Created Baron Eden of Norwood and Earl of Auckland 21 Dec 1839 These peerages extinct on his death	25 Aug 1784	1 Jan 1849	64
EDEN OF WINTON
3 Oct 1983 to     23 May 2020	B[L]		Sir John Benedict Eden, 9th baronet Created Baron Eden of Winton for life 3 Oct 1983 MP for Bournemouth West 1954‑1983; Minister of State, Technology 1970; Minister for Industry 1970‑1972; Minister of Posts & Telecommunications 1972‑1974; PC 1972 Peerage extinct on his death	15 Sep 1925	23 May 2020	94
EDGCUMBE
20 Apr 1742	B	1	Richard Edgcumbe Created Baron Edgcumbe of Mount Edgcumbe 20 Apr 1742 See "Mount Edgcumbe"	23 Apr 1680	22 Nov 1758	78
EDINBURGH
26 Jul 1726	D	1	Frederick Lewis Created Baron of Snowdon, Viscount of Launceston, Earl of Eltham, Marquess of the Isle of Ely and Duke of Edinburgh 26 Jul 1726 In the London Gazette which includes notice of the creation of these titles (issue 6494, page 1) the barony is shown as "Snaudon", the viscountcy as "Lanceston" and the dukedom as "Edenburgh". In addition, the marquessate is shown as "of the Isle of Wight" but later issues of the Gazette - e.g. issue 6741 of 4 Jan 1728 and issue 9050 of 16 Apr 1751 - amend the title to "Marquess of the Isle of Ely". Eldest son of George II	20 Jan 1707	20 Mar 1751	44
20 Mar 1751 to     25 Oct 1760		2	George William Frederick, Duke of Cornwall He succeeded to the throne as George III when the peerage merged with the Crown	4 Jun 1738	29 Jan 1820	81
24 May 1866 to     30 Jul 1900	D	1	Alfred Ernest Albert Created Earl of Ulster, Earl of Kent and Duke of Edinburgh 24 May 1866 KG 1863; KT 1864; PC 1866; KP 1880 Peerage extinct on his death For information on the attempted assassination of the Duke in Sydney in 1868, see the note at the foot of this page	6 Aug 1844	30 Jul 1900	55
20 Nov 1947	D	1	Philip Mountbatten Created Baron Greenwich, Earl of Merioneth and Duke of Edinburgh 20 Nov 1947 Husband of Elizabeth II; KG 1947; KT 1952; OM 1968	10 Jun 1921	9 Apr 2021	99
9 Apr 2021 to     8 Sep 2022		2	HRH Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales He succeeded to the throne as Charles III at which point the peerage merged with the Crown	14 Nov 1948
10 Mar 2023	D[L]		HRH Prince Edward Antony Richard Louis Created Viscount Severn and Earl of Wessex 19 Jun 1999, Earl of Forfar 10 Mar 2019 and Duke of Edinburgh for life 10 Mar 2023 Third son of Elizabeth II; KG 2006; KT 2024	10 Mar 1964
EDIRDALE
29 Jan 1488 to     17 Jan 1504	E[S]	1	James Stewart, 1st Earl of Ross Created Lord Brechin & Navar, Earl of Edirdale, Marquess of Ormond and Duke of Ross 29 Jan 1488 Second son of James III of Scotland Peerages extinct on his death	Mar 1476	17 Jan 1504	27
EDMISTON
14 Jan 2011	B[L]		Robert Norman Edmiston Created Baron Edmiston for life 14 Jan 2011	6 Oct 1946
EDMUND-DAVIES
1 Oct 1974 to     26 Dec 1992	B[L]		Sir (Herbert) Edmund Edmund‑Davies Created Baron Edmund‑Davies for life 1 Oct 1974 Lord Justice of Appeal 1966‑1974; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1974‑1981; PC 1966 Peerage extinct on his death	15 Jul 1906	26 Dec 1992	86
EDNAM
5 Oct 1827 to     6 Mar 1833	E	1	John William Ward, 4th Viscount Dudley Created Viscount Ednam and Earl of Dudley of Dudley Castle 5 Oct 1827 Peerages extinct on his death	9 Aug 1781	6 Mar 1833	51
17 Feb 1860	V	1	William Ward, 11th Baron Ward Created Viscount Ednam and Earl of Dudley of Dudley Castle 17 Feb 1860 See "Dudley of Dudley Castle"	27 Mar 1817	7 May 1885	68
EDRINGTON
22 Jan 1336 to     after 1336	B	1	Henry de Edrington Summoned to Parliament as Lord Edrington 22 Jan 1336 The peerage presumably became extinct on his death		after 1336
EFFINGHAM
11 Mar 1554	B	1	Lord Thomas Howard Created Baron Howard of Effingham 11 Mar 1554 Lord Privy Seal 1572‑1573; Lord Lieutenant Surrey 1559‑1573; KG 1554	c 1510	11 Jan 1573
11 Jan 1573		2	Charles Howard, later [1596] 1st Earl of Nottingham	1536	14 Dec 1624	88
19 Mar 1603		3	William Howard He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Howard of Effingham 19 Mar 1603 On his death the peerage reverted to his father (see above)	27 Dec 1577	28 Nov 1615	37
14 Dec 1624		4	Charles Howard, 2nd Earl of Nottingham	17 Sep 1579	3 Oct 1642	63
3 Oct 1642		5	Charles Howard, 3rd Earl of Nottingham	25 Dec 1610	26 Apr 1681	70
26 Apr 1681		6	Francis Howard Governor of Virginia 1683	17 Sep 1643	30 Mar 1695	51
30 Mar 1695		7	Thomas Howard PC [I] by 1723	7 Jul 1682	13 Jul 1725	43
13 Jul 1725 8 Dec 1731	E	8 1	Francis Howard Created Earl of Effingham 8 Dec 1731	20 Oct 1683	12 Feb 1743	59
12 Feb 1743		9 2	Thomas Howard	1714	19 Nov 1763	49
19 Nov 1763		10 3	Thomas Howard Master of the Mint 1784‑1789; Governor of Jamaica 1789‑1791; PC 1782	13 Jan 1746	19 Nov 1791	45
19 Nov 1791 to     10 Dec 1816		11 4	Richard Howard MP for Steyning 1784‑1790 On his death the Earldom became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	21 Feb 1748	10 Dec 1816	68
10 Dec 1816 27 Jan 1837	E	12 1	Kenneth Alexander Howard Created Earl of Effingham 27 Jan 1837	29 Nov 1767	13 Feb 1845	77
13 Feb 1845		2	Henry Howard MP for Shaftesbury 1841‑1845	23 Aug 1806	5 Feb 1889	82
5 Feb 1889		3	Henry Howard	7 Feb 1837	4 May 1898	61
4 May 1898		4	Henry Alexander Gordon Howard	15 Aug 1866	6 May 1927	60
6 May 1927		5	Gordon Frederick Henry Charles Howard	18 May 1873	7 Jul 1946	73
7 Jul 1946		6	Mowbray Henry Gordon Howard	29 Nov 1905	22 Feb 1996	90
22 Feb 1996		7	David Peter Mowbray Algernon Howard	29 Apr 1939	26 Feb 2022	82
26 Feb 2022		8	Edward Mowbray Nicholas Howard	11 May 1971
EGERTON OF TATTON
15 Apr 1859	B	1	William Tatton Egerton Created Baron Egerton of Tatton 15 Apr 1859 MP for Lymington 1830‑1832 and Cheshire North 1832‑1858; Lord Lieutenant Cheshire 1868‑1883	30 Dec 1806	21 Feb 1883	76
21 Feb 1883 22 Jul 1897 to     16 Mar 1909	E	2 1	Wilbraham Egerton Created Viscount Salford and Earl Egerton of Tatton 22 Jul 1897 MP for Cheshire North 1858‑1868 and Cheshire Mid 1868‑1883; Lord Lieutenant Cheshire 1900‑1905 On his death the Earldom and Viscountcy became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	17 Jan 1832	16 Mar 1909	77
16 Mar 1909		3	Alan de Tatton Egerton MP for Cheshire Mid 1883‑1885 and Knutsford 1885‑1906	19 Mar 1845	9 Sep 1920	75
9 Sep 1920 to     30 Jan 1958		4	Maurice Egerton Peerage extinct on his death	4 Aug 1874	30 Jan 1958	83
EGLINTON
Jan 1507	E[S]	1	Hugh Montgomerie, 2nd Lord Montgomerie Created Earl of Eglinton Jan 1507	1460	Jun 1545	84
Jun 1545		2	Hugh Montgomerie		3 Sep 1546
3 Sep 1546		3	Hugh Montgomerie	1531	3 Jun 1585	53
3 Jun 1585		4	Hugh Montgomerie	1563	18 Apr 1586	22
18 Apr 1586		5	Hugh Montgomerie	1584	4 Sep 1612	28
4 Sep 1612		6	Alexander Montgomerie	1588	7 Jan 1661	72
7 Jan 1661		7	Hugh Montgomerie	8 Apr 1613	Feb 1669	55
Feb 1669		8	Alexander Montgomerie		1701
1701		9	Alexander Montgomerie For information on this peer's third wife, see the note at the foot of this page	c 1660	18 Feb 1729
18 Feb 1729		10	Alexander Montgomerie For information on this peer's death, see the note at the foot of this page	10 Feb 1723	25 Oct 1769	46
25 Oct 1769		11	Archibald Montgomerie MP for Ayrshire 1761‑1768; Lord Lieutenant Ayrshire 1794‑1796	18 May 1726	30 Oct 1796	70
30 Oct 1796		12	Hugh Montgomerie Created Baron Ardrossan 21 Feb 1806 MP for Ayrshire 1780‑1781, 1784‑1789 and 1796; Lord Lieutenant Ayrshire 1796‑1819; KT 1812	5 Nov 1739	14 Dec 1819	80
14 Dec 1819		13	Archibald William Montgomerie Created Earl of Winton 23 Jun 1859 Lord Lieutenant Ayrshire 1842‑1861; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1852‑1853 and 1858‑1859; PC 1852; KT 1853 For further information on this peer, and on the Eglinton Tournament in particular, see the note at the foot of this page	29 Sep 1812	4 Oct 1861	49
4 Oct 1861		14	Archibald William Montgomerie (also 2nd Earl of Winton)	3 Dec 1841	30 Aug 1892	50
30 Aug 1892		15	George Arnulf Montgomerie (also 3rd Earl of Winton) Lord Lieutenant Ayrshire 1897‑1919	23 Feb 1848	10 Aug 1919	71
10 Aug 1919		16	Archibald Seton Montgomerie (also 4th Earl of Winton)	23 Jun 1880	22 Apr 1945	64
22 Apr 1945		17	Archibald William Alexander Montgomerie (also 5th Earl of Winton)	16 Oct 1914	21 Apr 1966	51
21 Apr 1966		18	Archibald George Montgomerie (also 6th Earl of Winton)	27 Aug 1939	14 Jun 2018	78
14 Jun 2018		19	Hugh Archibald William Montgomerie (also 7th Earl of Winton)	24 Jul 1966
EGMONT
6 Nov 1733	E[I]	1	Sir John Perceval, 5th baronet Created Baron Perceval 21 Apr 1715, Viscount Perceval 25 Feb 1723 and Earl of Egmont 6 Nov 1733 MP [I] for Cork County 1703‑1714; MP for Harwich 1727‑1734; PC [I] 1704	12 Jul 1683	1 May 1748	64
1 May 1748		2	John Perceval Created Baron Lovell and Holland 7 May 1762 MP [I] for Dingle 1731‑1748; MP for Westminster 1741‑1747, Weobly 1747‑1754 and Bridgewater 1754‑1762; Postmaster General 1762‑1763; First Lord of the Admiralty 1763‑1766; PC 1755	24 Feb 1711	4 Dec 1770	59
4 Dec 1770		3	John James Perceval MP for Bridgewater 1762‑1769	23 Jan 1738	25 Feb 1822	84
25 Feb 1822		4	John Perceval	13 Aug 1767	31 Dec 1835	68
31 Dec 1835		5	Henry Frederick Joseph James Perceval MP for East Looe 1826 For information on the court case relating to the disposition of this peer's estates, see the note at the foot of this page	3 Jan 1796	23 Dec 1841	45
23 Dec 1841		6	George James Perceval, 3rd Baron Arden MP for Surrey West 1837‑1840	14 Mar 1794	2 Aug 1874	80
2 Aug 1874		7	Charles George Perceval MP for Midhurst 1874	15 Jun 1845	5 Sep 1897	52
5 Sep 1897		8	Augustus Arthur Perceval For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	4 Jun 1856	11 Aug 1910	54
11 Aug 1910		9	Charles John Perceval	29 Jun 1858	10 Jan 1929	70
10 Jan 1929		10	Frederick Joseph Trevelyan Perceval For further information on this peer, and on rival claimants for the title, see the notes at the foot of this page	27 Apr 1873	16 May 1932	59
16 May 1932		11	Frederick George Moore Perceval For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	14 Apr 1914	10 Dec 2001	87
10 Dec 2001 to     6 Nov 2011		12	Thomas Frederick Gerald Perceval Peerages extinct on his death	17 Aug 1934	6 Nov 2011	77
EGREMONT
20 Nov 1449 to     10 Jul 1460	B	1	Sir Thomas Percy Created Baron Egremont 20 Nov 1449 Peerage extinct on his death	29 Nov 1422	10 Jul 1460	37
3 Oct 1749	E	1	Algernon Seymour, 7th Duke of Somerset Created Baron Cockermouth and Earl of Egremont 3 Oct 1749 For details of the special remainder included in this creation, see the note at the foot of this page	11 Nov 1684	7 Feb 1750	65
7 Feb 1750		2	Sir Charles Wyndham, 4th baronet MP for Bridgewater 1735‑1741, Appleby 1742‑1747 and Taunton 1747‑1750; Lord Lieutenant Cumberland 1751‑1759 and Sussex Jan‑Aug 1763; Secretary of State 1761; PC 1761	19 Aug 1710	21 Aug 1763	53
21 Aug 1763		3	George O'Brien Wyndham Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1819‑1835	18 Dec 1751	11 Nov 1837	85
11 Nov 1837 to     2 Apr 1845		4	George Francis Wyndham Peerage extinct on his death	30 Aug 1785	2 Apr 1845	59
27 Nov 1963	B	1	John Edward Reginald Wyndham Created Baron Egremont 27 Nov 1963 He succeeded to the Barony of Leconfield in 1967, with which title this peerage then merged	5 Jun 1920	6 Jun 1972	52
ELBOTTLE
1646 to     19 Apr 1650	B[S]	1	Sir James Maxwell Created Lord Elbottle and Earl of Dirletoun 1646 Peerages extinct on his death		19 Apr 1650
ELCHO AND METHELL
25 Jun 1633	B[S]	1	John Wemyss, 1st Lord Wemyss Created Lord Elcho & Methell and Earl of Wemyss 25 Jun 1633 See "Wemyss"	1586	22 Nov 1649	63
ELDER
19 Jul 1999 to     24 Oct 2023	B[L]		(Thomas) Murray Elder Created Baron Elder for life 19 Jul 1999 Peerage extinct on his death	9 May 1950	24 Oct 2023	73
ELDON
18 Jul 1799 7 Jul 1821	B E	1 1	John Scott Created Baron Eldon 18 Jul 1799 and Viscount Encombe and Earl of Eldon 7 Jul 1821 MP for Weobly 1783‑1796 and Boroughbridge 1796‑1799; Solicitor General 1788‑1793; Attorney General 1793‑1799; Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas 1799‑1801;. Lord Chancellor 1801‑1806 and 1807‑1827; PC 1799 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	4 Jun 1751	13 Jan 1838	86
13 Jan 1838		2	John Scott MP for Truro 1829‑1832 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	10 Dec 1805	18 Sep 1854	48
18 Sep 1854		3	John Scott	8 Nov 1845	10 Aug 1926	80
10 Aug 1926		4	John Scott	29 Mar 1899	20 Oct 1976	77
20 Oct 1976		5	John Joseph Nicholas Scott	24 Apr 1937	30 Jan 2017	79
30 Jan 2017		6	John Francis Thomas Marie Joseph Columbia Fidelis Scott	9 Jul 1962
ELGIN
21 Jun 1633	E[S]	1	Thomas Bruce, 3rd Lord Bruce of Kinloss Created Lord Bruce of Kinloss and Earl of Elgin 21 Jun 1633 and Baron Bruce of Whorlton 30 Jul 1641	2 Dec 1599	21 Dec 1663	64
21 Dec 1663		2	Robert Bruce MP for Bedfordshire 1660‑1664 Created Baron Bruce of Skelton, Viscount Bruce of Ampthill and Earl of Ailesbury 18 Mar 1664	19 Mar 1626	20 Oct 1685	59
20 Oct 1685		3	Thomas Bruce, 2nd Earl of Ailesbury	1656	16 Dec 1741	85
16 Dec 1741		4	Charles Bruce, 3rd Earl of Ailesbury He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Bruce of Whorlton 29 Dec 1711	29 May 1682	10 Feb 1747	64
10 Feb 1747		5	Charles Bruce, 9th Earl of Kincardine	26 Jul 1732	14 May 1771	38
14 May 1771		6	William Robert Bruce (also 10th Earl of Kincardine)	28 Jan 1764	15 Jul 1771	7
15 Jul 1771		7	Thomas Bruce (also 11th Earl of Kincardine) Lord Lieutenant Fife Mar‑May 1807; PC 1799	20 Jul 1766	14 Nov 1841	75
14 Nov 1841		8	James Bruce (also 12th Earl of Kincardine) Created Baron Elgin [UK] 13 Nov 1849 MP for Southampton 1841; Governor of Jamaica 1842‑1846; Governor General of Canada 1846‑1854 and India 1862‑1863; Lord Lieutenant Fife 1854‑1863; Postmaster General 1859; KT 1847; PC 1857	20 Jul 1811	20 Nov 1863	52
20 Nov 1863		9	Victor Alexander Bruce (also 13th Earl of Kincardine) First Commissioner of Works 1886; Viceroy of India 1894‑1899; Secretary of State for Colonies 1905‑1908; Lord Lieutenant Fife 1886‑1917; PC 1886; KG 1899	16 May 1849	18 Jan 1917	67
18 Jan 1917		10	Edward James Bruce (also 14th Earl of Kincardine) Lord Lieutenant Fife 1935‑1965; KT 1933	8 Jun 1881	27 Nov 1968	87
27 Nov 1968		11	Andrew Douglas Alexander Bruce (also 15th Earl of Kincardine) Lord Lieutenant Fife 1987‑1999; KT 1981	17 Feb 1924
ELIBANK
18 Mar 1643	B[S]	1	Sir Patrick Murray, 1st baronet Created Lord Elibank 18 Mar 1643		12 Nov 1649
12 Nov 1649		2	Patrick Murray		13 Feb 1661
13 Feb 1661		3	Patrick Murray		1687
1687		4	Alexander Murray	9 Mar 1677	6 Feb 1736	58
6 Feb 1736		5	Patrick Murray	27 Feb 1703	3 Aug 1778	75
3 Aug 1778		6	George Murray	14 May 1706	12 Nov 1785	79
12 Nov 1785		7	Alexander Murray MP for Peebles 1783‑1785; Lord Lieutenant Peebles 1794‑1820	24 Apr 1747	24 Sep 1820	73
24 Sep 1820		8	Alexander Murray	26 Feb 1780	9 Apr 1830	50
9 Apr 1830		9	Alexander Oliphant-Murray	23 May 1804	31 May 1871	67
31 May 1871 3 Jul 1911	V	10 1	Montolieu Fox Oliphant‑Murray Created Viscount Elibank 3 Jul 1911 Lord Lieutenant Peebles 1896‑1908	27 Apr 1840	20 Feb 1927	86
20 Feb 1927		11 2	Gideon Oliphant-Murray MP for St. Rollox 1918‑1922; Lord Lieutenant Peebles 1934‑1945	7 Aug 1877	11 Mar 1951	73
11 Mar 1951 to     5 Dec 1962		12 3	Arthur Cecil Murray MP for Kincardineshire 1908‑1918 and Kincardine & Western Aberdeenshire 1918‑1923 On his death the Viscountcy became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	27 Mar 1879	5 Dec 1962	83
5 Dec 1962		13	James Alastair Frederick Campbell Erskine‑Murray	23 Jun 1902	2 Jun 1973	70
2 Jun 1973		14	Alan D'Ardis Erskine‑Murray	31 Dec 1923	30 Nov 2017	93
30 Nov 2017		15	Robert Francis Alan Erskine‑Murray	10 Oct 1964
ELIOT OF ST. GERMANS
13 Jan 1784	B	1	Edward Eliot Created Baron Eliot of St. Germans 13 Jan 1784 MP for St. Germans 1748‑1768 and 1774‑1775, Liskeard 1768‑1774 and Cornwall 1775‑1784	8 Jul 1727	17 Feb 1804	76
17 Feb 1804		2	John Eliot Created Earl of Saint Germans 28 Nov 1815 See "Saint Germans"	30 Sep 1761	17 Nov 1823	62
14 Sep 1870			William Gordon Cornwallis Eliot He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Eliot 14 Sep 1870 He succeeded as Earl of Saint Germans in 1877	14 Dec 1829	19 Mar 1881	51
ELIS-THOMAS
18 Sep 1992	B[L]		Dafydd Elis Elis‑Thomas Created Baron Elis-Thomas for life 18 Sep 1992 MP for Merioneth 1974‑1983 and Meirionnydd Nant Conwy 1983‑1992; PC 2004	18 Oct 1946
ELLENBOROUGH
19 Apr 1802	B	1	Edward Law Created Baron Ellenborough 19 Apr 1802 MP for Newtown 1801‑1802; Attorney General 1801; Lord Chief Justice 1802‑1818; PC 1802 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	16 Nov 1750	13 Dec 1818	68
13 Dec 1818 22 Oct 1844 to     22 Dec 1871	E	2 1	Edward Law Created Viscount Southam and Earl of Ellenborough 22 Oct 1844 MP for St. Michaels 1813‑1818; Lord Privy Seal 1828‑1829; President of the Board of Control 1834‑1835, 1841 and 1858; Governor General of India 1841‑1844; First Lord of the Admiralty 1846; PC 1828 For further information on the Earl's second wife, see the note at the foot of this page On his death the Earldom became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	8 Sep 1790	22 Dec 1871	81
22 Dec 1871		3	Charles Edmund Towry‑Law	17 Nov 1820	9 Oct 1890	69
9 Oct 1890		4	Charles Towry Hamilton Law	21 Apr 1856	26 Jun 1902	46
26 Jun 1902		5	Edward Downes Law	9 May 1841	9 Dec 1915	74
9 Dec 1915		6	Cecil Henry Law	25 Nov 1849	22 Jan 1931	81
22 Jan 1931		7	Henry Astell Law	11 Jul 1889	19 May 1945	55
19 May 1945		8	Richard Edward Cecil Law	14 Jan 1926	7 Jun 2013	87
7 Jun 2013		9	Rupert Edward Henry Law	28 Mar 1955
ELLES
2 May 1972 to     17 Oct 2009	B[L]		Diana Louie Elles Created Baroness Elles for life 2 May 1972 MEP 1973‑1975 and for Thames Valley 1979‑1989 Peerage extinct on her death	19 Jul 1921	17 Oct 2009	88
ELLESMERE
21 Jul 1603	B	1	Thomas Egerton Created Baron Ellesmere 21 Jul 1603 and Viscount Brackley 7 Nov 1616 See "Brackley"	1540	15 Mar 1617	76
6 Jul 1846	E	1	Lord Francis Egerton Created Viscount Brackley and Earl of Ellesmere 6 Jul 1846 MP for Bletchingley 1822‑1826, Sutherland 1826‑1831 and Lancashire South 1835‑1846; Lord Lieutenant Lancashire 1855‑1857; PC 1828; PC [I] 1828; KG 1855 For information about the "Great Ellesmere Jewel Robbery" of 1856, see the note at the foot of this page	1 Jan 1800	18 Feb 1857	57
18 Feb 1857		2	George Granville Francis Egerton MP for Staffordshire North 1847‑1851	15 Jun 1823	19 Sep 1862	39
19 Sep 1862		3	Francis Charles Granville Egerton	5 Apr 1847	13 Jul 1914	67
13 Jul 1914		4	John Francis Granville Scrope Egerton	14 Nov 1872	24 Aug 1944	71
24 Aug 1944		5	John Sutherland Egerton He succeeded as 6th Duke of Sutherland in 1963 with which title this peerage then merged	10 May 1915	21 Sep 2000	85
ELLIOT OF HARWOOD
26 Sep 1958 to     3 Jan 1994	B[L]		Dame Katharine Elliot Created Baroness Elliot of Harwood for life 26 Sep 1958 Peerage extinct on her death	15 Jan 1903	3 Jan 1994	90
ELLIOTT OF MICKLE FELL
6 Feb 2024	B[L]		Matthew Jim Elliott Created Baron Elliott of Mickle Fell for life 6 Feb 2024	12 Feb 1978
ELLIOTT OF MORPETH
16 May 1985 to     20 May 2011	B[L]		Sir (Robert) William Elliott Created Baron Elliott of Morpeth for life 16 May 1985 MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North 1957‑1983 Peerage extinct on his death	11 Dec 1920	20 May 2011	90
ELMLEY
1 Dec 1815	V	1	William Lygon, 1st Baron Beauchamp Created Viscount Elmley and Earl Beauchamp 1 Dec 1815 See "Beauchamp"	25 Jul 1747	21 Oct 1816	69
ELPHINSTONE
14 Jan 1509	B[S]	1	Alexander Elphinstone Created Lord Elphinstone 14 Jan 1509		9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513		2	Alexander Elphinstone	22 May 1510	10 Sep 1547	37
10 Sep 1547		3	Robert Elphinstone	9 Sep 1530	18 May 1602	71
18 May 1602		4	Alexander Elphinstone	28 May 1552	11 Jan 1638	85
11 Jan 1638		5	Alexander Elphinstone	13 Nov 1577	27 Aug 1648	70
27 Aug 1648		6	Alexander Elphinstone		Dec 1654
Dec 1654		7	Alexander Elphinstone	30 Mar 1647	11 May 1669	22
11 May 1669		8	John Elphinstone	28 Aug 1649	24 Mar 1718	68
24 Mar 1718		9	Charles Elphinstone	6 Dec 1676	20 Feb 1757	80
20 Feb 1757		10	Charles Elphinstone	6 Aug 1711	2 Apr 1781	69
2 Apr 1781		11	John Elphinstone Lord Lieutenant Dumbarton Mar‑Aug 1794	26 Jan 1737	19 Aug 1794	57
19 Aug 1794		12	John Elphinstone Lord Lieutenant Dumbarton 1794‑1813	1764	20 May 1813	48
20 May 1813 21 May 1859 to     19 Jul 1860	B	13 1	John Elphinstone Created Baron Elphinstone [UK] 21 May 1859 Governor of Bombay 1853‑1860; PC 1836 On his death the creation of 1859 became extinct whilst the 1509 creation passed to -	23 Jun 1807	19 Jul 1860	53
19 Jul 1860		14	John Elphinstone-Fleeming	11 Dec 1819	13 Jan 1861	41
13 Jan 1861 30 Dec 1885	B	15 1	William Buller Fullerton Elphinstone Created Baron Elphinstone [UK] 30 Dec 1885	18 Nov 1828	18 Jan 1893	64
18 Jan 1893		16	Sidney Herbert Elphinstone KT 1928	27 Jul 1869	28 Nov 1955	86
28 Nov 1955		17	John Alexander Elphinstone	22 Mar 1914	15 Nov 1975	61
15 Nov 1975		18	James Alexander Elphinstone	22 Apr 1953	19 Dec 1994	41
19 Dec 1994		19	Alexander Mountstuart Elphinstone	15 Apr 1980
ELTHAM
26 Jul 1726	E	1	Frederick Lewis Created Baron of Snowdon, Viscount of Launceston, Earl of Eltham, Marquess of the Isle of Ely and Duke of Edinburgh 26 Jul 1726 See "Edinburgh"	20 Jan 1707	20 Mar 1751	44
16 Jul 1917	E	1	Adolphus Charles Alexander Ladislaus Cambridge Created Viscount Northallerton, Earl of Eltham and Marquess of Cambridge 16 Jul 1917 See "Cambridge"	13 Aug 1868	24 Oct 1927	59
ELTISLEY
15 Jan 1934 to     2 Sep 1942	B	1	Sir George Douglas Cochrane Newton Created Baron Eltisley 15 Jan 1934 MP for Cambridge 1922‑1934 Peerage extinct on his death	14 Jul 1879	2 Sep 1942	63
ELTON
16 Jan 1934	B	1	Godfrey Elton Created Baron Elton 16 Jan 1934	29 Mar 1892	18 Apr 1973	81
18 Apr 1973		2	Rodney Elton [Elected hereditary peer 1999‑2020]	2 Mar 1930	19 Aug 2023	93
19 Aug 2023		3	Edward Paget Elton	28 May 1966
ELVEDON
30 Sep 1919	V	1	Edward Cecil Guinness, 1st Viscount Iveagh Created Viscount Elvedon and Earl of Iveagh 30 Sep 1919 See "Iveagh"	10 Nov 1847	7 Oct 1927	79
ELWORTHY
9 May 1972 to     4 Apr 1993	B[L]		Sir Samuel Charles Elworthy Created Baron Elworthy for life 9 May 1972 Marshal of the RAF 1967; Chief of the Defence Staff 1967‑1971; Lord Lieutenant Greater London 1973‑1978; KG 1977 Peerage extinct on his death	23 Mar 1911	4 Apr 1993	82
ELWYN-JONES
11 Mar 1974 to     4 Dec 1989	B[L]		Sir Frederick Elwyn Elwyn‑Jones Created Baron Elwyn-Jones for life 11 Mar 1974 MP for Plaistow 1945‑1950, West Ham South 1950‑1974 and Newham South 1974; Attorney General 1964‑1970; Lord Chancellor 1974‑1979; PC 1964; CH 1976 Peerage extinct on his death	24 Oct 1909	4 Dec 1989	80
ELY
10 May 1622	V[I]	1	Sir Adam Loftus Created Viscount Loftus of Ely 10 May 1622 Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1619‑1638	1568	1646	78
1646		2	Edward Loftus Lord Lieutenant Kildare	1599	11 Apr 1680	80
11 Apr 1680 to     6 Nov 1725		3	Arthur Loftus Peerage extinct on his death	18 Jun 1644	6 Nov 1725	81
19 Jul 1756	V[I]	1	Nicholas Loftus Created Baron Loftus 5 Nov 1751 and Viscount Loftus of Ely 19 Jul 1756 MP [I] for Fethard (Wexford) 1710‑1713, Clonmines 1713‑1715 and Wexford County 1715‑1751; PC [I] 1753	1687	31 Dec 1763	76
31 Dec 1763 23 Oct 1766	E[I]	2 1	Nicholas Hume-Loftus Created Earl of Ely 23 Oct 1766 MP [I] for Bannow 1737‑1760 and Fethard (Wexford) 1761‑1764; Lord Lieutenant Wexford 1764; PC [I] 1764	1714	31 Oct 1766	52
31 Oct 1766 to     12 Nov 1769		3 2	Nicholas Hume-Loftus MP [I] for Fethard (Wexford) 1759‑1767 On his death the Earldom became extinct but the Viscountcy passed to -	11 Sep 1738	12 Nov 1769	31
12 Nov 1769 2 Dec 1771 to     8 May 1783	E[I]	4 1	Henry Loftus Created Earl of Ely 2 Dec 1771 MP [I] for Bannow 1747‑1768 and Wexford County 1768‑1769; PC [I] 1771; KP 1783 Peerages extinct on his death	18 Nov 1709	8 May 1783	73
2 Mar 1794 29 Dec 1800	E[I] M[I]	1 1	Sir Charles Tottenham Loftus, 2nd baronet Created Baron Loftus 28 Jun 1785, Viscount Loftus of Ely 28 Dec 1789, Earl of Ely 2 Mar 1794, Marquess of Ely 29 Dec 1800 and Baron Loftus [UK] 19 Jan 1801 MP [I] for Clonmines 1761‑1776, Fethard (Wexford) 1776‑1783 and Wexford Borough 1783‑1785; PC [I] 1783; KP 1794	23 Jan 1738	22 Mar 1806	68
22 Mar 1806		2	John Loftus MP [I] for Wexford County 1790‑1800; MP for co. Wexford 1802‑1806; KP 1807; PC [I] 1800	15 Feb 1770	26 Sep 1845	75
26 Sep 1845		3	John Henry Loftus MP for Woodstock 1845	19 Jan 1814	15 Jul 1857	43
15 Jul 1857		4	John Henry Wellington Graham Loftus	20 Nov 1849	3 Apr 1889	39
3 Apr 1889		5	John Henry Loftus	6 Mar 1851	18 Dec 1925	74
18 Dec 1925		6	George Herbert Loftus	19 Apr 1854	10 Apr 1935	80
10 Apr 1935		7	George Henry Wellington Loftus	3 Sep 1903	31 May 1969	65
31 May 1969		8	John Charles Tottenham Loftus	30 May 1913	1 Feb 2006	92
1 Feb 2006		9	Charles John Tottenham Loftus	2 Feb 1943
ELYSTAN-MORGAN
27 May 1981 to     7 Jul 2021	B[L]		Dafydd Elystan Morgan Created Baron Elystan-Morgan for life 27 May 1981 MP for Cardiganshire 1966‑1974 Peerage extinct on his death	7 Dec 1932	7 Jul 2021	88
EMERTON
17 Feb 1997	B[L]		Dame Audrey Caroline Emerton Created Baroness Emerton for life 17 Feb 1997	10 Sep 1935
EMLY
12 Jan 1874	B	1	William Monsell Created Baron Emly 12 Jan 1874 MP for co. Limerick 1847‑1874; President of the Board of Health 1857; Vice President of the Board of Trade 1866; Postmaster General 1870‑1873; Lord Lieutenant Limerick 1871‑1894; PC 1855	21 Sep 1812	20 Apr 1894	81
20 Apr 1894 to     24 Nov 1932		2	Thomas William Gaston Monsell Peerage extinct on his death	5 Mar 1858	24 Nov 1932	74

	Robert Egerton Grosvenor, 5th Baron Ebury
	Lord Ebury was killed when he lost control of his car during a hill climb, the car overturning and crushing him beneath it. His death was reported in The Times on 6 May 1957:-
	Lord Ebury, aged 43, the fifth baron, was killed instantly when his racing car hit a bank and turned over while he was competing at the Bugatti Owners' Club first national hill climb of the season at Prescott, Cheltenham to-day.
	Well known at Prescott in past seasons as the driver of an E[nglish].R[acing].A[utomobile]., Lord Ebury was making his first climb of the day, in his British racing green "C" type Jaguar. Track conditions were excellent and Lord Ebury was making a fine run. He had just gone through the "S" bends and was taking the right-hand turn into the finishing straight when the Jaguar hit the offside bank. It rolled over on to the track, pinning the driver beneath it.
	Officials and spectators lifted the car and extricated Lord Ebury. His body was taken by ambulance men down the return road to the foot of the hill. The accident was described over the loudspeaker system as "serious", but the fact of Lord Ebury's death was not disclosed and thousands of spectators did not know of it when the programme was resumed after nearly an hour.
	Comparatively few spectators saw the accident, for most of them were at the more spectacular of the bends, lower on the half-mile climb. Mechanics pushed the car away and it was taken to the pits. The wings were damaged and the steering wheel was broken.
	The accident happened at almost the same spot where, during practice on Saturday, B.D.R. Bartlett hit the side while driving a Triumph TR2. Mr. Bartlett was admitted to Cheltenham Hospital with broken ribs and other injuries. To-day's fatality is the first at Prescott, which was opened as the Bugatti Owners' Club speed hill climb course shortly before the war.
	H.R.H. Prince Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh
	The Duke of Edinburgh was the second son of Queen Victoria. During a tour of Australia in 1868 he was shot in the back by a would-be assassin, but he later recovered from his wound. The following edited report on the attempted assassination appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 March 1868:-
	It is with the deepest sorrow that we have to announce a most determined attempt to assassinate his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. When the Prince left the luncheon tent at the Sailors' Home Picnic, he escorted the Countess of Belmore [wife of the Earl of Belmore, the then Governor of New South Wales] to the door of the Royal tent, and then turned to converse with his Excellency the Governor, the Chief Justice [Sir Alfred Stephen], and Sir William Manning [President of the Sydney Sailors' Home]. They remained talking a few seconds, and then his Royal Highness and Sir William Manning sauntered across the green towards the clump of trees bordering the beach, and under which the Galatea Band was stationed. [The Galatea was the ship commanded by the Duke]. The subject of conversation was the Sailors' Home, and his Royal Highness, to mark his appreciation of the institution, handed Sir William a cheque as a donation to the institution. Sir William made his acknowledgements for the donation, and then asked his Royal Highness whether he would go round to Cabbage Tree Beach to see the aboriginals, as they were then ready for some sports. Before his Royal Highness could reply a treacherous assailant, who had just left the crowds of persons congregated under the shade of the trees, stole up behind him and when he had approached to within five or six feet pulled out a revolver, took deliberate aim, and fired. The shot took effect about the middle of the back of his Royal Highness, an inch or two to the right of the spine. He fell forward on his hands and knees, exclaiming. "Good God, my back is broken". Sir William Manning, hearing the discharge, and seeing his Royal Highness fall, turned and sprang at the would-be assassin, who then jumped back and aimed the murderous weapon at Sir William. Seeing the pistol directed towards him, Sir William stooped to evade the shot, and, losing his balance, fell. Fortunately the charge did not explode; but as Sir William Manning was in the act of rising, the ruffian took aim a third time; just at the moment Mr. Vial, who happened to be behind, sprang upon the dastardly assailant, pinioned his arms to his side, and thus the aim of the pistol was diverted from the body of Sir William Manning to the ground. The weapon was discharged, however, and the shot entered the foot of Mr. George Thorne, senior, who fainted, and was taken away by Mr. Hassall, and other friends.
	In the meantime a number of people, attracted by the discharge of firearms, and seeing his Royal Highness fall, ran to the spot, and three or four of them, among whom was Mr. T. Hales and a young gentleman named McMahon, lifted his Royal Highness to carry him into his tent. It was evident from the demeanour of his Royal Highness that he was suffering great pain, and he asked his bearers to carry him gently. This wish was complied with as far as possible, and thus he was borne into his tent. The dress of his Royal Highness was removed, and upon an examination of the wound it was found that the bullet had penetrated the back, near the middle, and about two inches from the right side of the lower part of the spine, traversing the course of the ribs, round by the right to the abdomen, where it lodged, immediately below the surface. No vital organ, fortunately, appeared to be injured, the course of the bullet being, to all appearance, quite superficial.
	While this painful examination was in progress another scene, which almost defies description, was going on in another part of the ground. No sooner had Mr. Vial grasped the arms of the man who had fired the shots, than Mr. Benjamin Mortimer (an American gentleman), Mr. Whiting (of the firm Drynan and Whiting), A.L. Jackson, and other gentlemen seized him; and, had it not been for the closing in around them of the police and other persons, they would speedily have placed him beyond the reach of the Law Courts. The people shouted "lynch him", "hang him", "string him up", and so on, and there was a general rush to get at him. The police, headed by Superintendent Orridge, got hold of the assassin, and they had the greatest difficulty in preventing the infuriated people from tearing him limb from limb. In this the police were ably assisted by the Chief Justice, Lord Newry, and the men of the Galatea Band. Both Lord Newry and Sir Alfred Stephen exerted themselves to get the prisoner on board the steamer lying at the wharf, while Mr. Orridge, with herculean strength, kept back the crowd as much as possible. The task of putting the prisoner on board the ship was not an easy one, and it was fully ten minutes before they could get him on to the wharf. By that time all the clothing from the upper part of his body was torn off, his eyes, face, and body were much bruised, and blood was flowing from various wounds; and when he was dragged on to the deck of the Paterson, he appeared to be utterly unconscious. No sooner was he on board than a number of sailors had a rope ready to string him up, and it was only by the interference of Lord Newry that his life was spared. Some of the police were very roughly used, detective Powell getting about the worst of it. In the scuffle he fell over some stones, and had a chance of being trampled to death. The whole of the police on the ground were under the command of Mr. Fosbery.
	The people, out of whose hands the prisoner had been rescued, immediately gave vent to their disappointment, and at an indignation meeting, summarily convened, determined to bring him back from the steamer, and dispatch him at the scene of his crime. A rush was then made for the steamer, which had just hauled off a few feet from the wharf, and they shouted to the captain to haul in. For a moment this officer appeared to waver, but the Hon. John Hay, who was on the bridge, doubtless divining the intentions of the crowd, peremptorily ordered the captain to haul off. This he did, and the vessel accordingly proceeded on her way to Sydney.
	The effect of this dastardly attempt at assassinating the Prince, among the immense number of persons congregated at Clontarf, may be more easily imagined than described. A large number of ladies fainted, others were seized with hysterics, and the whole multitude was convulsed. Suddenly a joyous throng had been converted into a mass of excited people, in whose breasts sympathy for the Royal sufferer, and indignation for his murderous assailant, alternately prevailed; while pallid faces and tearful eyes told of the deep anxiety that was felt in reference to the extent of the injuries which his Royal Highness had sustained. People crowded by hundreds around the tent in which the sufferer lay, until they were informed that they must keep back, in order to allow free ventilation; they at once fell back thirty or forty yards and formed a complete cordon around the tent, and anxiously awaited the result of the examination. Finding the people so anxious about him his Royal Highness said "Tell the people I am not much hurt, I shall be better presently". His Royal Highness, who never lost consciousness, although feeling faint and weak from the shock to his nervous system, and from loss of blood, described to his attendants the sensation he experienced when struck by the bullet. He said he felt as though he was being lifted off the ground.
	At about five o'clock his Royal Highness was placed on a litter, and borne by men of the Galatea to the deck of the Morpeth, a solemn silence being preserved by the people, who stood on either side while the cortege passed ‑ Prior to this the little steamer Fairy had been sent up to Sydney with a message for the officer in charge of the Galatea, to be prepared with a boat to convey the Royal sufferer to the shore; and when the Morpeth arrived off Farm&nsp;Cove a barge from the Galatea came alongside. The Prince, who was lying upon a stretcher with a soft mattress under him, and his head supported by pillows, was lowered into his barge, which was manned by a number of his own sailors. On arriving at the landing place he was carefully raised out of the boat. Rumours of the occurrence having reached town, large numbers of persons rushed to the jetty in front of Government House, where it was presumed the Prince would land. Here a body of police and marines were posted - some of them guarding the approach from the wharf to Government House, and others forming near the landing-place, in order to escort his Royal Highness. The crowd [was] forced back to the high ground, and kept at some distance from the chosen line of route. The Prince was surrounded by a guard of marines, and the sight of his prostrate and helpless condition called forth from the crowd many expressions of sympathy.
	The would-be assassin was Henry James O'Farrell, who had been born in Dublin in 1833 and who had arrived in Melbourne in 1841 with his family. After completing his education in a seminary he returned to Europe for further study, but upon his return to Australia in 1855, he had a dispute with Bishop James Goold and, as a result, was never ordained. Over the next 12 years he failed in a number of business ventures, took to drink, and gradually descended into paranoia. In September 1867 he went to Sydney where he stayed until his attempt on the life of the Duke of Edinburgh.
	Initially O'Farrell claimed that he was acting on behalf of a group of Fenians, but he later withdrew this statement. He was found guilty of attempted murder and hanged on 21 April 1868.
	In August 1882, O'Farrell's brother Peter attempted to murder the same Bishop Goold [by that time Archbishop Goold] following an argument over money allegedly owed to him by Goold. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
	For further information regarding the death of the Duke of Edinburgh's son, Prince Alfred of Saxe Coburg, see his entry under the page containing details of the Knights of the Garter.
	Susannah Kennedy, 3rd wife of the 9th Earl of Eglinton
	Susanna Kennedy was the daughter of Sir Archibald Kennedy, of Culzean, who had been created a baronet in 1682. Around June 1709, she married, as his third wife, Alexander Montgomerie, 9th Earl of Eglinton.
	She was one of the great beauties of the 18th century. The Countess, who died in 1780 at an advanced age, claimed that she had never received true gratitude except from animals, particularly rats. It is said that she kept hundreds of rats, summoning them to the dining room at meal times by tapping on an oak panel. When they heard the tapping, dozens of rats would appear from the woodwork and join her at table. After dinner, at a quiet word of command, the rats would retire in an orderly fashion.
	Alexander Montgomerie, 10th Earl of Eglinton
	The 10th Earl of Eglinton was fatally wounded by Mungo Campbell in October 1769. The following account of the affair is taken from the Newgate Calendar.
	The unhappy subject of this narrative was protected by an uncle, who gave him a learned education; but this generous friend died when the youth was about eighteen years of age, leaving him sixty pounds, and earnestly recommending him to the care of his other relations. The young man was a finished scholar, yet seemed averse to making the choice of any of the learned professions. His attachment appeared to be to the military life, in which line many of his ancestors had most gloriously distinguished themselves.
	Mr. Campbell entered as a cadet in the royal regiment of Scots Greys, then commanded by a relation, General Campbell, and served during two campaigns at his own expense, in the fond hope of military preferment.
	After the battle of Dettingen [in 1743], at which he assisted, he had an opportunity of being appointed quartermaster if he could have raised one hundred pounds, but this place was bestowed on another person while Campbell was making fruitless application for the money.
	Thus disappointed of what he thought a reasonable expectation, he quitted the army and went into Scotland, where he arrived at the juncture when the rebels had quitted Edinburgh, in 1745, Lord Loudoun having then the command of loyal Highlanders, who exerted so much bravery in the suppression of the Rebellion; and Mr. Campbell, having the honour to be related to his lordship, went and fought under him with a bravery that did equal credit to his loyalty and courage.
	Not long after the decisive battle of Culloden, Lord Loudoun procured his kinsman to be appointed an officer of the excise, and prevailed on the commissioners to station him in the shire of Ayr, that he might have the happiness of residing near his friends and relations.
	In the discharge of his new duty Mr. Campbell behaved with strict integrity to the Crown, yet with so much civility as to conciliate the affections of all those with whom he had any transactions. He married when he was somewhat advanced in life, and so unexceptionable was his whole conduct that all the nobility and gentry in the neighbourhood (the Earl of Eglinton excepted) gave him permission to kill game on their estates. However, he was very moderate in the use of this indulgence, seldom shooting but with a view to gratify a friend with a present; hardly ever for his own emolument.
	Mr. Campbell had a singular attachment to fishing; and, a river in Lord Eglinton's estate affording the finest fish in that country, he would willingly have angled there, but his lordship being as strict with regard to his fish as his game, Campbell, unwilling to offend him, gave away his fishing-tackle, which was excellent in its kind. He was likewise in possession of a fine pointer, which he sold; but would not part with his gun, which produced him the greatest pleasure of his life.
	Campbell, being in search of smugglers, and having his gun with him, was crossing part of Lord Eglinton's estate when a hare started up, and he shot her. His lordship hearing the report of the gun, and being informed that Campbell had fired it, sent a servant to command him to come to the seat. Campbell obeyed the disagreeable summons, but was treated very cavalierly by his lordship, who even descended to call him by names of contempt. The other apologised for his conduct, which he said arose from the sudden starting of the hare, and declared that he had no design of giving offence. This might have been a sufficient apology to any other man than Lord Eglinton.
	A man named Bartleymore was among the servants of Lord Eglinton, and was a favourite of his lordship, and this man dealt largely in contraband goods. Mr. Campbell passing along the seashore, met Bartleymore with a cart containing eighty gallons of rum, which he seized as contraband; and the rum was condemned, but the cart was restored, being the property of Lord Eglinton.
	In this affair it will appear evident that Mr. Campbell did not exceed his duty; but Bartleymore was so incensed against him that he contrived many tales to his disadvantage, and at length engaged his lordship's passions so far that he conceived a more unfavourable opinion of Campbell than he had hitherto done.
	About ten in the morning of the 24th of October, 1769, Campbell took his gun and went out with another officer with a view to detecting smugglers. Mr. Campbell took with him a licence for shooting, which had been given him by Dr. Hunter, though he had no particular design of killing any game, but intended to shoot a woodcock if he should see one.
	They crossed a small part of Lord Eglinton's estate, in order to reach the seashore, where they intended to walk. When they arrived at this spot it was near noon, and Lord Eglinton came up in his coach, attended by Mr. Wilson, a carpenter, and followed by four servants on horseback. On approaching the coast his lordship met Bartleymore who told him there were some poachers at a distance, and that Campbell was among them. Lord Eglinton quitted his coach and, mounting a led horse, rode to the spot, where he saw Campbell and the other officer whose name was Brown. His lordship said: "Mr. Campbell, I did not expect to have found you so soon again on my grounds, after your promise when you shot the hare". He then demanded Campbell's gun, which the latter declared he would not part with.
	Lord Eglinton now rode towards him, while Campbell retreated, with his gun presented, desiring him to keep at a distance. Still, however, his lordship advanced, smiling, and said: "Are you going to shoot me?" Campbell replied: "I will, if you do not keep off". Hereupon Lord Eglinton called to his servants to bring him a gun, which one of them took from the coach, and delivered to another to carry to their master.
	In the interim Lord Eglinton, leading his horse, approached Mr. Campbell and demanded his gun, but the latter would not deliver it. The peer then quitted his horse's bridle and continued advancing, while Campbell still retired, though in an irregular direction, and pointed his gun towards his pursuer.
	At length Lord Eglinton came so near him that Campbell said: "I beg your pardon, my lord, but I will not deliver my gun to any man living, therefore keep off, or I will certainly shoot you". At this instant Bartleymore, advancing, begged Campbell to deliver his gun to Lord Eglinton, but the latter answered he would not, for he "had a right to carry a gun".
	His lordship did not dispute his general right, but said that he could not have any to carry it on his estate without his permission. Campbell again begged pardon, and still continued retreating, but with his gun in his hand, and preparing to fire in his own defence. While he was thus walking backwards his heel struck against a stone and he fell, when he was about the distance of three yards from his pursuer. Lord Eglinton observed him fall on his back, and stepped forward, as if he would have passed by Campbell's feet. The latter, observing this, reared himself on his elbow, and lodged the contents of his piece in the left side of his lordship's body.
	A contest now ensued, during which Bartleymore repeatedly struck Campbell. Being observed by Lord Eglinton, he called out: "Do not use him ill". Campbell, being secured, was conducted to the wounded man, then lying on the ground, who said: "Mr. Campbell, I would not have shot you". But Campbell made no answer. His hands were tied behind him, and he was conducted to the town of Saltcoats, the place of his former station as an excise man.
	Lord Eglinton dying, after languishing ten hours, Mr. Campbell was, on the following day, committed to the prison of Ayr, and the next month removed to Edinburgh, in preparation for his trial before the High Court of Justiciary. The trial commenced on the 27th of February, 1770, and the jury having found Mr. Campbell guilty he was sentenced to die.
	On his return to prison he was visited by several of his friends, among whom he behaved with apparently decent cheerfulness, and, retiring to his apartment, he begged the favour of a visit from them on the following day. But in the morning he was found dead, hanging to the end of a form which he had set upright, with a silk handkerchief round his neck.
	The following lines were found upon the floor, close to the body:-
	"Farewell, vain world, I've had enough of thee, And now am careless what thou say'st of me, Thy smiles I count not, nor thy frowns I fear, My cares are past, my heart lies easy here, What faults they find in me take care to shun, And look at home, enough is to be done."
	Archibald William Montgomerie, 13th Earl of Eglinton
	Archibald Montgomerie was only 7 when he succeeded his grandfather as the 13th Earl of Eglinton, together with the title's enormous wealth. He grew up a romantic, high-spirited youth, arrogantly proud of his birth and with a taste for hunting, steeplechasing and devouring medieval chronicles. In politics, he was a violent Tory, regarding the Reform Bill and the Industrial Revolution as unmitigated disasters. He became a man with a mission, determined to revive the ideals of chivalry among the younger aristocracy before it was too late.
	The result was the Eglinton Tournament, staged at Eglinton Castle, a vast imitation Gothic mansion built by his grandfather on his Scottish estate in Ayrshire.
	In March 1839, he sent out invitations to his intended guests, all peers, or sons or relations of peers. Each recipient was invited to appear in authentic armour and test their prowess with sword and lance in the lists at Eglinton Castle. The knights were summoned to assemble at the Castle on 28 August 1839, bringing with them their womenfolk and retinues of squires, grooms and servants, all dressed in appropriate medieval garb. Many of Eglinton's noble friends tore up the invitation cards in derision. Some branded the scheme 'senseless ostentation' and 'childish buffoonery'. Eventually, only about 15 accepted the summons, but Eglinton was not dismayed, for they included people with the bluest blood in the land, if not the brightest minds.
	The 'Mad Marquess' of Waterford, notorious for his brawls with draymen in the streets of London, announced that he had purchased a costly suit of German armour specially for the occasion. The Earl of Craven resurrected a magnificent suit of Milanese armour, inlaid with gold, that an ancestor had worn at the Battle of Crecy in 1346. The helmet alone weighed more than 40 lb. Country houses were ransacked for armour and weapons that had rusted unused for generations. Others scoured the Continent for suitable equipment. The richer peers lavished fortunes on dressing themselves, their wives and troops of followers. The Marchioness of Londonderry was reputed to have spent £1,000 on three velvet and brocade gowns.
	Meanwhile 200 workmen toiled to transform the park of Eglinton Castle into a setting worthy of knightly pomp. Adjoining the Castle, there rose a sumptuous banqueting pavilion 350 feet long, hung with tapestries and crimson cloths. Each knight had a private pavilion with his banner floating above it. The enclosure for the jousting was 300 yards long and a five‑foot wooden barrier down the centre to prevent the horses colliding as the knights rode headlong at each other with their lances. In the main grandstand, which held 1500 spectators, was the damask-canopied seat of the Queen of Beauty, who was to present prizes to the winning knights.
	By July, Eglinton was ready to announce the names of the chief officials and their high-flown titles. The Queen of Beauty was the young Lady Seymour, wife to the heir to the Duke of Somerset - an appointment that caused acrimonious squabbles among the less fortunate contenders. The King of the Lists was the Marquess of Londonderry, Lord Saltoun was the Judge of the Lists and Sir Charles Lamb was Knight Marshal, with the task of ensuring that the combats did not become too realistic. Included among the knights were Viscount Alford [son of Earl Brownlow], the Earls of Cassilis and Craven, Viscount Glenlyon [later Duke of Atholl], the Marquess of Waterford and assorted sprigs of the aristocracy.
	By now the tournament had become a national sensation. London newspapers reported the preparations in stories of rumour and gossip that stirred up the populace into violently opposed factions. Some regarded the tournament as the harmless whim of a half-mad nobleman; others passionately attacked it as the crowning example of aristocratic folly and arrogance. In Scotland, dour Presbyterian parsons prayed for rain to ruin the ungodly spectacle. Radicals prophesied that hungry mobs from Glasgow would descend upon Eglinton and tear the Castle down about its owner's head. In London, excitement was kept alive by practice bouts staged by some of the knights in a field behind a tavern.
	By mid-July, thousands of gaping Londoners were gathering each day to watch these practice sessions. By now the knights had been joined by the exiled Prince Louis Napoleon of France [later Emperor Napoleon III] and the Hungarian Baron Esterhazy, whom Eglinton had invited to uphold the honour of Europe in the lists. Newspapers gleefully reported that the spectators had burst into roars of laughter when Prince Louis tumbled off his horse and rolled on the grass in his unwieldy armour like a capsized beetle.
	It was estimated that by 25 August, three days before the tournament, 50,000 people had swarmed into the neighbourhood of Eglinton Castle. They filled every inn for miles around, and many camped in the Castle park. Most were respectable folk, although one observer lamented that every pickpocket from London to Glasgow had gathered for the harvest. On 26 August, the knights and their retainers began arriving and the huge crowd watched with emotions ranging from awe to derision as each pageant wound its way through the park to the Castle. The Marquess of Waterford was followed by 20 squires in black and silver livery; Viscount Glenlyon led a band of 70 Highlanders armed with claymores.
	But, after all the grand preparations, the tournament itself was a dismal anti-climax. Rain began to fall and continued throughout the four days of the program. Hooves soon churned the ground into a quagmire. The horses slithered and skidded wildly as they charged up the lists. The armour-clad knights were plastered with mud from visor to spur. But Eglinton and the other participants refused to be dismayed, with heralds splashing between the pavilions bearing challenges and pair after pair rode out to tilt in the lists. In their concern for safety, the tournament officials had insisted that the lances be flimsy wooden poles. As a result, no knight was unhorsed and catcalls of boredom rose from the spectators as the lances splintered harmlessly against the knights' armour.
	On the last day Eglinton tried to enliven the proceedings by a 'Grand Equestrian Free for All' in which four Scottish champions challenged four Englishmen to combat with blunted broad-swords. By this time, tempers among the mud-spattered knights had also become frayed. Before long they were hacking at each other in earnest, to the delight of the few remaining onlookers. The Marquess of Waterford reeled in his saddle with a gashed shoulder and the Hon. Edward Jerningham [son of Baron Stafford] left the field with blood streaming down his arm before the Knight Marshal managed to ride into the fray and separate the rest of the combatants.
	That was the final act of the Eglinton Tournament. Even the sumptuous banquet had to be abandoned because rain had flooded the outdoor pavilion. It was estimated that the whole exercise had cost the Earl between £30,000 and £40,000. For the rest of his life, Eglinton spent his time in politics and horse-racing, where he found jockeys in silks far more rewarding than knights in armour.
	The Earls of Egmont
	This family, which appears to have had more than its fair share of bad luck, includes a number of interesting individuals, including
	Henry Frederick Joseph James Perceval, 5th Earl of Egmont
	According to tradition, the 5th Earl of Egmont was appealed to by a widow on his estates in the south of Ireland to postpone her eviction owing to the fact that her only son was dangerously ill. However, the Earl was relentless, and had the widow and her son thrown out onto the roadside, where the sick son died a few hours later as a result of exposure and the rough treatment to which he had been subjected.
	The widow went down upon her knees by the body of her son and cursed the Earl, praying that neither he or his successors would ever have a son given to them to inherit the peerage. Whether it is coincidental or not, the 5th Earl died childless and was succeeded by his cousin, the 6th Earl, who also died childless. He was succeeded by his nephew, the 7th Earl, who died childless, to be succeeded by his cousin, the 8th Earl, who also died childless. He, in turn, was succeeded by his brother, the 9th Earl. He, too, died childless in 1929, when the Earldom became dormant for a period, until the 11th Earl established his claim in 1939. The 11th Earl was the son of the de jure 10th Earl, a distant kinsman of the 9th Earl; it appears that by this time the effect of the widow's curse had worn off, although it should be noted that the current Earl has no children (although he appears to have an adopted son), and that the peerage will become extinct on his death.
	For information on the battle for the 5th Earl's estates, see the note below headed "The Egmont Estates Case".
	Spencer Perceval
	He was the seventh son of the 2nd Earl and, on 11 May 1812, became the only British Prime Minister to have been assassinated.
	Henry Godfrey Perceval
	Cousin of the 7th Earl, who fell victim to foul play in America in 1884. The following report is from the Liverpool Mercury of 29 October 1884:-
	Mr. F. Lennard Shaw, writing from Lone Tree, Nance County, Nebraska, says: - "This is a correct account of the tragedy enacted on September 29 [1884] near Fullerton, Nance County, Nebraska. All that is known of the following murders I will give in as few words as possible, for the sake of the relatives and friends of the deceased, who were English. On Tuesday morning, the 30th of September, two insurance agents went up to Henry Perceval's farm and thence to George Furnivall's, but finding both houses locked up they returned to Fullerton and called again at Perceval's on Thursday; but everything being in the same state as on Tuesday, and a fearful smell coming from the house, they suspected foul play, and started in quest of more men to investigate the matter. I was one of these men, being a near neighbour, and on Thursday night several of us started off to Perceval's and managed to get through a window. In one room we found Perceval's wife [Mary Cornelia, nee Tanner] and child [Ellen Mary] in bed, shot. Perceval and Baird (a man boarding there) could not be found, but eventually, by the aid of a stable lamp, Perceval was discovered at the butt of a haystack, shot in the head and breast. We then went to Furnivall's house, and in a room upstairs found Mayer (Furnivall's partner) in bed, shot. Furnivall and Baird were still missing. The next morning (Friday) people from all quarters helped to search the prairie, and at last found a body in the creek, which was identified as Baird's. About fifteen of us on horseback scoured the prairie for miles and dragged the creek, three of us diving the deep pools, but with no result. Furnivall is still missing and is believed to be murdered. One of Perceval's horses was ridden into Fullerton on the morning of the 30th by a stranger, who put it up at Roberts's stables, and caught the first train; he has since been tracked to Council Bluffs. No motive for these horrible deeds can be alleged, as Perceval, Furnivall, Baird and Mayer were quiet, inoffensive young fellows. The weapons used were a 38-calibre, a 22 revolver, and a shot gun. I knew Perceval and Furnivall intimately, having sailed with them from England; and if any of the relatives or friends of the murdered people wish for further particulars I shall be glad to answer any inquiries in my power.
	Augustus Arthur Perceval, 8th Earl of Egmont
	The following is an extract from the Chicago Daily Tribune of 29 May 1910:-
	Lord Egmont … had a varied career before he succeeded to the earldom and to the historic Cowdray estates in Sussex, which he sold a year ago for a large sum to Sir Weetman Pearson, a millionaire contractor from America. Born in New Zealand, Lord Egmont received his education on the training ship Worcester on the Thames, but, failing to graduate as mate in the merchant marine, he shipped as a sailor before the mast. Tiring of the sea he joined the London fire brigade as a fireman, married an American girl, a Miss Kate Howell of South Carolina, who was earning her living as a barmaid at the Sloane Square station on the underground railroad, and then got employment as janitor of the Chelsea town hall. He lost his berth there through having been led by his pronounced Tory sympathies to turn the hose upon the members of a Radical political meeting being held in the hall.
	Then he worked as a labourer in a salt mine in Cheshire and was a sergeant of the Natal police when the death of a remote cousin sent him home to England as eighth Earl of Egmont and as chief of the historic house of Percival [sic] which figures so largely in the annals of England …
	The claims made for the peerages following the death of the 8th Earl
	On the death of the 8th Earl in 1929, three claimants emerged for the titles and estates. They were Frederick Joseph Trevelyan Perceval (the successful claimant), James William Perceval and Robert Pownall.
	The claim made by James William Perceval is examined at length in the following two articles. The first article appeared in the London Daily Mail on 18 May 1929:-
	The Daily Mail learns that the right of the present Earl of Egmont - the "Rancher Earl" - to the title is disputed. A claim to the earldom has been made by Mr. James William Perceval, a baker, 66 years of age, living in Birkbeck-road, Hornsey, and legal proceedings are being instituted. He alleges that the earldom has been in the wrong hands since 1897.
	It was only last January that the ninth earl died, and in March a distant kinsman, Mr. Frederick Perceval, for 25 years a Canadian rancher, returned to England as the heir.
	Mr. James William Perceval, the claimant, states that he is the son of Augustus George Perceval, son of the sixth earl. He has been legally advised that if this can be proved he should have been the eighth earl and ought to have succeeded to the title in 1897. If his claim is upheld it will mean, therefore, that the 8th Earl of Egmont, who died in 1910, and the 9th Earl, who died in January, had no right to the title which enabled them to sit and vote in the House of Lords, nor to Avon Castle and estate, near Ringwood, Hampshire. It will mean, also, that the "Rancher Earl" is not entitled to be called "Earl of Egmont, Baron Perceval, Baron Arden, Baron Lovel and Holland, and Sir Frederick Perceval, baronet". His 14-year-old son will not be entitled to be known as Viscount Perceval.
	It is understood that the present holder of the title has not yet received any money from the estate, and that it is unlikely that anything will be done until the question of the claim is settled. Already a widespread search is being made in Australia on behalf of Mr. James William Perceval to find a birth certificate which would, his legal advisers have informed him, settle the question of succession beyond doubt.
	Mr. Perceval gives the following statement in support of his claim: "In 1852 Augustus George and Charles John, first and second sons of Arthur Philip, brother of the then earl, went to New Zealand, and met on their voyage two sisters, who they married. In 1863 Augustus George returned to England with his wife. He returned to Australia the same year, leaving his wife in England. The family gave his wife money to go after him. She went to Sydney, where I was born. My father told me the date was December 11, 1863. After my birth, she found her husband, and, as he refused to leave a woman with whom he had gone away, handed me over to him. She returned to Sydney, where she died on March 27, 1873.
	"In 1875 we three came to England, my father and the woman being married on the way in Sydney, at St. Phillip's Church. We reached England on June 25, 1875. My father took a house at 109, Finborough-road, Kensington. Afterwards we moved to Langfords, known as the White House, at Buckhurst Hill, Essex. About 1878 we moved to Bournemouth. Three or four years later we returned to London. While living there - at Clapham - I went to King's College, Strand, in the name of James William Perceval. I was taken away from King's College because Augustus Arthur, who was afterwards earl, was at the fire brigade headquarters and used to visit me too often.
	"At the age of 18 I was apprenticed to a pastry-cook and confectioner, E. Cresswell, of Park-street, Camden Town, in the name of James William Offley (the name of his Australian nurse). I served less than two years because the firm changed hands. When I was unemployed I went back to live with my father at Clapham. A few years later Augustus George and Margaret Amelia Perceval moved to Denmark-villas, Hove, where my father died on August 19, 1896. I used to stay with them at the address for long periods." [The article simply stops at this point, although it appears that there is more to tell.]
	Four years after the death of the 8th Earl, the following article appeared in the Brisbane Sunday Mail on 9 August 1936:-
	Queensland's history is studded with stories of younger sons of the English nobility who came to the country sixty or seventy years ago in search of 'experience'. If ever these stories are collected they will make interesting and romantic reading, but surely none is stranger than the tale of Augustus George Perceval, heir presumptive to the Earldom of Egmont - and of the little boy he adopted. That boy, maintaining that he was Perceval's lawful child and not merely his adopted son, contested the Earldom and settled estates worth £122,000 when the title fell vacant in 1929. The case, it may be remembered, was won by a Canadian rancher, and was one of the most famous heard in the Chancery Division.
	To get to the beginning of the story one must turn back to the appearance of Augustus George in the township of Port Denison (now known as Bowen) in the 60s of last century. Only a few years had passed since the earliest settlers had come overland from Rockhampton, but it was already a thriving village. In March, 1864, the late Mr. P.T. Raynor issued the first edition of the Port Denison "Times", and Perceval was engaged as reporter and sub-editor.
	He was a dashing fellow with an aristocratic bearing, a handsome face and a flowing beard. His evident pride must have had its roots in the knowledge that he was heir to a line that received its earldom in 1733 and could trace its distinction to a title of 1661 - an exceptional baronetage which allowed the eldest son or grandson, when 21 years of age, to have the precedence and rank of a baronet concurrently with the father or grandfather.
	Before coming to Bowen he had kept a boarding house in Gladstone, but a hailstorm so battered the house that he went to Clermont. He lived also for a time at Princhester and at Jolimont, near Mackay, before finding his journalistic haven in Bowen. There he lived up to his rank, for when Governor Bowen, after whom the town was named, visited it in 1865 Perceval entertained him at dinner.
	The arrival of the boy whom he adopted was so wrapped in mystery that even to this day there are local people who think he was his rightful son. Others will tell you he was the son of James Pretlove Offley, who perished of thirst in the bush with two other men. The mother and boy then joined a travelling circus or troupe of theatricals. He was seen by Perceval, who was so struck with his beauty that he gave the woman £200 for a complete surrender of the child. This much is certain - that a legal document on these lines - was drawn up and witnessed by two well-known Bowen residents.
	The records of Holy Trinity Church, Bowen, show that on August 9, 1868, "James William Perceval, born December 11th, 1863, son of James Pretlove Offley and Susanna, his wife" was baptised by the Rev. J.K. Black. The godparents, whose names are entered in the margin, are shown as Augustus George and Margaret Amelia Frances Perceval. Mrs. Offley is said to have married again and to have left for distant Georgetown. Whether that is so or not, she disappeared from the scene, and not even the most diligent search in later years has been able to trace her subsequent movements.
	There are several people who knew young 'Willie' Perceval in his Bowen days. They say he was a spirited lad, with some of the wild characteristics for which the Perceval family had a reputation. It seems he was a great lover of goats, and persisted in encouraging them to follow him. The schoolmaster was distracted at the rapacity of the animals, and at last, in desperation, cut the throat of a black and tan kid that had devoured the plants in the school garden.
	The boy could run faster than any other lad in the town, and was leader in the 'fox and hounds' over the surrounding hills but he found it difficult to persuade or coerce him to take an interest in his lessons. Altogether his contemporaries' recollections of Willie Perceval are very vivid, and when, as an old man, he made a bid for the earldom there was no difficulty in identifying him as the boy who had been in Bowen.
	In 1873 his foster father, yielding to a recurrence of the wander fever, packed his belongings in a wheelbarrow and trudged along the tortuous Don River to the Normanby goldfield, where he is reputed to have opened a pie shop and later to have published a weekly news sheet. He did not remain there long, for in December, 1874, the Port Denison "Times" records that 'Mr. Perceval, a gentleman who has been connected with this paper for over eight years, left by the Florence Irving on Thursday for England. The death of his uncle, the late Earl of Egmont, has rendered his presence necessary at home, and there is little probability of his return. We hope to hear before long that he is as active there on our behalf as he always was in our midst.' That was the last Bowen heard of Willie Perceval for many years, except that Mr. Henry Field visited England soon afterwards and brought back photographs showing the boy wearing the cap of an engineer, for which profession he was then in training.
	When he made his sensational claim to the earldom seven years ago he was a baker in the West End of London. His foster father had died in 1896, a year before the seventh Earl, who had succeeded in 1874.
	The case set a nice problem for the Master of the Chancery Court. The claimants, all of whom said they were kinsmen of the former Earl, included Frederick Joseph Trevelyan Perceval, a rancher of Alberta, who had taken possession of Avon Castle, Hampshire, after the Earl's death; James William Perceval, and Robert Pownall, a Lancashire optician [see below for more on his claim].
	This was the story of the ex-Queenslander, with which we are mainly concerned. His father, he said, deserted his mother in Sydney in 1860 or 1861, and went to England. Returning to Queensland about 1863, he eventually came to Bowen with a woman who was his housekeeper. When his mother visited England during the first six months of 1864 to deliver the two children of her deceased sister to their people, he was handed over to his father and the housekeeper. He claimed that he was Augustus George Perceval's lawful son, who went through the form of adopting him so that he might have him legally under his care while withholding from the people of Bowen the fact that his real wife was living in Sydney.
	All the world knows now that he lost his case; that in 1930 the Canadian rancher, after an inquiry lasting six months, became Earl of Egmont and won legal right to the lordly estates in Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, and Surrey. But it does not know of the stubborn fight the aged baker made behind the scenes in an effort to establish his claims. That is revealed now for the first time.
	He had recourse to Mr. George Turner, an old resident of Bowen, who, on account of his historical bent and wide knowledge, is regarded as the town's oracle. Mr. Turner did not spare himself in trying to help him.
	Searches revealed that the birth of the Offley child at Princhester on December 11, 1863 - barely six months after A.G. Perceval returned from England - gave its full name as James William Perceval Offley. This, the claimant said, was significant, as the spelling of his surname was rare, and A.G. Perceval had paid a substantial sum to adopt him afterwards. Why, he asked, would this be done unless the man had a deep interest in him?
	The possibility of the child of Mr. and Mrs. Offley having died between 1863 and 1865 was explored, as it would have discounted the suggestion that the claimant was the child christened in Bowen. This led nowhere, and Mr. Turner was obliged to investigate Perceval's claims from the Sydney end.
	He insisted that he clearly remembered Governor Bowen's visit in 1866, and deduced from this that he was born before 1863. In one of his letters to Mr. Turner he suggested that he was born in Sydney in 1860 or 1861, and mentioned, incidentally, that his mother lived at South Stanley Street, Brisbane, from the autumn of 1864 until September, 1865.
	Mr. Turner had a search made at the office of the Registrar of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in Sydney, but although it took in the period from 1859 to 1864, it did not reveal anything conclusive. The rector of St. John's, Glebe Point, where was mother was supposed to have lived, was unable to find any entry of the name of Perceval from the inception of the charge in 1856 to 1866.
	Perceval's strongest point appeared to be that a woman at Richmond (Victoria), whose mother had been lady's maid to the Countess of Egmont, received a letter from Augustus George Perceval at Glebe Point about 1862, saying: 'My dear wife Emma has given birth to a baby boy, and I have called him James William Perceval'. She said that the date was December 10 or 13 (the date of the Offley child's birth was given as December 11).
	Whatever he may have gained from this evidence was offset by the death certificate of Emma Perceval. She died at George Street, Waterloo (N.S.W.) in March 1873, 'from the effects of lead poisoning through using water with a lead connection to the well'. It stated that she was married to A.G. Perceval at Christchurch 18 years before her death, and that her two male children had predeceased her.
	Challenging the accuracy of this in a later letter, Perceval said he had a certificate of the marriage in Christchurch in 1852 - three years earlier than the death certificate stated - and of the death of her twins, who died in Sydney in November, 1864. "It is fairly certain that Emma Perceval had a son at Glebe Point about 1860, although we know there is no record of its registration, at least under that name", he added.
	The records did reveal that Augustus George Perceval, widower, married again at St. Philip's Church, Sydney, just before returning to England in 1875. Letter after letter was exchanged, search after search was made, photographs were copied and fordwarded in the old baker's effort to prove that he was the rightful heir. In one of his notes while the case was pending he recalled the old hotel, which was the last calling place for horse and bullock drays on their way to the Normanby [gold]field. 'If I have any luck I shall come out and see my old home', he wrote. But it was not to be. If the man who romped about Bowen as Willie Perceval is still alive he is over 73 years of age; and, by a queer turn of fate, a 22-year-old youth is now Earl of Egmont, having succeeded his father, the 'Rancher Earl', in 1932.
	*****************
	Later in 1929, a new claimant, Robert Pownall, entered the lists. Pownall's claim was described in the London Daily Mail of 22 October 1929:-
	The dispute over the right to the earldom of Egmont and the extensive estates near Ringwood, Hampshire, has been complicated by the arrival on the scene of a new claimant. He is Mr. R. Pownall, a retired optician, of Haydock, Lancashire, and he is the third claimant to the title.
	The others are: Mr. Frederick Perceval, for 25 years a Canadian rancher. He returned to England as heir last March, following the death in January of the ninth earl. He is now in residence at Avon Castle, Ringwood, Hampshire, as the tenth Earl of Egmont. With him is his 15-years-old son, Viscount Perceval; [and] Mr. James William Perceval, aged 66, a baker, of Birkbeck-road, Hornsey, who claims to be a son of the sixth earl and declares that the seventh, eighth and ninth earls had no right to the title. He has expressed his intention of prosecuting his claim to the fullest extent with the aid of the Poor Persons Committee of the Law Society.
	Mr. Pownall, a sturdy, determined-looking man, states that the basis of his claim is that he is a descendant of the Hon. Philip Tufton Perceval, a brother of the fifth earl [actually third son of the 2nd earl]. He has prepared his family tree and is now in London to complete his investigations.
	The Admiralty has recently furnished Mr. Pownall with what he regards as a vital link. Somerset House is copying for a fee of £4 11s a will of 180 folios of old English writing. Mr. Pownall has not yet traced Philip Tufton Perceval in the family pedigree, but, with the help of the Admiralty, he says, he has established that Philip Perceval existed and retired as an admiral with distinguished service.
	Mr. Pownall has obtained a copy of the admiral's marriage certificate, showing he was married at St. Paul's, Covent Garden, in 1790 to an illiterate woman beneath his station. Mr. Pownall is hoping that the will at Somerset House will make a further link. He said: "I have never cared for money, but I enjoy life. I enjoy this fight for my title. I am determined to establish the rights of my children so that they will not have this task."
	Pownall's application was, however, dismissed by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, in July 1930. It should be noted that Pownall's application related to the Egmont estates, rather than the peerage itself.
	Frederick Joseph Trevelyan Perceval, 10th Earl of Egmont
	The following is an extract from the Chicago Daily Tribune of 17 May 1932:-
	The Earl of Egmont, a Canadian cowpuncher who became an English peer through the death of a cousin three years ago, died in a hospital … early today [16 May] as the result of injuries received in an automobile accident. The smash-up occurred while he was driving to Avon Castle, where he lived with his 17 year old heir, Viscount Perceval. He was 59 years old.
	The Earl was "out with a bunch of cattle" near Priddis, Alberta, when his cousin died. He returned to learn he was a chief contender to the title. After some hesitation he finally entered a claim and was awarded the title two years ago. [This is not correct - he was awarded the Egmont estates in July 1930, but the descent of the titles was not established until 1939.]
	He was a misfit for the English peerage from the beginning. He had emigrated to Canada forty-four years before his elevation to the earldom and always lived in western Canada. "The prospect of adopting the life of an English peer did not appeal to me greatly at first", he said when he reached England, "but I realize the obligations to be fulfilled and I am not going to shirk them altogether". He later admitted he "would rather be chopping wood".
	Frederick George Moore Perceval, 11th Earl of Egmont
	The following obituary appeared in the London Telegraph on 2 Jan 2002:-
	The 11th Earl of Egmont, who has died in Alberta aged 87, became one of the Peerage's most romantic figures at the age of 15 when he reluctantly moved from a two-room prairie shack to Avon Castle, Hampshire, on his father's inheritance of the earldom.
	Members of a junior branch of the Perceval family which had emigrated to Iowa and then Alberta in the late 19th century, the boy and his widowed father "bached" together on a 600-acre ranch at Priddis, near Calgary.
	Wearing chaps, boots and stetsons, they contentedly built up a herd of cattle, chopped their own wood and cooked their own meals. Then on January 12, 1929 Lord Beaverbrook, the former owner of a Calgary bowling alley, ordered a Daily Express reporter in London to inform the father of his good fortune.
	"This is the first I have heard of it", replied the 56-year-old 10th Earl when he was brought to a telephone station. "I have been out with a bunch of cattle for the past few days and have just got in."
	His son Frederick George Moore Perceval, who was born at Calgary on April 14 1914, now had the courtesy title Viscount Perceval; however, he was unimpressed by the change in the family fortunes.
	"You taught me to read and write and you taught me to ride and shoot", he told his father, "We've got a nice home here, and I don't want to leave it".
	But the shack had pictures of English scenes on the walls, and they had often talked of the inheritance that might one day be theirs. After a sale of their effects in which the boy's two mongrels, Jack and Rummy, made 25 cents each and his saddle pony, Pat, $3.25, they set off.
	Already local reporters were so persistent that they decided to depart from a small station outside Calgary. As the pair boarded ship at Montreal the father and son swapped their stetsons for caps.
	When they landed in England they found themselves besieged all day and late at night for weeks. Even apart from their unfamiliarity with metropolitan life, the weather-beaten 'cowboy earl' and his son with their western drawls, were of abiding interest to the press because of their genealogy.
	An estate agent worked out that around £300,000 went with the Irish Earldom of Egmont, the Viscountcy of Perceval of Kanturk and the Barony of Arden of Arden, Co Cork as well as the Barony of Lovel and Holland in the United Kingdom.
	The inheritance came through their descent from Spencer Perceval, the Prime Minister assassinated at Westminster in 1812 who was the seventh son of the 2nd Earl.
	The new Earl and his son excited a fresh round of press interest when their claim to both the land and titles were disputed by two other equally colourful claimants; a Hornsey baker, who said he had been born in Australia as the son of the sixth Earl's brother, and a retired Lancastrian optician.
	Both cases were dismissed in court, but when debts and death duties necessitated the sale of silver and pictures, including a little-known Reynolds and a Beechey, the optician caused a sensation at Christie's by objecting at the top of his voice on the grounds that they belonged to him.
	To add to the confusion, the House of Lords did not formally recognise the father's and son's claim until 1939. But they were able to move into Avon Castle, with its private railway halt and 1,300 acres at Ringwood, Hampshire, seven months after their arrival.
	By then the Earl was thoroughly bemused by the England he had not seen since the age of six, and his son was firmly for returning to Priddis. Instead, they dismissed the servants and moved into the huge kitchen to re-create their Albertan self-sufficiency.
	The gates were closed; the house shuttered; overtures from county neighbours were rebuffed. The new Earl got on well enough with the villagers he met in the pub and local shop, though he didn't care for the way they always called him "sir".
	He talked about sending his son to Oxford, but the boy showed no sign of continuing his schooling and was left largely to his own lonely devices.
	The young Lord Perceval occasionally played with other boys in Ringwood but was more often to be seen riding alone on his bicycle; later he bought a motorcycle which he enjoyed riding late at night along deserted roads at up to 85 mph.
	The Earl continued to be of abiding interest to the press which dubbed him "the loneliest peer in England"; then fate intervened when he was killed in a motor accident in Southampton.
	While the villagers spoke up for their kindly, shy neighbour, the Sunday Express's theatre critic, James Agate, excoriated county society: "Doubtless the late earl's accent and manners may, like his boots, have been a shade too thick for the fine carpets of Hampshire. Doubtless he was no master of small talk, because on an Alberta ranch, if you talk at all, the subjects will probably be pretty big. They may kittle cattle but they certainly won't be tittle tattle."
	The local MP wrote in reply that efforts had been made to get to know the lonely peer. But the 18-year-old new Earl did not wait to give local society a second chance. He put the estate on the market and set out for Canada.
	On encountering a Calgary journalist on the train at Winnipeg his first questions were about the present owner of his saddle-pony and the date of the annual Stampede.
	After kitting himself out with saddle and chaps, the young Egmont set out for Priddis whose population turned out to greet him. Yes, he had liked the racing but not the crowds at the Derby. London was a tiring place where there were lots of shows, though he couldn't understand why he had to pay for a programme full of advertisements.
	"What English people do not realise", he explained, "is that there is a greater spirit of freedom and generosity over here in Canada".
	That afternoon, he borrowed a horse and set off for a ride. A few months later, after participating in the Stampede, Egmont married his cousin, Geraldine Moodie, a dental nurse who had been his childhood sweetheart.
	The honeymoon involved the usual pursuit by newsmen, who remained fascinated by "the only member of the House of Lords who could rope, throw and brand a steer". The couple had to return home from Victoria, British Columbia, after they had been spotted, and then set off again for Florida.
	However, the new countess was made of stern stuff and dealt with prying reporters by leading her husband away firmly by the arm before he had time to provide them with any more colourful copy.
	Egmont hardly fulfilled normal expectations of a belted earl when encountered on his ranch in bib overalls, and a dusty hat, with six days' beard. He liked his neighbours to address him as "Fred", but they called him "the Earl" behind his back.
	Settling down to develop some of the finest stock in the West on the Priddis ranch, Egmont resisted his wife's promptings that they go to England until 1938, after he had rescued their son from a fire which destroyed their ranch-house.
	He bought a car in London, toured the country and talked about sending his son to Eton. Instead, he put Avon Castle on the market and returned to Priddis where he built a 26-room ranch-house complete with solid oak floors that had to be supported by 12 inch steel girders in the basement.
	When the farm was sold 21 years later to a property company which came in advance of Calgary's spreading suburbs, he told the ever-interested Daily Express that he might consider moving back to Britain, where he still had land at Epsom.
	However, he used his handsome profit to buy the 5,000-acre Two-Dot Ranch at Nanton, 40 miles south of the city, which had once belonged to the Earl of Minto, Canada's Governor-General from 1898 to 1904.
	Egmont continued to keep largely to himself, though he was delighted on one occasion to be introduced to a member of his family in Britain, who was staying on a neighbouring ranch.
	When Canada's constitution was patriated by the repeal of the Westminster British North America Act in the early 1980s, a Canadian reporter rang to ask if we would go to England to speak in what was expected to be a controversial Lords debate. The countess answered the phone.
	"You can't speak to him now. He's out doing his chores", she snapped, before venturing her own opinion that there was no call for the repeal, anyway. Later, Egmont told a neighbour that he rather wished he had gone over to take his seat in the House.
	The Egmont Estates Case
	The following report, which describes the battle for the estates of the 5th Earl of Egmont in 1863, is taken from the Sydney Empire of 15 October 1863:-
	The great Egmont property case, which came before Mr. Justice Keogh and a special jury at the Cork Assizes on July 31, was brought to a conclusion on August 5 [1863].
	Many circumstances combined to lend to the trial which has so abruptly concluded a peculiar attraction for the curious public. On its issue depended the ownership of a great property; and in its complicated details were involved the history of some strange lives and the names of some celebrated families. The question to be decided by the assize jury before whom the cause came for hearing was an issue from the Court of Chancery in Ireland as to the validity of a will by which Henry Earl of Egmont devised his freehold and personal estates to Edward Tierney and his heirs for ever. It so happened that neither of the parties engaged in the cause had been directly involved in any of the proceedings. The Earl of Egmont, who now claims the estate, is but a distant relative of the late peer; and the Rev. Sir W[illiam] L[ionel] Darell [4th baronet], who resisted the claim, only obtained by marriage the possession of the disputed property. The families of Earl Egmont and of Edward Tierney became acquainted at Brighton, in the days of George IV. The mother of the late Earl was a leading personage in those times, and was deeply engaged in political intrigue. One of the counsel in the cause described her as an ornament of the Court of George IV, but on the other side she was spoken of as a devoted supporter of Queen Caroline. Whomsoever she supported she appears to have paid little attention to the education or the habits of her son, and Henry Lord Percival grew up a reckless youth, without mental culture or taste, without practical knowledge of any kind, without any inclination for a useful career.
	Edward Tierney, a man of great ability, came to be appointed agent to the Egmont estates. It seems almost superfluous to say that the property was terribly embarrassed. It was for the most part Irish property, and it seems to have borne the characteristics of Irish property of that day very broadly written on it. The estates lie in and about the town of Kantark [i.e. Kanturk], in the county of Cork. Under the Tierney management the property is said to have bloomed up remarkably; and it is easy enough to understand that a keen man of business, even without further hope of advantage than his legitimate rewards, could make something out of property which had only gone from bad to worse under the reckless mismanagement bequeathed from one Egmont to another. The difficulties of Lord Percival were so great that for some time he could not show himself in England or Ireland. He led a roving, heedless life, flickering about continental watering-places and gaming houses. His father, the then Earl of Egmont, having the protection of his privileges as a peer, contrived to live and keep up a sort of appearance in England. The son thought of a mode of getting out of his immediate dangers which showed the advantages of Hibernian connection. He resolved to get into Parliament and thus escape the terrors of the bailiffs. He stood for Penrhyn [at the general election in 1826]; he raised money somehow, and spent it freely in the contest; and he failed. He found himself therefore minus the money he had raised, deeper in debt than ever, and as ar from the Parliamentary harbour of refuge as before. In all his difficulties he appeared to have turned to his friend Tierney to advise him, help him, and raise money for him. When he succeeded to the title and estates he found a collection of things with which he could not grapple. He was so heavily embarrassed that the more he endeavoured to look his difficulties in the face the more overwhelming they seemed. He fell into the wildest and most eccentric habits. For a long time he dropped his title, and called himself Mr. Lovell. He sought consolation in drink. According to the counsel on one side, he sank into utter sottishness; became a lonely, stupid, and irretrievable drinker. On the other side, indeed, there was the usual kind of conflicting evidence. Various persons were called, who deposed that they had been in his company at such and such times; that he was not then drunk; that he did not then drink to excess, and that he conversed like a rational person.
	Meantime, of course, the usual process of borrowing, mortgaging, and raising money in various ways was going on. The earl came to look upon Edward Tierney as his sole support, to believe that the obtaining a meal of food, according to the statement of one of the counsel, depended upon his friend and agent. The latter is stated to have bought in a great number of the encumbrances, and to have gone on improving the estate - for himself, say the advocates of the present Lord Egmont's claim. Henry, the late earl, became, it is alleged, gradually less and less capable of managing his affairs. When he wrote letters they were only to press for money. He would sign, it was stated, numbers of documents without knowing what they were. Ultimately that occurred which everybody must have expected would occur. He made a will by which he devised his property of all kinds to Edward Tierney. He died about twenty years ago [in 1841]. Upon this will arose the question lately in dispute. The present earl did not allege that the testator was actually insane or idiotic at the time he made the will, but that he was in such a condition as to have no idea whatever of the value of the property he was devising. This is in rough and rapid outline a sketch of the cause which has occupied the attention of the Cork county assizes for several days back. A sudden arrangement has settled the question. A juror fell sick and could not continue to attend. The counsel differed as to the legal possibility of proceeding with eleven jurors in a cause where the rights of minors were concerned. Perhaps it was the fact of being placed in so embarrassing a position that stimulated the parties to come to an amicable agreement. The case was settled out of court. The Earl of Egmont takes possession of the estates in dispute, and pays to Sir W. Darell £125,000 and the costs. Thus concludes a very remarkable piece of litigation, involving much that was melancholy, much that was grotesque, and much that was characteristic of a state of society and a kind of character which are becoming less and less familiar to the public of our day.
	In addition to the £125,000 which the Earl of Egmont is to pay over to Sir Lionel Darell, on the condition of the surrender of the estates to his lordship, the latter will, we understand, pay the costs of the record and Chancery suit, amounting to a sum of £14,000. He will also pay the costs of obtaining an Act of Parliament, which it will be necessary to obtain in order to legalise the proceedings here, and render the minors, who are in remainder after Sir Lionel Darell, bound by the terms of agreement. The value of the disputed estates are worth about £12,000 a year.
	The Egmont Estates Act was passed in 1864 [27 & 28 Vict., c. 4].
	The special remainder to the Earldom of Egremont created in 1749
	From the London Gazette of 23 September 1749 (issue 8887, page 3):-
	His Majesty has … been pleased to grant unto his Grace Algernon Duke of Somerset, the Dignities of a Baron and Earl of the Kingdom of Great Britain, by the Name, Style and Title of Baron of Cockermouth in the County of Cumberland, and Earl of Egremont, in the said County of Cumberland; To hold the same to him, and the Heirs Male of his Body; And, in Default of such Issue, to Sir Charles Wyndham, of Orchard‑Wyndham in the County of Somerset, Baronet, (Nephew to the said Duke of Somerset) and the Heirs Male of his Body; And, in Default of such Issue, to Percy Wyndham Obrian, of Short-Grove in the County of Essex, Esq; (Brother to the said Sir Charles Wyndham, and Nephew to the said Duke of Somerset) and the Heirs Male of his Body.
	John Scott, 1st Earl of Eldon and his wife, Elizabeth Surtees (1754‑28 June 1831)
	The following article, which describes Lord Eldon's youthful elopement with his wife, appeared in The Queenslander [Brisbane] on 13 May 1937:-
	In the year 1772 in a street called Sandhill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, there stood a four-storied house. It was an old house, built probably before Queen Elizabeth died, but much altered. Its owners at a later time had installed sash windows to keep abreast with their neighbours. It was a typical home of a prosperous North of England gentleman merchant, who preferred the company and notice of townspeople to the isolation of the country. Here lived Aubone Surtees, receiver-general for Northumberland and Durham, a father of the corporation and a well-beloved citizen of Newcastle.
	On the night of Nov. 18 in that year his house was the scene of a romantic adventure that for years was the talk of the town, and not only the town of Newcastle. As the principal actors in the affair grew old and famous the story found a firm place in the sentimental hearts of their contemporaries. And to-day … the tale may still be taken as an example of the perfect romantic elopement.
	Twenty-one years before that November night, in a house in Love Lane, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a boy was born to a coal merchant. This boy was called John Scott. His father had in 1724 been admitted to the full privilege of the ancient guild of "hoastmen" or, in the local dialect, "coal-fitters". His was a responsible job. He was middleman between owner and shipper. He prospered sufficiently to send two sons to Oxford, but not without the aid of scholarships. To the elder at Oxford he wrote: "Give me always ten or twelve days' notice of want of money, and you'll find me ready enough to supply you, so as you live comfortably".
	John Scott's school life at the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle, was nearly marred by a fall against a heavy desk. It left a permanent dent in his skull, and his family "despaired of his intellects". But he was not backward. He won his scholarship to Oxford before he was 15, and was elected to a fellowship shortly afterwards.
	Of his B.A. examination he thought little. In later years, when John Scott, B.A., had become first Earl of Eldon and Lord Chancellor of England, he used to say: "An examination for a degree at Oxford was a farce in my time. I was examined in Hebrew and History. 'What is the Hebrew for the place of a skull?' - I replied 'Golgotha'. - 'Who founded the University College?' - I stated that 'King Alfred founded it', - 'Very well, sir', said the examiner. 'You are competent for your degree'." So by his own accounts the future Lord Chancellor passed through his Oxford days with time on his hands. All through his life he boasted of his gift for procrastination, though where his legal work was concerned he lived up to his maxim that a lawyer should live like a hermit and work like a horse.
	But there was one day coming soon after his Oxford days when he was determined not to procrastinate. John Scott's father being a prosperous freeman of Newcastle had for some years been friendly with Mr. Aubone Surtees, but the relationship seems not to have extended far beyond the limits of business interchanges. Their families were not acquainted - at least the young John Scott had not in Newcastle met Miss Elizabeth Surtees. But no doubt he had heard her beauty spoken of.
	The fair "Bessie" Surtees was the toast of Newcastle and the object of admiration not only of her friends but on London society, of whom she knew little. The Duchess of Northumberland had taken her arm at her first London ball and had displayed her to her circle as "my Little Newcastle beauty". She was, however, a quiet, gentle girl with the naive simplicity of a provincial facing her first London season. She admitted to being frightened out of her wits at having to dance with the Duke of Cumberland, a brother of King George III.
	John Scott met her for the first time in a church. It was not in Newcastle, but in the village of Sedgefield, in the county of Durham. Her presence there was easy to explain. One of her aunts lived there. But John Scott never explained what took him to Sedgefield. After that meeting their friendship grew. She went early in 1771 to stay with an uncle in London. He had a house in Park Lane and the two used to take morning walks in Hyde Park. On his way to Oxford for his last term John Scott stopped in London and was soon to be seen strolling with uncle and niece in the Park.
	If the Surtees family had hoped by sending their daughter to London to take her mind from her young Newcastle friend they were unsuccessful. Yet from the points of view of both families the match was undesirable. Mr. Scott disapproved of his son's romance because he was not yet started on a career. His elder son suggested that the right solution would be for the father to use all his influence to secure for John some safe country living, sufficient to support a clergyman and his wife in respectable poverty. Mr. Surtees, conscious that his own fortune was in no way commensurate with his position in the town of Newcastle, and knowing that Elizabeth would have little private money to support her, was naturally anxious to find a better match than the son of a local coal-fitter.
	In the middle of these discussions, which were, in fact, by no means hostile but rather regretful that the young couple could not have their own way, the lovers eloped. As soon as Miss Surtees made up her mind - the initiative appears to have been hers - John Scott set to work without delay. With a friendly and romantically-minded ostler he arranged that a ladder should be placed against the window-sill of Miss Surtees's room, which overlooked the street. He, himself, was to wait nearby with a carriage and horses. It was by no means an unconventional elopement. It was true to the traditions in every respect and was the more romantic for that.
	On the night of November 18, 1772, "Bessie" Surtees appeared at her window dressed for the road, as far as the full-blown skirts and hoops of the period allowed. She climbed down the ladder, the ostler hid it away, the coachman whipped up his horses and the couple drove off to the north.
	But John Scott had not been able to keep his secret entirely. He had told his plans to his young sister Jane and she had told her elder sister Barbara. Here is sister Barbara's account of the elopement. "The night that Jack ran away to Scotland I knew nothing about it; but Jenny had scarcely got into bed before she took to sobbing and crying at such a rate I could not tell what was the matter. At last she said, 'Oh, Babby, Jack has run away with Bessie Surtees to Scotland to be married. What will my father say?' You may be sure there was no sleep for us that night. I was not over well pleased either that Jack had told Jenny and not told me. When my father came in there was a letter from Jack which he read and put into his pocket and never said a word about it."
	Meanwhile the lovers were beyond pursuit. The had travelled in their carriage all night and on the morning of the next day reached Blackshiels over the Scottish border. There they halted and were married by a minister of the Scottish Church "according to the form of matrimony prescribed and used by the Church of England". Elizabeth Surtees was just 18 and John Scott 21. The young couple turned about immediately and recrossed the border. Their wedding night was spent at the Queen's Head Inn, Morpeth. The inn was full but their hosts gave them their own room. There they had to wait. John had no money. He had to rely on his father's generosity in reply to the letter that his sister Barbara had seen opened and read so stoically.
	Soon John Scott's brother arrived, bringing his father's forgiveness and a welcome home to the Scott household in Love Lane. But the bride's father was not so amicable. He refused to see his daughter and for several days refused to speak with John Scott's father. One day, however, the two met on the Newcastle Exchange. "Mr. Surtees", said Mr. Scott, "Why should this marriage make you so cool with me? I was as little wishing for it as yourself; but since what is done cannot be undone, for every hundred pounds you put down for your daughter I will cover it with another for my son". "You are too forgiving, Mr. Scott, you are too forgiving", was the answer, "that would be rewarding disobedience". But, nevertheless, their disobedience was rewarded. On January 19 next year, the runaways were remarried in their own Newcastle parish church with the full approval of both families.
	Only one thing nearly marred the happy outcome. An overgenerous friend in the Scott family, taking pity on the young jobless husband, offered him a partnership in his grocery business. Happily John Scott refused, so, in the words of the Lord Chancellor Eldon's biographer, "the year 1772, the year of Mr. Scott's majority, may be considered the most important of his life, as having been that of the marriage which gave colour to all his after days".
	The next year he was called to the Bar and entered upon his astonishingly successful legal career. He held the office of Lord Chancellor for 20 [sic] years. Throughout his life he was a devoted husband. His wife's wishes even came before the traditional duties of his office. At her request he discontinued the practice of holding official levies. He was an affectionate father and grandfather, though rather exacting. Perhaps his irascibility may be accounted for by his capacity, in his later years, for consuming prodigious quantities of port wine. And after his own conduct at the age of 21 it would be charitable to put down to the same cause his inordinate rage at his daughter's marrying without his consent.
	John Scott, 2nd Earl of Eldon
	The 2nd Earl was found to be insane following an inquiry into his state of mind in January 1853. The following report on this inquiry appeared in the London Daily News of 17 January 1853:-
	On Friday a commission de lunatico inquirendo, touching the state of mind of the Earl of Eldon, was held at his lordship's residence, Shirley-park, near Croydon, by Commissioner Winslow and a jury of seventeen gentlemen residing in the neighbourhood. Mr. Thomas Tuckle, Chairman of the Surrey Quarter Sessions, was foreman; Sir F[rederic] Thesiger [later Baron Chelmsford] and Mr. Hawkins were counsel for the commission, and Mr. Hill watched the case on the part of his lordship.
	Mr. Commissioner Winslow said that the forming of a commission did not necessarily indicate that a party was of unsound mind, but the jury might not probably be aware that previous to the issuing of a commission sufficient evidence is laid before the Lord Chancellor to form a prima facie case for inquiry. Amongst the points of inquiry would be whether Lord Eldon had alienated any part of his property, but the usual practice was to lay before the jury evidence touching only the state of the party's mind; and that practice would be adopted here, and on all matters as to which no evidence appeared before them, the jury would be good enough to say that they were ignorant of them. The main question would be, were they of opinion that his lordship was a lunatic, of not sufficient capacity to govern himself and his estates. If so, they would name the time whence the lunacy existed.
	Sir F. Thesiger then addressed the jury, and said that the nobleman whose state of mind was the object of their present inquiry, was born in 1804, and was consequently in the 48th year of his age. In 1831 he married a daughter of Lord Feversham, by whom he had issue six daughters and one son - Lord Encombe, a boy who was now about seven years of age. He succeeded in 1838, on the death of his grand-father, the Lord Chancellor, to the family honours and estates; and from that date down to the period to which their attention would be directed, he performed all the duties of his station in the most exemplary manner. He took the greatest possible interest in his estate of Encombe, and in this, his present residence; he paid out large sums of money on the improvement of both properties; he was kind and considerate, and at the same time careful and accurate in business; a tender and affectionate husband and parent; and everything around him seemed to promise a long career of usefulness and happiness. In 1851 his bodily health began to be seriously affected, and shortly afterwards symptoms appeared which rendered it necessary to resort to medical advice, On the 4th of June, 1851, it became necessary to call in the assistance of Dr. Sutherland, who continued to attend on Lord Eldon from the date mentioned above down to the present time. The present proceedings had been resorted to with extreme reluctance, and most probably they would not have been called to this painful inquiry but for the lamented death of Lady Eldon on the 8th November last. There were large possessions to be managed, and those most nearly connected with the family felt the responsibility to be too great, unless they were empowered to act by the authority of the court.
	Dr. Sutherland deposed that he was called to visit Lord Eldon on the 4th of June, 1851, at his residence at Shirley. He found him literally skin and bone; his speech was hesitating and inarticulate; there was trembling in his hands and legs; his conversation was incoherent; he obstinately refused to take his food; he was unconscious of the calls of nature; there was inequality in the pupils of his eyes, and the eyes themselves were bloodshot, as in the case of patients who had been long deprived of food. At that time he thought his lordship was of unsound mind. He had seen him since that time, generally thrice a week, and sometimes oftener. During the first week of his visits he had one day five convulsions. He attributed these to the bloodless condition of his brain, arising from want of nourishment, and he found they were generally produced when he rose from a horizontal position, or when he was at all excited. He was kept, therefore, for three weeks on a sofa, in a darkened room, and was fed three times a day. He inhaled ether in order to remove the convulsions, and while inhaling it he called out, "Hungry! Hungarians? Beef-tea!" The beef-tea was accordingly ordered, and he generally took it afterwards. Witness had often before found that inhaling ether had the effect of inducing patients to take their food; and it certainly had that effect upon his lordship. Witness took pains to ascertain the cause of this disease, and he was convinced that it had arisen from over study. At the end of a month there were symptoms of improvement; he became more coherent in his conversation, his speech was less hesitating, his lips lost their trembling, he took his food well, and he became conscious of the calls of nature. At first his mind was totally incoherent; then, as that chaotic state of mind passed off, delusions appeared. He fancied that witness was the Marquis of Douro [son of the Duke of Wellington] - that he was going to be murdered - that he had the power of raising the dead, etc. When the chaotic state of mind had passed off, and delusions appeared, there was an evidence of the mind gaining strength. As the imagination became more vivid it created the delusions. His lordship gradually improved in bodily health, and his mind was improved along with it, until, on the 9th of August 1851, he was able to go out round the garden, and from that time up to an attack of bronchitis he had in September, 1852, he was out daily, except in cold weather. When excitement came on, witness or one of the family read to him. He was subject to occasional paroxysm of excitement, and the reading had the effect of soothing him.
	Sir F. Thesiger: Did he exhibit great violence? - Witness: It had more of the appearance of impotent rage, exhibited in stamping on the floor, or hitting the sofa. Since July last, up to the present time, he thought there was no improvement. His firm conviction was that from June up to the present time his lordship was of unsound mind, and incapable of managing his own affairs. The symptoms are unpromising for a recovery, but the case is not hopeless. It will require great care and nursing to restore him to any degree of soundness. Witness had seen his lordship that morning, but had no conversation with him, as he was in a state of excitement. It would be advisable that only a deputation of the jury should visit him, as the presence of the whole number might excite him and prove prejudicial.
	A Juror - Has Lord Eldon been on any day since the 4th of June, 1851, capable of taking care of himself and his property?
	Dr. Sutherland - No. On no day since was Lord Eldon fit to transact business.
	Dr. Forbes Winslow, Dr. Tyler Smith, and Sir Alexander Morison, were also examined, and gave evidence tending to support the fact of lunacy.
	The Commissioner then, with five of the jury, including the foreman, and one or two gentlemen who had been personal friends of his lordship, proceeded to visit his lordship. On their return the foreman stated to the others that there could not be the shadow of a doubt as to the unsoundness of his lordship's mind - that he did not recognise his friend Mr. Sutherland (one of the jury) - and that he took no notice of what was passing around him.
	Dr. Sutherland, in answer to a question from Sir F. Thesiger, said that great care was taken to keep his lordship's rooms heated in the same degree, so far as possible.
	The Commissioner then said he need not trouble the jury with any observations. Those of the jury who had seen his lordship would probably come to a conclusion, even without the evidence of the medical gentlemen. Mr. Hill said the evidence was so conclusive that he would not trouble the jury with a word on the subject.
	The jury then at once returned a verdict, finding that Lord Eldon was of unsound mind, and that he had been of unsound mind from the 4th June, 1851.
	Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough
	The following biography of Lord Ellenborough appeared in the Australian monthly magazine Parade in its issue for May 1957:-
	On December 19, 1817, a heavy coach jolted to a halt outside a fish shop in Charing Cross, London. The howling crowd that followed closed round the wheels with fury. The frightened coachman called down to his passenger, "Shall I not drive on, my Lord? The mob is threatening!" A head that seemed all gigantic wig and shaggy eyebrows protruded from the carriage window. "Damn the mob!" the passenger growled. "This shop has the best herrings in London. Go and buy me a dozen!" With that, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Chief Justice of England, ducked his venerable head as another stone crashed against his coach.
	As supreme judge in the British criminal courts, Ellenborough was the legal executioner of the Tory diehards who ruled Britain in the social upheavals during and after the Napoleonic Wars. He was the most feared and ruthless man who ever donned the crimson and ermine of Lord Chief Justice.
	Lord Ellenborough was born Edward Law, son of a country parson, at Great Salkeld, Cumberland, on November 16, 1750. He was educated for the law and entered Lincoln's Inn at the same time as young William Pitt, the future Prime Minister. For five years he practised as a special pleader, then, in June, 1780, joined the Northern Circuit of the Assizes. His family was influential in the North of England. He rapidly built up a rich practice. He might have remained a successful but obscure lawyer had not Fate pitchforked him into the middle of the long and sensational trial of Warren Hastings, the cause celebre of the century. From then, his reputation was made.
	Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India for the old East India Company, had been impeached by the Whig statesmen, Burke and Fox, for extortion and gross corruption in his dealings with the Indian Princes. When Lord Erskine refused to lead the defence, Hastings' friends handed the brief over to 38-years-old Edward Law. With remorseless legal skill, Law tore to pieces the glittering rhetoric of Burke and Fox. After a trial that dragged on for seven years, Hastings was acquitted.
	When the trial ended in April, 1795, Law was the most famous advocate in Britain. He had a private practice worth £7000 a year. He was idolised by the Tories and became Attorney-General in Pitt's Ministry [1801]. He had not yet hardened into the reactionary whose name was later to terrorise Britain. His house was a centre of wit and fashion. He was a gay boon companion. His young wife, Anne, was so beautiful that passers-by used to gather in Bloomsbury Square to watch her water the geraniums on her balcony.
	The bloody excesses of the French Revolution ended the leisurely political life of 18th-century England. Law, like many of his fellow-countrymen, reacted with a blind hatred and fear of reform of any kind. As Attorney-General, Law directed the prosecution of the Radicals, Republicans and other fiery reformers rounded up by the frightened Government to prevent the French contagion from spreading to the "free soil" of Britain. The gaols and hulks were crammed with suspects awaiting trial for high treason. Law conducted his cases with a domineering violence that drew angry protests from the judges on the bench and the Whigs in Parliament. He was not always successful in browbeating the juries. To Law's fury, the veteran agitator, Horne Tooke, was acquitted in 1794. In one round of the Northern Assizes, however, he managed to send half a dozen to the gallows.
	His first great triumph came in 1799 when Lord Thanet and others were tried for plotting the escape of the Irish Republican, Arthur O'Connor, from Maidstone Gaol in Kent [For further details see the note under Thanet]. Thanet had powerful friends among the Whigs, including the famous wit and playwright, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, who gave evidence on his behalf. The duel between Sheridan and Law was the sensation of the trial. With rasping, brutal sarcasm, Law pulverised his opponent. Judge and jury were thundered into submission. Thanet was convicted. The Government hailed Edward Law as the hero of reaction. A safe "rotten borough" seat was found for him in the House of Commons. His first speech characteristically supported the bill to suspend the ancient liberties of Habeas Corpus. Every measure of repression roused his passionate enthusiasm.
	In April, 1802, he was created Baron Ellenborough and became Lord Chief Justice of England, succeeding the mild, homespun Lord Kenyon. For 16 years Ellenborough was to tyrannise over the courts in the worst era of reaction in British history. Not only in the courts, but in the House of Lords, Ellenborough used his powerful influence to crush with savage ridicule proposals for reform in every field. He opposed the bills to remove the humiliating restrictions on Roman Catholics. Under his leadership, the Lords persistently threw out Romilly's measures to soften the bloody penal laws and "Humanity" Martin's efforts to protect animals.
	His arguments, fantastic to modern ears, easily swayed the timid and callous who believed that Romilly, Martin and other "idle dreamers" were seeking to destroy the ancient traditions of England in the midst of her life-and-death struggle with Napoleon. When Romilly proposed to remove the death penalty for stealing goods worth 5/-, Ellenborough roared: "If we suffer this bill to pass, there will be an end to all property. No man will trust himself out of his house for one hour". Every effort to substitute transportation for the gallows in cases of minor theft was foiled by the House of Lords when Ellenborough thundered that shipment to Botany Bay was "a pleasant migration to a milder climate".
	RomiIly's attempts to save poor debtors from the horrors of the Fleet Prison met similar blind wrath from Ellenborough. "This insane measure would destroy the commercial trade of the entire country", he prophesied, to the applause of their well-fed Lordships lolling on the benches round him. If Martin succeeded in his campaign against cruelty to animals, said Ellenborough, no Irish peasant would dare to strike a pig that was eating his potatoes. In any case, animals were "insensate brutes" that felt no pain.
	The death of Pitt early in 1806 and the collapse of the short-lived "Ministry of All the Talents" brought to power a purely Tory regime that was to govern Britain for the rest of the war, and for years into the restless misery of the peace that followed. With Castlereagh as Foreign Secretary and Sidmouth as Home Secretary, reaction pressed harder than ever on the war-exhausted country. The hanging judge, Lord Ellenborough, reached the summit of his power.
	One sensational trial followed another as the Government pounced on radical journalists and agitators and hauled them before Lord Ellenborough at the Old Bailey on charges of treason or criminal libel.
	In 1810 Leigh Hunt, publisher of the notorious "Examiner", faced Ellenborough for the first time for daring to attack the savage system of army floggings. Despite the judge's blatant bullying of the jury, Hunt was acquitted. Next time Ellenborough made sure of his prey. Two years later Hunt committed the far more serious offence of describing the august figure of the Prince Regent as "a fat Adonis, a libertine, and a companion of gamblers and demi-reps". Ellenborough's conduct made the trial a grim farce. He snarls at Hunt's counsel, Henry Brougham, for "inoculating himself with the poison of his client's libel". His summing-up was a furious order to the jury to find Hunt guilty. The jury was bludgeoned into submission. Leigh Hunt went to gaol. His cell became a triumphal reception room for all the radical writers, artists and politicians of the day.
	A few months later, however, the jury that heard the trial of another "seditious" journalist, James Perry, stood firm in the face of all Ellenborough's threats and coarse abuse. Perry, an ex-actor turned newspaper publisher, reprinted one of Hunt's "libels" in his Morning Chronicle. Aided by Lord Erskine and Romilly, he defended himself with such vigour that Ellenborough was baffled.
	This was an exception. Usually justice was crushed by the spectacle of the Chief Justice glaring beneath his bushy eyebrows, interrupting counsel and witnesses with harsh sneers, growling "stand down from the box this instant, sir" at any witness whose evidence displeased him. Ellenborough treated popular outbursts of hatred with contempt. Several times a mob shattered the windows of his mansion in St. James' Square. His carriage was pursued with hoots and volleys of stones. "Beat the curs off with your whip!" he told his coachman.
	The only occasion when his pride was really stung was in 1812 when the famous comedian Charles Mathews, at Covent Garden, gave an hilarious imitation of Ellenborough addressing a jury. London theatregoers rocked with laughter. Ellenborough stormed to interview the Lord hamberlain. Mathews was ordered to stop his parody. A few weeks later, Ellenborough was outraged to hear that the comedian had been invited to Carlton House to give a special private performance for the Prince Regent.
	In June, 1815, the long agony of the Napoleonic Wars ended on the field of Waterloo. England was at peace - but it was a peace of famine, machine­smashing, rick-burning, mass unemployment among the restless and mutinous disbanded soldiers and seamen. The Government had no answer but more and harsher repression. In the House of Lords, Ellenborough pushed through a bill to add 10 more offences to the already long list that bore the penalty of death. Those victims spared by the hungry gallows crammed the convict ships to distant New South Wales.
	By early 1817 Ellenborough's health was giving way. Sometimes a fellow judge had to read his summing up, while the Chief Justice himself, his wasted frame swathed in its crimson robes, sipped wine and water. Defeat, the most crushing of his career, marked his last appearance. In December, 1817, the firebrand William Hone was brought to trial at the Guildhall on charges of publishing three blasphemous libels on church and State. Ellenborough was too ill to sit on the first day of the trial and Hone was acquitted on the first charge. Deadly sick, but determined not to let Hone escape his clutches, Ellenborough insisted on hearing the other two charges. "I know why you are here, my lord," shouted Hone defiantly, as the old judge sank painfully into his seat. "I am here to see justice done!" said Ellenborough sternly. "No, my lord", retorted Hone, "you are here to send a poor devil of a printer to rot in your prisons!" Though Ellenborough roused himself to a last desperate effort, though he jeered, thundered and threatened, though he heaped abuse on Hone and his witnesses, the jury set Hone free.
	Three months later he made his last speech in the Lords - opposing the abolition of the archaic punishment of the pillory. On December 13, 1818, Lord Ellenborough died. He left a fortune of £240,000 and a name that left bitter memories in the hearts of his countrymen.
	Jane Elizabeth Law, Baroness Ellenborough, wife of the 2nd Baron Ellenborough and 1st (and only) Earl of Ellenborough (3 Apr 1807-11 Aug 1881)
	The following biography of Lady Ellenborough appeared in the December 1966 issue of the Australian monthly magazine Parade:-
	The beautiful 20-year-old Lady Jane Ellenborough was introduced to Prince Felix Ludwig Johann van Nepomuk Friedrich zu Schwarzenberg, an attaché at the Austrian Embassy in London, in the in the summer of 1828. The prince was 28, elegant, handsome and unattached. What followed was inevitable, for Lady Ellenborough had not been able to resist an attractive man since her early teens. At 14 she ran away with a band of gipsies when one of them caught her eye. A year later she tried to elope with a good-looking groom. Nor did her early marriage to the ultra-respectable Lord Ellenborough do anything to rid her of this weakness for attractive members of the opposite sex.
	But it was her association with the Austrian prince that finally set her on a round of amours that scandalised some of the great cities of Europe. As far as the great cities of Europe could be scandalised, that is. Of all of Lady Jane Ellenborough's lovers and husbands only one - the last - was able to hold her affection. This was Mijwal, a Bedouin sheik who, when roaming the desert, treated his high-born spouse as little more than a slave.
	Lady Jane Ellenborough was born in 1808 [3 April 1807], the child of Rear-Admiral Henry Digby and the former Viscountess Andover. She matured rapidly. When she made her debut at 16 she was regarded as one of the most beautiful and desirable young ladies in London society. She was also a great worry to her parents and relatives, who took their social positions seriously and saw in her escapades with the gipsies and the groom a foretaste of worse to come. At a family council it was decided the best thing for all concerned was to marry her as soon as possible to a husband who could keep her in check. They were delighted when Lord Ellenborough, a nobleman of eminent respectability, with political and diplomatic ambitions, began paying his respects to the 16-year-old Jane.
	He was a widower and 17 years older. His great loves were politics and the reading of statistics. Nor did he change his affections after his marriage. Had the matter been left to Ellenborough he would probably have remained a widower for the rest of his life. But Lady Londonderry, the mother of his late wife, was a domineering woman who wanted to see him settled again. She cajoled him into proposing. Jane gratefully accepted the offer, which gave her a title, a home and the chances of further adventures in the field of romance.
	They married in October 1824 and lived amicably. In 1828 Jane had a son. Delighted, Ellenborough announced: "Jane has brought me a boy. I put this down as a political occurrence for I shall make him a political character. I shall ask the Duke of Wellington to be his godfather. Princess Esterhazy shall be his godmother - a good diplomatic introduction to the world."
	Ellenborough now threw himself into the study of foreign affairs, leaving his wife much to her own devices, which consisted almost entirely of dashing from one social engagement to another. At these functions she was accompanied almost exclusively by her handsome cousin, Colonel Anson, a gallant who was said to show more than a cousinly interest.
	During the summer of 1828, while engaged in the social whirl, Lady Ellenborough met Prince Schwarzenberg. He was to change the course of her life. She fell in love with the handsome diplomat and lost no time telling him. She didn't care who knew it and soon London was talking about the scandal. That was the year that Cadland won the Derby against the king's horse The Colonel. As a result Schwarzenberg was nicknamed Cadland because he had supplanted the colonel (Anson) in Jane's affections.
	Ellenborough, engrossed in politics, seemed the only person in London unaware that his wife had become the mistress of the Austrian. It was not until May 1829 that he learned what was going on. His uncle [George Law], the Bishop of Bath and Wells, told him his wife was being unfaithful. Ellenborough questioned her. She admitted indiscretion but denied she had been immoral. He accepted the story and, after lecturing her in a fatherly manner, begged her to take care she did not dishonour the family name. Then he returned to his politics and statistics. The Austrian Government was not unaware of the scandal. Schwarzenberg was transferred to the Paris Embassy.
	If Ellenborough now thought the problem was solved he was wrong. Two months later he and Jane were due to attend a reception at the Foreign Office. Early in the evening of the reception he returned home to change. Ready to leave, he went to the drawing room, where he had arranged to meet his wife. But, he learned from a servant, her ladyship had gone for a drive. It seemed she did not stop until she reached Paris and her Austrian. In 1830 Lord Ellenborough won a divorce, but it was the beautiful, faithless Jane who won the public's sympathy. Most blamed the cold, emotionless Ellenborough for his wife's search for affection elsewhere. Even when Ellenborough became Governor-General of India he was still known as "that sarcastic fish who drove his wife away."
	Lady Ellenborough bore Schwarzenberg a daughter but he made no attempt to marry her. Finally they parted. Schwarzenberg kept the child. Jane began a series of short affairs with other men. One of her lovers at this period was the novelist Honore de Balzac, who based on her character of Lady Arabelle Dudley in his The Lily of the Valley. Later she moved to Munich. She was accepted in aristocratic circles despite her unconventional background. One among many who found her beauty fascinating, was King Ludwig I of Bavaria. He had her portrait painted for his Beauty Gallery and wrote her innumerable flowery love letters.
	While accepting Ludwig's infatuation, if not his sincere love, she had an affair with young Baron Karl van Venningen‑Ulner. On November 10, 1832, she married Venningen‑Ulner and moved with him to his country estate in Bavaria. There she had two children and was thoroughly bored. In 1834 she wrote to Ludwig in Munich. She began: "O! My best beloved friend", and ended by suggesting he set her up in an establishment in Munich. When Ludwig showed no interest she set out to cultivate another lover who might rescue her from her dull existence. Again she was successful.
	Two years earlier Greece had been freed from Turkish control and Ludwig's son Otto had been crowned King of Greece. As a result of his new liaison there had been an influx of noble Greeks into Bavaria. Among them was the man destined to be Jane's next target, Count Spiro Theoteki. The lovely Englishwoman met him at a court ball and as far as he was concerned it was love at first glance. When Theoteki went to Heidelberg for military training, Jane persuaded her husband to spend the summer at Schwetzungen, about 10 miles from her lover's station. After a week she found the daily journey of 20 miles to and from Heidelberg was tiring. She persuaded Theoteki to elope. They got away without any trouble, but unknown to them the irate Venningen‑Ulner heard of the scheme and galloped on their heels. He caught up and forced the Greek into a roadside duel. Theoteki was severely wounded by a sabre blow above the heart. Venningen‑Ulner arranged for him to be nursed and told his wife she could have a divorce as soon as she liked. In due course she married the Greek and went to his home at Corfu. After that little was heard of her for some years.
	Many stories circulated. One said he left the count and went to Rome, where she so scandalised society by her immoral adventures that she was hissed in the streets. King Ludwig wrote to King Otto asking if anything had been heard of her. Otto replied saying she had borne Theoteki a son who had been accidentally killed. Later they had been divorced and Jane had endured a short marriage to General Hadji Petros, 60-year-old governor of a group of Greek islands.
	After divorcing Petros Jane travelled to Syria. In Damascus she hired a caravan to take her on a sight-seeing tour in the desert. Her chief guide on this expedition was a sheik of the Mezrab tribe, a branch of the Anazeh Bedouins. His name was Mijwal. For some reason the Englishwoman found the nomad irresistible. They were married soon after their first meeting. Jane renounced Christianity and embraced Mohammedanism. She wore Turkish clothes, complete to veil. Some time later the maid she had taken on her travels returned to Athens with information. When Jane's husband had pledged not to take another wife, the strange Englishwoman followed him in his desert wanderings, milking his camels, preparing his food and sleeping in the open.
	Later she bought a house in Damascus, where she and her husband spent six months of each year. During their time in Damascus, they lived in European style. Mijwal tried to be the perfect host to his wife's friends. When Lady Burton, wife of the famous explorer Sir Richard Burton, arrived to take tea, Mijwal opened the door to her. Lady Burton came to the conclusion that he was a rather insolent servant. She told Jane: "You must get rid of him". She replied: "I can't. He s my husband."
	But while Mijwal enjoyed waiting on Jane and her friends in Damascus, the position was the opposite in the desert, where, the Englishwoman revelled in the role of the servile wife. Jane died quietly in 1881, at the age of 74. Those who saw her towards the end said she was still remarkably beautiful.
	The "Great Ellesmere Jewel Robbery" of 1856
	One of the most sensational criminal trials of 1857 involved the theft, in the previous year, of a quantity of jewels owned by Francis Egerton, 1st Earl of Ellesmere. The following edited report of the trial appeared in the North Wales Chronicle of 19 December 1857:-
	At the sitting of the Central Criminal Court on Wednesday, William Attwell, alias William Walsh, 24, described as a labourer, Edward Jackson, 31, painter, and Anne Jackson, his wife, who surrendered to take her trial, and who appeared to be very far advanced in the family way, and was allowed to be seated in the dock, were charged with stealing a diamond necklace, and a quantity of other articles of jewellery, lace, and other property, valued at £1,000 in the indictment, but which was stated to be worth, in reality, nearly £16,000, and said to be the property of Francis Egerton, Earl of Ellesmere, since deceased.
	The prisoners were also charged with feloniously receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen. The prisoner Attwell pleaded guilty; Jackson and his wife pleaded not guilty.
	[The facts of the case were] that on the 22nd of January, 1856, Lady Ellesmere was about to proceed on a visit to the Queen at Windsor, and among a great quantity of other luggage, was a box which contained a large quantity of valuable articles of clothing and jewellery, the estimated worth being between £15,000 and £16,000. The box was placed on the top of a cab to be taken to the Great Western Railway station; but upon the arrival of the vehicle at the station it was discovered that the box containing the valuable property referred to had been stolen during the transit of the cab from Bridgewater House, the residence of her ladyship, to the railway station.
	Information was given to the police, and all the necessary inquiries made, but no trace was discovered of the stolen property until the month of October in the present year [1857], when, from some information received by a police-sergeant, named Evans, he took the two Jacksons into custody, and upon searching the house occupied by them, in Leonard-street, Shoreditch, and where the male prisoner ostensibly carried on the business of an oil and colourman, he found a considerable quantity of the property that was in the box at the time it was stolen, and the prisoners gave several unsatisfactory and, at the same time, contradictory statements as to the manner in which they became possessed of the stolen property.
	The prisoner, Edward Jackson, underwent several examinations by the magistrate, and, upon one occasion, after he had been remanded, he expressed a wish to see Evans at the House of Detention, and upon his going to him he told him that he wanted to get out of prison, and he would give information respecting the robbery if a promise were made that he should not be prosecuted. The officer told him that he had no power to make such a promise, and the prisoner then told him that the box was brought to his house, but he said he could not help it, and when the box was opened, and he saw what it contained, he said he thought they were theatrical dresses that were in it, and refused to have anything to do with it. He also said that the jewellery was taken to pieces, and the diamonds were carried away in a red handkerchief, but one necklace was sold to a Jew, who lived in Bishopsgate-street, whole, for £300. Other portions of the jewellery, he stated, were thrown down a water-closet, and into a field in Whitechapel, when the discovery of the value of the property was made.
	With regard to the prisoner Attwell … while he was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for felony in Springfield Gaol, he sent for Evans and made a long statement, which amounted to a confession that he and another man were the parties by whom the robbery was effected, and detailed the manner in which the property was shared at the house of the other prisoners, and how the jewellery and the other articles were disposed of. No portion of the jewellery has since been discovered, the whole of it having been sold and sacrificed for a comparatively small sum of money.
	Jackson was found guilty and received six months' imprisonment. His wife was acquitted. Attwell, who had pleaded guilty, received a sentence of 10 years.

	Copyright © 2003-2018 Leigh Rayment
	Copyright © 2020-2024 Helen Belcher OBE