PEERAGES
Last updated 06/04/2018 (29 Feb 2024)
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
ASHCROFT
20 Oct 2000	B[L]		Sir Michael Anthony Ashcroft Created Baron Ashcroft for life 20 Oct 2000 PC 2012	4 Mar 1946
ASHDOWN
3 Jan 1975 to     24 Jul 1977	B[L]		Sir Arnold Silverstone Created Baron Ashdown for life 3 Jan 1975 Peerage extinct on his death	28 Sep 1911	24 Jul 1977	65
ASHDOWN OF NORTON-SUB-HAMDON
10 Jul 2001 to     22 Dec 2018	B[L]		Sir Jeremy John Durham ["Paddy"] Ashdown Created Baron Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon for life 10 Jul 2001 MP for Yeovil 1983‑2001; PC 1989; CH 2015 Peerage extinct on his death	27 Feb 1941	22 Dec 2018	77
ASHFIELD
9 Jan 1920 to     4 Nov 1948	B	1	Sir Albert Henry Stanley Created Baron Ashfield 6 Jan 1920 MP for Ashton under Lyne 1916‑1920; President of the Board of Trade 1916‑1919; PC 1916 Peerage extinct on his death	8 Nov 1874	4 Nov 1948	73
ASHFORD
10 Feb 1697	B	1	Arnold Joost van Keppel Created Baron Ashford, Viscount Bury and Earl of Albemarle 10 Feb 1697 See "Albemarle"	1670	30 May 1718	47
5 Sep 1876			William Coutts Keppel He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Ashford 5 Sep 1876 He succeeded as 7th Earl of Albemarle in 1891	15 Apr 1832	28 Aug 1894	62
ASHLEY
20 Apr 1661	B	1	Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, 2nd baronet Created Baron Ashley 20 Apr 1661 and Baron Cooper of Pawlett and Earl of Shaftesbury 23 Apr 1672 See "Shaftesbury"	22 Jul 1621	21 Jan 1683	61
ASHLEY OF STOKE
10 Jul 1992 to     20 Apr 2012	B[L]		Jack Ashley Created Baron Ashley of Stoke for life 10 Jul 1992 MP for Stoke on Trent South 1966‑1992; CH 1975; PC 1979 Peerage extinct on his death	6 Dec 1922	20 Apr 2012	89
ASHTON
25 Jul 1895 to     27 May 1930	B	1	James Williamson Created Baron Ashton 25 Jul 1895 MP for Lancaster 1886‑1895 Peerage extinct on his death	31 Dec 1842	27 May 1930	87
ASHTON OF HYDE
28 Jun 1911	B	1	Thomas Gair Ashton Created Baron Ashton of Hyde 28 Jun 1911 MP for Hyde 1885‑1886 and Luton 1895‑1911	5 Feb 1855	1 May 1933	78
1 May 1933		2	Thomas Henry Raymond Ashton	2 Oct 1901	21 Mar 1983	81
21 Mar 1983		3	Thomas John Ashton	19 Nov 1926	2 Aug 2008	81
2 Aug 2008		4	Thomas Henry Ashton [Elected hereditary peer 2011‑]	18 Jul 1958
ASHTON OF UPHOLLAND
2 Aug 1999	B[L]		Catherine Margaret Ashton Created Baroness Ashton of Upholland for life 2 Aug 1999 Lord President of the Council 2007‑2008; PC 2006; LG 2023	20 Mar 1956
ASHTOWN
27 Dec 1800	B[I]	1	Frederick Trench Created Baron Ashtown 27 Dec 1800 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of this peerage, see the note at the foot of this page MP [I] for Maryborough 1785‑1790 and Portarlington 1798‑1800	17 Sep 1755	1 May 1840	84
1 May 1840		2	Frederick Mason Trench	25 Dec 1804	12 Sep 1880	75
12 Sep 1880		3	Frederick Oliver Trench For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	2 Feb 1868	20 Mar 1946	78
20 Mar 1946		4	Robert Power Trench	27 Apr 1897	3 Nov 1966	69
3 Nov 1966		5	Dudley Oliver Trench	11 Jul 1901	19 Aug 1979	78
19 Aug 1979		6	Christopher Oliver Trench	23 Mar 1931	27 Apr 1990	59
27 Apr 1990		7	Nigel Clive Cosby Trench	27 Oct 1916	6 Mar 2010	93
6 Mar 2010		8	Roderick Nigel Godolphin Trench	17 Nov 1944
ASKWITH
24 Mar 1919 to     2 Jun 1942	B	1	Sir George Ranken Askwith Created Baron Askwith 24 Mar 1919 Peerage extinct on his death	17 Feb 1861	2 Jun 1942	81
ASQUITH
9 Feb 1925	V	1	Herbert Henry Asquith Created Viscount Asquith and Earl of Oxford & Asquith 9 Feb 1925 See "Oxford and Asquith"	12 Sep 1852	15 Feb 1928	75
ASQUITH OF BISHOPSTONE
23 Apr 1951 to     24 Aug 1954	B[L]		Sir Cyril Asquith Created Baron Asquith of Bishopstone for life 23 Apr 1951 Lord Justice of Appeal 1946‑1951; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1951‑1954; PC 1946 Peerage extinct on his death	5 Feb 1890	24 Aug 1954	64
ASQUITH OF YARNBURY
21 Dec 1964 to     19 Feb 1969	B[L]		Dame Helen Violet Bonham-Carter Created Baroness Asquith of Yarnbury for life 21 Dec 1964 Peerage extinct on her death	15 Apr 1887	19 Feb 1969	81
ASTLEY (of Astley)
23 Jun 1295	B	1	Andrew de Astley Summoned to Parliament as Lord Astley 23 Jun 1295		1301
1301		2	Nicholas de Astley		c 1314
c 1314		3	Thomas de Astley		c 1359
c 1359 to     after 1359		4	William de Astley Peerage probably fell into abeyance on his death		after 1359
ASTLEY (of Reading)
4 Nov 1644	B	1	Sir Jacob Astley Created Baron Astley of Reading 4 Nov 1644		1651
1651		2	Isaac Astley		1662
1662 to     1688		3	Jacob Astley Peerage extinct on his death		1688
ASTON
28 Nov 1627	B[S]	1	Sir Walter Aston, 1st baronet Created Lord Aston 28 Nov 1627	9 Jul 1584	13 Aug 1639	55
13 Aug 1639		2	Walter Aston	1609	23 Apr 1678	69
23 Apr 1678		3	Walter Aston Lord Lieutenant Staffordshire 1687‑1689	1633	20 Nov 1714	81
20 Nov 1714		4	Walter Aston	1660	4 Apr 1748	87
4 Apr 1748 to     24 Aug 1751		5	James Aston Peerage probably became dormant on his death	23 May 1723	24 Aug 1751	28
ASTOR
23 Jun 1917	V	1	William Waldorf Astor Created Baron Astor 26 Jan 1916 and Viscount Astor 23 Jun 1917	31 Mar 1848	18 Oct 1919	71
18 Oct 1919		2	Waldorf Astor MP for Plymouth 1910‑1918 and Sutton 1918‑1919	19 May 1879	30 Sep 1952	73
30 Sep 1952		3	William Waldorf Astor MP for Fulham East 1935‑1945 and Wycombe 1951‑1952	13 Aug 1907	8 Mar 1966	58
8 Mar 1966		4	William Waldorf Astor [Elected hereditary peer 1999‑]	27 Dec 1951
ASTOR OF HEVER
21 Jan 1956	B	1	John Jacob Astor Created Baron Astor of Hever 21 Jan 1956 MP for Dover 1922‑1945	20 May 1886	20 Jul 1971	85
20 Jul 1971		2	Gavin Astor Lord Lieutenant Kent 1972‑1982	1 Jun 1918	28 Jun 1984	66
28 Jun 1984		3	John Jacob Astor PC 2015 [Elected hereditary peer 1999‑2022]	16 Jun 1946
ATHENRY
1172	B[I]	1	Robert Bermingham Created Lord Athenry 1172		by 1218
by 1218		2	Peter Bermingham		1244
1244		3	Meiler Bermingham	1212	1262	50
1262		4	Peter Bermingham		4 Apr 1307
4 Apr 1307		5	Richard Bermingham		1322
1322		6	Thomas Bermingham		1374
1374		7	Walter Bermingham		1428
1428		8	Thomas Fitzwalter Bermingham		c 1473
c 1473		9	Thomas Bermingham		c 1500
c 1500		10	Meiler Bermingham		1529
1529		11	John Bermingham		c 1547
c 1547		12	Richard Bermingham		1580
1580		13	Edmond Bermingham	1540	c 1612
c 1612		14	Richard Bermingham	1570	1645	75
1645		15	Edmond Bermingham He resigned the peerage in favour of his brother -		after 1645
c 1645		16	Francis Bermingham		12 Apr 1677
12 Apr 1677		17	Edward Bermingham Lord Lieutenant Mayo Outlawed 1691 but pardoned 1700		May 1709
May 1709		18	Francis Bermingham	1692	4 Mar 1750	57
4 Mar 1750 to     11 Jan 1799		19	Thomas Bermingham PC [I] 1755 Created Earl of Louth 23 Apr 1759 Peerage became dormant on his death	16 Nov 1717	11 Jan 1799	81
ATHLONE
4 Mar 1692	E[I]	1	Godert de Ginkell Created Baron of Aghrim and Earl of Athlone 4 Mar 1692	1644	11 Feb 1703	58
11 Feb 1703		2	Godert de Ginkell	1668	15 Aug 1729	61
15 Aug 1729		3	Godert Adrian de Ginkell	Feb 1716	8 Oct 1736	20
8 Oct 1736		4	Godert de Ginkell	1717	Nov 1747	30
Nov 1747		5	Frederick William de Ginkell		1748
1748		6	Frederick Christian Rhynhart de Ginkell	31 Jan 1743	Dec 1808	65
Dec 1808		7	Frederick William de Ginkell	21 Oct 1766	5 Dec 1810	44
5 Dec 1810		8	Renaud Diederick de Ginkell	2 Jul 1773	31 Oct 1823	50
31 Oct 1823		9	George Godert de Ginkell	21 Nov 1820	2 Mar 1843	22
2 Mar 1843 to     21 May 1844		10	William Gustauf de Ginkell Peerage extinct on his death	21 Jul 1780	21 May 1844	63
24 May 1890 to     14 Jan 1892	D	1	Albert Victor Christian Edward Created Earl of Athlone and Duke of Clarence and Avondale 24 May 1890 Eldest son of Edward VII; KG 1883; KP 1887 Peerage extinct on his death	8 Jan 1864	14 Jan 1892	28
16 Jul 1917 to     16 Jan 1957	E	1	Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George Cambridge Created Viscount Trematon and Earl of Athlone 16 Jul 1917 Governor General of South Africa 1923‑1930; Governor General of Canada 1940‑1946; KG 1928; PC 1931 Peerage extinct on his death	14 Apr 1874	16 Jan 1957	82
ATHLUMNEY
14 Dec 1863	B[I]	1	Sir William Meredyth Somerville, 5th baronet Created Baron Athlumney [I] 14 Dec 1863 and Baron Meredyth [UK] 3 May 1866 MP for Drogheda 1837‑1852 and Canterbury 1854‑1865; Chief Secretary for Ireland 1847‑1852; PC 1847; PC [I] 1847	1802	7 Dec 1873	71
7 Dec 1873 to     8 Jan 1929		2	James Herbert Gustavus Meredyth Somerville Peerages extinct on his death	23 Mar 1865	8 Jan 1929	63
ATHOLL (ATHOLE)
c 1115	E[S]	1	Madach Witness to the Charter of Scone as Earl of Athole c 1115		after 1124
after 1124		2	Malcolm		after 1186
after 1186		3	Henry		after 1214
after 1214		4	Isabel		c 1231
c 1231		5	Patrick de Galloway		1242
1242		6	Fernelith		c 1250
c 1250		7	Ada		c 1260
c 1260		8	David de Strabolgi		1269
1269		9	John de Strabolgi		1284
1284 to     7 Nov 1306		10	John de Strabolgi He was executed in 1306 and the peerage forfeited - for 11th Earl, see below		7 Nov 1306
1306	E[S]	1	Ralph de Monthermer Created Earl of Athole 1306 He had previously been summoned to Parliament as Earl of Gloucester in 1299. He resigned the Earldom of Athole in favour of the son of the 10th earl above		c 1325
c 1307 to     1314	E[S]	11	David de Strabolgi He rebelled against King Robert Bruce in 1314 when his peerage was forfeited. He was later summoned to the English Parliament as Lord Strabolgi 20 Oct 1318		28 Dec 1327
c 1320 to     29 Jul 1333	E[S]	1	Sir John Campbell Created Earl of Athole c 1320 Peerage extinct on his death		29 Jul 1333
18 Jul 1341 to     1342	E[S]	1	Sir William Douglas Created Earl of Athole 18 Jul 1341 Soon after the creation, he resigned the peerage in favour of -		1353
16 Feb 1342 to     1371	E[S]	1	Robert Stewart Created Earl of Athole 16 Feb 1342 He succeeded to the throne of Scotland in 1371, when the peerage merged with the Crown	2 Mar 1316	19 Apr 1390	74
28 Apr 1398 to     26 Mar 1402	E[S]	1	David Stewart, Duke of Rothesay Created Earl of Athole 28 Apr 1398 Peerage extinct on his death		26 Mar 1402
8 Sep 1403 to     1406	E[S]	1	Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany Created Earl of Athole 8 Sep 1403 The creation was only made during the life of King Robert III on whose death in 1406 the peerage became extinct	c 1340	3 Sep 1420
c 1409 to     Apr 1437	E[S]	1	Walter Stewart Created Earl of Athole c 1409 Sixth son of Robert II of Scotland He was executed in 1437 when the peerage was forfeited		Apr 1437
c 1457	E[S]	1	Sir John Stewart Created Earl of Athole c 1457	c 1440	19 Sep 1512
19 Sep 1512		2	John Stewart		9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513		3	John Stewart		1542
1542		4	John Stewart Chancellor of Scotland 1577		24 Apr 1579
24 Apr 1579 to     28 Aug 1595		5	John Stewart On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown		28 Aug 1595
6 Mar 1596	E[S]	1	John Stewart, 8th Lord Lorn Created Earl of Athole 6 Mar 1596		13 Apr 1605
13 Apr 1605 to     1625		2	John Stewart Peerage extinct on his death		1625
17 Feb 1629	E[S]	1	John Murray Created Earl of Atholl 17 Feb 1629		Jun 1642
Jun 1642	M[S]	2 1	John Murray Created Lord Murray, Balvany and Gask, Viscount of Balquhidder, Earl of Tullibardine and Marquess of Atholl 17 Feb 1676 He succeeded in Jan 1670 as 5th Earl of Tullibardine (created 1606) KT 1687	2 May 1631	7 May 1703	72
7 May 1703 30 Jun 1703	D[S]	2 1	John Murray Created Lord Murray, Viscount Glenalmond and Earl of Tullibardine for life 27 Jul 1696 and Lord Murray, Balvenie and Gask, Viscount of Balwhidder, Glenalmond and Glenlyon, Earl of Strathtay & Strathardle, Marquess of Tullibardine and Duke of Atholl 30 Jun 1703 Lord Privy Seal 1703 and 1713‑1714; Lord Lieutenant Perthshire 1715; KT 1704; PC 1712	24 Feb 1660	14 Nov 1724	64
14 Nov 1724		2	James Murray MP for Perthshire 1715‑1724; Lord Privy Seal 1733‑1763; KT 1734; PC 1734 He succeeded as 7th Baron Strange in 1736. On his death that peerage passed to his daughter Charlotte	28 Sep 1690	8 Jan 1764	73
8 Jan 1764		3	John Murray MP for Perthshire 1761‑1764; KT 1767	6 May 1729	5 Nov 1774	45
5 Nov 1774		4	John Murray Created Baron Murray of Stanley and Earl Strange 18 Aug 1786 Lord Lieutenant Perth 1794‑1830; PC 1797; KT 1800	30 Jun 1755	29 Sep 1830	75
29 Sep 1830		5	John Murray	26 Jun 1778	14 Sep 1846	68
14 Sep 1846		6	George Augustus Frederick John Murray He had previously [1837] succeeded as 2nd Baron Glenlyon KT 1853	20 Sep 1814	16 Jan 1864	49
16 Jan 1864		7	John James Hugh Henry Stewart‑Murray He succeeded as 6th Earl Percy in 1865 Lord Lieutenant Perth 1878‑1917; KT 1868	6 Aug 1840	20 Jan 1917	76
20 Jan 1917		8	John George Stewart‑Murray MP for Perthshire West 1910‑1917; Lord Lieutenant Perth 1917‑1942; KT 1918; PC 1921	15 Dec 1871	16 Mar 1942	70
16 Mar 1942		9	James Thomas Murray On his death the Baronies of Glenlyon and Murray of Stanley and the Earldom of Strange became extinct	18 Aug 1879	8 May 1957	77
8 May 1957		10	George Iain Murray	19 Jun 1931	27 Feb 1996	64
27 Feb 1996		11	John Murray	19 Jan 1929	15 May 2012	83
15 May 2012		12	Bruce George Ronald Murray	6 Apr 1960
ATHOLSTAN
5 May 1917 to     28 Jan 1938	B	1	Sir Hugh Graham Created Baron Atholstan 5 May 1917 Peerage extinct on his death	18 Jul 1848	28 Jan 1938	89
ATKIN
6 Feb 1928 to     25 Jun 1944	B[L]		Sir James Richard Atkin Created Baron Atkin for life 6 Feb 1928 Lord Justice of Appeal 1919‑1928; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1928‑1944; PC 1919 Peerage extinct on his death	28 Nov 1867	25 Jun 1944	76
ATKINSON
19 Dec 1905 to     13 Mar 1932	B[L]		John Atkinson Created Baron Atkinson for life 19 Dec 1905 MP for Londonderry North 1895‑1905; Solicitor General for Ireland 1889‑1892; Attorney General for Ireland 1892 and 1895‑1905; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1905‑1928; PC [I] 1892; PC 1905 Peerage extinct on his death	13 Dec 1844	13 Mar 1932	87
ATON
30 Dec 1324	B	1	Gilbert de Aton Summoned to Parliament as Lord Aton 30 Dec 1324	c 1289	1342
1342 to     after 1372		2	William de Aton Peerage fell into abeyance on his death		after 1372
ATTENBOROUGH
30 Jul 1993 to     24 Aug 2014	B[L]		Sir Richard Samuel Attenborough Created Baron Attenborough for life 30 Jul 1993 Peerage extinct on his death	29 Aug 1923	24 Aug 2014	90
ATTLEE
16 Dec 1955	E	1	Clement Richard Attlee Created Viscount Prestwood and Earl Attlee 16 Dec 1955 MP for Limehouse 1922‑1950 and Walthamstow West 1950‑1955; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1930‑1931; Postmaster General 1931; Lord Privy Seal 1940‑1942; Secretary of State for Dominions 1942‑1943; Lord President of the Council 1943‑1945; Prime Minister 1945‑1951; Secretary of State for Defence 1945‑1946; PC 1935; CH 1945; OM 1951; KG 1956	3 Jan 1883	8 Oct 1967	84
8 Oct 1967		2	Martin Richard Attlee For further information on this on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	10 Aug 1927	27 Jul 1991	63
27 Jul 1991		3	John Richard Attlee [Elected hereditary peer 1999‑]	3 Oct 1956
AUBIGNY
5 Mar 1580	B[S]	1	Esme Stuart Created Lord Darnley, Aubigny and Dalkeith and Earl of Lennox 5 Mar 1580 and Lord Aubigny, Dalkeith, Torboltoun and Aberdour, Earl of Darnley and Duke of Lennox 5 Aug 1581 See "Lennox"	c 1542	26 May 1583
AUCHINDOUN
3 Nov 1684	B[S]	1	George Gordon, 4th Marquess of Huntly Created Lord Badenoch, Lochaber, Strathavon, Balmore, Auchindoun, Garthie and Kincardine, Viscount of Inverness, Earl of Huntly and Enzie, Marquess of Huntly and Duke of Gordon 3 Nov 1684 See "Gordon" - extinct 1836	c 1643	7 Dec 1716
AUCHMOTIE
29 May 1680 to     27 Jul 1681	B[S]	1	John Leslie, 7th Earl of Rothes Created Lord Auchmotie and Caskieberry, Viscount of Lugtoun, Earl of Leslie, Marquess of Ballinbrieich and Duke of Rothes 29 May 1680 Peerage extinct on his death	1630	27 Jul 1681	51
AUCHTERHOUSE
1469	B[S]	1	Sir James Stewart Created Lord Auchterhouse and Earl of Buchan 1469 See "Buchan"		c 1495
AUCKLAND
18 Nov 1789	B[I]	1	William Eden	3 Apr 1744	28 May 1814	70
22 May 1793	B	1	Created Baron Auckland [I] 18 Nov 1789 and Baron Auckland 22 May 1793 MP [I] for Dungannon 1781‑1783; MP for Woodstock 1774‑1784 and Heytesbury 1784‑1793; Chief Secretary for Ireland 1780‑1782; Postmaster General 1798‑1804; President of the Board of Trade 1806‑1807; PC [I] 1780; PC 1783
28 May 1814 21 Dec 1839 to     1 Jan 1849	E	2 1	George Eden Created Baron Eden of Norwood and Earl of Auckland 21 Dec 1839 MP for Woodstock 1810‑1812 and 1813‑1814; President of the Board of Trade 1830; First Lord of the Admiralty 1834; Governor General of India 1835‑1841; PC 1830 On his death both creations of 1839 became extinct	25 Aug 1784	1 Jan 1849	64
1 Jan 1849		3	Robert John Eden	10 Jul 1799	25 Apr 1870	70
25 Apr 1870		4	William George Eden	19 Jan 1829	7 Feb 1890	61
7 Feb 1890		5	William Moreton Eden	27 Mar 1859	31 Jul 1917	58
31 Jul 1917		6	Frederick Colvin George Eden	21 Feb 1895	16 Apr 1941	46
16 Apr 1941		7	Geoffrey Morton Eden	17 Feb 1891	21 Jun 1955	64
21 Jun 1955		8	Terence Eden	3 Nov 1892	14 Sep 1957	64
14 Sep 1957		9	Ian George Eden	23 Jun 1926	28 Jul 1997	71
28 Jul 1997		10	Robert Ian Burnard Eden	25 Jul 1962
AUDLEY
8 Jan 1313	B	1	Nicholas Audley Summoned to Parliament as Baron Audley 8 Jan 1313		1317
1317		2	James Audley	c 1313	1 Apr 1386
1 Apr 1386 to     22 Jul 1391		3	Nicholas Audley On his death the barony fell into abeyance		22 Jul 1391
21 Dec 1405		4	John Tuchet Summoned to Parliament as Lord Touchet 30 Oct 1403 Summoned to parliament as Baron Audley 21 Dec 1405, thus terminating the abeyance	1371	19 Dec 1408	37
19 Dec 1408		5	James Tuchet, 2nd Lord Touchet	1398	23 Sep 1459	61
23 Sep 1459		6	John Tuchet Lord Treasurer 1484		26 Dec 1491
26 Dec 1491 to     28 Jun 1497		7	James Tuchet Beheaded and peerage forfeited		28 Jun 1497
1512		8	John Tuchet Restored to the title 1512		c 1557
c 1557		9	George Tuchet		1560
1560		10	Henry Tuchet		30 Dec 1563
30 Dec 1563		11	George Tuchet Created Baron Audley of Orier and Earl of Castlehaven [I] 6 Sep 1616	1551	20 Feb 1617	65
20 Feb 1617 to     14 May 1631		12	Mervin Tuchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven Attainted and beheaded, when peerages forfeited For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of the page which contains details of the Castlehaven peerage	1593	14 May 1631	37
1678		13	James Tuchet, 3rd Earl of Castlehaven Restored to the peerages 1678	c 1617	11 Oct 1684
11 Oct 1684		14	Mervin Tuchet, 4th Earl of Castlehaven		2 Nov 1686
2 Nov 1686		15	James Tuchet, 5th Earl of Castlehaven		12 Aug 1700
12 Aug 1700		16	James Tuchet, 6th Earl of Castlehaven		12 Oct 1740
12 Oct 1740		17	James Tuchet, 7th Earl of Castlehaven	15 Apr 1723	8 May 1769	46
1769		18	John Talbot Tuchet, 8th Earl of Castlehaven	2 Aug 1724	22 Apr 1777	52
22 Apr 1777		19	George Thicknesse‑Touchet	4 Feb 1758	24 Aug 1818	60
24 Aug 1818		20	George John Thicknesse‑Touchet	23 Jan 1783	14 Jan 1837	53
14 Jan 1837 to     18 Apr 1872		21	George Edward Thicknesse‑Touchet On his death the Barony fell into abeyance	26 Jan 1817	18 Apr 1872	55
17 May 1937		22	Mary Thicknesse‑Touchet Abeyance terminated 17 May 1937	13 Aug 1858	27 May 1942	83
27 May 1942		23	Thomas Percy Henry Touchet Touchet‑Jesson	15 Sep 1913	3 Jul 1963	49
3 Jul 1963		24	Rosina Lois Veronica Tuchet‑Macnamee	10 Jul 1911	24 Oct 1973	62
24 Oct 1973 to     27 Jun 1997		25	Richard Michael Thomas Souter On his death the Barony again fell into abeyance	31 May 1914	27 Jun 1997	83
AUDLEY
20 Nov 1317 to     10 Nov 1347	B	1	Hugh Audley Summoned to Parliament as Lord Audley 20 Nov 1317 Peerage probably extinct on his death		10 Nov 1347
AUDLEY OF ORIER
6 Sep 1616	B[I]	1	George Tuchet, 11th Baron Audley Created Baron Audley of Orier and Earl of Castlehaven 6 Sep 1616 The peerage remained united with that of Castlehaven until its extinction in 1777	1551	20 Feb 1617	65
AUDLEY (of Stratton Audley)
15 May 1321 to     c 1325	B	1	Hugh Audley Summoned to Parliament as Lord Audley 15 May 1321 Peerage extinct on his death		c 1325
AUDLEY OF WALDEN
29 Nov 1538 to     30 Apr 1544	B	1	Thomas Audley Created Baron Audley of Walden 29 Nov 1538 MP for Essex 1523; Speaker of the House of Commons 1529; Lord Keeper 1532; Lord Chancellor 1533‑1544; KG 1540 Peerage extinct on his death	c 1487	30 Apr 1544
AUMALE
29 Sep 1397 to     3 Nov 1399	D	1	Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Rutland Created Duke of Aumale 29 Sep 1397 The peerage was withdrawn 3 Nov 1399		25 Oct 1415
9 Jul 1412 22 Mar 1421	E	1	Thomas Plantagent, Duke of Clarence Created Earl of Aumale 9 Jul 1412 Peerage extinct on his death		22 Mar 1421
AUNGIER
29 Jun 1621	B[I]	1	Francis Aungier Created Baron Aungier 29 Jun 1621	c 1562	8 Oct 1632
8 Oct 1632		2	Gerald Aungier	c 1586	1655
1655		3	Francis Aungier He was subsequently created Earl of Longford in 1677 with which title this peerage then merged until its extinction in 1704	c 1632	22 Dec 1700
AUSTIN
16 Jul 1936 to     23 May 1941	B	1	Sir Herbert Austin Created Baron Austin 16 Jul 1936 MP for Kings Norton 1918‑1924 Peerage extinct on his death For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	8 Nov 1866	23 May 1941	74
AUSTIN OF DUDLEY
2 Sep 2020	B[L]		Ian Christopher Austin Created Baron Austin of Dudley for life 2 Sep 2020 MP for Dudley North 2005‑2019	6 Mar 1965
AVA
17 Nov 1888	E	1	Frederick Temple Hamilton‑Temple‑Blackwood, 1st Earl of Dufferin Created Earl of Ava and Marquess of Dufferin and Ava 17 Nov 1888 See "Dufferin and Ava"	21 Jun 1826	12 Feb 1902	75
AVANDALE (OR AVONDALE)
1437	E[S]	1	James Douglas, 7th Earl of Douglas Created Earl of Avandale 1437 Peerage forfeited 1455	1371	24 Mar 1444	72
24 Mar 1444		2	William Douglas, 8th Earl of Douglas	c 1425	22 Feb 1452
22 Feb 1452		3	James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas He was attainted and the peerages forfeited	1426	1488	62
1459 to     1488	B[S]	1	Andrew Stewart Created Lord Avondale 1459 Chancellor of Scotland 1460‑1482 Peerage extinct on his death		1488
c 1499	B[S]	1	Andrew Stewart Created Lord Avondale c 1499		9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513 to     1543		2	Andrew Stewart In 1543 he exchanged the peerage for that of Lord Ochiltree		1548
AVANE
28 Oct 1581 to     1585	E[S]	1	James Stewart Created Lord of Avane and Hamilton, and Earl of Arran 28 Oct 1581 He was attainted 1585 when the peerage was forfeited		1596
AVEBURY
22 Jan 1900	B	1	Sir John Lubbock, 4th baronet Created Baron Avebury 22 Jan 1900 MP for Maidstone 1870‑1880 and University of London 1880‑1900; PC 1890	30 Apr 1834	28 May 1913	79
28 May 1913		2	John Birkbeck Lubbock	4 Oct 1858	26 Mar 1929	70
26 Mar 1929		3	John Lubbock	13 May 1915	21 Jun 1971	56
21 Jun 1971		4	Eric Reginald Lubbock MP for Orpington 1962‑1970 [Elected hereditary peer 1999‑2016]	29 Sep 1928	14 Feb 2016	87
14 Feb 2016		5	Lyulph Ambrose Jonathan Lubbock	15 Jun 1954
AVELAND
26 Feb 1856	B	1	Sir Gilbert John Heathcote, 5th baronet Created Baron Aveland 26 Feb 1856 MP for Boston 1820‑1830, Lincolnshire South 1832‑1841 and Rutland 1841‑1856; Lord Lieutenant Lincolnshire 1862‑1867	16 Jan 1795	6 Sep 1867	72
6 Sep 1867		2	Gilbert Henry Heathcote‑Drummond‑Willoughby He succeeded as 23rd Lord Willoughby de Eresby in 1888 Created Earl of Ancaster 22 Aug 1892 The barony of Aveland became extinct on the death of the 3rd Earl of Ancaster in 1983	1 Oct 1830	24 Dec 1910	80
AVEN
12 Apr 1643	B[S]	1	James Hamilton Created Lord Aven and Innerdale, Earl of Arran and Cambridge, Marquess of Clydesdale and Duke of Hamilton 12 Apr 1643 See "Hamilton"	19 Jun 1606	9 Mar 1649	42
AVON
12 Jul 1961	E	1	Sir Robert Anthony Eden Created Viscount Eden and Earl of Avon 12 Jul 1961 MP for Warwick and Leamington 1923‑1957; Lord Privy Seal 1934; Foreign Secretary 1935‑1938, 1940‑1945 and 1951‑1955; Secretary of State for Dominions 1939‑1940; Secretary of State for War 1940; Prime Minister 1955‑1957; PC 1934; KG 1954	12 Jun 1897	14 Jan 1977	79
14 Jan 1977 to     17 Aug 1985		2	Nicholas Eden Peerage extinct on his death	3 Oct 1930	17 Aug 1985	54
AVONMORE
29 Dec 1800	V[I]	1	Barry Yelverton Created Baron Yelverton 15 Jun 1795 and Viscount Avonmore 29 Dec 1800 MP [I] for Donegal Borough 1774‑1776 and Carrickfergus 1776‑1784; Attorney General for Ireland 1782; Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer [I] 1784‑1805; PC [I] 1782	28 May 1736	19 Aug 1805	69
19 Aug 1805		2	William Charles Yelverton	5 Apr 1762	28 Nov 1814	52
28 Nov 1814		3	Barry John Yelverton	21 Feb 1790	24 Oct 1870	80
24 Oct 1870		4	William Charles Yelverton For further information on this on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	27 Sep 1824	1 Apr 1883	58
1 Apr 1883		5	Barry Nugent Yelverton	11 Feb 1859	13 Feb 1885	26
13 Feb 1885 to     3 Sep 1910		6	Algernon William Yelverton Peerages became dormant on his death	19 Nov 1866	3 Sep 1910	43
AYLESFORD
19 Oct 1714	E	1	Heneage Finch Created Baron of Guernsey 15 Mar 1703 and Earl of Aylesford 19 Oct 1714 MP for Oxford University 1679, 1689‑1698 and 1701‑1703 and Guildford 1685‑1687; Solicitor-General 1679‑1686; Chancellor of of the Duchy of Lancaster 1714‑1716; PC 1703; PC [I] by 1716	c 1649	22 Jul 1719
22 Jul 1719		2	Heneage Finch MP for Maidstone 1704‑1705 and Surrey 1710‑1719	27 Aug 1683	29 Jun 1757	73
29 Jun 1757		3	Heneage Finch MP for Leicestershire 1739‑1741, Maidstone 1741‑1747 and 1754‑1757	6 Nov 1715	9 May 1777	61
9 May 1777		4	Heneage Finch MP for Castle Rising 1772‑1774 and Maidstone 1774‑1777, PC 1783	4 Jul 1751	21 Oct 1812	61
21 Oct 1812		5	Heneage Finch MP for Weobly 1807‑1812	24 Apr 1786	3 Jan 1859	72
3 Jan 1859		6	Heneage Finch MP for Warwickshire South 1849‑1857	24 Dec 1824	10 Jan 1871	46
10 Jan 1871		7	Heneage Finch For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	21 Feb 1849	13 Jan 1885	35
13 Jan 1885		8	Charles Wightwick Finch	7 Jun 1851	16 Sep 1924	73
16 Sep 1924		9	Heneage Michael Charles Finch	31 Oct 1908	28 May 1940	31
28 May 1940		10	Charles Daniel Finch‑Knightly	23 Aug 1886	20 Mar 1958	71
20 Mar 1958		11	Charles Ian Finch‑Knightly Lord Lieutenant West Midlands 1974‑1993	2 Nov 1918	19 Feb 2008	89
19 Feb 2008		12	Charles Heneage Finch‑Knightly	27 Mar 1947
AYLESTONE
20 Sep 1967 to     30 Apr 1994	B[L]		Herbert William Bowden Created Baron Aylestone for life 20 Sep 1967 MP for Leicester South 1945‑1950 and Leicester South West 1950‑1967; Lord President of the Council 1964‑1966; Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs 1966‑1967; PC 1962; CH 1975 Peerage extinct on his death	20 Jan 1905	30 Apr 1994	89
AYLMER
1 May 1718	B[I]	1	Matthew Aylmer Created Baron Aylmer 1 May 1718 MP for Dover 1697‑1713 and 1715‑1720	c 1650	18 Aug 1720
18 Aug 1720		2	Henry Aylmer MP for Rye 1720‑1727		26 Jun 1754
26 Jun 1754		3	Henry Aylmer	21 May 1718	7 Oct 1766	48
7 Oct 1766		4	Henry Aylmer, later [1776] 7th baronet		22 Oct 1785
22 Oct 1785		5	Matthew Aylmer	24 May 1775	23 Feb 1850	74
23 Feb 1850		6	Frederick Whitworth Aylmer	12 Oct 1777	5 Mar 1858	80
5 Mar 1858		7	Udolphus Aylmer	10 Jun 1814	29 Nov 1901	87
29 Nov 1901		8	Matthew Aylmer	28 Mar 1842	11 Jun 1923	81
11 Jun 1923		9	John Frederick Whitworth Aylmer	23 Apr 1880	4 Nov 1970	90
4 Nov 1970		10	Kenneth Athalmer Aylmer	23 Jun 1883	1 May 1974	90
1 May 1974		11	Basil Udolphus Aylmer	20 May 1886	13 Mar 1977	90
13 Mar 1977		12	Hugh Yates Aylmer	5 Feb 1907	6 Dec 1982	75
6 Dec 1982		13	Michael Anthony Aylmer	27 Mar 1923	2 Aug 2006	83
2 Aug 2006		14	Anthony Julian Aylmer	10 Dec 1951
AYR
2 Feb 1622 12 Jun 1633	V[S] V[S]	1 1	William Crichton Created Lord of Sanquhar and Viscount of Ayr 2 Feb 1622 and Lord Crichton, Viscount of Ayr and Earl of Dumfries 12 Jun 1633 See "Dumfries"		1643

	The special remainder to the Barony of Ashtown
	From the London Gazette of 6 January 1801 (issue 15326, page 40):-
	His Majesty has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of this Kingdom [Ireland] to the several Gentlemen hereafter mentioned, and the Heirs Male of their respective Bodies lawfully begotten, by the following Names, Styles, and Titles, viz. … To Frederick Trench, of Woodlawn, in the County of Galway, Esq; the Dignity of Baron Ashtown, of Moate, with Remainder to the Heirs Male of the Body of his Father Frederick Trench, deceased.
	Frederick Oliver Trench, 3rd Baron Ashtown
	The 3rd Baron Ashtown was the target of an assassination attempt while staying in his shooting-box in Ireland in August 1907. The following report appeared in The Times on 15 August 1907:-
	In the early hours of yesterday morning a daring attempt, carefully planned and coolly carried out, was made to wreck Glenahira-lodge, Lord Ashtown's shooting seat in Co. Waterford, through the agency of gunpowder and to burn the place with paraffin oil.
	Lord Ashtown, who usually has a numerous party of guests for the shooting, came down by himself on Monday evening, and was staying in the lodge with James Graham, his head game-keeper, the other occupants of the house being Graham's wife and two maids. Lord Ashtown was out shooting on Tuesday, and returned early to the house. He went to bed about 10 o'clock. At about 2 o'clock he was awaked by a terrible explosion, his bedroom being immediately afterwards lighted up with a vivid flash. His first impression was that a thunderstorm was raging, but the noise of falling timber and breaking glass caused him to jump out of bed and to rush out on the landing, where he met Graham, who had also been aroused. The fumes of powder and oil ascended from the ground floor, and together Lord Ashtown and Graham made their way downstairs, amid broken glass and timber, to the drawing-room, which they found in flames. Water was procured and thrown on the fire, and it was extinguished within five minutes. An examination was then made, which disclosed the extent of the damage done; and Graham at once went to the police at Ballymacarberry and next into Clonmel and reported the matter.
	A Press representative who visited Glenahira-lodge yesterday afternoon found the exterior of the western side of the house all shattered and stained, and the interior a heap of debris as if the house had suffered from a violent earthquake. Nothing had been disturbed, pending the arrival of the police. Glenahira-lodge is a substantial two-storey stone building, painted with a peculiar yellowish wash, and is a striking landmark for miles. It is picturesquely situated in a valley, within half a mile of the village of Ballymacarberry, and about seven miles from Clonmel. The drawing-room is on the ground floor and on the left-hand side of the hall, and has one window facing the front and two at the side facing south-weSt. Lord Ashtown's bedroom is over the drawing-room, and is of equal size. It was at one of the side windows of the drawing-room that the explosion occurred. The window was shattered, the woodwork charred, and all the side of the yellow-washed wall stained by the explosion, while the other windows in the drawing-room and the windows in the dining-room on the other side of the hall were also broken. The door of the drawing-room was wrecked off its hinges and shattered into matchwood, which was thrown against the dining-room door. The floor of the latter apartment was littered with broken glass and timber.
	The powder was evidently placed on the window sill in a metal pot, portions of which were scattered all about the spot, and there were also the remains of a number of quart bottles, smelling of paraffin oil, and sacks saturated with paraffin, while a line of posts, measuring about 25ft., was laid on the field. Immediately the explosion had taken place, the oil and sacks, which were hurled into the drawing-room, were set ablaze and the carpet and curtains were ignited. Almost everything in the room was shaken to atoms, including a heavy iron fireguard. Portions of the drawing-room furniture were hurled by the force of the explosion right through the doors, across the hall, and through the dining-room, while portions of a heavy mahogany hall chair were also swept into the dining-room. In Lord Ashtown's room upstairs the windows and shutters were broken to pieces, a heavy marble mantelpiece was wrenched from the wall, and the frame of the dressing-room door, close to the bedstead was shattered. Those who planned the outrage had, perhaps, an idea of placing the explosive on the sill of the bedroom window, as a ladder was found on the ground outside the kitchen broken into pieces by the explosion. The bedroom window is, however, about 18ft. from the ground, while the ladder did not measure more than 6ft.
	The perpetrators of the outrage were apparently familiar with the local police arrangements. Owing to the trouble in Belfast all the available constables had been drafted away for duty, only a sergeant and a constable being left at Ballymacarberry station. Consequently there was no night patrol. The dogs about the place gave no warning of the approach of the assailants. District Inspector Tweedy, of Clonmel, visited the place yesterday, and, with the assistance of the local police, is making enquiries; but so far there is no clue.
	In November 1908, Lord Ashtown was elected as a Representative Peer for Ireland, but following his bankruptcy in October 1915, he was no longer eligible to continue in that role.
	Martin Richard Attlee, 2nd Earl Attlee
	Martin was a more convivial man than his father, Clement, the Labour Prime Minister between 1945 and 1951. Martin Attlee kept his many friends entertained by his idiosyncratic career choices and unusual views. In the House of Lords he campaigned vigorously against drug dealers, arguing on one occasion that they should be forcibly injected with heroin to give them a taste of their own medicine. Wishing to emphasize that he spoke as an authority, he confessed to his lordships that he had experience of drug abuse himself. Once, while on holiday in Portugal, he had inadvertently smoked cannabis, thereafter finding himself on a 'high'. He was able to tell the House that he had fought hard against the sensation, which he found to be disagreeable.
	After completing his education, Attlee served in the merchant navy for five years, and then stumbled into the public-relations business. From 1970 to 1976 he was assistant PR officer at Waterloo Station, but this employment was discontinued when he published a humorous book, Bluff Your Way in PR, which was amusingly dedicated to 'those clients I'd most like to handle - Gina Lollobrigida and Miss World'.
	After he lost his job at Waterloo, Attlee had the idea of selling identity talismans to the armed forces in Saudi Arabia. He was disappointed to discover that Muslim law discouraged the wearing of personal jewellery. Despite such setbacks, he continued to enjoy a challenge. He spent most of 1985 working on a way to improve helicopter safety and could often be seen running up and down his garden with a model helicopter on a stick.
	Shortly before his death, Attlee took up a campaign against the unnecessary brutality dealt out by the Metropolitan Police. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, he drew attention to 'horrific stories of police arrogance, especially when it comes to picking up boys with a public school accent'. It later emerged that he himself had had a disagreeable encounter with uniformed authority. Having fallen asleep on an underground train and woken up at the end of the line, he had made his way to a police station to enquire about late-night taxi services. Here, he had been bundled into a cell before being charged with being drunk and disorderly.
	Herbert Austin, 1st and only Baron Austin
	The following biography of Baron Austin appeared in the Australian monthly magazine Parade in its issue for November 1965:-
	On May 23, 1903, a fantastic collection of motor cars and cycles started from Paris on a road race to Madrid. Of the original 314 entries, 39 broke down before they reached the starting line. Representing 80 different makes from nine countries, the other vehicles ranged from a mammoth 90-horsepower Panhard to a Serpollet steam car and a pushbike with a half-litre auxiliary engine. The road, which was built in the days of Napoleon Bonaparte, had once been excellent for coaches, artillery caissons and farm wagons. But as little had been done to it for nearly a century, it had degenerated into an 850-mile stretch of cobbles, potholes, sand-drifts and bogs. At intervals there were a few miles of macadam to tempt fast drivers to destruction.
	Scarcely had the first intrepid competitors left Paris than the race turned into a shambles. Skidding off unbanked turns, cars hurtled into ditches or wrapped themselves round telegraph poles. Some hit foot-deep ruts and ricocheted into village shops or the cottages of infuriated peasants. One of the first to lose his life was Maurice Renault, who was burnt to death when his car overturned in a drain. Swerving to avoid a dog, Leon Barrow hit a tree and was killed when his ponderous Lorraine-Dietrich exploded. Paul Tourval drove his Brouhot into a group of spectators, killing himself, a soldier, two civilians and a child.
	By the time the survivors, led by Marcel Gabriel in his 70-horsepower Mors, had thundered into Bordeaux, the road was lined with wrecks and the French Government had stopped the conteSt. The authorities were so incensed that they ordered the competitors to ship their cars back to Paris by train rather than let them loose on the road again.
	Among those who reached Bordeaux was 37-year-old Herbert Austin, driving the only one of three Wolseleys to remain on wheels. The first fell out when the engine seized at Tours, while the second hit a stone wall, killing the mechanic and injuring the driver.
	Originally organised to popularise motoring, the race heightened the prejudice against cars both in Britain and on the Continent. French provincial bureaucrats tried to legislate motorists off the roads while the British Motor Car Act of 1903 was designed to make their lives so onerous that they would return to the horse.
	The resulting controversy did not perturb Herbert Austin. Despite the horrors of the Paris-Madrid race, he had confidence in the future of mechanical transport. Living to see his faith justified, he became one of the men who put the world behind a steering wheel.
	When Herbert Austin was born in Buckinghamshire in 1866, anyone who foresaw the end of the horse-and-buggy era would have been called a visionary. Migrating to Australia during the boom years of the 1880s, young Austin was apprenticed to the engineering firm of R. L. Parkes in South Melbourne. At 19 he entered a competition for a new bridge over the Yarra. Although he did not win, his design was placed high by the judges who were astonished to learn it was the work of a student.
	In 1885 destiny revealed itself in the form of an ingenious Irishman named Frederick York Wolseley, who brought a model of a sheep-shearing machine to the Parkes foundry. Wolseley, who had come to Australia in 1854, was managing a sheep station in the Riverina, where he spent his spare time devising agricultural machinery. Among his inventions were a horse-scoop and a post-hole digger, but his most important work was in the field of machine shearing.
	Machine shearing had been a squatter's dream for years before Wolseley brought his model to the Parkes foundry. Back in 1868 a Melbourne compositor took out a patent for some form of mechanical shears but they were not a success. Later attempts to adapt power-driven horse clippers to shearing were no better, as the wool clogged the cutters. Wolseley persevered along his own lines and in 1877 registered his first patent. The machine remained in the experimental stage for seven years when John Howard, a practical mechanic from Birmingham, helped Wolseley improve it.
	Finally the pair asked R. L. Parkes to build a complete plant for demonstration purposes. When the machine proved far from perfect, Parkes suggested that young Austin was the ideal man to iron out the remaining troubles. Getting to work at once, Austin had the machine ready for the the first trial, which took place in Goldsbrough, Mort & Co.'s Melbourne wool store in 1885. It was so successful that just before Christmas the following year a full-scale demonstration was given at Wolseley's homestead, near Walgett, NSW.
	At that time of the year the sheep available were shaggy stragglers who missed the regular shearing and were overgrown with wool. The machine made light of the difficult fleece. To the surprise of spectators, the first sheep was shorn in 4 and a half minutes. The second took 30 seconds less. Greatly impressed by the smooth clip the onlookers were astonished when a wether, previously shorn by a blade shearer, was given a second trimming by the machine and yielded another 12 ounces of wool.
	Employed to further improve the machine, Austin, now 21 years old, took charge of the factory in Melbourne and later Sydney. In 1889, Wolseley, with a view to world-wide sales, established a factory in Birmingham and sent for the indispensable Austin to manage it.
	At that time the internal combustion engine was beginning to make headway. Having had experience of the new petrol-driven prime mover for driving shearing plants, Austin became deeply interested in its application to road transport. Convinced that there would be a big profit in it for the Wolseley company, he built the first British car, a three-wheeled contraption like a king-size bath-chair in which driver and passenger sat back to back. It was steered by a long lever, while the single-cylinder engine was mounted under the seat. Austin usually tested the machine early in the morning, rattling slowly through the back streets of Birmingham behind a man waving a red flag. The ancestor of all British-built cars, the motorised bath-chair is now housed in the British Museum.
	The Wolseley factory turned out a number of cars, including the juggernaut Austin drove in the ill-fated Paris-Madrid race. As it became obvious that neither indifferent roads, unreliable vehicles nor restrictive legislation could check the growing popularity of the automobile, Austin went into the business on his own account. In 1906, when he was 39, he established a factory in Longbridge, Birmingham, on a modest capital of £15,000. A year later the Austin car was born. In the first year 120 cars rolled out of the works. At the time this was regarded as a startling achievement. The 1963 tally was 325,517.
	The motorist of pre-1914 vintage had more than 200 makes from which to choose. Eighty were built in Britain, 59 were French and 23 American. The remainder were divided up between various continental countries. Despite this opposition the Austin car soon became one of the best-known makes in the world, while the industry raised Birmingham to a new level of prosperity. As the number of employees rose from week to week, word got around the Midlands that the motor trade offered work for all. One applicant, formerly a circus strong-man, returned disappointed. "They don't want any lifting done", he reported. "The boss said that Carbolic Jack does it all."
	Turned over to munitions during World War I, the Austin plant, which now employed 23,000 hands, produced millions of shells as well as fleets of ambulances and mobile searchlights. But the war gave the British motor industry a body blow. When it was over Austin, now Sir Herbert, found himself in financial difficulties. The position became so acute that for the first time the motor show at Olympia opened without an Austin vehicle on display. Austin's gloom was not lightened by the thought that just before the war he had declined an offer of £700,000 for his interest in the business. But he was not the man to sink into the doldrums.
	He heaved himself out by the introduction of the Austin Seven, the famous "baby" car which first appeared in 1922 and achieved instant world-wide popularity. There had been several continental baby cars before, like the 1912 six-horsepower Peugeot. But none of them developed enough power to make them reliable. The first car of its size to pull a full load up a 1 in 7 hill, Austin's pygmy was designed to supply the lower income group with economical transport. It achieved its purpose, particularly in Britain, where cars were taxed at the yearly rate of a £1 per horsepower. Seven pounds a year was within the reach of most aspiring car owners, but £20 or £30 left a big gap in the average bankrolls of the time.
	Like the T-model Ford before it, the Austin Seven became the delight of humorists and cartoonists. Plutocrats were depicted driving lordly limousines which carried Baby Austins slung from davits like ship's boats. There was also the story of a man who toured England in a Rolls-Royce without out noticing the Austin which had accidentally become hooked to his rear bumper. No one appreciated these jests more than Austin himself as he watched the sales graph rise. The design of the Baby Austin was so sound that it remained virtually unaltered until 1938. By then about 750,000 had been put on the road. Some are still there. [The number of 750,000 seems to be far too high - the Wikipedia article on the Austin Seven puts the number at closer to 300,000.]
	Like all men of his type, Austin possessed enormous energy. At the height of his career he would spend his mornings at his office in Birmingham, then catch the midday express to London and take his seat in the House of Commons [He was MP for King's Norton 1918-1924]. It was strenuous living, but Austin kept it up until 1936, when he was raised to the peerage and took his seat in the House of Lords. Though 73 years of age, Austin was still hard at work in 1939 when his huge factory once more became part of the war effort.
	The former Melbourne foundry apprentice died in 1941 aged 75. The title died with him as his only son had been killed at the battle of Mons 26 years before.
	William Charles Yelverton, 4th Viscount Avonmore
	On a summer's evening in 1852, a party of friends and relatives stood on the quayside at Boulogne in France to farewell Theresa Longworth, an English girl returning home after completing her education in a French convent. As the gangplank was being drawn up, Theresa's sister threw her a shawl from the wharf. The shawl fell on the deck and was retrieved by a tall, handsome officer, Major the Honourable William Charles Yelverton, son and heir of the third Viscount Avonmore. The major politely wrapped the shawl around Theresa's shoulders, an insignificant gesture which ultimately led to one of the causes celebre of the Victorian era.
	After reaching London, the friendship between Yelverton and Theresa ripened. Yelverton, captivated by the vivacious Theresa, courted her until early the following year, when his regiment was posted to Malta. Then began an exchange of passionate letters. In one, she complained to Yelverton that "nasty rumours" were spreading in London about their romance. Yelverton promptly reassured her by writing that "if you can find anyone of the male sex calling himself a gentleman who has given you pain by conjunction of our names, I will get leave and come home to fight him" (presumably in a duel).
	After his posting to Malta, Yelverton was transferred to Egypt and, in 1854, to Sebastapol upon the outbreak of the Crimean War. When that war broke out, Theresa joined a volunteer nursing unit and ultimately reached a hospital at Galata in the Crimea. There she was able to contact Yelverton and their affair was resumed. Yelverton suggested that they be married in a small Greek chapel in Balaclava, but Theresa decided to wait for a normal English wedding and returned home in early 1855 to await her lover. She heard nothing from him until about a year later when she learned that he had returned some months previously and was now stationed in Edinburgh. She immediately rushed to Edinburgh and reminded him of his marriage promise.
	On Easter Sunday morning 1856, Theresa and Yelverton read the marriage service together. By strict Scottish law of matrimony this was sufficient to make them man and wife, IF there had been a witness. However, Yelverton had been careful to ensure that no witnesses were present, although a friend of Yelverton's in the next room was to later testify that he had heard them reading something "in an earnest tone".
	Theresa continued to live in Edinburgh lodgings and was regularly visited by Yelverton. In the summer of 1857, he obtained 3 month's leave and took Theresa to Ireland. Although he carefully kept Theresa away from his father, on 15 August 1857 he and Theresa went through another marriage ceremony which was conducted by a priest in a Roman Catholic chapel in the village of Rostrevor. At that time, it was the law in Ireland that a marriage performed by a Catholic priest was valid ONLY if both parties were professing Catholics. Theresa was certainly a Catholic but Yelverton described himself as "not much of anything".
	After a lengthy honeymoon, Yelverton returned to his regiment in Scotland and Theresa visited her sister in France. By now Theresa was pregnant and she wrote to Yelverton insisting that, for the sake of their unborn child, he announce their marriage and introduce her to his family.
	Yelverton replied forbidding any such announcement. His letters then stopped and Theresa learned that he had become engaged to a Mrs Forbes, a wealthy Edinburgh widow. The shock so upset her that she lost the baby.
	As soon as she was well enough, she travelled to Edinburgh, but Yelverton refused to meet her and sent his brother as an intermediary to buy her off with a passage to Australia and a regular allowance. She refused this offer and travelled to London to consult her lawyers. In the meantime, Yelverton and Mrs Forbes were married.
	On legal advice she went to Dublin and, as Mrs Yelverton, ran up a large bill (£249) for board and lodging. When she said she could not pay, her landLord Thomas Thelwall, sued Yelverton for the debt.
	In October 1858 the case of Thelwall v. Yelverton was heard in the Irish Court of Common Pleas. The long story of Theresa's love affair with Yelverton was detailed and the priest who performed the marriage at Rostrevor was called to give evidence. Public sympathy was certainly on Theresa's side. Yelverton, on the other hand, was hissed and booed in Court. Even the judge admitted personal prejudice against the defendant.
	Yelverton's defence was that he had never truly loved Theresa and had merely wanted a companion (i.e. a mistress). He said he had never proposed to her, had never gone through any marriage ceremony in Scotland and stated that the Irish ceremony was void as he was not a Catholic.
	The jury took little time in finding that both the Scottish and Irish ceremonies were indeed valid and that, as a result she was legally married to Yelverton (and that Yelverton was liable to pay Thelwall for Theresa's debts.) When the verdict was announced Theresa, in typical Victorian fashion, "fainted in a flood of tears". When she recovered, she was escorted to her carriage, where an enthusiastic crowd of supporters uncoupled the horses and drew the carriage through the streets to her hotel.
	But she had only won the first round …
	Yelverton struck back in July 1859 when he brought an action before the Scottish courts to have the supposed marriage ceremony in Scotland declared invalid because of insufficient evidence and the Irish marriage set aside because he was a Protestant. The Court decided in Yelverton's favour.
	Theresa was not beaten yet. She took a job as a governess and saved her wages until such time as she could afford to continue her crusade.
	In December 1862, she re-opened the case with an appeal to the Scottish Court of Session. Again all the details were paraded. When Yelverton's love letters were produced, he claimed that Theresa had tampered with them by cutting pieces out and writing words in. In one letter he had used an Italian expression "sposa bella mia" (my beautiful wife). His lawyers spent three days trying to prove that he knew no Italian and could not therefore have written these words.
	The judges, however, were not convinced, and found that there was sufficient evidence to justify Theresa's claim to be the lawful wife of William Yelverton. One judge commented that "there was clearly a secret marriage. Mindful of the suffering that it will cause to others, I must pronounce them man and wife."
	By this time Yelverton and the former Mrs Forbes had three children and Yelverton could have been charged with bigamy. He was however not charged.
	Yelverton then appealed the decision to the House of Lords where, on 28 July 1864 by a 3-2 majority the judges ordered that the Scottish decision be annulled. Three years later, Theresa made a final appeal to the House of Lords on technical grounds but her appeal was disallowed thus bringing the Yelverton saga to a final end.
	After this final appeal was lost, Theresa published a book and many pamphlets outlining her case before dying a pathetic half-mad woman in South Africa in 1881.
	Heneage Finch, 7th Earl of Aylesford
	Aylesford was one of the central characters in what was arguably one of the greatest scandals of the Victorian era, when he sought a divorce from his wife on the grounds of her adultery with the Marquess of Blandford, who later became the Duke of Marlborough.
	The following edited report is taken from The Derby Mercury of 10 July 1878:-
	In the Probate and Divorce Division of the High Court of Justice, on July 3, the case of Aylesford v Aylesford and Blandford came before Sir James Hannen and a special jury. It was a petition presented by Heneage, Earl of Aylesford, for the dissolution of his marriage with his wife Edith, on the ground of her misconduct with the Marquis of Blandford. Both the respondent and co-respondent had filed answers denying the charge, and the Queen's Proctor intervened and alleged collusion, and further, that the petitioner himself had been guilty of misconduct. The Earl of Aylesford denied the allegation. [The Queen's Proctor represents the Crown in cases of probate or divorce. The Proctor may intervene in divorce petitions and has the power to show cause against a divorce decree being made absolute, most often on receipt of information indicating that the court has been, or may be, misled into granting such a decree. This power is amply illustrated in the Aylesford case.]
	Lord and Lady Aylesford were married on Jan. 8, 1871. Lord Aylesford, who had not then succeeded to his title, was about twenty-two years of age, and Lady Aylesford was also young. They lived and cohabited together first at Diddington, and afterwards at Packington Hall, Lord Aylesford's seat in Warwickshire, and two children, daughters, were born to them. In the autumn of 1875 Lord Aylesford was invited to join the party of the Prince of Wales, who was then about to visit India. The party started for India in November, 1875 and Lord Aylesford remained abroad until early in the following year, when information reached him in regard to Lady Aylesford's conduct which hastened his return to England. On his arrival he discovered that during his absence in India Lady Aylesford had formed a criminal intimacy with Lord Blandford, who is himself a married man, and who was one of his most intimate friends. Anxious to avoid the scandal which the publicity of her infidelity would occasion, and acting on the advice and under the pressure of friends, Lord Aylesford was content with a separation on the assurance of Lady Aylesford, who was then living with one of her married sisters, that her intimacy with Lord Blandford should cease. A deed of separation between them was accordingly executed on May 22, 1877, and under it an annuity of £500 a year for life was secured to Lady Aylesford. Later on in the year it came to Lord Aylesford's knowledge that, contrary to her promises, Lady Aylesford had renewed her intimacy with Lord Blandford, and that they were living together at Paris under the assumed name of Spencer, and he thereupon resolved to institute proceedings for a divorce.
	In support of the petition, James James [yes, really], house steward to Lord Aylesford, was called. He stated that during Lord Aylesford's absence in India Lady Aylesford remained at Packington Hall, and that she was frequently visited by Lord Blandford, who sometimes reached the hall about midday, and remained alone with Lady Aylesford until between ten and eleven o'clock at night. The witness further stated that in Jan. 1876 one of the chambermaids made a communication to him, and that about three weeks afterwards Lady Aylesford left the hall, directing on her departure two small parcels to be put away in the strong room. Other witnesses were examined in Paris on commission, and it appeared from their depositions that Lord Blandford and Lady Aylesford took apartments at the Hotel de Rivoli in Sept. 1877, and that they lived together as man and wife as Mr. and Mrs. Spencer. With these depositions the petitioner's case closed.
	The Attorney-General then proceeded to give an outline of the case which it was intended to submit to the jury on behalf of the Queen's Proctor in bar of the petitioner's prayer for a divorce. The marriage of Lord and Lady Aylesford, he said, ought to have been a happy one, but he feared it was not so, and not in consequence of the conduct of Lady Aylesford, but of the gross misconduct of Lord Aylesford himself. Shortly after their marriage, they came up to London, and the life which Lord Aylesford then commenced to lead was this:- He would dine at home; after dinner he would go to a theatre or the Alhambra [a music hall situated on the east side of Leicester Square], and thence to Cremorne [Gardens, a notorious pleasure garden by the side of the Thames in Chelsea], supping there with loose women and forming vulgar amours with them. On leaving Cremorne he would call at his club, where he would remain until three or four o'clock in the morning, returning to his home generally in a state of intoxication. This, the Attorney-General said, was the course of his lordship's life on week-days and on Sundays, also, Cremorne was his favourite resort. With regard to the charge of adultery with Mrs. Dilke, Lord Aylesford had been long acquainted with her husband, Mr. Dilke, who was possessed of considerable property in Warwickshire, and whose residence, Maxstoke Castle, was within a few miles of Packington Hall. Lord Aylesford was a frequent visitor at the castle before his departure for India. He renewed the visits on his return from India, and an intimacy then grew up between him and Mrs. Dilke, which caused her husband such unhappiness that he sought relief in drink and became for a time of unsound mind owing to intemperance. In April 1877 he attempted suicide by throwing himself into the Thames at Lambeth, and he died by his own hand on August 3 following at Ilfracombe, whither he had gone with his medical attendant in the hope of improvement. During the period of her husband's illness Mrs. Dilke accompanied Lord Aylesford and a party of friends, ladies and gentlemen, to Bognor, during the Goodwood Races. The whole party, it is said, led a riotous life there, and on the night the news of Mr. Dilke's death reached them Mrs. Dilke occupied Lord Aylesford's bed. It was not suggested that she shared it with Lord Aylesford, but next morning about a dozen wine-glasses were found on the table in the room, showing, the Attorney-General said, that the riotous life in which she had participated had been continued up to the moment of her departure from Bognor. Since then, wherever Mrs. Dilke was, there also was Lord Aylesford, and all the circumstances connected with their intimacy would show, according to the statement of the Attorney-General, that it was of a criminal character.
	In support of the charge of collusion, Lady Aylesford's solicitor was called. In the course of his examination objection was taken to his being questioned in relation to the communications which passed between him and Lady Aylesford, on the grounds that they were privileged, and the objection was allowed. Lady Aylesford, however, released him from the restriction, and he then answered all the questions that were put to him. He stated that under her marriage settlement a life interest in a sum of £5,000, which was to be brought into settlement on the death of her father, and a jointure of £2,000 a year on the death of Lord Aylesford were secured to her. Under the deed of separation, in which her brother was named trustee, Lord Aylesford covenanted to pay her an annuity of £500 a year without any restriction or condition, and the deed also provided that she might live as if she were unmarried. He admitted that Lady Aylesford was desirous of a divorce, and that he had furnished Lord Aylesford's solicitors with her address at Paris; but he did so, he said, to avoid as much scandal as possible, and because her cohabitation with Lord Blandford was well-known; and he denied that she had gone to Paris with Lord Blandford by arrangement, in order to furnish grounds for the petition. He only knew of Lord Aylesford's alleged immorality from report, and he was not aware of the result of inquiries in relation to them instituted by Lord Blandford through a person named Levy.
	In respect of the charge of adultery with women other than Mrs. Dilke, Frederick Gillat, who was coachman to Lord Aylesford for four years, was called. He stated that entered Lord Aylesford's service in 1871, and that after dinner he generally drove his lordship alone to a place of amusement, sometimes to a theatre, sometimes to the Alhambra, and sometimes to Cremorne; and several waiters at Cremorne deposed to having seen Lord Aylesford at the gardens talking to and treating women who frequented the place. Evidence was also given in support of specific acts of adultery charged against him in the petition, and the inquiry as it related to Mrs. Dilke was entered upon.
	On the sitting of the Court of July 4, Sir H. James said that he and his learned friends who were acting with him on behalf of Lord Aylesford had not had until that morning a sufficient opportunity of full consultation with their client. They had had before coming into court that opportunity, and they had placed before him the legal bearing of the case in all its different aspects. Lord Aylesford felt that as a man of honour he was bound to state nothing save that which was entirely true, and he could not, if placed in the box, give a complete denial to all the questions which might be put to him in relation to the general charge alleged against him, his counsel considered it was due to the Court and the jury that they should be informed of the fact, and that the public time should not be wasted in prolonging the inquiry, when they felt that the petition could not be maintained. The admission disposed of Lord Aylesford's legal right to the relief which he sought by his petition; but there was a question of paramount importance to him, and that was in relation to the charge which had been made against him in connection with Mrs. Dilke. That charge he felt he could deny with truth and honour, and he asked that he and Mrs. Dilke might be allowed, by the permission of the Court, to deny on oath that there was any foundation for the charge of an improper intimacy between them. With regard to the minor question of collusion, it appeared to him and his learned friends that on the evidence the question was one more of legal definition than any contest arising on the facts. Without, therefore, making any admission with regard to it, he should merely say that he was not in a position to offer evidence in reply to the statements of Mr. Powle [Lady Aylesford's solicitor], and that he should leave the case as it stood.
	The Attorney-General observed that he had very little to say in the matter. He conceived that it was the Queen's Proctor's imperative duty, in the circumstances of the case, to intervene, and upon the information that he received to say that there was collusion between Lord Aylesford and Lord Blandford, and that Lord Aylesford had been guilty of adultery. He gathered from the observations of his learned friend (Sir H. James) that both charges - collusion and adultery - were confessed, and it therefore appeared to him that the duty of the Queen's Proctor was discharged in this case. With regard to Mrs. Dilke, he had opened the case as he believed it would be proved. So far as the Queen's Proctor was concerned, he did not withdraw any of the charges he had made; but after what had been stated he felt that he would not be justified in occupying the time of the Court and the jury in offering further evidence in the case. With regard to the application in relation to Lord Aylesford and Mrs. Dilke, he, on behalf of the Queen's Proctor, placed himself entirely in his lordship's hands.
	The President - I am of [the] opinion that the Attorney-General has one duty in these cases to perform; it is to see that a petitioner who, by his conduct, has disentitled himself to the relief afforded by this Court does not obtain a decree for the dissolution of his marriage. That is accomplished when it has once been established that the petitioner has himself been guilty of adultery, and it is not necessary for the Attorney-General to go on and establish every charge in the case which he may think he might be able to establish. I therefore think that, in the interest of the public, it is not necessary, after the admission on behalf of the petitioner, that the matter should be further gone into. With regard to the issues, therefore, upon which the verdict of the jury will be taken, they will be these - that the petitioner has been guilty of adultery; and, further, it will be found that he has been guilty of collusion with Lord Blandford. I say that, because in my view of the matter there has been evidence offered which, unless contradicted, would have established the second charge. I do not say that the evidence would have established the charge of collusion with Lady Aylesford. Whether the charge would have been established if the case went on it is not for me to say. With regard to the application that Lord Aylesford and Mrs. Dilke be allowed to go into the box and deny on oath the charge which has been made against them, that is a matter in my discretion. I cannot allow any questions to go to the jury on that issue; but as, if the case proceeded to its ordinary termination, Lord Aylesford and Mrs. Dilke would be entitled to come into the box and deny on oath that they committed adultery, I do not see why I should not allow them to do so. Their statement, however, must be confined to a simple denial of the charge, and the allowing them to do so is a mere indulgence on my part.
	Both Mrs. Dilke and Lord Aylesford then went into the witness box, and solemnly denied that there had been any misconduct.
	The President then addressed the jury, who found that the Countess of Aylesford had committed adultery with the Marquis of Blandford; that Lord Aylesford and the Marquis of Blandford had acted in collusion in reference to this suit; and that Lord Aylesford had himself committed adultery. The petition for divorce was therefore dismissed with costs against Lord Aylesford and the Marquis of Blandford.
	*********************
	The Earl of Aylesford died of dropsy while in Texas in January 1885. Later in that year, the Countess petitioned on behalf of her infant son, Guy Bertrand Finch, for the Aylesford peerage title. She was opposed by another petitioner, Charles Wightwick Finch, brother of the late Earl, who denied that Guy Bertrand was the son of his deceased brother, and claimed that his brother had left no male issue.
	The case was heard before the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords in July 1885. Charles Finch based his case on the allegation the Earl and Countess had ceased to live together after the end of 1876 and, since Guy Bertrand was reportedly born on 4 November 1881, in Paris, the Earl of Aylesford could not possibly be the father. Further, Charles alleged that the Marquis of Blandford, who by this time had succeeded as Duke of Marlborough was the child's father, and that he had paid £10,000 to the Countess, which she settled upon her son, with the proviso that the money was to be returned to the donor at the Countess's death should her son predecease her.
	After repeating all the details of the affair between Lady Aylesford and the then Marquess of Blandford, the counsel for Charles Finch called a series of witnesses, each of whom confirmed that Lord and Lady Aylesford had had no physical contact whatsoever since the time the Countess had moved to Paris with Lord Blandford, some four years before the birth of Guy Bertrand. These witnesses included Lady Aylesford's maid, her doctor, a former valet of Lord Aylesford and the baby's nurse, to whom Lady Aylesford had written letters in which she spoke of Lord Blandford as the father. In reply, Lady Aylesford's counsel said that he was "unable to produce any evidence which could influence their lordships' minds in favour of the case of the infant". Accordingly, the Committee of Privileges had little difficulty in finding that Charles Finch had successfully made out his claim to the earldom. Indeed, given the well-known story of Lady Aylesford and Lord Blandford, one wonders how the Countess could ever have considered she had a chance of convincing the Committee that Lord Aylesford was the father of the child.

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