PEERAGES
Last updated 29/11/2018 (27 Aug 2024)
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
CAREW
4 May 1605	B	1	Sir George Carew Created Baron Carew 4 May 1605 He was subsequently created Earl of Totness in 1626	29 May 1555	27 Mar 1629	73
13 Jun 1834 9 Jul 1838	B[I] B	1 1	Robert Shapland Carew Created Baron Carew [I] 13 Jun 1834 and Baron Carew 9 Jul 1838 MP for co. Wexford 1812‑1830 and 1831‑1834; Lord Lieutenant Wexford 1831‑1856; KP 1851	9 Mar 1787	4 Jun 1856	69
4 Jun 1856		2	Robert Shapland Carew MP for co. Waterford 1840‑1847; Lord Lieutenant Wexford 1856‑1881; KP 1872	23 Jan 1818	8 Sep 1881	63
8 Sep 1881		3	Robert Shapland George Julian Carew	15 Jun 1860	29 Apr 1923	62
29 Apr 1923		4	George Patrick John Carew	1 Feb 1863	21 Apr 1926	63
21 Apr 1926		5	Gerald Shapland Carew	26 Apr 1860	3 Oct 1927	67
3 Oct 1927		6	William Francis Conolly-Carew	23 Apr 1905	27 Jun 1994	89
27 Jun 1994		7	Patrick Thomas Conolly-Carew	6 Mar 1938
CAREY OF CLIFTON
1 Nov 2002	B[L]		George Leonard Carey Created Baron Carey of Clifton for life 1 Nov 2002 Archbishop of Canterbury 1991‑2002; PC 1991	13 Nov 1935
CAREY OF LEPPINGTON
6 Feb 1622	B	1	Sir Robert Carey Created Baron Carey of Leppington 6 Feb 1622 He was subsequently created Earl of Monmouth in 1626	1560	12 Apr 1639	78
CARHAMPTON
9 Jan 1781 23 Jun 1785	V[I] E[I]	1 1	Simon Luttrell Created Baron Irnham 13 Oct 1768, Viscount Carhampton 9 Jan 1781 and and Earl of Carhampton 23 Jun 1785 MP for Mitchell 1755‑1761, Wigan 1761‑1768, Weobly 1768‑1774 and Stockbridge 1774‑1780	1713	14 Jan 1787	73
14 Jan 1787		2	Henry Lawes Luttrell MP [I] for Old Leighlin 1783‑1787; MP for Bossiney 1768‑1769 and 1774‑1784, Middlesex 1769‑1774, Plympton Erle 1790‑1794 and Ludgershall 1817‑1821; PC [I] 1786	7 Aug 1743	25 Apr 1821	77
25 Apr 1821 to     19 Mar 1829		3	John Luttrell-Olmius MP for Stockbridge 1774‑1775 and 1780‑1785 Peerages extinct on his death	1741	19 Mar 1829	87
CARINGTON OF UPTON
17 Nov 1999 to     9 Jul 2018	B[L]		Peter Alexander Rupert Carington, 6th Baron Carrington Created Baron Carington of Upton for life 17 Nov 1999 First Lord of the Admiralty 1959‑1963; Minister Without Portfolio 1963‑1964; Secretary of State for Defence 1970‑1974; Secretary of State for Energy 1974; Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs 1979‑1982; PC 1959; CH 1983; KG 1985 Peerage extinct on his death	6 Jun 1919	9 Jul 2018	99
CARISBROOKE
18 Jul 1917 to     23 Feb 1960	M	1	Alexander Albert Mountbatten Created Viscount Launceston, Earl of Berkhamsted and Marquess of Carisbrooke 18 Jul 1917 Peerage extinct on his death	23 Nov 1886	23 Feb 1960	73
CARLEILL
20 Aug 1620	B[S]	1	Robert Maxwell Created Lord Maxwell, Eskdale and Carleill and Earl of Nithsdale 20 Aug 1620 See "Nithsdale"	after 1586	May 1646
CARLETON
22 May 1626	B	1	Sir Dudley Carleton Created Baron Carleton 22 May 1626 and Viscount Dorchester 25 Jul 1628 See "Dorchester"	10 Mar 1574	15 Feb 1632	57
19 Oct 1714 to     31 Mar 1725	B	1	Henry Boyle Created Baron Carleton 19 Oct 1714 MP [I] for Cork County 1692‑1693; MP for Tamworth 1689‑1690, Cambridge University 1692‑1705 and Westminster 1705‑1710; Chancellor of the Exchequer 1701‑1708; Secretary of State 1708‑1710; Lord President of the Council 1721‑1725; Lord Lieutenant Yorkshire West Riding 1704‑1715; PC 1701; PC [I] 1704 Peerage extinct on his death	12 Jul 1669	31 Mar 1725	55
6 Aug 1786	B	1	Richard Boyle, 2nd Earl of Shannon Created Baron Carleton 6 Aug 1786 See "Shannon"	30 Jan 1728	20 May 1807	79
CARLETON OF CLARE
21 Nov 1797 to     25 Feb 1826	V[I]	1	Hugh Carleton Created Baron Carleton of Amner 17 Sep 1789 and Viscount Carleton of Clare 21 Nov 1797 MP [I] for Tuam 1772‑1776, Philipstown 1776‑1783 and Naas 1783‑1787; Solicitor General [I] 1779; Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas [I] 1787‑1800; PC [I] 1787 Peerage extinct on his death	11 Sep 1739	25 Feb 1826	86
CARLILE OF BERRIEW
27 Jul 1999	B[L]		Alexander Charles Carlile Created Baron Carlile of Berriew for life 27 Jul 1999 MP for Montgomeryshire 1983‑1997	12 Feb 1948
CARLINGFORD
26 Mar 1627 to     28 Jan 1634	V[I]	1	Barnham Swift Created Viscount Carlingford 26 Mar 1627 Peerage extinct on his death For information on the Carlingford "Peerage" case of 1905, see the note at the foot of this page	17 Dec 1606	28 Jan 1634	27
26 Jun 1661	E[I]	1	Theobald Taaffe, 2nd Viscount Taaffe Created Earl of Carlingford 26 Jun 1661	c 1603	31 Dec 1677
31 Dec 1677		2	Nicholas Taaffe		2 Jul 1689
2 Jul 1689		3	Francis Taaffe	1639	Aug 1704	65
Aug 1704 to     24 Nov 1738		4	Theobald Taaffe Earldom extinct on his death		24 Nov 1738
1 May 1761	V[I]	1	George Carpenter, 3rd Baron Carpenter Created Viscount Carlingford and Earl of Tyrconnel 1 May 1761 See "Tyrconnel"	26 Aug 1723	9 Mar 1762	38
28 Feb 1874 to     30 Jan 1898	B	1	Chichester Samuel Parkinson‑Fortescue Created Baron Carlingford 28 Feb 1874 He subsequently succeeded as 2nd Baron Clermont in 1887 MP for co. Louth 1847‑1874; President of the Board of Trade 1871‑1874; Lord Privy Seal 1881‑1885; Lord President of the Council 1883‑1885; Lord Lieutenant Essex 1873‑1892; PC 1864; PC [I] 1866; KP 1882 Peerages extinct on his death	18 Jan 1823	30 Jan 1898	75
CARLISLE
25 Mar 1322 to     3 Mar 1323	E	1	Sir Andrew de Harcla Summoned to Parliament as Lord Harcla 15 May 1321 and further created Earl of Carlisle 25 Mar 1322 He was executed and the peerage forfeited		3 Mar 1323
13 Sep 1622	E	1	James Hay, 1st Viscount Doncaster Created Earl of Carlisle 13 Sep 1622 KG 1624	c 1580	25 Apr 1636
25 Apr 1636 to     30 Oct 1660		2	James Hay He subsequently succeeded as 2nd Lord Denny de Waltham in 1637. Peerages extinct on his death	c 1612	30 Oct 1660
20 Apr 1661	E	1	Charles Howard Created Baron Dacre of Gillesland, Viscount Howard of Morpeth and Earl of Carlisle 20 Apr 1661 MP for Westmorland 1653 and Cumberland 1654‑1660; Lord Lieutenant Westmorland and Cumberland 1660‑1685 and Durham 1672; Governor of Jamaica 1677	1629	24 Feb 1685	55
24 Feb 1685		2	Edward Howard MP for Morpeth 1666‑1679, Cumberland 1679‑1681 and Carlisle 1681‑1685; Lord Lieutenant Cumberland 1689‑1692	1646	23 Apr 1692	45
23 Apr 1692		3	Charles Howard MP for Morpeth 1689‑1692; Lord Lieutenant Cumberland and Westmorland 1694‑1738; First Lord of the Treasury 1701‑1702 and 1715; PC 1701	1669	1 May 1738	68
1 May 1738		4	Henry Howard MP for Morpeth 1715‑1738; KG 1756	14 Aug 1694	3 Sep 1758	64
3 Sep 1758		5	Frederick Howard President of the Board of Trade 1779; Lord Lieutenant East Riding Yorkshire 1780‑1782 and 1799‑1807; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1780‑1782; Lord Privy Seal 1783; KT 1767; PC 1777; KG 1793	28 May 1748	4 Sep 1825	77
4 Feb 1825		6	George Howard MP for Morpeth 1795‑1806 and Cumberland 1806‑1820; Lord Privy Seal 1827‑1828 and 1834; Lord Lieutenant East Riding Yorkshire 1824‑1840; PC 1806; KG 1837	17 Sep 1773	7 Oct 1848	75
7 Oct 1848		7	George William Frederick Howard MP for Morpeth 1826‑1830, Yorkshire 1830‑1832 and Yorkshire West Riding 1832‑1841 and 1846‑1848; Chief Secretary for Ireland 1835‑1841; Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests 1846‑1850; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1850‑1852; Lord Lieutenant East Riding Yorkshire 1847‑1864; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1855‑1858 and 1859‑1864; PC 1835; PC [I] 1835; KG 1855	18 Apr 1802	5 Dec 1864	62
5 Dec 1864		8	William George Howard	23 Feb 1808	29 Apr 1889	81
29 Apr 1889		9	George James Howard MP for Cumberland East 1879‑1885	12 Aug 1843	16 Apr 1911	67
16 Apr 1911		10	Charles James Stanley Howard MP for Birmingham South 1904‑1911	8 Mar 1867	20 Jan 1912	44
20 Jan 1912		11	George Josslyn L'Estrange Howard	6 Jan 1895	17 Feb 1963	68
17 Feb 1963		12	Charles James Ruthven Howard He succeeded as 12th Lord Ruthven in 1982	21 Feb 1923	28 Nov 1994	71
28 Nov 1994		13	George William Beaumont Howard	15 Feb 1949
CARLISLE OF BUCKLOW
2 Nov 1987 to     14 Jul 2005	B[L]		Mark Carlisle Created Baron Carlisle of Bucklow for life 2 Nov 1987 MP for Runcorn 1964‑1983 and Warrington South 1983‑1987; Minister of State, Home Office 1972‑1974; Secretary of State for Education & Science 1979‑1981; PC 1979 Peerage extinct on his death	7 Jul 1929	14 Jul 2005	76
CARLOW
24 Jul 1776	V[I]	1	William Henry Dawson Created Baron Dawson 29 May 1770 and Viscount Carlow 24 Jul 1776 MP [I] for Portarlington 1733‑1761 and 1769‑1770, and Queen's County 1761‑1768	by Nov 1712	22 Aug 1779
22 Aug 1779		2	John Dawson He was created Earl of Portarlington 1785 with which title this peerage then merged	23 Aug 1744	25 Nov 1798	54
CARLTON
15 Jan 1876	V	1	Edward Montagu Stuart Granville Montagu-Stuart-Wortley-Mackenzie, 3rd Baron Wharncliffe Created Viscount Carlton and Earl of Wharncliffe 15 Jan 1876 See "Wharncliffe"	15 Dec 1827	13 May 1899	71
CARLYLE
c 1473	B[S]	1	Sir John Carlyle Created Lord Carlyle c 1473		1501
1501		2	William Carlyle		1524
1524		3	James Carlyle		1526
1526		4	Michael Carlyle		Jun 1575
Jun 1575		5	Elizabeth Douglas		c 1605
c 1605 to     1638		6	James Douglas He resigned the peerage to the Earl of Queensberry in 1638
CARMARTHEN
9 Apr 1689	M	1	Thomas Osborne, 1st Earl of Danby Created Marquess of Carmarthen 9 Apr 1689 He was subsequently created Duke of Leeds in 1694
CARMICHAEL
27 Dec 1647	B[S]	1	Sir James Carmichael, 1st baronet Created Lord Carmichael 27 Dec 1647	1579	27 Nov 1672	93
27 Nov 1672		2	John Carmichael Created Lord Carmichael, Viscount of Inglisberry and Nemphlar and Earl of Hyndford 25 Jul 1701 See "Hyndford"	28 Feb 1638	20 Sep 1710	72
7 Feb 1912	B	1	Sir Thomas David Gibson‑Carmichael, 11th baronet Created Baron Carmichael 7 Feb 1912 MP for Midlothian 1895‑1900; Governor of Victoria 1908‑1911, Madras 1911‑1912 and Bengal 1912‑1917; Lord Lieutenant Peebles 1920‑1926 Peerage extinct on his death	18 Mar 1859	16 Jan 1926	66
CARMICHAEL OF KELVINGROVE
10 Oct 1983 to     19 Jul 2001	B[L]		Neil George Carmichael Created Baron Carmichael of Kelvingrove for life 10 Oct 1983 MP for Woodside 1962-1974 and Kelvingrove 1974‑1983 Peerage extinct on his death	10 Oct 1921	19 Jul 2001	79
CARNARVON
2 Aug 1628	E	1	Robert Dormer, 2nd Baron Dormer Created Viscount Ascott and Earl of Carnarvon 2 Aug 1628 Lord Lieutenant Buckingham 1641	1610	20 Sep 1643	33
20 Sep 1643 to     29 Nov 1709		2	Charles Dormer Peerage extinct on his death	25 Oct 1632	29 Nov 1709	77
19 Oct 1714 29 Apr 1719	E M	1 1	James Brydges, 9th Baron Chandos Created Viscount Wilton and Earl of Carnarvon 19 Oct 1714, and Marquess of Carnarvon and Duke of Chandos 29 Apr 1719 The creations of 1714 contained a special remainder, failing the heirs male of his body, to those of his late father, together his two sons John and Henry See "Chandos"	6 Jan 1673	9 Aug 1744	71
3 Jul 1793	E	1	Henry Herbert Created Baron Porchester 17 Oct 1780 and Earl of Carnarvon 3 Jul 1793 MP for Wilton 1768‑1780; PC 1806	20 Aug 1741	3 Jun 1811	69
3 Jun 1811		2	Henry George Herbert MP for Cricklade 1794‑1811	3 Jun 1772	16 Apr 1833	60
16 Apr 1833		3	Henry John George Herbert MP for Wootton Bassett 1831‑1832	8 Jun 1800	10 Dec 1849	49
10 Dec 1849		4	Henry Howard Molyneux Herbert Secretary of State for Colonies 1866‑1867 and 1874‑1878; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1885‑1887; Lord Lieutenant Hampshire 1887‑1890; PC 1866	24 Jun 1831	28 Jun 1890	59
28 Jun 1890		5	George Edward Stanhope Molyneux Herbert	26 Jun 1866	5 Apr 1923	56
5 Apr 1923		6	Henry George Alfred Marius Victor Francis Herbert	7 Nov 1898	22 Sep 1987	88
22 Sep 1987		7	Henry George Reginald Molyneux Herbert [Elected hereditary peer 1999-2001]	19 Jan 1924	11 Sep 2001	77
11 Sep 2001		8	George Reginald Oliver Molyneux Herbert	10 Nov 1956
CARNEGIE OF KINNAIRD
14 Apr 1616	B[S]	1	David Carnegie Created Lord Carnegie of Kinnaird 14 Apr 1616, and Lord Carnegie of Kinnaird and Leuchars and Earl of Southesk 22 Jun 1633 See "Southesk"	1575	Feb 1658	82
CARNEGY OF LOUR
14 Jul 1982 to     9 Nov 2010	B[L]		Elizabeth Patricia Carnegy Created Baroness Carnegy of Lour for life 14 Jul 1982 Peerage extinct on her death	28 Apr 1925	9 Nov 2010	85
CARNOCK
27 Jun 1916	B	1	Sir Arthur Nicolson, 11th baronet Created Baron Carnock 27 Jun 1916 PC 1905	19 Sep 1849	5 Nov 1928	79
5 Nov 1928		2	Frederick Archibald Nicolson	9 Jan 1883	3 May 1952	69
3 May 1952		3	Erskine Arthur Nicolson	26 Mar 1884	2 Oct 1982	98
2 Oct 1982		4	David Henry Arthur Nicolson	10 Jul 1920	26 Dec 2008	88
26 Dec 2008		5	Adam Nicolson	12 Sep 1957
CARNWATH
21 Apr 1639	E[S]	1	Robert Dalzell Created Lord of Dalzell 18 Sep 1628 and Earl of Carnwath 21 Apr 1639		1639
1639		2	Robert Dalzell		21 Jun 1654
21 Jun 1654		3	Gavin Dalzell		Jun 1674
Jun 1674		4	James Dalzell		1683
1683		5	John Dalzell		7 Jun 1702
7 Jun 1702 to     19 Jan 1716		6	Sir Robert Dalzell, 3rd baronet He was attainted and the peerage forfeited. But for the attainder the descent was -	c 1687	4 Aug 1737
4 Aug 1737		[7]	Alexander Dalzell	2 Feb 1722	3 Apr 1787	65
3 Apr 1787		[8]	Robert Dalzell	1755	13 Feb 1808	52
13 Feb 1808		[9]	John Dalzell	18 Aug 1795	10 Oct 1814	19
10 Oct 1814		10	Robert Alexander Dalzell He obtained a reversal of the attainder 26 May 1826	13 Feb 1768	1 Jan 1839	70
1 Jan 1839		11	Thomas Henry Dalzell	2 Sep 1797	14 Dec 1867	70
14 Dec 1867		12	Henry Arthur Hew Dalzell	12 Apr 1858	13 Mar 1873	14
13 Mar 1873		13	Arthur Alexander Dalzell	15 Sep 1799	28 Apr 1875	75
28 Apr 1875		14	Harry Burrard Dalzell	11 Nov 1804	1 Nov 1887	82
1 Nov 1887		15	Robert Harris Carnwath Dalzell	1 Jul 1847	8 Mar 1910	62
8 Mar 1910		16	Ronald Arthur Dalzell	3 Jun 1883	11 Jul 1931	48
11 Jul 1931 to     9 Mar 1941		17	Arthur Edward Dalzell Peerage extinct or dormant on his death	25 Dec 1851	9 Mar 1941	89
CARPENTER
29 May 1719	B[I]	1	George Carpenter Created Baron Carpenter 29 May 1719 MP [I] for Newtown(ards) 1703‑1704; MP for Whitchurch 1715‑1722 and Westminster 1722‑1727	10 Feb 1657	10 Feb 1732	75
10 Feb 1732		2	George Carpenter MP for Morpeth 1714 and 1722, and Weobly 1741‑1747	c 1695	12 Jul 1749
12 Jul 1749		3	George Carpenter He was created Earl of Tyrconnel 1761 with which title this peerage then merged	26 Aug 1723	9 Mar 1762	38
CARR OF HADLEY
15 Jan 1976 to     17 Feb 2012	B[L]		Leonard Robert Carr Created Baron Carr of Hadley for life 15 Jan 1976 MP for Mitcham 1950‑1974 and Carshalton 1974‑1976; Secretary of State for Employment 1970‑1972; Lord President of the Council 1972; Home Secretary 1972‑1974; PC 1963 Peerage extinct on his death	11 Nov 1916	17 Feb 2012	95
CARR OF WALTON-ON-THE-HILL
6 Nov 2023	B[L]		Dame Sue Lascelles Carr Created Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill for life 6 Nov 2023 Lady Chief Justice 2023-	1 Sep 1964
CARRICK (Ireland)
10 Jun 1748	E[I]	1	Somerset Hamilton Butler, 8th Viscount of Ikerrin Created Earl of Carrick 10 Jun 1748 PC [I] 1746	6 Sep 1719	15 Apr 1774	54
15 Apr 1774		2	Henry Thomas Butler MP [I] for Killyleagh 1768‑1774	19 May 1746	20 Jul 1813	67
20 Jul 1813		3	Somerset Richard Butler	28 Sep 1779	4 Feb 1838	58
4 Feb 1838		4	Henry Thomas Butler	19 Feb 1834	16 Apr 1846	12
16 Apr 1846		5	Somerset Arthur Butler	30 Jan 1835	22 Dec 1901	66
22 Dec 1901		6	Charles Henry Somerset Butler	5 Aug 1851	6 Apr 1909	57
6 Apr 1909		7	Charles Ernest Alfred French Somerset Butler Created Baron Butler 8 Jul 1912	15 Nov 1873	2 Nov 1931	57
2 Nov 1931		8	Theobald Walter Somerset Henry Butler	23 May 1903	31 Jul 1957	54
31 Jul 1957		9	Brian Stuart Theobald Somerset Caher Butler	17 Aug 1931	5 Oct 1992	61
5 Oct 1992		10	David James Theobald Somerset Butler	9 Jan 1953	8 Jan 2008	54
8 Jan 2008		11	Arion Thomas Piers Hamilton Butler	1 Sep 1975
CARRICK (Scotland)
c 1186	E[S]	1	Duncan Created Earl of Carrick c 1186		c 1250
c 1250		2	Neil		1256
1256		3	Margaret de Bruce		1292
1292 to     1306		4	Robert de Bruce He became King of Scotland as Robert I in 1306 when the peerage merged with the Crown	11 Jul 1274	6 Jun 1329	54
c 1314 to     5 Oct 1318	E[S]	1	Sir Edward de Bruce Created Earl of Carrick c 1314 Brother of Robert I On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown		5 Oct 1318
1328 to     7 Jun 1329	E[S]	1	David de Bruce Created Earl of Carrick 1328 Son of Robert I He became King of Scotland as David II in 1329 when the peerage merged with the Crown	5 Mar 1324	22 Feb 1371	46
c 1330 to     18 Jul 1333	E[S]	1	Alexander de Bruce Created Earl of Carrick c 1330 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown		18 Jul 1333
c 1361 to     by 1364	E[S]	1	Sir William de Cunynghame Created Earl of Carrick c 1361 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown		by 1364
22 Jun 1368 to     13 Apr 1390	E[S]	1	John Stewart Created Earl of Carrick 22 Jun 1368 Son of Robert II He became King of Scotland as Robert III in 1390 when the peerage merged with the Crown	c 1337	4 Apr 1406
19 Apr 1390 to     26 Mar 1402	E[S]	1	David Stewart Created Earl of Carrick 19 Apr 1390 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	1378	26 Mar 1402	23
10 Dec 1404 to     4 Apr 1406	E[S]	1	James Stewart Created Earl of Carrick 10 Dec 1404 He became King of Scotland as James I in 1406 when the peerage merged with the Crown	Jul 1394	21 Feb 1437	42
			By Act of Parliament 1469 it was decreed that the Earldom of Carrick should be annexed forever to the first-born princes of the Kings of Scotland. See the Dukedom of Rothesay.
CARRICK (in Orkney)
22 Jul 1628 to     1652	E[S]	1	John Stewart Created Lord Kincleven 20 Aug 1607 and Earl of Carrick 22 Jul 1628 Peerages extinct on his death		1652
CARRICKFERGUS
26 May 2011	B	1	HRH Prince William of Wales (William Arthur Philip Louis) Created Baron Carrickfergus, Earl of Strathearn and Duke of Cambridge 26 May 2011 See "Cambridge"	21 Jun 1982
CARRINGTON
31 Oct 1643 4 Nov 1643	B[I] V[I]	1 1	Sir Charles Smyth Created Baron Carrington 31 Oct 1643 and Viscount Carrington 4 Nov 1643	1598	21 Feb 1665	66
21 Feb 1665		2	Francis Smith Lord Lieutenant Worcester 1687‑1689	c 1621	7 Apr 1701
7 Apr 1701 to     17 May 1706		3	Charles Carington (or Smith) Peerage extinct on his death	5 Jul 1635	17 May 1706	70
11 Jul 1796 20 Oct 1797	B[I] B	1 1	Robert Smith Created Baron Carrington [I] 11 Jul 1796 and Baron Carrington 20 Oct 1797 MP for Nottingham 1779‑1797	22 Jan 1752	18 Sep 1838	86
18 Sep 1838		2	Robert John Carrington MP for Wendover 1818‑1820, Buckinghamshire 1820‑1821 and Wycombe 1831‑1838; Lord Lieutenant Buckingham 1839‑1868	16 Jan 1796	17 Mar 1868	72
17 Mar 1868 16 Jul 1895 to     13 Jun 1928	E	3 1	Charles Robert Carington Created Viscount Wendover and Earl Carrington 16 Jul 1895 and Marquess of Lincolnshire 26 Feb 1912 MP for Wycombe 1865‑1868; Governor of New South Wales 1886‑1890; President of the Board of Agriculture 1905‑1911; Lord Privy Seal 1911‑1912; PC 1881; KG 1906 For further information on an incident in this peer's youth, see the note at the foot of this page The Earldom became extinct on his death whilst the Baronies passed to -	16 May 1843	13 Jun 1928	85
13 Jun 1928		4	Rupert Clement George Carington MP for Buckinghamshire 1880‑1885	18 Dec 1852	11 Nov 1929	76
11 Nov 1929		5	Rupert Victor John Carington	20 Dec 1891	19 Nov 1938	46
19 Nov 1938 17 Nov 1999 to     9 Jul 2018	B[L]	6	Peter Alexander Rupert Carington First Lord of the Admiralty 1959‑1963; Minister Without Portfolio 1963‑1964; Secretary of State for Defence 1970‑1974; Secretary of State for Energy 1974; Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs 1979‑1982; PC 1959; CH 1983; KG 1985 Created Baron Carington of Upton for life 17 Nov 1999 (extinct on his death)	6 Jun 1919	9 Jul 2018	99
9 Jul 2018		7	Rupert Francis John Carington [Elected hereditary peer 2018-]	2 Dec 1948
CARRINGTON OF FULHAM
11 Sep 2013	B[L]		Matthew Hadrian Marshall Carrington Created Baron Carrington of Fulham for life 11 Sep 2013 MP for Fulham 1987‑1997	19 Oct 1947
CARRON
11 Jul 1967 to     3 Dec 1969	B[L]		Sir William John Carron Created Baron Carron for life 11 Jul 1967 Peerage extinct on his death	19 Nov 1902	3 Dec 1969	67
CARSON
1 Jun 1921 to     22 Oct 1935	B[L]		Sir Edward Henry Carson Created Baron Carson for life 1 Jun 1921 MP for Dublin University 1892‑1918 and Duncairn 1918‑1921; Solicitor General for Ireland 1892; Solicitor General 1900‑1905; Attorney General 1915‑1916; First Lord of the Admiralty 1916‑1917; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1921‑1929; PC [I] 1896; PC 1905 Peerage extinct on his death	9 Feb 1854	22 Oct 1935	81
CARSWELL
12 Jan 2004 to     4 May 2023	B[L]		Robert Douglas Carswell Created Baron Carswell for life 12 Jan 2004 Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland 1997‑2004; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 2004‑2009; PC 1993 Peerage extinct on his death	28 Jun 1934	4 May 2023	88
CARTER
23 Mar 1987 to     18 Dec 2006	B[L]		Denis Victor Carter Created Baron Carter for life 23 Mar 1987 PC 1997 Peerage extinct on his death	17 Jan 1932	18 Dec 2006	74
CARTER OF BARNES
15 Oct 2008	B[L]		Stephen Carter Created Baron Carter of Barnes for life 15 Oct 2008	12 Feb 1964
CARTER OF COLES
8 Jun 2004	B[L]		Patrick Robert Carter Created Baron Carter of Coles for life 8 Jun 2004	9 Feb 1946
CARTER OF HASLEMERE
30 Oct 2019	B[L]		Harold Mark Carter Created Baron Carter of Haslemere for life 30 Oct 2019	21 Sep 1958
CARTERET
19 Oct 1681	B	1	Sir George Carteret, 2nd baronet Created Baron Carteret 19 Oct 1681	1669	22 Sep 1695	26
22 Sep 1695		2	John Carteret He succeeded his mother as 2nd Earl Granville in 1744 (see below)	22 Apr 1690	2 Jan 1763	72
2 Jan 1763		3	Robert Carteret, 3rd Earl Granville Peerages extinct on his death	21 Sep 1721	13 Feb 1776	54
1 Jan 1715	V	1	Grace Carteret Created Viscountess Carteret and Countess Granville 1 Jan 1715 The creation of the Viscountcy (but not the Earldom) contained a special remainder, failing the heirs male of her body, to her husband's brother, Edward Carteret See "Granville"	1667	18 Oct 1744	77
29 Jan 1784	B	1	Henry Frederick Thynne Created Baron Carteret 29 Jan 1784 For details of the special remainder included in this creation, see the note at the foot of this page MP for Staffordshire 1757‑1761; Postmaster General 1771‑1789; PC 1770	17 Nov 1735	17 Jun 1826	90
17 Jun 1826		2	George Thynne MP for Weobly 1790‑1812; PC 1804	23 Jan 1770	19 Feb 1838	68
19 Feb 1838 to     10 Mar 1849		3	John Thynne MP for Weobly 1796 and Bath 1796‑1832; PC 1804 Peerage extinct on his death	28 Dec 1772	10 Mar 1849	76
CARVER
15 Jul 1977 to     9 Dec 2001	B[L]		Sir (Richard) Michael Power Carver Created Baron Carver for life 15 Jul 1977 Field Marshal 1973; Chief of the Defence Staff 1973‑1976 Peerage extinct on his death	24 Apr 1915	9 Dec 2001	86
CARYE
14 Nov 1620	B[S]	1	Sir Henry Cary Created Lord Carye and Viscount of Falkland 14 Nov 1620 See "Falkland"	c 1575	25 Sep 1633
CARYSFORT
23 Jan 1752	B[I]	1	John Proby Created Baron Carysfort 23 Jan 1752 MP for Stamford 1747‑1754 and Huntingdonshire 1754‑1768; PC [I] 1758	25 Nov 1720	18 Oct 1772	51
18 Oct 1772 18 Aug 1789 21 Jan 1801	E[I] B	2 1 1	John Joshua Proby Created Earl of Carysfort 18 Aug 1789 and Baron Carysfort 21 Jan 1801 MP for East Looe 1790 and Stamford 1790‑1801; KP 1784; PC [I] 1789; PC 1806	12 Aug 1751	7 Apr 1828	76
7 Apr 1828		2	John Proby MP for Buckingham 1805‑1806 and Huntingdonshire 1806‑1807 and 1814‑1818	1780	11 Jun 1855	74
11 Jun 1855		3	Granville Leveson Proby MP for Wicklow 1816‑1829	12 Nov 1782	3 Nov 1868	85
3 Nov 1868		4	Granville Leveson Proby MP for Wicklow 1858‑1868; PC 1859; KP 1869	14 Sep 1824	18 May 1872	47
18 May 1872 to     4 Sep 1909		5	William Proby Lord Lieutenant Wicklow 1890‑1909; KP 1874 Peerages extinct on his death	18 Jan 1836	4 Sep 1909	73
CASEY
16 May 1960 to     17 Jun 1976	B[L]		Richard Gardiner Casey Created Baron Casey for life 16 May 1960 Governor of Bengal 1940‑1946; Governor General of Australia 1965‑1969; PC 1939; CH 1944; KG 1969 Peerage extinct on his death	29 Aug 1890	17 Jun 1976	85
CASEY OF BLACKSTOCK
30 Oct 2020	B[L]		Dame Louise Casey Created Baron Casey of Blackstock for life 30 Oct 2020	29 Mar 1965
CASHMAN
23 Sep 2014	B[L]		Michael Maurice Cashman Created Baron Cashman for life 23 Sep 2014 MEP for West Midlands 1999‑2014	17 Dec 1950
CASKIEBERRY
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
CASS
22 Aug 2024	B[L]		Hilary Dawn Cass Created Baroness Cass for life 22 Aug 2024	19 Feb 1958
CASSILLIS
c 1509	E[S]	1	David Kennedy, 3rd Lord Kennedy Created Earl of Cassillis c 1509		9 Sep 1513
9 Sep 1513		2	Gilbert Kennedy		22 Dec 1527
22 Dec 1527		3	Gilbert Kennedy	1515	28 Nov 1558	43
28 Nov 1558		4	Gilbert Kennedy For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	c 1541	Dec 1576
Dec 1576		5	John Kennedy	c 1573	Oct 1615
Oct 1615		6	John Kennedy		Apr 1668
Apr 1668		7	John Kennedy		23 Jul 1701
23 Jul 1701		8	John Kennedy	Apr 1700	7 Aug 1759	59
7 Aug 1759		9	Sir Thomas Kennedy, 4th baronet		30 Nov 1775
30 Nov 1775		10	David Kennedy MP for Ayrshire 1768‑1774	c 1730	18 Dec 1792
18 Dec 1792		11	Archibald Kennedy		30 Dec 1794
30 Dec 1794		12	Archibald Kennedy He was created Marquess of Ailsa 1831 with which title this peerage then merged
CASTLE
18 Jun 1974 to     26 Dec 1979	B[L]		Edward Cyril Castle Created Baron Castle for life 18 Jun 1974 MEP 1975‑1979 Peerage extinct on his death	5 May 1907	26 Dec 1979	72
CASTLE OF BLACKBURN
16 Jul 1990 to     3 May 2002	B[L]		Barbara Anne Castle Created Baroness Castle of Blackburn for life 16 Jul 1990 MP for Blackburn 1945‑1950 and 1955‑1979 and Blackburn East 1950‑1955; MEP for Greater Manchester North 1979‑1984 and Greater Manchester West 1984‑1989; Minister of Overseas Development 1964‑1965; Minister of Transport 1965‑1968; Secretary of State for Employment 1968‑1970; Secretary of State for Social Services 1974‑1976; PC 1964 Peerage extinct on her death	6 Oct 1911	3 May 2002	90
CASTLECOMER
15 Mar 1707	V[I]	1	Sir Christopher Wandesford, 2nd baronet Created Baron Wandesford and Viscount Castlecomer 15 Mar 1707 MP [I] for St. Canice 1692‑1693, 1695‑1699 and 1703‑1707; PC [I] 1695	19 Aug 1656	15 Sep 1707	51
15 Sep 1707		2	Christopher Wandesford MP [I] for St. Canice 1707; MP for Morpeth 1710‑1713 and Ripon 1715‑1719; Secretary at War 1718; PC [I] 1710	2 Mar 1684	23 Jun 1719	35
23 Jun 1719		3	Christopher Wandesford	1717	10 May 1736	18
10 May 1736		4	George Wandesford	22 Sep 1687	25 Jun 1751	63
25 Jun 1751 to     12 Jan 1784		5	John Wandesford Created Earl Wandesford 15 Aug 1758 Peerages extinct on his death	24 May 1725	12 Jan 1784	58
CASTLE COOTE
31 Jul 1800	B[I]	1	Charles Henry Coote, 7th Earl of Mountrath Created Baron Castle Coote 31 Jul 1800 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of this peerage, see the note at the foot of this page On his death the Earldom of Mountrath became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	1725	1 Mar 1802	76
1 Mar 1802		2	Charles Henry Coote MP [I] for Queen's County 1776‑1783 and 1798‑1800, and Maryborough 1783‑1797; MP for Queens County 1801‑1802; PC [I] 1800	25 Aug 1754	22 Jan 1823	68
22 Jan 1823 to     Apr 1827		3	Eyre Coote Peerage extinct on his death	21 Sep 1793	Apr 1827	33
CASTLE CUFFE
20 Dec 1793	V[I]	1	Otway Cuffe, 1st Viscount Desart Created Viscount Castle Cuffe and Earl of Desart 20 Dec 1793 See "Desart"	1737	9 Aug 1804	67
CASTLE DURROW
27 Oct 1733	B[I]	1	William Flower Created Baron Castle Durrow 27 Oct 1733 MP [I] for Kilkenny County 1715‑1727 and Portarlington 1727‑1733; PC [I] 1735	11 Mar 1685	29 Apr 1746	61
29 Apr 1746		2	Henry Flower He was created Viscount Ashbrook 1751 with which title this peerage then merged		27 Jun 1752
CASTLEHAVEN (Ireland)
6 Sep 1616	E[I]	1	George Tuchet, 11th Baron Audley Created Baron Audley of Orier and Earl of Castlehaven 6 Sep 1616	1551	20 Feb 1617	65
20 Feb 1617		2	Mervyn Tuchet For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	1593	14 May 1631	37
14 May 1631		3	James Tuchet	c 1617	11 Oct 1684
11 Oct 1684		4	Mervyn Tuchet		2 Nov 1686
2 Nov 1686		5	James Tuchet		12 Aug 1700
12 Aug 1700		6	James Tuchet		12 Oct 1740
12 Oct 1740		7	James Tuchet	15 Apr 1723	8 May 1769	46
8 May 1769 to     22 Apr 1777		8	John Talbot Tuchet Peerage extinct on his death	2 Aug 1724	22 Apr 1777	52
CASTLEHAVEN (Scotland)
21 Oct 1861	B	1	Anne Sutherland-Leveson-Gower Created Baroness Macleod, Baroness Castlehaven, Viscountess Tarbat and Countess of Cromartie 21 Oct 1861 See "Cromartie"	21 Apr 1829	25 Nov 1888	59
CASTLEMAINE
11 Dec 1661 to     28 Jul 1705	E[I]	1	Roger Palmer Created Baron of Limerick and Earl of Castlemaine 11 Dec 1661 PC 1686 Peerages extinct on his death	4 Sep 1634	28 Jul 1705	70
24 Apr 1718	V[I]	1	Sir Richard Child (later Tylney) Created Baron Newtown and Viscount Castlemaine 24 Apr 1718 and Earl Tylney of Castlemaine 11 Jun 1731 See "Tylney of Castlemaine" - extinct 1784	5 Feb 1680	Mar 1750	70
24 Dec 1812 12 Jan 1822 to     7 Jan 1839	B[I] V[I]	1 1	William Handcock Created Baron Castlemaine 24 Dec 1812 and Viscount Castlemaine 12 Jan 1822 The creation of the Barony of 1812 contained a special remainder, failing heirs male of his body, to his brother, Richard Handcock MP [I] for Athlone 1783‑1800; MP for Athlone 1802‑1803; PC [I] 1801 On his death the Viscountcy became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	28 Aug 1761	7 Jan 1839	77
7 Jan 1839		2	Richard Handcock MP [I] for Athlone 1800	14 May 1767	18 Apr 1840	72
18 Apr 1840		3	Richard Handcock MP for Athlone 1826‑1832	17 Nov 1791	4 Jul 1869	77
4 Jul 1869		4	Richard Handcock Lord Lieutenant Westmeath 1889‑1892	25 Jul 1826	26 Apr 1892	65
26 Apr 1892		5	Albert Edward Handcock Lord Lieutenant Westmeath 1899‑1922	26 Mar 1863	6 Jul 1937	74
6 Jul 1937		6	Robert Arthur Handcock	19 Apr 1864	31 May 1954	90
31 May 1954		7	John Michael Schomberg Staveley Handcock	10 Mar 1904	31 Jul 1973	69
31 Jul 1973		8	Roland Thomas John Handcock	22 Apr 1943
CASTLE MARTYR
20 Mar 1756	B[I]	1	Henry Boyle Created Baron of Castle Martyr, Viscount Boyle of Bandon and Earl of Shannon 20 Mar 1756 See "Shannon"	1682	28 Dec 1764	82
CASTLEREAGH
1 Oct 1795	V[I]	1	Robert Stewart Created Baron Londonderry 20 Sep 1789, Viscount Castlereagh 1 Oct 1795, Earl of Londonderry 17 Aug 1796 and Marquess of Londonderry 13 Jan 1816 See "Londonderry"	27 Sep 1739	8 Apr 1821	81

	The Carlingford "Peerage" Case
	In The Complete Peerage, there is a footnote to this title which states that "the title was assumed about the middle of the 19th century by Godwin Meade Pratt Swifte, of Swiftesheath, co. Kilkenny, who was descended from Thomas Swift, eldest brother of the half blood to William Swift of Rotherham, grandfather of Viscount Carlingford."
	This case was commonly referred to the contemporary Press as "the Carlingford Peerage case". This, however, is misleading - the case should be better described as "Swifte v. Swifte", since the legal battle was over the plaintiff's entitlement to participate in the personal estate of his dead father. At no time was any attempt made to obtain recognition of the plaintiff's right to be acknowledged as "Viscount Carlingford".
	The case occupied large sections of the newspapers of the time, and I have therefore sought out those reports which best convey the facts of the case, commencing with the Daily Mail of 2 November 1905:-
	There commenced before the Irish Master of the Rolls [Sir Andrew Porter] at Dublin yesterday a trial which has been long pending, and which involves the possession of the estates and title of the Carlingford peerage, which has been dormant for some years.
	The plaintiff is George Godwin Barnham Swifte, who claims to be the lawful child of a former Lord Carlingford, and as such entitled to a share of the estate at present held by Mary Jane Swifte and Godwin Butler Meade Swifte. The latter is now Master of Swiftesheath, a fine old mansion with an extensive and picturesque estate in County Kilkenny.
	Counsel for the plaintiff said that the peerage was dormant and Mr Swifte claimed it, but had never prosecuted his claim in the House of Lords. In 1842 Lord Carlingford secretly married Miss Jane Hopkins, daughter of the late Captain Hopkins, of the 76th Regiment, and in 1845 the parties were publicly married in Liverpool.
	Two children were born of that marriage - Longueville Meade Swifte and the plaintiff. Viscountess Carlingford, otherwise Hopkins, died in 1848. Lord Carlingford subsequently, in 1863, married the defendant, Mary Jane Swifte. The defence, said counsel, had been raised by this lady that the plaintiff, his brother Longueville, and his sister, were not lawful children of their father, because he had openly committed bigamy by marrying Miss Hopkins - a previous marriage having been effected by Lord Carlingford with Baroness de Wetzlar, which was still existing.
	The plaintiff submitted that the Court of Probate in Ireland had declared Lord Carlingford to be the lawful husband of [the] plaintiff's mother. It was a very significant incident that when the second marriage took place in Liverpool, one of the wedding presents was from Baroness de Wetzlar, who was alleged by the defendant to be the first wife of Lord Carlingford. After that marriage Lord and Lady Carlingford resided in Dublin, and plaintiff and his brother were recognised as their lawful children. Counsel referred to an elder sister of the plaintiff, who was presented at the first Drawing Room after the death of the Prince Consort as the Hon Julia Ianthe Swifte, and who afterwards married Dr O'Flaherty, an eminent London physician.
	When sixteen years of age the plaintiff was asked to sign indentures to enter a ship called the Sandringham. He refused to do so, and went to his sister in London. Before the ship sailed from Plymouth, the plaintiff went down to join the vessel, but the captain refused to take him on board. After a time the plaintiff was put on board the Royal Alice, and sailed for Australia, with directions to join the Sandringham there; but again the captain refused to take him.
	When in Calcutta, on board the Royal Alice, he heard accidentally of his father's death, which took place in July 1864. It so happened that the Sandringham was also at Calcutta, and left port with 700 coolies. It was her last voyage, as she was lost with all hands, except the captain and his wife.
	Counsel had not concluded his argument when the court rose.
	Upon the resumption of the hearing, the Daily Mail of 3 November 1905 reported:-
	When the hearing of the legitimacy suit of Swifte v Swifte was resumed by the Master of the Rolls at Dublin yesterday, very interesting evidence was given by the plaintiff, George Godwin Barnham Swifte.
	He claims the dormant Carlingford peerage; but in this suit only seeks a declaration that the personal estate of the late Godwin Meade Pratt Swifte, commonly known as Lord Carlingford, was divisible between himself, his deceased brother, Longueville Meade Swifte, and one of the defendants, Godwin B.M. Swifte; and a declaration that the second defendant, Mrs May [Mary?] Jane Swifte, was liable to make good and pay to the plaintiff and to the legal personal representative of Longueville M. Swifte the full amount of their shares. The total yearly value of the property in dispute is stated to be about £20,000.
	Mr Swifte, in the course of examination, said that his father, who was generally known as Lord Carlingford, was named Gordon [Godwin?] Meade Pratt Swifte. He produced the certificate of his father's marriage with Jane Anne Hopkins in Liverpool on March 18, 1846. The witness was born January 10, 1847. The birth and baptismal certificates of himself and his brother Longueville were produced. His father told him he had gone through the ceremony of marriage with his wife in 1842 and that the marriage was registered at Doctors' Commons, but that it was technically irregular. At the same time he thought it was perfectly legal.
	The witness also produced his schoolbooks, in which his name was entered as the Hon George Swifte. His mother died in 1847, and his father married Miss Clarke in 1863. The witness and his brothers and sister lived in the house afterwards as members of the family. When his father returned from the honeymoon he had a conversation with Harold, one of his (witness's) brothers, in the ball-room. Harold on that occasion refused to go to sea, or to California, informing his father at the same time that he was heir to the title and property. His father replied that he was sorry Harold was not the heir, as he was born before the Liverpool marriage; and he added that Longueville was the heir.
	Harold left to reside in another part of the country, and the property, which had till then been managed by him, was taken in charge by Eldon Clarke. About a week after that witness went to sea.
	At a later period, when he saw his father declining in health, he asked him to allow him £100 a year. His father replied, "Oh, that's nothing. You will be very well off." In reply to a further question by the witness, his father said, "Harold is not my heir. Your brother Longueville is." His father had always claimed the title, but never asserted his right to it. He was about to do so when he died.
	He went on to tell how he was supplied with a sea-chest inscribed "The Hon G.B. Swifte" and told to go to sea; how he ran away and hid in a plantation, and how the captain of the Sandringham, when the plaintiff at last went to Plymouth to join the ship, refused to allow him on board. Then he joined the Royal Alice, and found the Sandringham at Calcutta and heard of his father's death. The Sandringham after went down with 700 coolies on board, and when Mr Swifte went home Mrs Swifte said they had supposed he was lost with the ship.
	The Solicitor-General: Did you give any instructions for formulating a charge against the defendant, Mrs Swifte, of having, with the assistance of her relatives, endeavoured to entrap you to get into a ship the captain of which was to scuttle it? - Oh, no. An unseaworthy ship. And consequently to drown you? - If she was lost. And she was lost. And was it done for the express purpose? Is that the charge you have made? - There is great suspicion about it. To secure your death? - That was the suspicion. Do you charge that today? - Well, as far as suspicion goes, I was told on board the other vessel that I was sent away to be got rid of.
	Mrs O'Flaherty, sister of the plaintiff and widow of Dr O'Flaherty, a London physician, said she was the daughter of the late Godwin Swifte, commonly called Viscount Carlingford. At the first Drawing Room held after the death of the Prince Consort Lord Carlisle was Lord Lieutenant [1859-1864], and she was presented as the Hon Miss Swifte. Her father attended the Levee, and she thought there was some demur about him being presented as Lord Carlingford. He was ushered in as Godwin Swifte, Esq., and he said, "No. I am Lord Carlingford." She was taken to the vault where her mother was buried, and her father pointed out the coffin with the name Viscountess Carlingford.
	Her father told her everything about the marriage with the Baroness de Wetzlar. He said that her mother did not like the way in which she and her father were living. She was a Roman Catholic, and they were married by a Roman Catholic priest just to ease her conscience, and that her papa consented.
	He said that he then went to Naples, where he was always considered a bachelor and moved in the highest circles. It was given out that he was a married man, and he was angry about it. He told her that he came home and then married her mother. He said that the divorce [marriage to Baroness de Wetzlar?] was annulled and that the deeds proving it were in a tin box under his bed.
	The court then adjourned.
	Extracted from the Derby Daily Telegraph of 4 November 1905:-
	The Solicitor-General then opened the case for the defendants, stating he would prove that in 1833, in the parish chapel at Loitsch, in Austria, according to the most strict formalities of the Austrian law, the parish priest celebrated a marriage between Lord Carlingford and Baroness de Wetzlar. There was nothing at the time to prevent the marriage taking place in Ireland, for the penal law in force at the time only prohibited a priest from celebrating a marriage between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic. Counsel contended that this marriage was valid, and that therefore the plaintiff's case failed. Ernest Swifte, divisional police magistrate, Dublin, and a cousin of the defendant, said in August last year he went to Loitsch, in Austria, and found in the Parish Church register an entry of the marriage of Lord Carlingford and the Baroness de Wetzlar in 1833. He subsequently obtained a copy of the certificate of the death of the Baroness in 1856. Witness produced copies of both documents.
	Judgment was finally given on 15 November and fully reported in the Daily Telegraph of 16 November 1905:-
	The Master of the Rolls delivered judgment, yesterday, in Dublin, in the case of Swifte v Swifte, in which the plaintiff, George Barnham Swifte sought a declaration that he was a lawful son of the late Godwin Pratt Swifte, commonly called Lord Carlingford, of Swifte's Heath, Kilkenny, and as such entitled to a share in the personal estate of his deceased father. Mrs Swifte, the widow, contested the claim, on the ground that when her late husband married the plaintiff's mother he had a lawful wife alive in Austria.
	His lordship, in the course of an exhaustive judgment, which occupied an hour and three quarters in delivery, stated the causes of action. The amount of money which, in any event, represented the share of the personal estate to which, in his own view, the plaintiff was entitled would be a relatively small sum. That was the matter in respect of which the action was brought. No question and no claim to a peerage arose, or could arise, in the action. It was perfectly clear that no peerage whatever was involved, and his lordship would not, as he had done during the hearing, give people a title or a name to which no right had been shown. It was not an action for the recovery of large estates, nor, except in the case which was commenced by the same plaintiff in 1884, had any claim been put forward to the real estate.
	The circumstances of the present case were somewhat peculiar. They had been called romantic, but so far as his lordship's functions were concerned he had only to deal with a question of the legal rights of the parties. The facts of the case were only conversant with the transactions of Mr Godwin Pratt Swifte, who was born, apparently, about 1808. He came into possession of the family estates, and, as was the custom of that period when a young man reached a certain age, he went abroad on what was called the grand tour. When in Austria he met a lady who was called the Baroness von Wetzlar and there could be no doubt that she was a person of good family. Her father was the Baron von Wetzlar, and her mother had been the Countess von Egb. When Mr Godwin Pratt Swifte met her they formed an acquaintance which ripened into intimacy, the precise character of which his lordship did not care to go into. He had no evidence one way or the other about it, although there were some statements made at the Bar in reference to it.
	Whether their acquaintance was unduly intimate or perfectly harmless, there was no doubt that on Feb 3, 1833, he was married to her in the Catholic Church at St. Loitsch, in Austria, by the parish priest. That marriage has been proved as a matter of fact beyond all question. She was his lawful wedded wife unless the marriage was invalidated by circumstances which were so very much pressed at the Bar, founded on the provisions in the penal code. They appeared to have separated; whether they intended to separate permanently or not his lordship did not know.
	Having returned to this country the husband undoubtedly contracted another marriage on March 18, 1845, with a Miss Jane Ann Hopkins, a young lady who occupied a respectable position in society. She was married regularly in Liverpool Parish Church. The first wife, the Baroness von Wetzlar, was beyond all question living at that time, for she did not die till Jan 30, 1859. If the first marriage, there fore, was valid, and was not determined by divorce or some other equivalent, the marriage of 1845 was illegal and void.
	At the time of the 1845 marriage there were two children of Godwin Pratt Swifte and Jane Hopkins, born before the Liverpool marriage, one of them named Harold and the other a daughter, who was respectably married in London, and his lordship wished to say, in speaking of these things, that he desired most strongly to emphasize his opinion that there was nothing discreditable to either of these children as regards their birth. If they were illegitimate no one, under the circumstances of the case, would refrain from sympathising with them.
	Longueville Swifte, the third child of this union, was born on May 9, 1845, a couple of months after the marriage of his parents in Liverpool. The plaintiff, George Barnham Swifte, was the fourth child of the same marriage, the second that was born in wedlock, assuming the marriage in Liverpool was a legal marriage. Then Longueville would have ranked as the eldest son of his parents, notwithstanding the existence of the boy Harold. Longueville died somewhere about 1871, and therefore at that time, if the Liverpool marriage was a good one, the plaintiff would have become entitled as heir-at-law to his father's estate. Jane Ann Hopkins having died on Aug 14, 1847, the husband, so far as the marriage with her was concerned, was free to contract another, and he did contract a marriage with Mary Jane Clarke in February, 1863. Apart altogether from every other question in the case, there could be none as to the validity of that marriage, because the Baroness von Wetzlar was then dead some four years and Jane Ann Hopkins was also dead. Of the marriage with Mary Jane Clarke there was issue only one son, Godwin Swifte, who had been joined as a co-defendant. His father, Godwin Pratt Swifte, died on July 14, 1864, intestate.
	His lordship held that the Austrian marriage was legal. It was not celebrated in Ireland between British subjects. If it had been the Act of George II would have applied. It was celebrated in Austria and as had been sworn to by lawyers from that country was in strict conformity with the laws of Austria [and as a result the plaintiff was illegitimate].
	Turning to the allegations implied against the defendant in the interrogatories administered to her by the plaintiff, the Master of the Rolls said they amounted to a shameful and scandalous abuse of the process of the Court. They alleged, for instance, that the defendant conspired with others to murder the plaintiff by having him put to sea in an unseaworthy vessel with a disreputable captain. How, he asked, was a lady living in Kilkenny to know that a certain vessel was seaworthy or not, and how was she to know that her captain was a disreputable person capable of taking part in, and giving effect to, a murder conspiracy? It was a ridiculous assumption. The plaintiff had failed on all points and judgment would be for the defendant, with costs.
	Charles Robert Carington, 3rd Baron Carrington and later Marquess of Lincolnshire
	A man by the name of Eustace Clare Grenville Murray was, in August 1858, appointed as British Consul for the Black Sea ports, based in Odessa. Complaints about his behaviour became so numerous that an inquiry was ordered by the Foreign Office. The inquiry found that he had granted passports to non-British subjects, he had failed to levy fees that would have been payable to the British government, and he was found guilty of such irregularities in the solemnization of marriages to the extent that it was doubtful whether some of them were not invalid, with any children born out of those marriages being consequently illegitimate. As a result of the inquiry, Murray was dismissed in May 1868.
	In January 1869 a new newspaper, the Queen's Messenger, appeared and soon displayed a remarkable hostility towards the Foreign Office. In its issue of 17 June 1869, the paper contained a sketch portrait of "Bob Coachington, Lord Jarvey". This was a thinly disguised attack on Lord Carrington and his family, and Carrington sought to find the identity of the perpetrator. Having received information which convinced him that Murray was responsible for whatever appeared in the Queen's Messenger, Lord Carrington sought and found Murray on the steps of the Conservative Club, and there attempted to physically assault him, but it seems that all Carrington succeeded in doing was damaging Murray's hat. Carrington also informed Murray that "I am Lord Carrington and you know where to find me".
	Murray pressed charges against Lord Carrington, who was summoned before the Marlborough Street Police Court in July 1869 to answer two charges - one of assault, and the other "for maliciously, unlawfully, wilfully, and wickedly uttering in the hearing of the plaintiff certain provoking, malicious, and scandalous words, with intent to instigate, incite, and provoke him [Murray] to fight a duel with him [Carrington]".
	At the end of the hearing, after Carrington had been sent for trial, there occurred a remarkable riot in the court, which was reported in the [Cardiff] Western Mail as follows:-
	The assault upon Mr Grenville Murray at the Conservative Club by Lord Carington [sic] was enquired into on Wednesday, at the Marlborough-street Police-court … The following is a description of the "scene" which took place in the court at the close of the case. One of the many persons accompanying or in attendance upon Lord Carington - who, by the way, though a very youthful-looking peer, is physically much more than a match for the complainant - was an elderly man, with a japanned tin deed box. This was ultimately the cause of a scene the like of which the magistrate said he had never before witnessed in a court of law. The excitement of the case proper was heightened by the incidental allegation that certain papers produced had been literally stolen for the purposes of the defence. As the hearing went on, the gentleman with the box - who turned out to be Mr Newman, a solicitor, and who clasped the big box with both arms throughout the whole time - kept on supplying Lord Carington's counsel and solicitors with bundles of manuscript, evidently Queen's Messenger "copy", duly labelled as to the dates, etc. After the magistrate had given his decision a rush was made at the box, just as Mr Newman was returning some of the papers. Cries of "Police", "Murder", and "Help" arose. Twenty or thirty men, old and young, clustered around the box, shouting at the top of their voices, and struggling, kicking, and fighting for the prize. Chairs were hurled out of the way, forms overturned, inkstands capsized. The attacking party was at first successful, and the box began to approach the edge of the table. The defenders then waxed frantic, and created terrible din and confusion. Young gentlemen, who had watched the case in lavender kids [gloves] and with unruffled mien, now threw themselves into the melee, and blows, with both fist and stick, were freely exchanged all round. Half-a-dozen police at length hurried in from the outside, and the day was speedily decided against the attackers. The box was safe and sound, but some papers were torn to shreds in the scuffle. The "row" did not by any means terminate when this issue was decided. The battle was renewed, apparently to enable the combatants to settle any outstanding accounts, and the fun to the score of spectators who had invaded the magistrate's enclosure, to be out of harm's way and to witness the action was largely added to by the behaviour of half-a-dozen gentlemen who, keeping safely out of the thick of the fight, leaped about from chair to chair screaming gratuitous advice to everybody. This scene lasted ten minutes, and when it was at an end broken furniture, torn coats, and battered hats told of the varying fortunes of the combatants. Lord Carington, who had taken an active share in the strife, was then seen patting various policemen on the back, and congratulating them and his friends generally upon the upshot of the little incident. Several persons were taken into custody and promptly hustled out of the court by the police while the affray was going on, some of them, as was said, without at all deserving the vigorous treatment they met with. The most remarkable point of the whole affair was its impracticability, for apart from the chances of rescue, the size of the box, and the narrow guarded entrances of the court would have rendered it impossible for any one to get off with it. The worthy magistrate had calmly surveyed this extraordinary contempt of court from his chair. The Duke of Beaufort, the Marquis of Worcester, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Colville, the Marquis Townshend, Marquis of Blandford, Lord Clonmel, Lord George Lennox, Lord Bingham, and other persons of distinction were present.
	At his subsequent trial on 23 July 1869, Lord Carrington was found guilty of assault, while the charge of inciting a duel was dropped. Carrington was bound over to keep the peace and fined £100.
	In the meantime, however, Carrington had caused Murray to be charged with perjury, accusing Murray of lying on oath when Murray stated that he had no connection with the Queen's Messenger, or that he had written the defending article. At Murray's subsequent trial, it was proved that the registered proprietor of the Queen's Messenger was Murray's son, and that the draft of the offending article was in Murray's handwriting. Before his trial could be completed, however, Murray fled to the Continent, where he remained in exile for the remainder of his life before dying in Paris in December 1881.
	The special remainder to the Barony of Carteret created in 1784
	From the London Gazette of 27 January 1784 (issue 12514, page 3):-
	The King has been pleased to grant to the Right Honourable Henry Frederick Carteret, and the Heirs Male of His Body lawfully begotten, the Dignity of a Baron of the Kingdom of Great Britain, by the Name, Stile and Title of Baron Carteret, of Hawnes, in the County of Bedford, with Remainders to the Honourable George Thynne, Second Son, the Honourable John Thynne, Third Son and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and every other Son and Sons severally and successively, of the Right Honourable Thomas Lord Viscount Weymouth, and the respective Heirs Male of their Bodies lawfully begotten.
	Gilbert Kennedy, 4th Earl of Cassillis
	The 4th Earl of Cassillis is remembered in Scottish history for his abduction and torture of Allan Stewart, Commendator of the Cluniac Abbey at Crossraguel, in Carrick [the modern South Ayrshire] in Scotland. The Earl wished to appropriate some of the lands, together with the income arising therefrom, surrounding the Abbey. In order to achieve this, he tricked Stewart into accompanying him to Dunure Castle, the home of the Kennedy family, where he was tortured by being roasted over a brazier in the 'Black Vault' of the castle. Eventually, Stewart submitted to the Earl's demands and signed the lands in question over to the Earl. He was finally rescued by the intervention of his brother-in-law, but his feet had been so burnt that he was never able to walk again.
	A good summary of Allan Stewart's ordeal is included in the Wikipedia article on "Dunure Castle". After his rescue, Stewart made a complaint to the Privy Council of Scotland. The following is taken from The North British Review of February 1845. I have retained the original spelling, adding explanations where necessary:-
	The manuscript records of the [Scottish] Privy Council, of 20th June, 1571, bear, that he [Allan Stewart] presented a complaint against Gilbert Earl of Cassilis, Thomas Master of Cassilis, his brother, "and their complices", to the effect, that "being on 30th August 1570, within the wood of Corsraguell, doing my lawful errands and business, believing noe harm nor invasion to have bein done to me by ainie persons", nevertheless the said Earl and sixteen others "came to me, and ther persuaded me, be their flatterie and deceitfull words, to pass with him to his castle, and he putting me within the same, that I should be in such firmance, commanded six of his servants to wait upon me, so that I escaped not, and took from me my hors and all my weapons, and then depairted, until the 1st September thereafter, when he came again, and required me to subscribe to him, ane feu-charter [a document establishing a form of land tenure] made in parchment, of the baill lands pertaining to the abbacie; togidder with ain nineteen and five years talk of the teynds, which I niver read one word of, and answered that it was a thing most unreasonable, and I could noway". The Earl, however, "after long boasting and menacing of me, caused me to be caryed to ane houss, callit the Black Vault of Denbie, wher the tormentors denuded me of all my claiths perforce, except onlie my sark [shirt] and doublet [jacket], and they band baith my hands at the shackle bane, with ane cord, as they did baith my feet; and band my soalls betwixt ane iron chimney and a fire; and being bound soe thairto, I could noway steir or move: whilk [which] being done, they set the same chimney upoe a great fire, whilk was ther readie prepaired for my tormenting, so that I micht not steir, but had almost inluked through my cruell burning". This regimen proved effectual. "Seeing noe other appearance to me, but aither to condescend to his desyr, or else to continue in that torment, I said I would obey to his desyr; howbeit it was soir against my will". He then signed the deeds. "Whilk being done, the said Earle caused the said tormentors of me, to swear upon the Bible, niver to reveal a word of this my unmerciful hand-dealing". This was not enough. The Earl afterwards "requyred me to ratifie and approve the same, befor a notar and witnesses, whilk I utterly refused, and thairfoir he as off befoir, band and putt me to the same manner of tormenting; and being in soe grait pain, as I trust nevir man was in the like with his life's self, when I cryed 'Fye upon me, will ye no ding whingers [daggers] in me, and putt me out of this world, or else putt ore barrell of powder under me, rayther than to be demayned and tormented in this unmercifull maner'. The said Earl hearing ane cry, baidd his servant putt ane stopper in my throat, whilk be obeyed". But the tortured wretch had firmness not to yield. He goes on to narrate, that "their seeing I was in danger of my life, my flesh consumed, and brunt to the bane, and that I would not condescend to his purposs, I was relieved. Further, the said Earl, without any title of right, has taiken up my haill leving at Crossraguel, taking noe fear of our Sovereign Lordis letters, or chairgis usit in his name, even as he wer ane eximed persone, not subject to the lawes, but might doe all things at his pleasure".
	Notwithstanding Stewart's complaint to the Privy Council, it appears that little action was taken against the Earl following this incident.
	The special remainder to the Barony of Castle Coote created in 1800
	From the London Gazette of 2 August 1800 (issue 15281, page 889):-
	His Majesty hath been pleased to grant the following Dignities, and Letters Patent are preparing to be passed under the Great Seal of this Kingdom accordingly, viz #&8230; to Charles Henry Earl of Mountrath, the Dignity of Baron of Castle Coote, in the County of Roscommon, and the Heirs Male of his Body; and in Default of such Issue, to Charles Henry Coote, Esq; of Forest Lodge, in the Queen's County and to his Heirs Male.
	Mervyn Tuchet, 12th Baron Audley and 2nd Earl of Castlehaven
	Before 1617, Tuchet had married Elizabeth Barnham, who died young, but not before producing six children. Elizabeth's sister Alice was the wife of Sir Francis Bacon. Tuchet's second wife was Lady Ann Stanley, daughter of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby. Ann, a famous beauty, had previously been married to Grey Bridges, 5th Baron Chandos. Five children were born from this marriage, including Elizabeth Brydges, of whom more later.
	According to the will of Henry VIII and the Succession to the Crown Act of 1543, commonly known as the Third Succession Act, Ann was heir presumptive to the throne of England upon the death of Elizabeth I in 1603. For a detailed discussion of this subject, the reader is referred to a website compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner to be found at http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/castlehaven.html
	Notwithstanding Ann's claim to the throne, on the death of Elizabeth I, she was passed over in favour of King James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England. James was the senior male descendant of Margaret Tudor, older sister of Henry VIII.
	Whatever the merits of Ann's claim, she married Mervyn Tuchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven on 22 July 1624. On their wedding night, Lady Ann was surprised when Castlehaven's manservant, Anthill, appeared suddenly at the bedside. In Ann's words, "Anthill came to our bed, and the Lord Audley talked lasciviously to me and told me that my body was his and that if I lay with any man with his consent 'twas not my fault but his".
	To add variety to these arrangements, other servants were encouraged to take part. Skipwith, a groom, "came naked into our chamber", said Lady Ann, "and to our bed". Lord Audley invited his wife to decide which, between him and Skipwith, was the better endowed. "He took delight in calling up his servants to show their nudities and forced me to look upon them and commend those that had the longest."
	If Lady Ann demurred, force was employed. When Giles Broadway (or Browning), the butler, came to her bed, Lord Audley held her firmly by the hands and feet. "He delighted to see the act done, and made Broadway lie with me in such a way that he might see it, and though I cried out, he never regarded the complaint I made but encouraged the ravisher."
	At Lord Audley's subsequent trial, Broadway told the court that, after he had taken Lady Ann, he was in turn sodomized by his lordship, as was Fitzpatrick, a cook. The court was then told that Lady Ann was not the only ill-treated woman in the family. Lady Ann's daughter, Elizabeth, testified that she had been forced to submit to Skipwith, the groom. "He used oyl to enter my body first for I was then but twelve years old and he usually lay with me by the Baron's privity and command." Elizabeth was later forced to marry Skipwith.
	It was Lord Audley's son, James, who eventually informed on his father, due to his fear that his father intended to disinherit him. Charged with a capital offence before a jury of his peers, Audley admitted that a servant might occasionally have shared his bed, but only because of the shortage of rooms in his various houses. The court declined to accept this defence and Audley was attainted of felony, sentenced to death and beheaded on Tower Hill on 14 May 1631. Broadway and Fitzpatrick were also executed.
	There seems to be little doubt that Audley's death was brought about by Lady Ann's manipulations. Fitzpatrick testified that she was "the wickedest woman in the world, and had more to answer for than any woman that lived". For further reading on this case, the reader is referred to A House in Gross Disorder; Sex, Law and the 2nd Earl of Castlehaven by Cynthia B. Herrup (Oxford University Press, 1999). Herrup also makes it clear that Lady Ann was the equal of her husband in immorality.
	After Audley's death, Elizabeth, having got rid of Skipwith, married James, Audley's heir and nemesis. Because he had been attainted, his English peerage, being descendible to heirs general, was forfeited, but the Irish Earldom and Barony, being in tail, were not affected. This was because the peerages in tail were protected by the statute 'De Donis Conditionalibus' contained in the second Statute of Westminster (1285) which preserved all entailed honours against forfeiture for felony. A similar situation arose in 1760 when Earl Ferrers was executed without any effect upon the descent of his peerages.
	The following edited account of Audley's trial is taken from A Critical Review of the State Trials [London 1735]:-
	The Trial of Mervin Lord Audley, Earl of Castlehaven, for a Rape and Sodomy, before the Lord Keeper Coventry, Lord High Steward, and the rest of the Peers commissioned to try him, 25 April 1631. 7 Car. I.
	Three Indictments had been found against this Lord by the Grand Jury at the preceding Lent Assizes for Wiltshire. The first for a Rape of his own Wife, whom he held by Force, while one of his Servants lay with her: And the other two Indictments were for Buggery with a Man.
	Before the Trial, the Judges came to the following Resolutions, on certain Queries, sent them by the Lord High Steward:
	1. That a Peer could not be tried by a common Jury, but must be tried by his Peers.
	2. That a Peer could not challenge any of his Peers.
	3. That a Peer could not have Counsel, but on Points of Law.
	4. That his own Examinations taken without Oath, might be read against him; but the Examinations of others must be upon Oath.
	5. That the Wife, in case of a Rape, being the Party wronged, may be Evidence against her Husband.
	6. That where one stood mute in a Rape he might have his Clergy; but not in Buggery.
	7. That to denominate the Offence a Rape, there must be Penetration.
	8. That the Lords Triers might eat and drink before they agreed; but could not separate, or adjourn, till they gave their Verdict.
	9. That a Peer could not be convicted by less than twelve Peers.
	10. That if a Prisoner stood mute in an Appeal, he must be hanged; for that it was an Attainder.
	11. That a Peer standing mute in an Indictment, might be pressed to Death.
	12. That the Lord High Steward, after a Verdict, might take Time to advise upon a Point of Law; and his Office continued until Judgment given.
	It was resolved also, That if a Woman was a Whore, she might however be ravished: But it was a good Plea for the Man, that she was his Concubine. And that, if a Man took a Maid by Force, and ravished her, and she afterwards gave her Consent, and married him, this would not purge the Offence, but it was still a Rape.
	The said several Indictments being certified, and brought into Court, and the Prisoner commanded to the Bar, the Evidence was produced: And first, the Examination of the Lady Audley, as to the Rape, who deposed, that her Lord (the Prisoner) called his servant Brodway, into his Bed while she was asleep: That she waked, and made all the Resistance she could; but his Lordship held both her Hands, and one of her Legs, till Brodway lay with her: That, as soon as she got from him, she would have killed herself with a Knife, and that Brodway forced it from her. Brodway's Examination also was read, who confessed, that his Lordship called him into his Bed, and bid him lie with his Lady; and, that he did lie with her, whilst his Lord held one of her Legs and both her hands.
	As to the Sodomy, Brodway deposed, That the Earl used his Body as the Body of a Woman; but never pierced it, only emitted between his Thighs.
	Fitz-Patrick, another Servant, deposed, That his Lord had twice committed Sodomy with him (the Deponent); That Henry Skipwith, another Servant, had lain with the Lady Audley, by his Lord's Command, and in his Presence: But the Lady, in her Examination, says, she cried out, and that Skipwith did not lie with her.
	The Lady Audley also deposed, That the first or second Night after she was married, her Lord called Ampthill (who had been his Page, and to whom he had married his Daughter) to his Bedside, and said, Now her body was his, and, if she loved him, she must love Ampthill: That he made Skipwith come naked into his Chamber; and delighted to call in his Men-servants, and shew her their Nudities, recommending the largest to her.
	Skipwith also deposed, That his Lord made him lie with the young Lady Audley, his Son's Wife, who was then but twelve Years of Age: That he could not enter her at first, and the Lord Audley fetched Oil to open her Body, but she cried out, and he could not enter her yet; then his Lord ordered Oil to be brought a second Time, and the Deponent entered her.
	The young Lady also deposed, That the Lord Audley saw Skipwith lie with her several Times; and, that nine Servants of the Family also had seen it: That she had no other Maintenance than what she had from Skipwith; and that, among other Arguments the Prisoner used to make her lie with Skipwith, he told her her Husband did not love her; and threatened to turn her out of Doors, if she would not: Adding, that he would tell her Husband she did, if she did not; and confirmed the Circumstance, of their using Oil to penetrate her Body.
	Fitz-Patrick also deposed, That his Lordship kept a Whore in the House; and, that he made four or five of his Servants lie with her in his Presence; and his Lordship lay with her in their Sight.
	The Judges' Opinion being demanded on some Parts of the Evidence, resolved, That it was Buggery within the Statute, where the Body is used so far as to emit thereon, without Penetration: And so, where there was an Emission upon a Woman's Belly, it ought to be adjudged a Rape: And that in a Rape a Woman is not limited to any Time to make her Complaint, if the Process be by Indictment; but in an Appeal she is.
	The Lord Audley, in his Defence, said, That his Wife's Testimony ought not to be regarded, since she had confessed her lying with Brodway. To which it was answered, he could not urge that Fact in his Defence, since he had forced her to suffer it. Then he said, that his Wife and his Servants were not competent Witnesses; and that they were put upon practicing against him by his Son, who fought his Life: Adding, That his Wife had been false to his Bed, and had a Child in his Absence; and then made Protestations of his Innocence. But Woe to that Man (he said) whose Wife and Servants should be admitted Witnesses against him, and whose Son conspired his Death! His Son was now come of Age, and wanted his Lands, and his Wife a young Husband, now he was grown old, and had therefore plotted his Destruction.
	The Lords Triers having been withdrawn some Time, returned, and were unanimous in their Opinion, that the Prisoner was GUILTY of the Rape: But as to the Sodomy, eleven of his Peers were of Opinion, that he was NOT GUILTY, and sixteen declared him GUILTY; which Difference of Opinion seems to have arisen from the Evidence that Brodway gave, that the Lord emitted between his Thighs, but never penetrated him.
	Judgment was afterwards passed upon the Prisoner, that he should be hanged: However he obtained the Favour of being [be]headed; when he professed himself perfectly innocent of the Crimes he was charged with.
	The Lord Audley's two Servants, Lawrence Fitz-Patrick and Giles Brodway, were brought to their Trials, the first for Sodomy, and the other for a Rape, June 27, 1631; when Fitz-Patrick's Confession was produced against him, as Evidence of his having committed Sodomy with his Lord; and the Jury desired to be informed, if the Person who suffered the Buggery to be committed upon him, could be said to commit Buggery, as the Words of the Statute were. To which the Lord Chief Justice answered, That every Accessory to a Felony, was a Felon in Law: And the Prisoner voluntarily prostituting his Body, when he was not only of Understanding and Years, to know the Heinousness of the Offence, but of Strength to resist his Lord, he was guilty of Buggery.
	The Prisoner in his Defence insisted, That the Evidence he had given for the King, at his Lord's Trial, ought not to be produced against him at a Trial for the same Fact: But the Court answered, it might; and that it was sufficient to convict him: Whereupon the Jury found him GUILTY.
	At Brodway's Trial the Lady Audley appeared in Court, and gave the same Evidence of the Prisoner's committing a Rape upon her, while her Husband held her, as she had done at her Lord's Trial: And the Court demanding, whether the Prisoner entered her Body, when he forced her, she answered, He did; and she intended to have expressed as much at the Lord Audley's Trial: And Brodway having confessed as much before, the Jury found him guilty; and they were both [Broadway and Fitzpatrick] hanged, confessing the Facts at their Executions.

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