PEERAGES
Last updated 20/03/2018 (20 Jan 2024)
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
RENDEL
30 Mar 1894 to     4 Jun 1913	B	1	Stuart Rendel Created Baron Rendel 30 Mar 1894 MP for Montgomeryshire 1880‑1894 Peerage extinct on his death	2 Jul 1834	4 Jun 1913	78
RENDELL OF BABERGH
24 Oct 1997 to     2 May 2015	B[L]		Ruth Barbara Rendell Created Baroness Rendell of Babergh for life 24 Oct 1997 Peerage extinct on her death	17 Feb 1930	2 May 2015	85
RENDLESHAM
			For information on the Great Thellusson Will Case, see the note at the foot of this page
1 Feb 1806	B[I]	1	Peter Isaac Thellusson Created Baron Rendlesham 1 Feb 1806 MP for Midhurst 1795‑1796, Malmesbury 1796‑1802, Castle Rising 1802‑1806 and Bossiney 1807‑1808	13 Oct 1761	16 Sep 1808	46
16 Sep 1808		2	John Thellusson	12 Sep 1785	3 Jul 1832	46
3 Jul 1832		3	William Thellusson	6 Jan 1798	13 Sep 1839	41
13 Sep 1839		4	Frederick Thellusson MP for Suffolk East 1843‑1852	6 Jan 1798	6 Apr 1852	54
6 Apr 1852		5	Frederick William Brook Thellusson MP for Suffolk East 1874‑1885	9 Feb 1840	9 Nov 1911	71
9 Nov 1911		6	Frederick Archibald Charles Thellusson	8 Jun 1868	4 Jul 1938	70
4 Jul 1938		7	Percy Edward Thellusson	30 Oct 1874	11 Dec 1943	69
11 Dec 1943		8	Charles Anthony Hugh Thellusson	15 Mar 1915	9 Oct 1999	84
9 Oct 1999		9	Charles William Brooke Thellusson	10 Jan 1954
RENFREW OF KAIMSTHORN
24 Jun 1991	B[L]		Andrew Colin Renfrew Created Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn for life 24 Jun 1991	25 Jul 1937
RENNARD
21 Jul 1999	B[L]		Christopher John Rennard Created Baron Rennard for life 21 Jul 1999	8 Jul 1960
RENNELL
1 Mar 1933	B	1	Sir James Rennell Rodd Created Baron Rennell 1 Mar 1933 MP for St. Marylebone 1928‑1932; PC 1908	9 Nov 1858	26 Jul 1941	82
26 Jul 1941		2	Francis James Rennell Rodd	25 Oct 1895	14 Mar 1978	82
14 Mar 1978		3	John Adrian Tremayne Rodd	28 Jun 1935	9 Dec 2006	71
9 Dec 2006		4	James Roderick David Tremayne Rodd	9 Mar 1978
RENTON
11 Jul 1979 to     24 May 2007	B[L]		Sir David Lockhart-Mure Renton Created Baron Renton for life 11 Jul 1979 MP for Huntingdonshire 1945‑1979; Minister of State, Home Office 1961‑1962; PC 1962 Peerage extinct on his death	12 Aug 1908	24 May 2007	98
RENTON OF MOUNT HARRY
9 Jun 1997 to     25 Aug 2020	B[L]		Ronald Timothy Renton Created Baron Renton of Mount Harry for life 9 Jun 1997 MP for Sussex Mid 1974‑1997; Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office 1985‑1987; Minister of State, Home Office 1987‑1989; Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury 1989‑1990; Minister for the Arts 1990‑1992; PC 1989 Peerage extinct on his death	28 May 1932	25 Aug 2020	88
RENWICK
23 Dec 1964	B	1	Sir Robert Burnham Renwick, 2nd baronet Created Baron Renwick 23 Dec 1964 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	4 Oct 1904	30 Aug 1973	68
30 Aug 1973		2	Harry Andrew Renwick	10 Oct 1935	2 Aug 2020	84
2 Aug 2020		3	Robert James Renwick	19 Aug 1966
RENWICK OF CLIFTON
26 Sep 1997	B[L]		Sir Robin William Renwick Created Baron Renwick of Clifton for life 26 Sep 1997	13 Dec 1937
REVELSTOKE
30 Jun 1885	B	1	Edward Charles Baring Created Baron Revelstoke 30 Jun 1885	13 Apr 1828	17 Jul 1897	69
17 Jul 1897		2	John Baring Lord Lieutenant Middlesex 1926‑1929; PC 1902	7 Sep 1863	19 Apr 1929	65
19 Apr 1929		3	Cecil Baring	12 Sep 1864	26 Jan 1934	69
26 Jan 1934		4	Rupert Baring	8 Feb 1911	18 Jul 1994	83
18 Jul 1994		5	John Baring	2 Dec 1934	5 Jun 2003	68
5 Jun 2003		6	James Cecil Baring	16 Aug 1938	7 Feb 2012	73
7 Feb 2012		7	Alexander Rupert Baring	9 Apr 1970
RHAYADER
25 Jan 1932 to     26 Sep 1939	B	1	Leifchild Stratten Leif-Jones Created Baron Rhayader 25 Jan 1932 MP for Appleby 1905‑1910, Rushcliffe 1910‑1918, and Camborne 1923‑1924 and 1929‑1931; PC 1917 Peerage extinct on his death	16 Jan 1862	26 Sep 1939	77
RHODES
14 Sep 1964 to     11 Sep 1987	B[L]		Hervey Rhodes Created Baron Rhodes for life 14 Sep 1964 MP for Ashton under Lyne 1945‑1964; Lord Lieutenant Lancashire 1968‑1971; PC 1969; KG 1972 Peerage extinct on his death	12 Aug 1895	11 Sep 1987	92
RHONDDA
28 Jan 1916 to     3 Jul 1918 19 Jun 1918	B     V	1     1	David Alfred Thomas Created Baron Rhondda 28 Jan 1916 and Viscount Rhondda 19 Jun 1918 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of the Viscountcy of 1918, see the note at the foot of this page MP for Merthyr Tydfil 1888‑1910 and Cardiff 1910; President of the Local Government Board 1916‑1917; Minister of Food 1917‑1918; PC 1917 On his death the Barony became extinct, whilst the Viscountcy passed to -	26 Mar 1856	3 Jul 1918	62
3 Jul 1918 to     20 Jul 1958		2	Margaret Haig Thomas Peerage extinct on her death For further information on her unsuccessful petition for a writ of summons to the House of Lords, see the note at the foot of this page	12 Jun 1883	20 Jul 1958	75
RHYL
7 Jul 1970 to     8 Mar 1981	B[L]		Evelyn Nigel Chetwode Birch Created Baron Rhyl for life 7 Jul 1970 MP for Flintshire 1945‑1950 and Flintshire West 1950‑1970; Minister of Works 1954‑1955; Secretary of State for Air 1955‑1957; Economic Secretary to the Treasury 1957‑1958; PC 1955 Peerage extinct on his death	18 Nov 1906	8 Mar 1981	74
RIALTON
26 Dec 1706	V	1	Sidney Godolphin, 1st Baron Godolphin Created Viscount Rialton and Earl of Godolphin 26 Dec 1706 See "Godolphin"	15 Jun 1645	15 Sep 1712	67
RIBBLESDALE
26 Oct 1797	B	1	Thomas Lister Created Baron Ribblesdale 26 Oct 1797 MP for Clitheroe 1773‑1790	11 Mar 1752	22 Sep 1826	74
22 Sep 1826		2	Thomas Lister	23 Jan 1790	10 Dec 1832	42
10 Dec 1832		3	Thomas Lister	28 Apr 1828	25 Aug 1876	48
25 Aug 1876 to     21 Oct 1925		4	Thomas Lister PC 1892 Peerage extinct on his death	29 Oct 1854	21 Oct 1925	70
RIBEIRO
20 Dec 2010	B[L]		Sir Bernard Francisco Ribeiro Created Baron Ribeiro for life 20 Dec 2010	20 Jan 1944
RICCARTOUN
14 Apr 1697	V[S]	1	Lord John Hamilton Created Lord Hillhouse, Viscount Riccartoun and Earl of Ruglen 14 Apr 1697 See "Ruglen"	26 Jan 1665	3 Dec 1744	79
RICH
16 Feb 1547	B	1	Sir Richard Rich Created Baron Rich 16 Feb 1547 Solicitor General 1533‑1536; Speaker of the House of Commons 1536; Lord Chancellor 1547‑1551	c 1496	12 Jun 1567
12 Jun 1567		2	Robert Rich	c 1538	27 Feb 1581
27 Feb 1581		3	Robert Rich He was created Earl of Warwick in 1618 with which title this peerage then merged - extinct 1759	Dec 1559	24 Mar 1619	59
RICHARD
14 May 1990 to     18 Mar 2018	B[L]		Ivor Seward Richard Created Baron Richard for life 14 May 1990 MP for Barons Court 1964‑1974; Lord Privy Seal 1997‑1998; PC 1993 Peerage extinct on his death	30 May 1932	18 Mar 2018	85
RICHARDS OF HERSTMONCEUX
24 Feb 2014	B[L]		Sir David Julian Richards Created Baron Richards of Herstmonceux for life 24 Feb 2014 Chief of the Defence Staff 2010‑2013	4 Mar 1952
RICHARDSON
2 Feb 1979 to     15 Aug 2004	B[L]		Sir John Samuel Richardson, 1st baronet Created Baron Richardson for life 2 Feb 1979 Peerage extinct on his death	16 Jun 1910	15 Aug 2004	94
RICHARDSON OF CALOW
3 Aug 1998	B[L]		Kathleen Margaret Richardson Created Baroness Richardson of Calow for life 3 Aug 1998	24 Feb 1938
RICHARDSON OF DUNTISBOURNE
11 Feb 1983 to     22 Jan 2010	B[L]		Gordon William Humphreys Richardson Created Baron Richardson of Duntisbourne for life 11 Feb 1983 Governor of the Bank of England 1973‑1983; PC 1976; KG 1983 Peerage extinct on his death	25 Nov 1915	22 Jan 2010	94
RICHEMOUNT-GREY
25 Jun 1450 to     Nov 1461	B	1	Thomas Grey Created Baron Richemount-Grey 25 Jun 1450 He was attainted and the peerage forfeited		Nov 1461
RICHMOND
1136	E	1	Alan de Bretagne Considered to have been created Earl of Richmond 1136		15 Sep 1146
15 Sep 1146		2	Conan de Bretagne		20 Feb 1171
20 Feb 1171		3	Constance de Bretagne	c 1162	Aug 1201
Aug 1201 to     3 Apr 1203		4	Arthur Plantagenet On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	29 Apr 1187	3 Apr 1203	15
6 Jan 1219 to     30 Jan 1235	E	1	Peter de Braine Created Earl of Richmond 6 Jan 1219 The peerage was forfeited in 1235	c 1190	28 May 1250
1 May 1261 to	E	1	Peter of Savoy Created Earl of Richmond 1 May 1261 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	1203	9 Jun 1268	64
15 Jul 1268	E	1	John de Bretagne Created Earl of Richmond 15 Jul 1268 He immediately surrended the peerage in favour of -	c 1217	8 Oct 1286
1268 to     18 Nov 1305		2	John de Bretagne On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	4 Jan 1239	18 Nov 1305	66
15 Oct 1306	E	1	John de Bretagne Created Earl of Richmond 15 Oct 1306	1266	17 Jan 1334	67
17 Jan 1334 to     30 Apr 1341		2	John de Bretagne On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	8 Mar 1286	30 Apr 1341	55
24 Sep 1341 to     26 Sep 1345	E	1	John de Montfort Created Earl of Richmond 24 Sep 1341 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	1293	26 Sep 1345
20 Sep 1342 to     1372	E	1	John Plantagenet Created Earl of Richmond 20 Sep 1342 and Duke of Lancaster 13 Nov 1362 He surrendered the Earldom in 1372	24 Jun 1340	3 Feb 1399	58
20 Jun 1372 to     2 Nov 1399	E	1	John de Montfort Created Earl of Richmond 20 Jun 1372 KG 1375 On his death the peerage reverted to the Crown	c 1339	2 Nov 1399
24 Nov 1414	E	1	John Plantagenet, Duke of Bedford Created Earl of Richmond 24 Nov 1414 See "Bedford"	20 Jun 1389	14 Sep 1435	46
6 Mar 1453	E	1	Edmund Tudor Created Earl of Richmond 6 Mar 1453	c 1430	3 Nov 1456
3 Nov 1456 to     1485		2	Henry Tudor He was attainted and the peerage forfeited. He was later Henry VII	26 Jul 1456	1509	52
18 Jun 1525 to     22 Jul 1536	D	1	Henry Fitzroy Created Earl of Nottingham and Duke of Richmond & Somerset 18 Jun 1525 Illegitimate son of Henry VIII; KG 1525 Peerages extinct on his death	1519	22 Jul 1536	17
6 Oct 1613 17 May 1623 to     16 Feb 1624	E D	1 1	Ludovic Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox Created Baron of Setrington and Earl of Richmond 6 Oct 1613, and Earl of Newcastle upon Tyne and Duke of Richmond 17 May 1623 KG 1603 Peerages extinct on his death	29 Sep 1574	16 Feb 1624	49
8 Aug 1641	D	1	James Stuart, 4th Duke of Lennox Created Duke of Richmond 8 Aug 1641 Warden of the Cinque Ports 1641‑1642; KG 1633	6 Apr 1612	30 Mar 1655	42
30 Mar 1655		2	Esme Stuart	2 Nov 1649	10 Aug 1660	10
10 Aug 1660 to     12 Dec 1672		3	Charles Stuart Created Baron Stuart of Newbury and Earl of Lichfield 10 Dec 1645 Lord Lieutenant Dorset 1660‑1672 and Kent 1668‑1672; KG 1661 Peerages extinct on his death For further information on this peer's wife, see the note at the foot of the page	7 Mar 1640	12 Dec 1672	32
9 Aug 1675	D	1	Charles Lennox Created Baron Setrington, Earl of March and Duke of Richmond 9 Aug 1675 and Lord of Torboltoun, Earl of Darnley and Duke of Lennox [S] 9 Sep 1675 Illegitimate son of Charles II; KG 1681; PC [I] by 1723	29 Jul 1672	27 May 1723	50
27 May 1723		2	Charles Lennox MP for Chichester 1722‑1723; KG 1726; PC 1735 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	18 May 1701	8 Aug 1750	49
8 Aug 1750		3	Charles Lennox Secretary of State 1766; Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1763‑1806; PC 1765; KG 1782	22 Feb 1735	29 Dec 1806	71
29 Dec 1806		4	Charles Lennox MP for Sussex 1790‑1806; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1807‑1813; Governor General of Canada 1818‑1819; Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1816‑1819; PC 1807; KG 1812 For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	9 Sep 1764	28 Aug 1819	54
28 Aug 1819		5	Charles Gordon-Lennox MP for Chichester 1812‑1819; Postmaster General 1830‑1834; Lord Lieutenant Sussex 1835‑1860; KG 1829; PC 1830 For information on the disappearance of Lord FitzRoy George Charles Lennox, 2nd son of this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	3 Aug 1791	21 Oct 1860	69
21 Oct 1860		6	Charles Henry Gordon‑Lennox Created Earl of Kinrara and Duke of Gordon 13 Jan 1876 MP for Sussex West 1841‑1860; President of the Poor Law Board 1859; President of the Board of Trade 1867‑1868 and 1885; Lord President of the Council 1874‑1880; Secretary of State for Scotland 1885‑1886; Lord Lieutenant Banffshire 1879‑1903; PC 1859; KG 1867	27 Feb 1818	27 Sep 1903	85
27 Sep 1903		7	Charles Henry Gordon‑Lennox (also 2nd Duke of Gordon) MP for Sussex West 1869‑1885 and Chichester 1885‑1888; Lord Lieutenant Elgin & Banff 1903‑1928; KG 1905	27 Dec 1845	18 Jan 1928	82
18 Jan 1928		8	Charles Henry Gordon‑Lennox (also 3rd Duke of Gordon) Lord Lieutenant Elgin 1928‑1935	30 Dec 1870	7 May 1935	64
7 May 1935		9	Frederick Charles Gordon‑Lennox (also 4th Duke of Gordon)	5 Feb 1904	2 Nov 1989	85
2 Nov 1989		10	Charles Henry Gordon‑Lennox (also 5th Duke of Gordon) Lord Lieutenant West Sussex 1990‑1994	19 Sep 1929	1 Sep 2017	87
1 Sep 2017		11	Charles Henry Gordon‑Lennox (also 6th Duke of Gordon)	8 Jan 1955
RICKETTS
17 Oct 2016	B[L]		Sir Peter Forbes Ricketts Created Baron Ricketts for life 17 Oct 2016	30 Sep 1952
RIDDELL
28 Jan 1920 to     5 Dec 1934	B	1	Sir George Allardice Riddell, 1st baronet Created Baron Riddell 28 Jan 1920 Peerage extinct on his death	25 May 1865	5 Dec 1934	69
RIDEAU
11 Mar 1952	E	1	Harold Rupert Leofric Alexander Created Baron Rideau and Earl Alexander of Tunis 11 Mar 1952 See "Alexander of Tunis"	10 Dec 1891	16 Jun 1969	77
RIDLEY
19 Dec 1900	V	1	Sir Matthew White Ridley, 5th baronet Created Baron Wensleydale and Viscount Ridley 19 Dec 1900 MP for Northumberland North 1868‑1885 and Blackpool 1886‑1900; Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1885‑1886; Home Secretary 1895‑1900; PC 1892	25 Jul 1842	28 Nov 1904	62
28 Nov 1904		2	Matthew White Ridley MP for Stalybridge 1900‑1904	6 Dec 1874	14 Feb 1916	41
14 Feb 1916		3	Matthew White Ridley	16 Dec 1902	25 Feb 1964	61
25 Feb 1964		4	Matthew White Ridley Lord Lieutenant Northumberland 1984‑2000; KG 1992	29 Jul 1925	22 Mar 2012	86
22 Mar 2012		5	Matthew White Ridley [Elected hereditary peer 2013‑2021]	7 Feb 1958
RIDLEY OF LIDDESDALE
28 Jul 1992 to     4 Mar 1993	B[L]		Nicholas Ridley Created Baron Ridley of Liddesdale for life 28 Jul 1992 MP for Cirencester & Tewkesbury 1959‑1992; Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office 1979‑1981; Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1981‑1983; Secretary of State for Transport 1983‑1986; Secretary of State for the Environment 1986‑1989; Secretary of State for Trade & Industry 1989‑1990; PC 1983 Peerage extinct on his death	17 Feb 1929	4 Mar 1993	64
RIPON
13 Apr 1833	E	1	Frederick John Robinson Created Viscount Goderich 28 Apr 1827 and Earl of Ripon 13 Apr 1833 MP for Carlow 1806‑1807 and Ripon 1807‑1827; Vice President of the Board of Trade 1812‑1818; President of the Board of Trade 1818‑1823 and 1841‑1843; Chancellor of the Exchequer 1823‑1827; Secretary of State for Colonies 1827 and 1830‑1833; Prime Minister 1827‑1828; Lord Privy Seal 1833‑1834; President of the Board of Control for India 1843‑1846; PC 1812	30 Oct 1782	28 Jan 1859	76
28 Jan 1859	M	2 1	George Frederick Samuel Robinson Created Marquess of Ripon 23 Jun 1871 MP for Hull 1852‑1853, Huddersfield 1853‑1857 and West Riding Yorkshire 1857‑1859; Secretary for War 1863‑1866; Secretary of State for India 1866; Lord President of the Council 1868‑1873; Viceroy of India 1880‑1884; First Lord of the Admiralty 1886; Secretary of State for Colonies 1892‑1895; Lord Privy Seal 1905‑1908; Lord Lieutenant North Riding Yorkshire 1873‑1906; PC 1863; KG 1869	24 Oct 1827	9 Jul 1909	81
9 Jul 1909 to     22 Sep 1923		2	Frederick Oliver Robinson MP for Ripon 1874‑1880 Peerages extinct on his death	29 Jan 1852	22 Sep 1923	71
RIPPON
26 May 1708	B	1	James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry Created Baron of Rippon, Marquess of Beverley and Duke of Dover 26 May 1708 See "Dover"	18 Sep 1662	6 Jul 1711	48
RIPPON OF HEXHAM
5 Oct 1987 to     28 Jan 1997	B[L]		Aubrey Geoffrey Frederick Rippon Created Baron Rippon of Hexham for life 5 Oct 1987 MP for Norwich South 1955‑1964 and Hexham 1966‑1987; MEP 1977‑1979; Minister of Public Building & Works 1962‑1964; Minister of Technology 1970; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1970‑1972; Secretary of State for Environment 1972‑1974; PC 1962 Peerage extinct on his death	28 May 1924	28 Jan 1997	72
RISBY
24 Dec 2010	B[L]		Richard John Grenville Spring Created Baron Risby for life 24 Dec 2010 MP for Bury St. Edmunds 1992‑1997 and Suffolk West 1997‑2010	24 Sep 1946
RITCHIE OF BROMPTON
25 Jun 2010 to     24 Apr 2012	B[L]		Shireen Olive Ritchie Created Baroness Ritchie of Brompton for life 25 Jun 2010 Peerage extinct on her death	22 Jun 1945	24 Apr 2012	66
RITCHIE OF DOWNPATRICK
16 Oct 2019	B[L]		Margaret Mary Ritchie Created Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick for life 16 Oct 2019 MP for Down South 2010‑2017	25 Mar 1958
RITCHIE OF DUNDEE
22 Dec 1905	B	1	Charles Thomson Ritchie Created Baron Ritchie of Dundee 22 Dec 1905 MP for Tower Hamlets 1874‑1885, St. Georges 1885‑1892 and Croydon 1895‑1905; President of the Local Government Board 1886‑1892; President of the Board of Trade 1895‑1900; Home Secretary 1900‑1902; Chancellor of the Exchequer 1902‑1903; PC 1886	19 Nov 1838	9 Jan 1906	67
9 Jan 1906		2	Charles Ritchie	18 Nov 1866	19 Jul 1948	81
19 Jul 1948		3	John Kenneth Ritchie PC 1965	22 Sep 1902	20 Oct 1975	73
20 Oct 1975		4	Colin Neville Ower Ritchie	9 Jul 1908	16 Nov 1978	70
16 Nov 1978		5	Harold Malcolm Ritchie	29 Aug 1919	11 Jan 2008	88
11 Jan 2008		6	Charles Rupert Rendall Ritchie	15 Mar 1958
RITCHIE-CALDER
5 Jul 1966 to     31 Jan 1982	B[L]		Peter Ritchie Calder Created Baron Ritchie-Calder for life 5 Jul 1966 Peerage extinct on his death	1 Jul 1906	31 Jan 1982	75
RITHRE
29 Dec 1299 to     c 1309	B	1	William de Rithre Summoned to Parliament as Lord Rithre 29 Dec 1299 Peerage extinct on his death		c 1309
RIVERDALE
27 Jun 1935	B	1	Sir Arthur Balfour, 1st baronet Created Baron Riverdale 27 Jun 1935	9 Jan 1873	7 Jul 1957	84
7 Jul 1957		2	Robert Arthur Balfour	1 Sep 1901	26 Jun 1998	96
26 Jun 1998		3	Anthony Robert Balfour	23 Feb 1960
RIVERS
6 Feb 1299	B	1	John Rivers Summoned to Parliament as Lord Rivers 6 Feb 1299		c 1311
c 1311 to     after 1339		2	John Rivers Peerage extinct on his death		after 1339
9 May 1448 24 May 1466	B E	1 1	Richard Wydville Created Baron Rivers 9 May 1448 and Earl Rivers 24 May 1466 Lord High Constable 1467‑1469; KG 1450		12 Aug 1469
12 Aug 1469		2	Anthony Wydville KG 1466	1442	25 Jun 1483	40
25 Jun 1483 to     5 Mar 1491		3	Richard Wydville Peerage extinct on his death	c 1449	5 Mar 1491
21 Apr 1641 to     9 Mar 1651	E[L]		Elizabeth Savage Created Countess Rivers for life 21 Apr 1641 Peerage extinct on her death	1581	9 Mar 1651	69
4 Nov 1626	E	1	Thomas Darcy, 3rd Baron Darcy of Chiche Created Viscount Colchester 5 Jul 1621 and Earl Rivers 4 Nov 1626	c 1565	21 Feb 1640
21 Feb 1640		2	John Savage, 2nd Viscount Savage	c 1603	10 Oct 1654
10 Oct 1654		3	Thomas Savage	c 1628	14 Sep 1694
14 Sep 1694		4	Richard Savage MP for Wigan 1681 and Liverpool 1689‑1694; Lord Lieutenant Cheshire 1695‑1703, Lancashire Jan‑Jun 1702 and Essex 1705‑1712; PC 1708	c 1654	18 Aug 1712
18 Aug 1712 to     1735		5	John Savage Peerage extinct on his death	29 Apr 1665	1735	70
20 May 1776 1 Apr 1802	B B	1 1	George Pitt Created Baron Rivers 20 May 1776 and 1 Apr 1802 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of the Barony of 1802, see the note at the foot of this page MP for Shaftesbury 1742‑1747 and Dorset 1747‑1774; Lord Lieutenant Hampshire 1780‑1782 and Dorset 1793‑1803	1 May 1721	7 May 1803	82
7 May 1803 to     20 Jul 1828		2	George Pitt MP for Dorset 1774‑1790 On his death the Barony of 1776 became extinct whilst the Barony of 1802 passed to -	19 Sep 1751	20 Jul 1828	76
20 Jul 1828		3	William Horace Pitt‑Rivers For further information on the death of this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	2 Dec 1777	23 Jan 1831	53
23 Jan 1831		4	George Pitt-Rivers	16 Jul 1810	28 Apr 1866	55
28 Apr 1866		5	Henry Peter Pitt‑Rivers	7 Apr 1849	27 Mar 1867	17
27 Mar 1867 to     31 Mar 1880		6	Horace Pitt-Rivers Peerage extinct on his death For further information on this peer and his first wife, see the note at the foot of this page	12 Apr 1814	31 Mar 1880	65
RIVERSDALE
13 Oct 1783	B[I]	1	William Tonson Created Baron Riversdale 13 Oct 1783 MP [I] for Tuam 1768‑1776 and Rathcormack 1776‑1783	3 May 1724	4 Dec 1787	63
4 Dec 1787		2	William Tonson	8 Dec 1775	3 Apr 1848	72
3 Apr 1848 to     12 Dec 1861		3	Ludlow Tonson Peerage extinct on his death	6 Mar 1784	12 Dec 1861	77
RIX
27 Jan 1992 to     20 Aug 2016	B[L]		Sir Brian Norman Roger Rix Created Baron Rix for life 27 Jan 1992 Peerage extinct on his death	27 Jan 1924	20 Aug 2016	92
ROBARTES
26 Jan 1625	B	1	Sir Richard Robartes, 1st baronet Created Baron Robartes 26 Jan 1625		19 Apr 1634
19 Apr 1634		2	John Robartes He was created Earl of Radnor in 1679 with which title this peerage then merged	1606	17 Jul 1685	79
13 Dec 1869	B	1	Thomas James Agar‑Robartes Created Baron Robartes 13 Dec 1869 MP for Cornwall East 1847‑1868	18 Mar 1808	9 Mar 1882	73
9 Mar 1882		2	Thomas Charles Agar‑Robartes He succeeded to the Viscountcy of Clifden in 1899 with which title this peerage then merged until its extinction in 1974	1 Jan 1844	19 Jul 1930	86
ROBATHAN
13 Oct 2015	B[L]		Andrew Robert George Robathan Created Baron Robathan for life 13 Oct 2015 MP for Blaby 1992‑2010 and Leicestershire South 2010‑2015; PC 2010	17 Jul 1951
ROBBINS
16 Jun 1959 to     15 May 1984	B[L]		Lionel Charles Robbins Created Baron Robbins for life 16 Jun 1959 CH 1968 Peerage extinct on his death	22 Nov 1898	15 May 1984	85
ROBENS OF WOLDINGHAM
28 Jun 1961 to     27 Jun 1999	B[L]		Alfred Robens Created Baron Robens of Woldingham for life 28 Jun 1961 MP for Wansbeck 1945‑1950 and Blyth 1950‑1960; Minister of Labour & National Service 1951; PC 1951 Peerage extinct on his death	18 Dec 1910	27 Jun 1999	88
ROBERTHALL
28 Oct 1969 to     17 Sep 1988	B[L]		Sir Robert Lowe Hall Created Baron Roberthall 28 Oct 1969 Peerage extinct on his death	6 Mar 1901	17 Sep 1988	87
ROBERTS
20 Feb 1892 to     14 Nov 1914 11 Feb 1901	B     E	1     1	Sir Frederick Sleigh Roberts VC, 1st baronet Created Baron Roberts 20 Feb 1892, and Viscount St. Pierre and Earl Roberts 11 Feb 1901 For details of the special remainders included in the creations of the Viscountcy and Earldom of 1901, see the note at the foot of this page Field Marshal 1895; KP 1897; KG 1901; OM 1902; PC [I] 1895; PC 1901 For further information on this peer and VC winner, see the note at the foot of this page On his death in 1914 the Barony became extinct, while the Viscountcy and Earldom passed to -	30 Sep 1832	14 Nov 1914	82
14 Nov 1914		2	Aileen Mary Roberts	20 Sep 1870	9 Oct 1944	74
9 Oct 1944 to     21 Feb 1955		3	Ada Edwina Stewart Lewin Peerages extinct on her death	28 Mar 1875	21 Feb 1955	79
ROBERTS OF BELGRAVIA
1 Nov 2022	B[L]		Andrew Roberts Created Baron Roberts of Belgravia for life 1 Nov 2022	13 Jan 1963
ROBERTS OF CONWY
1 Oct 1997 to     13 Dec 2013	B[L]		Sir (Ieuan) Wyn Pritchard Roberts Created Baron Roberts of Conwy for life 1 Oct 1997 MP for Conway 1970‑1983 and Conwy 1983‑1997; Minister of State, Wales 1987‑1994; PC 1991 Peerage extinct on his death	10 Jul 1930	13 Dec 2013	83
ROBERTS OF LLANDUDNO
15 Jun 2004	B[L]		John Roger Roberts Created Baron Roberts of Llandudno for life 15 Jun 2004	23 Oct 1935
ROBERTSON OF FORTEVIOT
14 Nov 1899 to     2 Feb 1909	B[L]		James Patrick Bannerman Robertson Created Baron Robertson of Forteviot for life 14 Nov 1899 MP for Buteshire 1885‑1891; Solicitor General [S] 1885‑1886 and 1886‑1889; Lord Advocate 1889‑1891; Lord President of the Court of Session 1891‑1899; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1899‑1909; PC 1888 Peerage extinct on his death	10 Aug 1845	2 Feb 1909	63
ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE
29 Jun 1961	B	1	Sir Brian Hubert Robertson, 2nd baronet Created Baron Robertson of Oakridge 29 Jun 1961	22 Jul 1896	29 Apr 1974	77
29 Apr 1974		2	William Ronald Robertson	8 Dec 1930	18 Jan 2009	78
18 Jan 2009		3	William Brian Elworthy Robertson	15 Nov 1975
ROBERTSON OF PORT ELLEN
24 Aug 1999	B[L]		George Islay McNeill Robertson Created Baron Robertson of Port Ellen for life 24 Aug 1999 MP for Hamilton 1978‑1997 and Hamilton South 1997‑1999; Secretary of State for Defence 1997‑1999; PC 1997; KT 2004	12 Apr 1946
ROBINS
10 Jul 1958 to     21 Jul 1962	B	1	Sir Thomas Ellis Robins Created Baron Robins 10 Jul 1958 Peerage extinct on his death	31 Oct 1884	21 Jul 1962	77
ROBINSON
15 Jul 1947 to     5 Sep 1952	B	1	Sir Roy Lister Robinson Created Baron Robinson 15 Jul 1947 Peerage extinct on his death	8 Mar 1883	5 Sep 1952	69
ROBOROUGH
24 Jan 1938	B	1	Sir Henry Yarde Buller Lopes, 4th baronet Created Baron Roborough 24 Jan 1938 MP for Grantham 1892‑1900	24 Mar 1859	14 Apr 1938	79
14 Apr 1938		2	Massey Henry Edgcumbe Lopes Lord Lieutenant Devonshire 1958‑1978	4 Oct 1903	30 Jun 1992	88
30 Jun 1992		3	Henry Massey Lopes	2 Feb 1940	8 Feb 2015	75
8 Feb 2015		4	Massey John Henry Lopes	22 Dec 1969
ROBSON
7 Oct 1910 to     11 Sep 1918	B[L]		William Snowdon Robson Created Baron Robson for life 7 Oct 1910 MP for Bow & Bromley 1885-1886 and South Shields 1895‑1910; Solicitor General 1905‑1908; Attorney General 1908‑1910; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1910‑1912; PC 1910 Peerage extinct on his death	10 Sep 1852	11 Sep 1918	66
ROBSON OF KIDDINGTON
14 May 1974 to     9 Feb 1999	B[L]		Inga-Stina Robson Created Baroness Robson of Kiddington for life 14 May 1974 Peerage extinct on her death	20 Aug 1919	9 Feb 1999	79

	The Great Thellusson Will Case
	In 1796 Peter Thellusson, father of the future 1st Baron Rendlesham, signed a will that directed that the income from his property, amounting to about £5,000 per annum, together with his personal estate, amounting to over £600,000, be accumulated during the lives of his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who were living at the time of his death. His family, who viewed this will as being absurd, tried to have it set aside in 1798, but the will was held to be valid. In 1800, future wills of this nature were prevented by the passing of the Accumulation Act [often referred to as the Thellusson Act], which limited the length of time during which an estate could accumulate.
	In 1856, following the death of the last surviving grandson, the courts were called upon to decide who was entitled to divide the accumulated estate. The following report on the case appeared in the Leeds Mercury on 11 June 1859:-
	On Thursday morning the House of Lords sat for the first time this session to hear appeals, and deliver judgment in the important case of Thomas Robarts Thellusson, appellant, v. Abraham Wildey Robarts, Edward James Dawkins, Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson, the Right Hon. Baron Rendlesham, and Arthur Thellusson, respondents.
	The question in this case arose on the well-known will of Peter Thellusson … which has acquired so great a notoriety. The case has been before the House in its present form both in the session of 1858, and in February of the present year. It will only be necessary to state that the testator, Peter Thellusson, by his will dated 2nd April, 1796, directed that the rents and profits of all his large landed property, and any that might be purchased after his death by his trustees, and all the residue of his personal property, with the profits derived therefrom, should accumulate during the lives of his three sons and of his grandsons living at or born in due time after his death; and after the death of the survivor of such sons and grandsons, that an equal partition should be made of the accumulated property into three lots, one of which should be conveyed to the "eldest male lineal descendant" of his eldest son, with remainder to the second and other sons successively of his eldest son, with remainder to the eldest male lineal descendant or descendants of his two other sons; that another of the lots should be given to the eldest male lineal descendant of his second son, with like remainders over; and the third and remaining lot to be given to the eldest male lineal descendant of his third son.
	At the testator's death he left his three sons surviving him, Peter Isaac (afterwards created Baron Rendlesham), George Woodford and Charles, and several grandsons. The last surviving grandson who was living at the death of the testator, and the last of the persons indicated in the will at whose death the accumulated property was to become divisible, died in February, 1856, and the period for the partition of the property having thus arrived, a question arose as to who were entitled, as "eldest male lineal descendants". The "male lineal descendants" of George Woodford, the testator's second son, having become extinct, the property became divisible in two portions, one of which was to go to the eldest male lineal descendant of the testator's eldest son, Peter Isaac, and the other to the like descendant of the testator's third son, Charles.
	The present appellant is the second sole surviving son of the testator's son Charles Thellusson, and was born in the year 1801, and claimed as the eldest lineal descendant "in point of age", one of the portions of the property, as against the respondent, Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson, who is the grandson of Charles, the testator's son, who was born in the year 1822, and who claims as the eldest male lineal descendant in point of line.
	In short, the whole question involved is whether male lineal descendants eldest in point of age, or male lineal descendants eldest in the legal and technical sense as being eldest in line, are the persons designated by the testator to inherit the property. Suits were brought to decide this question, and the Master of the Rolls [Lord Romilly] decided that Lord Rendlesham is the person who answers the description in the will of eldest male lineal descendant of the testator's eldest son, Peter Isaac, and is entitled to one of the lots into which the property was divided; and that Charles Sabine Augustus Thellusson is the person who answers the description of oldest male lineal descendant of Charles Thellusson, his grandfather, and is entitled to the other lot; and that Thomas Robarts Thellusson, the appellant, his uncle, although a son of Charles Thellusson (but not his eldest), who was the father of Charles Sabine Augustus, although he is now the eldest male lineal descendant of the said Charles in point of years, is not entitled. The present appeal was then brought and argued before their Lordships, with the assistance of the Common Law Judges, a majority of whom gave their opinion in favour of the decision of the Court below, and against the appellant as eldest male lineal descendant in point of years.
	Lords Cranworth, St. Leonards, Wensleydale and Brougham now delivered their opinions at length, and were unanimously of opinion - 1st, That the eldest male lineal descendant of the late Peter Isaac Thellusson was the eldest male heir according to the line of primogeniture, and not the eldest of age or blood, 2nd, That the person appointed to nominate by the will was the eldest male heir in primogeniture at the time the succession opened, and not the eldest of age or blood, 3rd, That the will was not void from uncertainty, and that the next of kin were excluded.
	Their Lordships unanimously affirmed the decision of the Master of the Rolls, and dismissed the appeals with costs. The Lord Chancellor [Lord Chelmsford] declined to deliver any formal opinion, having previously been counsel in the case, until he heard the unanimous opinion of their Lordships. He then said that in that opinion he entirely concurred.
	Unfortunately for the two final beneficiaries of Peter Thellusson's will, the amount available for them to inherit had been dramatically reduced to little more than the original amount due to the legal fees associated with the case. It is often stated that the fictional case of Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Dickens' Bleak House is based upon the Thellusson Will Case.
	Sir Robert Burnham Renwick, 2nd baronet and later [1964] 1st Baron Renwick
	Amidst all the notes in these pages which contain details of scandals, crooks and eccentrics, it is a pleasure to be able to include notes reflecting the better side of human nature. One such "good guy" was Robert Burnham Renwick, as demonstrated by this extract from the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 16 April 1929, reprinted from The Daily Chronicle:-
	For gallantry in saving three dogs from drowning in the Avon when in flood, Mr. Robert B. Renwick, son of Sir Harry Renwick, Bart., was presented at Kingston-on-Thames with the R.S.P.C.A. silver medal for animal life-saving. The official statement says that on December 2, 1928, Mr. Renwick jumped into the Avon, between Stratford and Alveston, Warwickshire to rescue a Scotch terrier. As the river was flowing fast the dog was being carried away, and would have died but for Mr. Renwick. Two bigger dogs becoming excited at seeing "their little pal in danger", jumped into the river, and could not get out again because of the swollen stream and steep banks. Mr. Renwick, after rescuing the first dog, went after the other two, which also were being carried away, and brought them to safety.
	Interviewed, Mr. Renwick said:- "There was no bravery about it. I could not see the little terrier drowned. The worst of it was the other two dogs in their excitement scamper in on top of me, but I managed to get the terrier away to the banks and pitched him safely on top before going after the other dogs, which had got into the same difficulty."
	The special remainder to the Viscountcy of Rhondda created in 1918
	From the London Gazette of 25 June 1918 (issue 30764, page 7484):-
	The King has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to confer the dignity of a Viscount of the said United Kingdom upon the Right Honourable David Alfred, Baron Rhondda, by the name, style and title of Viscount Rhondda of Llanwern, in the County of Monmouth, to hold to him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten; with remainder in default of such issue to his only daughter Margaret Haig, wife of Sir Humphrey Mackworth, Baronet, by the name, style and title of Viscountess Rhondda of Llanwern aforesaid, and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten or to be begotten.
	Margaret Haig Thomas, Viscountess Rhondda in her own right (2nd in line)
	When the 1st Baron Rhondda was raised to a viscountcy in 1918, the letters patent of that creation contained a special remainder in favour of his daughter, Margaret. See the immediately preceding note for further details. Following her father's death, and the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act in 1919, she petitioned the House of Lords for a writ of summons in 1922. Her petition was initially successful, but was later overturned by a decision which, to my mind, appears to lack any common sense.
	The Viscountess Rhondda was the wife of Sir Humphrey Mackworth, 7th baronet, until they divorced in 1923, after which she resumed her maiden surname of Thomas. In 1915, she and her father were among the survivors of the sinking by the Germans of the Lusitania.
	Female life peers were first allowed to sit in the House of Lords following the Life Peerage Act of 1958. Somewhat ironically, the announcement of the first batch of life peers, which included Baroness Wootton of Abinger, Baroness Swanborough, Baroness Elliot of Harwood and Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston occurred only four days after the death of Viscountess Rhondda. Peeresses in their own right were permitted to take their seats in the House of Lords following the passing of the Peerage Act 1963 [although one of their number, Baroness Ravensdale, was already a member of the Lords by virtue of her life peerage as Baroness Ravensdale of Kedleston].
	The initial (edited) hearing of Viscountess Rhondda's petition was reported in The Times on 3 March 1922:-
	House of Lords Committee for Privileges (Before Lord Donoughmore (Chairman), Lord Haldane, Lord Desart, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Wrenbury, Lord Phillimore, and Lord Askwith.)
	By letters patent, dated June 19, 1918, the petitioner's father was created Viscount Rhondda of Llanwern, to hold the said dignity unto himself and the heirs male of his body with special remainder in default of such issue to the petitioner and the heirs male of her body. On the death of Lord Rhondda without male issue the petitioner succeeded to the title, and she now sought to establish her claim to receive a writ of summons to Parliament in right of her said dignity. Her claim was based upon Section 1 of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, whereby it was provided that a person should not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function or from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial office or post [my emphasis].
	Mr. G[eorge] J[ohn] Talbot [1861‑1938], K.C., on behalf of the petitioner, said that the intention of the Legislature by the Act of 1919 was to obliterate all distinctions between a man and a woman as regards the exercise of public functions. Those words were as wide as possible, and included the right to sit in either House of Parliament. The terms of the section showed no exception. The rule of construction applicable to general words occurring in a statute was well settled, and it was that the Court was not entitled to read into those words any exception or to construe them otherwise than in their plain and ordinary meaning, unless there was something in the Act itself which afforded a ground for limiting their meaning. [Talbot then goes on to discuss a number of historical legal cases which support this rule, in particular Chorlton v Lings (1868)], during which Mr. Justice Willes, in explaining why a peeress in her own right who had most of the privileges of her peerage, could not sit or vote in the House of Lords, attributed the absence of such right to the respect in which women were held in this country and to a sense of decorum, but any such argument as that had been blown to the winds, and it was not now thought that a seat in either House of Parliament detracted in any way from the respect due to women.
	It was true that in the patent granted to Lord Rhondda, so far as the peerage was limited to heirs male, the right to sit and vote was expressly granted, but that was no doubt by reason of the common law disability preventing women from sitting in Parliament; and the words were mere surplusage. Those words sometimes occurred in early grants and were sometimes absent, but it was always regarded as immaterial whether the words were there or not, for the right to receive a writ was annexed to the grant of the peerage ex debito justitiae [as a matter of right] in the absence of any disability. Here was a person who if not a woman would be entitled to sit in the House of Lords. Then came an Act of Parliament allowing women to take part in the public affairs of the country without any exception. The common law barrier of sex having been swept away, there was no further obstacle to her right to sit.
	The Attorney-General [Sir Gordon Hewart, later Viscount Hewart], on behalf of the Crown, said that he so entirely agreed with the arguments advanced in support of the claim that there was very little left for him to say. When once it was established that the words "public functions" included sitting in Parliament, the conclusion in favour of Lady Rhondda's claim was irresistible.
	Lord Donoughmore said that the Committee would report in favour of the petition.
	Notwithstanding the decision reached by the Privileges Committee, the House of Lords was not happy with the result, and decided to undertake a further investigation into the matter, as reported in The Manchester Guardian on 31 March 1922:-
	By their unanimous agreement to-night to send back to the Committee of Privileges for re-consideration the Committee's report on Viscountess Rhondda's petition for a writ of summons to Parliament, the Lords virtually decided that the whole matter should be entirely reopened and gone into afresh, and not only so, but that it should be thrashed out by a specially constituted tribunal at least quasi-judicial in character.
	All the peers who took part in the discussion refrained, or at any rate endeavoured to refrain, from committing themselves one way or the other on the merits of the petition, the Lord Chancellor setting an example in this sense by scrupulously treating the main issue as sub judice. Nevertheless Lord Birkenhead spared no effort to persuade his fellow peers that the Committee's report had been framed on imperfect knowledge and on the basis of a one-sided legal argument. In other words the sub judice principle must be applied all round, and in the meanwhile nothing must be taken for granted.
	Such was the net effect of the plea for reconsideration, so vigorously enforced by illustrations and instances of the incompleteness of the Committee's work, that it became a little difficult to accept in the proper spirit the Lord Chancellor's reiterated assurance that no reflection was implied on that body, and, as Lord Donoughmore complained, yet more difficult to understand how the considerations now so powerfully outlined had not been brought to the Committee's notice at the appropriate time.
	Another impression derived from the course of the debate was that in this matter the Lords were luckier than most subjects of their - and the Commons - legislation are apt to be in finding themselves in a position to construe a statutory enactment in the light of the intention with which it was originally passed. Not that the Lord Chancellor or any other peer specifically insisted on any such privilege - so far, that is to say, as an authoritative judicial ruling might be concerned. Here, however, the contention was that the Committee of Privileges stood in a different position from a court of law, and that it remained an open question how far its interpretations could be held to be binding on the House as a whole.
	Starting from this vital point the Lord Chancellor proceeded to give his reasons for reopening the controversy, beginning with the apparently undisputed thesis that, though there was a most formidable case to be argued against Lady Rhondda's claim, that argument had never been stated. "Yet this is a decision," he observed, "which reverses not merely the practice of centuries but a conception of the law which has been held by some of the highest legal authorities in the land, even indeed by some of those who sat on this Committee and concurred in its findings".
	How had so remarkable a decision been reached? By a construction of the Sex Disqualifications (Removal) Act, asserted Lord Birkenhead, answering his own question, which, according to the available evidence, had never occurred to anybody in either House as even a remote possibility. Thus amendments were shown to have been moved and carried in the Commons with the object of securing precisely such a result as the Committee of Privileges had since discovered to be inherent in the Act without amendments. The amendments themselves, having been rejected by the Lords in order to avert that result, were reinserted by the Commons to make sure of achieving it, and again rejected by the Lords, and finally abandoned in despair by the Commons. Consequently, as passed in the end, the bill, so the Lord Chancellor held, embodied an obvious intention acquiesced in by both Houses to exclude peeresses, and in particular peeresses under patents already issued.
	No resistance was offered to the motion for the reconsideration of the Committee's report, though, as has been indicated, the chairman (Lord Donoughmore) gave somewhat reproachful expression to his surprise at the belated energy of the Government in the production of the other side of the case.
	The final outcome of the petition was described in The Manchester Guardian on 20 May 1922:-
	By twenty votes to four the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords yesterday decided that the claim and petition of Viscountess Rhondda for a writ of summons to Parliament had not been made out.
	The Committee reported in favour of Lady Rhondda in March last, but on the motion of the Lord Chancellor the report was referred back for reconsideration, the membership of the ommittee being increased, notably by a number of Law Lords, of whom twelve are taking part.
	The Attorney-General (Sir E. Pollock, K.C. [later Viscount Hanworth]), continuing his speech on behalf of the Crown, pointed out that, by the Representation of the People Act in 1918, a Peeress in her own right was given the privilege of voting for a member of the House of Commons so as to secure that, even if indirectly, she should be represented in Parliament. It was now suggested that by one ambiguous phrase, "any public function", in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, a Peeress was to have the option of saying whether she would sit in the House of Lords or vote for and sit as a member of the House of Commons.
	He submitted that though a Statute was expressed in wide terms, the Courts in the interpretation of that Statute would have regard to the state of the law when the Statute was passed, and would find out whether it was intended to make so wide an alteration to the law by merely general words. The words in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act were general words, and he invited their lordships to say that these general words were not intended to make so sweeping an alteration as was contended for, and that these ambiguous words, "any public function", were not intended and, indeed, were not apt to make the alteration.
	He submitted that a peerage was not a public function. The summons was personal and not general. It was a right which belonged to a particular holder. It was almost confusion of thought, if not confusion of language, to say that the holder of that dignity was exercising a public function. The true measure of what his rights were was that he had a personal right to receive a summons, and not a general right. It was one thing to be a Lord of Parliament and another to hold a barony.
	Aliens and minors could hold a dignity, but could not be Lords of Parliament, and he suggested that when they found that the phrase "place, seat and voice" was absent from a patent it was because the patent gave close attention to the law as it stood, and as it had stood. The absence of the words "place, seat and voice" was not to be interpreted as of no importance. They were for the purpose of carrying out the law as it was known right away back in the middle ages and the time when barons were first summoned to Parliament. A Peeress had never been recognised as capable of holding a barony, barony being one which involved a duty which was a matter of tenure.
	The position of all peers had come up markedly under consideration in the Act of Union (Scotland) in 1707 and in the Act of Union (Ireland) in 1800. Their lordships would find definite, clear, and special sections introduced on each of these occasions to deal with the future position and existing position of the peerage. Perhaps he might finally say that when one turned back to the Statutes, their lordships were invited by a doubtful interpretation of ambiguous words to declare that a vital, wide, far-reaching, and important alteration had been made in the the position of their lordships' House.
	When the question had had to be considered at the time of the Unions of Scotland and Ireland it was not in general words, but in a very special and exact section that the alteration was made. It was now suggested that by this ambiguous phrase their lordships should allow this alteration to be made and the right given to all persons who undoubtedly held a dignity to become - he used the phrase in a loose sense - Lords of Parliament. The position was embedded in the long past, and there was an abundance of law and learning as to the origin of baronies, and that law was a part of jurisprudence to-day.
	Mr. Talbot, K.C., in replying, dealt with the authorities quoted by the Attorney General in support of his argument. Could anyone say, he asked, that to abolish the only remaining disqualification which, as far as he knew, would give effect to the undoubted enactment of this Statute that the present case was not general to the scope of the Statute or that it was legitimate to disregard what he submitted was the plain language and true construction of the words in order to get rid of it? He could not understand how all the authorities quoted could have any reference to the Statute, which, on the face of it, carried its intention as plainly as it could.
	There was no trace in the Act of any exception whatever in the abolition by law of all distinctions between men and women in regard to the public affairs of this country. He did not think it could be seriously suggested that taking part in the House of Lords Assembly was comparable in importance to the revolutionary claim of admitting women to every judicial office in the country.
	The Bar was then cleared, and after a short interval the Chairman announced the decision of the Committee.
	Frances Teresa Stuart, wife of Charles Stuart, 3rd Duke of Richmond (creation of 1641) (8 Jul 1647‑15 October 1702)
	Between 1672 and 1971, English coinage depicted an image of Britannia. This image was based upon Frances Stuart, Duchess of Richmond, whose biography appeared in the October 1955 issue of the Australian monthly magazine Parade:-
	"That innocent raw girl," Samuel Pepys, the diarist, called her; "that inanimate idiot" was the Comte de Grammont's ungentlemanly opinion, after inspecting the surpassing loveliness of Miss Frances Stuart and concluding that it "was hardly possible for a woman to have less wit and more beauty". True, Miss Stuart seemed to have little talent for anything except, perhaps, for building houses with cards and playing blind man's buff. Still she must have had something; for King Charles II laid his heart and his coffers at her feet, and when she spurned both, did her the signal honour of having her likeness engraved on his pennies and ha'pennies in the image of an inviolate Britannia armed with trident and palm, to watch over his coinage, with the same care, as Charles regretted, she guarded her virtue.
	The luminous orbs of "La Belle Stuart" still gaze innocently (or idiotically) forth from the coinage of Britain to this day. She had no money at all of her own. Her father, the Hon. Walter Stuart, third son of Lord Blantyre, lost everything fighting for King Charles I in the war. Francis was born in England in 1647 or 1648 [8 July 1647], shortly before the King's execution, and was taken into exile in France the following year by her father, who filled the somewhat surprising post - perhaps titular only - of physician to Queen Henrietta Maria, Charles I's widow and the the mother of Charles II.
	Frances grew up in Henrietta Maria's entourage at the French court, but in 1662, two years after the Restoration she came to England. Henrietta Stuart (Charles II's adored and adoring little sister, Minette), wrote Charles that she was sending him a little protégé, Francis Stuart, "the prettiest girl in the world, who knows how to wear her clothes better than anyone". Frances came over in the train of Henrietta Maria to become maid-of-honour to Charles's bride, Princess Catherine of Braganza, and landed in the midst of what, in any family circle, would be called a domestic crisis.
	Princess Catherine, as was rare for a 17th century princess, fell in love with her husband. Charles, however, was somewhat offhand in his marital attentions, for his shrewish mistress, Lady Castlemaine (formerly Mrs. Palmer, nee Barbara Villiers) had just borne him her first son, and he had no eyes, temporarily, for his new wife. During the year that battle raged between hurt wife and hurtful mistress, little Frances Stuart began to blossom.
	By the summer of 1663, when the King staggered the fashionable world by riding hand-in-hand with his wife, the Queen, in Hyde Park, and ignoring his mistress, Lady Castlemaine, who looked "mighty out of humour", little Frances's beauty was beginning to make eyes pop. Pepys, never far away from a gathering of pretty women, recorded his pleasure: "Mistress Stuart in this dress, with her hat cocked and a red plume, with her sweet eyes, little Roman nose, and excellent figure, is now the greatest beauty I ever saw, I think, in all my life …"
	It was only a matter of time before the King's roving eye was similarly impressed. At Bath, whither their majesties repaired later in the year, Frances was singled out not only by the King but by half his gentlemen. Instead of being alarmed by the impression the new beauty had made on the King, Lady Castlemaine, as soon as the court returned to London, took her under her wing. She invited Frances to all the amusements and when they lasted late often put her up for the night. It was rare indiscretion for the cunning Castlemaine, particularly as her shrewish temper was beginning to make her royal lover tire of her. Charles, patient, easy-going reprobate that he was, still visited her before she rose most mornings, but it was not conducive to keeping his cooling ardour warm that he frequently found her in bed with a much prettier woman - the prettiest woman in all his kingdom, in fact, "La Belle Stuart".
	It was not surprising that the situation created gossip and allegations that My Lady Castlemaine, feeling that she was losing her hold on the King and determined that the Queen would not supplant her, deliberately conspired to hand her sceptre on to Frances. The gossips were wrong, but Charles was so deeply smitten with the fair Frances that when Castlemaine told him she had sent Frances packing he startled her by saying that unless Frances were at her house he would never visit her.
	The illness of the Queen just then called a temporary halt to Charles's pursuit of the new charmer, but having devotedly attended his wife back to health he returned once more to the chase after the elusive Frances. In a last bid to regain his affections the Lady Castlemaine turned Catholic, believing that Charles was himself secretly a Catholic, though by reasons of State he was compelled to uphold Protestantism. The result was nil except to arouse the alarm of her frightened relatives, who begged Charles to interfere and persuade her against it. That insouciant monarch merely replied that, as for the souls of the ladies, he never meddled there, and while he had the pen in his hand wrote a song to Frances.
	That lady, however, was proving difficult. She could never get enough admiration but she liked to give as little as possible in return. She allowed Charles to kiss her and caress her and pursue her along the galleries, but from more pressing advances she took refuge in flight. Charles, hoping to win her by the flattery, had his engravers stamp her as Britannia on his coinage. The result was that the engraver, a Dutchman named Rottier, whom Charles had picked up abroad, fell head over heels in love with her. Then the courtiers began to court her smiles as a means of gaining the King's favour. The Duke of Buckingham undertook to be her guide, philosopher, friend and court jester. "God knows what a governor he would have been and what a head he possessed to guide another," deplored de Grammont. "However, he was the most proper man in the world to insinuate himself with Miss Stuart. She was childish in her behaviour and laughed at everything." Buckingham spent his evenings building the elaborate card castles Frances admired, singing to her and telling her stories. However, he made the mistake one evening of making love to her, and found himself back where he had started.
	In the summer of 1666 the Queen, still feeling poorly, adjourned to the waters of Tunbridge Wells. Charles and the court went with her. It was a carefree oasis in a troubled world. Frances, in the full tide of her beauty, eclipsed all the nymphs in this paradise. Charles was still madly infatuated with her, but amused himself with the actresses Moll Davies and Nell Gwyn, who had come to entertain the company. Frances apparently studied those coquettes, for, back in London, she behaved in true coquette fashion. She let His Distracted Majesty install her in luxurious lodgings, allowed him to visit her in her bedchamber, yet she kept intact what she chose to call her virtue.
	Charles became so morose that his doctors thought he had consumption. Dark hints spread around London that the teasing Miss Stuart was holding out for a wedding ring and that Charles was going to divorce Catherine to marry her. This was too much for My Lady Castlemaine. One night when Charles had seen Frances to her bed and been given his leave on the score of the lady's fatigue, Castlemaine waylaid him and taunted him that if he cared or dared to return unannounced he would find Frances with her real lover. Charles hesitated and returned. It was nearly midnight, and a chambermaid barred his way. Miss Stuart had been very ill since he had left, she said, but had now fallen into a sound sleep. "That I must see," said Charles, brushing the girl aside and striding into the room. He found Miss Stuart in bed, indeed, but far from being asleep. The Duke of Richmond was seated at her pillow, and in all probability was less inclined to sleep than she was.
	It was one of those rare occasions in his life when Charles lost his temper. "The King, who of all men was one of the most mild and gentle, testified his resentment to the Duke of Richmond in such terms as he had never before used." The Duke decided on the instant that discretion was the better part of valour. On a profound bow to his Sovereign he bolted out the window, leaving Frances to cope with the situation as best she could. She judged that the best defence was attack. Was she not allowed to receive in innocent audience whomsoever she wished, she demanded. Why could she not receive Richmond, "who came with honourable intentions?" She was a slave in a free country, she cried, and would be better off in a convent in France. She ended by asking him to leave.
	Charles left, his face dark with anger, thundering that he never wanted to see her again. The next day he forbade the Duke the court, but the Duke had flown to his country seat. Charles' anger was twofold. Not only had he lost his love to a rival, but Richmond was his pet aversion. Born Charles Stuart, kin to the Royal house, he was the third Duke of Richmond and sixth Duke of Lennox, and had been married twice before. But Charles came round to beg Frances to give up Richmond, and offered to make her a duchess and settle a large estate on her if she would. The triumphant beauty set her pretty lips and repeated stubbornly that she must either "marry him (Richmond) or suffer much in the opinion of the world".
	Richmond, meantime, had persuaded her to elope with him, and on a stormy night at the end of March 1667, they ran away to his country seat, Cobham Hall. Charles learned of the elopement when he visited her lodgings the next morning. He came out "in a rage that forgot all decency" and which lasted for days. The marriage was publicly announced in April, 1667, but the pair did not dare return to court. However, in the spring of 1668, when Frances was staying at Somerset House, London, she caught smallpox, and whom Charles described as "a little fantastical gentleman called Cupid" drew him back to visit her. "I must confess," he wrote to his sister Minette, "this last affliction made me pardon all that is past. I cannot hinder myself from wishing her very well. I hope she will not be much changed …" Frances' beauty was destroyed by that illness. One of her eyes was permanently injured, and she was left haggard and pock-marked.
	The Duke of Richmond died in 1672 at Elsinore while ambassador to Denmark, and Frances had a long widowhood. By strict economies she was able to save a fortune, with which she bought the estate of Lethington. On her death in 1702 she left it to her impoverished nephew, the Earl of Blantyre, with the single request, as romantic as it is puzzling, that it be called Lennoxlove.
	Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond (creation of 1675)
	The second Duke of Richmond is best remembered today as the greatest patron of cricket in its early days. He is also, however, a central character in one of the most romantic marriages of the 18th century.
	On 4 December 1719, at The Hague, in the Netherlands, Lennox married, at the age of 18, Lady Sarah Cadogan, daughter of the 1st Baron (and later 1st Earl) Cadogan. She was only 14 at the time of the marriage. At the time of this marriage, Lennox was known by the courtesy title of Earl of March.
	According to the story "the second Duke was carried off to church by his parents and married, much against his will, to Lady Sarah Cadogan, the eldest daughter of William, Earl Cadogan. Lady Sarah was taken out of the nursery to be married to a boy whom she hardly knew by sight, and when the ceremony was over they parted with mutual satisfaction at the church door, the bridegroom even bursting into bitter tears at being 'tied up for life to such a horrible fright'. Years flew by, most of which he passed upon the Continent in completing his education, and making what was then called 'the grand tour'. After an absence of seven or eight years, during which not a line had been exchanged between the young couple, the husband came back to England without his wife knowing anything about it. A night or two after his return he found his way to the opera to while away a dull evening, and on entering the house he found every eye fixed upon a sanguinary beautiful and elegant woman who was seated in a box immediately opposite him. Upon enquiring her name he received the answer, 'That is the lovely Countess of March, the greatest beauty in London, and the universal toast of the day'. The result will be easily foreseen. The fortunate owner of such a prize was not slow in making himself known to his wife, and they fell in love with each other at first sight."
	Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond (creation of 1675)
	Lennox was one of the few people who, when asked "Were you born in a barn?" could answer yes. Apparently, his mother, heavily pregnant during a fishing trip, did not have time to reach a more orthodox birthplace.
	He was one of the great benefactors of the game of cricket, being, together with the 9th Earl of Winchilsea, the guarantors of Thomas Lord's Cricket Ground when it opened in 1787 and thus providing the genesis of the world's best known cricket ground. According to the Cricinfo website, Lennox was an accomplished cricketer as a right-hand batsman and wicketkeeper.
	In 1787, Lennox was commissioned as a Captain in the 35th Regiment of Foot, later exchanging in 1789 to a captaincy in the Coldstream Guards. The commander of the Coldstream Guards at the time was the Duke of York, the second son of King George III. When the Duke expressed his dissatisfaction with Lennox's appointment and made disparaging remarks about the courage of the Lennox family (who were his political enemies), Lennox challenged the Duke to a duel, which took place on 26 May 1789. Lennox's shot grazed the Duke's head, whereupon the Duke fired into the air, declaring that he bore Lennox no animosity. Notwithstanding this outcome, Lennox shortly after transferred to another regiment.
	Lennox sat in the House of Commons for Sussex from 1790 until he succeeded as Duke of Richmond in 1806. He was then appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1807, a position he retained until 1813. In 1818, he was appointed Governor General of British North America, whence he proceeded.
	The main purpose of this note, however, is to describe the Duke's horrible death from rabies. The following article is taken from The Times of 30 October 1819, being a reprint of a private letter received by that paper from Quebec:-
	His Grace having left this place [Quebec] about June 24, on an extensive tour through the Canadas, after his arrival at William Henry, 135 miles up the river, whilst walking about the village with his little dog, Blucher, met a fox about the place, with which the dog appeared sociable, and they entered into play together. His Grace seemed much pleased, and expressed something like a wish that the fox should be purchased. Accordingly, the hint was attended to by a servant belonging to the suite, who purchased the fox the same night. Next morning Sir Charles Saxton, seeing the fox tied to a tent pitched for the accommodation of the servants, and apparently much irritated from his restrained situation under a scorching sun, desired that the animal might be removed somewhere into the shade. He was then fixed to a wicket-gate in front of the house. His Grace, on coming out in the morning, observing the fox, which he knew to be the same he had seen the day before, went up to him, saying - 'Is this you, my little fellow?' and on offering to put out his hand to caress the fox, Sir Charles Saxton touched the Duke on the shoulder to prevent it, apprising his Grace at the same time of the irritation of the fox, and that he might bite. 'No, no,' said his Grace, 'the little fellow will not bite me,' and putting out his hand, the fox snapped, and made three scratches on the back of his hand, which drew blood. His Grace, quickly drawing it back, said - 'Indeed, my friend, you bite very hard'. The next morning his Grace found an uneasy sensation in his shoulder; but nothing further occurred till near returning on his tour, when at the new back settlement of Perth, on the 22nd or 23rd of August, after having returned from walking, his Grace desired his servant to make two glasses of wine and water for himself and Major Bowles. As soon as the Duke took the wine and water, he observed to the Major, that he felt a strange sensation on drinking it. On the way from Perth towards the Ottawa River, some of his servants observed his irritability and extreme aversion to water on crossing the smallest streamlets in the woods, and they could scarcely get him along. On his approaching a small hut on the Ottawa River, rather than go into a house close to the river, he turned short, and ran into a barn; at another time he ran from them into the woods, as if to shun the sight of water. His disorder was now rapidly increasing, and on arriving within six miles on this side of the newly named place of Richmond, after suffering most excruciating torments, he died, at 8 o'clock on Saturday morning, the 28th of August.
	Lord FitzRoy George Charles Lennox (11 Jun 1820‑Mar 1841), 2nd son of the 5th Duke of Richmond (creation of 1675)
	Lord FitzRoy was a passenger on board the SS President, a British passenger liner that, at the time of its commissioning in 1840, was the largest ship in the world. Unfortunately, it was also the first steamship to be lost on the trans-Atlantic route, when, in March 1841, it disappeared with 136 passengers and crew on board.
	The following account of the loss of the ship appeared in the monthly Australian magazine Parade in its issue for March 1962. Based on the spelling of certain words such as 'harbor' and 'rumor' and the continued use of the term 'Lord Lennox' when it should be "Lord FitzRoy Lennox', I suspect that the story has been taken from an unknown American publication. Regrettably, the story also contains quite a number of factual errors which I have done my best to correct. Taking these errors into consideration together with the almost certain sensationalising of the following account detracts considerably from the level of credence which can be placed upon the article, but the story is still worth telling:-
	On the afternoon of March 11, 1841, 10,000 people stood on a New York pier waving farewell to the steamship President. Aboard the vessel were four  millionaires with their butlers and valets, the international playboy Lord FitzRoy Lennox, and Tyrone Power, forebear [great-grandfather] of the film star and the most celebrated Irish comedian of the day. On President's deck, distinguished little knots of passengers chatted excitedly and waved to the receding figures on the pier. Slowly she slid through the olive-green water towards the Atlantic Ocean.
	That was the last anyone saw of President, which was to vanish in one of the sea's most baffling mysteries. For weeks after she sailed into oblivion, a strange series of events led many to believe President was still afloat. Documents purporting to describe her sinking were published in the press; people swore they had seen the ship looming through fog with all her lights blazing. Some even claimed they had seen Tyrone Power walking in the streets of New York and London, while others said they had received letters from Power and Lord [FitzRoy] Lennox which had obviously been written after the ship's departure. Mystified by the affair, Queen Victoria herself instituted a special search for President. When it proved futile she went into mourning.
	Luxuriously appointed, the 4000-ton [actually about 2,350 tons] President was owned by the Royal Mail Packet Service [actually the British and American Steam Navigation Company] and was used mainly on the Atlantic run.
	When she left New York for Liverpool on March 11, 1841, she carried 121 passengers, including [Lord] FitzRoy Lennox, Power, and 25 wealthy American tourists. Power was fresh from a brilliant nationwide tour and at the peak of his career. Still in his early thirties [he was actually in his mid forties], he was feted wherever he went, and the Irish population of America had given him a superb farewell dinner. But the actor seemed to have a premonition of impending doom. The night before the ship sailed he told a friend: "I don't think I'll ever see dear old Ireland again. Every time I see a picture of the home country a terrible sadness overwhelms me." Then Power posted his wedding ring to his wife and sent her a letter asking her to pray for him.
	The sea was calm as President left the harbor and steamed slowly out of sight. Twenty days later she had not arrived at Liverpool. When several days went by without any news, the vessel's fate became world news. On April 7 The Times published a statement that the trader Orpheus which had left New York two days after President, had caught up with her and accompanied her for the rest of her voyage. [I can find no such report in that paper on that date. Instead, on 9th April, The Times denied that this story was correct.] Hundreds rushed to Liverpool docks when Orpheus arrived. The crowd swept up the gangway and besieged the captain in his quarters. Leading them was Lord [FitzRoy] Lennox's father, the Duke of Richmond, who shouted: "Where is my son, sir? Where is President?" The captain shrugged: "I haven't seen the ship, sir," he said, "Would to God I had, but neither smoke nor spar of her have I glimpsed in all the wild Atlantic waste." Richmond blanched and burst into tears. Then he pulled himself together and addressed the crowd: "Go home, we can only pray now; there is no news of her or of my handsome boy."
	Sensations followed as the long-delayed Britannia arrived at Southampton without news of President. Instead, she reported sighting "a strange, ghostly vessel that shone with weird effulgence" [St.Elmo's Fire?] in the mists off Iceland. Passengers said the mystery ship loomed off the starboard bow, its rigging steaming and its sails slack. No steam appeared to be coming from the single funnel and there was no sign of life aboard. Then the ship glided away and vanished into the darkness. Several of Britannia's crew swore the ship was President. Others declared equally firmly that it was not.
	Soon after, the frigate Lynx reported seeing her two miles north of the [Western?] isles. A government yacht was sent to the Western Isles, but reported on her return that no one there had seen President since 1839. [Hardly surprising, since her maiden voyage had not taken place until August 1840.] During the first days of April several vessels reported sighting President near the Shetlands.
	Deeply concerned, Queen Victoria arranged for a search around the Scottish coast, across the North Sea and into the North Atlantic. When nothing came of the search, the Duke of Richmond and Mrs. Tyrone Power jointly offered a huge reward for information leading to President's discovery.
	Then, on April 13 a special train arrived in Birmingham from Liverpool. Rumors spread that a Queen's Messenger on the train had information that President was moored off the Lancashire coast and all aboard were safe. The Times promptly sent a reported to Birmingham to interview the messenger. But there was no messenger, nor was it possible to find who had started the rumor.
	No sooner had the excitement simmered down than the wife of President's captain, Mrs. Anne Roberts, received a letter from her husband, postmarked Madeira. "Dearest," it read, "We have sustained damage to the rudder and engines and have put in at this lovely island for repairs. We will be all home safe and sound and everyone is in good health." A special Lloyd's of London messenger was sent to Mrs. Roberts' home. He found her sobbing as she sat with the letter crumpled in her hand. "I've shown the note to my husband's relatives," she said, "and I'm terribly afraid they're convinced it's a fraud. Now that I've looked at it again I'm sure they're right. It's the handwriting, so nearly his, but oh, not exactly." [A very similar report appeared in The Times on 14 April 1841.]
	Next day Mrs. Tyrone Power received a letter from her husband. It contained endearments which only the actor and his wife used for each other as well as references to happenings, which Tyrone "would have never revealed to another soul". Once again, the letter came from Madeira, and this time it had every appearance of being genuine. Mrs. Power took it to her husband's manager so that it could be compared with handwritten documents. A handwriting expert who was called in declared there were minute differences in the script which could have been the result of illness or a different pen. But he would not state that the letter was genuine, declaring only that if it was a forgery, it had been done by a master hand.
	Meanwhile, on April 15, came still another sensation. That morning, several Irish vessels docking in Cork reported sighting a large vessel of President's description standing off the coast. Because of the haze it was impossible to examine her markings, but the masts, funnel and hull design were unmistakable. Directly the information was received a special messenger was sent to Queen Victoria at Windsor Castle. Crowds flocked to Trafalgar Square and a special fireworks display was held to celebrate President's apparent return to safety. But it was just another anti-climax. The ship seen in the fog was never sighted again [nor, for that matter, could I find any report of the alleged fireworks display].
	By late April rumors were coming thick and fast. Captain Roberts' brother-in-law produced a letter with a Bristol postmark saying that a ship had put in at Waterford with the news that he had left Bermuda on April 8 and was on her way to Liverpool. The letter was published by The Times and people again celebrated - until the Waterford harbor authorities said no ship had recently arrived from the Bermudas.
	Early in May people who knew Tyrone Power, Lord [FitzRoy] Lennox and some of the wealthy Americans aboard declared they were certain they had seen them walking in the streets of London and New York. One of Power's fans actually pursued the actor round the block, then lost him in the crowd.
	In mid-May one of the most extraordinary events in the whole President affair occurred. Near Cork an aged man was walking along the beach with his granddaughter when the little girl spotted a champagne bottle lying in the sand. The bottle was corked and contained a message which was so smudged it was difficult to read. The old man took it to the Mayor of Cork, who sent it to the maritime authorities in Dublin. The letter was subjected to a special chemical treatment until most of it could be deciphered. It told a strange story. Apparently written by Tyrone Power - the signature was his, and the writing (though dismissed by some as a forgery) like his - the letter gave a vivid description of a huge sea monster which came out of the deep. Wrapping its long tentacles around the steamship, it proceeded to drag it down. "All is lost," the note ended. "God help us all, Tyrone Power."
	No mention of the letter appeared in the British press and no copy was sent to Mrs. Power for identification. Yet in Ireland, where Power's most ardent admirers waited desperately for news of their idol, the report caused national mourning.
	The fantastic [almost certainly the correct word] series of events ran on well into 1842. Documents were found which appeared to describe President's sinking. Ship after ship was said to have passed President in storms and fogs off the coast of America and the rocky shores of Scotland. In mid-1842 Mrs. Power reported that a mysterious thief had crept into her house one night and stolen all her husband's papers. She had the "queerest feeling," she told a friend, "that one night Tyrone came into my room and kissed me as I slept. He is still alive, I am sure, but where, oh where?"
	It was five years before The Royal Mail Line [sic], finally closing its books on the affair, issued a statement that President had been "lost at sea, probably by an act of God". [In reality, the owner, the British and American Steam Navigation Company, collapsed shortly after the President's disappearance.]
	The special remainder to the Barony of Rivers created in 1802
	From the London Gazette of 13 March 1802 (issue 15461, page 270):-
	The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Right Honorable George Lord Rivers, and to the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, by the Name, Style and Title of Baron Rivers, of Sudeley Castle, in the County of Gloucester, with Remainders to the Right Honorable Sir William Augustus Pitt, Knight of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, and General of His Majesty's Forces, (Brother of the said George Lord Rivers,) and to the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten; and to the issue Male successively of Peter Beckford, of Stapleton, in the County of Dorset, Esq; by Louisa Beckford, his late Wife, deceased, (Daughter of the said George Lord Rivers,) and to the Heirs Male of their respective Bodies lawfully begotten.
	William Horace Pitt-Rivers, 3rd Baron Rivers
	The following account of the inquest into the death of Lord Rivers appeared in The Observer of 31 January 1831:-
	On Sunday last his Lordship dined with his family, at his residence, No. 10, Grosvenor-place, and about nine o'clock in the evening walked out, as he was in the habit of doing after dinner, alone. His Lordship did not return home that night, and his family becoming greatly alarmed, caused a strict inquiry to be made after him. Not the slightest suspicion was entertained that he had committed suicide, or that he had met his death by accident; and it was therefore not deemed necessary to search the rivers and ponds of the Metropolis. That search, however, was made on Tuesday and Wednesday, and on the morning of the latter day his Lordship's body was found near the head of the Serpentine River, in Hyde Park. Although several accidents have happened at this place by persons falling off the bank into the water on a dark night, it has for many years past been suffered to remain unguarded, and without any fence or paling.
	His Lordship had his gold watch and money in his pocket when found, so that it is evident he had not been robbed and afterwards pushed in. There were no marks of violence on his body, nor did his clothes appear in a disordered state. The body, when taken out of the water, was removed to the Fox and Bull public-house, Knightsbridge, where an inquest was held on Thursday.
	The witnesses who were examined said that the deceased lived upon good terms with his lady and family; his affairs were in the most prosperous state, and nothing was observed about him indicative of aberration of mind; they therefore did not suppose that the deceased committed suicide. He was very short-sighted, and could not see objects before him until he came close to them; it was therefore considered by the witnesses extremely probable that he had fallen off the footpath into the river by accident, and thus had been drowned. James Basten, a servant in the employ of the Humane Society, said the place where the body was found was the most dangerous part in the river; there was no railing, nor any guard or fence to prevent accidents; an accident of this description would be almost sure to occur to a near-sighted person. The witness added, that one foggy night ten persons successively walked in at that place, and were with great difficulty saved.
	Col. Phillott, one of the Jury, said, that about ten days ago he made a representation to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests respecting the insecure state of the very spot where the body was found. The rest of the Jury said it was a most shameful omission on the part of those who had charge of this park. The Jury consulted together for a few minutes, and then returned the following verdict :- "Found Drowned near the public path at the head of the Serpentine River - considered very dangerous for want of a rail or fence, and where several persons lately have accidentally fallen in."
	Horace Pitt-Rivers, 6th Baron Rivers and his first wife, Eleanor Suter
	The following article appeared in the Clarence and Richmond Examiner and New England Advertiser published at Grafton in northern New South Wales on 2 February 1878. The note illustrates interesting differences between English and Scottish marriage law at that time.
	There lived in Brighton many years ago a fisherman named Suter or Souter. His cottage was a picture of neatness, and his garden was admired by the aristocratic visitors of that watering place. The chief attraction of his cottage was the presence of two handsome young girls - one a stepdaughter, called familiarly Nelly Holmes, and his own daughter, bearing of course his name, Suter. Nelly, the elder of the two, possessed a wonderful power in attracting the attentions of the other sex. She is said to have been witty, vivacious, refined, and educated above her natural sphere of life. When her beauty was at its prime the honourable Horace Pitt, considered to be the handsomest and fastest man in London, came down on a visit to Brighton. He, like the rest, admired the fisherman's daughter, and, wearied perhaps of the artificial airs of the Court ladies, he wooed and married Nelly Holmes [on 10 April 1845] It is said that when she married him she had no idea that he was the heir to a famous peerage.
	Lord Rivers, the father of her husband, fell into a delicate state of health, and Horace had by this time become wearied of his wife's free manner, and thought that she would be no ornament to the British peerage. He sought and obtained a divorce from her in the Scottish law courts, but he should have known that a Scottish decree has no validity in England. When Lord Rivers entered the House of Lords he found there an appeal to his peers on the part of Nelly Holmes, demanding to be put in possession of all her rights and privileges as Lady Rivers. She won her suit, and occupied her seat as the legitimate wife of Lord Rivers.
	This article is incorrect in a number of instances. Initially, Horace Pitt applied for a divorce before the Scottish Court of Session in December 1862. The divorce application was granted, on the grounds that he was resident in Scotland. On 25 February 1864 (before Horace Pitt had succeeded to the peerage - rather than when "he entered the House of Lords" as stated in the article above), the House of Lords heard an appeal from Lady Rivers against the Scottish decision. Their decision was reported in the Aberdeen Journal of 2 March 1864:-
	In the House of Lords, on Thursday, an extraordinary appeal case - Mrs Eleanor Suter or Pitt v the Hon. Horace Pitt - came on for hearing. This was an appeal from the Court of Session in Scotland. The suit was brought by the present respondent, the Hon. Horace Pitt, formerly Lieutenant-Colonel of the Royal Horse Guards Blue, to obtain a divorce from his wife, Eleanor Pitt, formerly Suter. The point involved was one of jurisdiction of the courts of Scotland to dissolve a marriage contracted in England, on the ground that the respondent was domiciled in Scotland. It appeared that the respondent was an Englishman by birth, being the youngest son of the late John Rivers, and having entered the Royal Horse Guards Blue, he resided chiefly, if not altogether, in London, in the barracks in which his regiment was quartered. He formed a connection with the appellant, and, after some cohabitation, was married to her on the 10th of April, 1845. At the time of her marriage his wife was possessed of no inconsiderable means, and her property was settled on her to her sole use. After a marriage trip to the Continent, the parties returned to London, and lived in a house in Tilney Street, May Fair, which was the property of the wife; but in the year 1846 the respondent bought a house in Park Lane for a residence; but having fallen into pecuniary difficulties, he was unable to carry out the object, and he again took up his quarters in the barracks of his regiment, the wife continuing to occupy the house in Tilney Street. In 1854 the respondent's pecuniary embarrassments were such that he was obliged to keep out of the way of his creditors, was compelled to sell his commission, and seek a refuge in Scotland. All this time the wife remained in England, and resided at a place called "the Dell", at Englefield Green, in Surrey, but, with the exception of a few months when he went to the Crimea, the respondent resided in Scotland. In 1858 the respondent took a house near Oban on lease, and has continued to reside there. Until that year he corresponded with his wife upon amicable terms, when circumstances came to his knowledge which caused him to seek a divorce in the Scottish courts on the ground of her adultery. When the case came on for hearing the appellant disputed the jurisdiction of the court. The Lord&nsbp;Ordinary, in the first instance, held that the respondent had resided sufficiently in Scotland to have become domiciled in that country, and that by consequence the domicile of the wife followed his, although she had never left England. On appeal to the Inner House this ruling was confirmed, but on another ground - namely, that even if the respondent had acquired a Scotch domicile, and although the English domicile was not lost, the wife must be considered resident with her husband in Scotland for all legal purposes; the present appeal was then brought.
	Lady Rivers died 3 September 1872, but not before she figured prominently in the Wicklow Peerage case during which she was described as "a prostitute in Georgian times who had tricked Lord Rivers into a short-lived marriage". This charge is lent a degree of credibility when it is considered that she owned a house in Mayfair, a possession not normally associated with the daughter of a fisherman.
	Frederick Sleigh Roberts VC, 1st Earl Roberts
	Roberts was a Lieutenant in the Bengal Artillery during the Indian Mutiny, during which he saw action for which he was later awarded the Victoria Cross. The citation, gazetted on 24 December 1858, reads:-
	Lieutenant Roberts' gallantry has on every occasion been most marked. On following up the retreating enemy on the 2nd January, 1858, at Khodagunge, he saw in the distance two Sepoys going away with a standard. Lieutenant Roberts put spurs to his horse, and overtook them just as they were about to enter a village. They immediately turned round, and presented their muskets at him, and one of the men pulled the trigger, but fortunately the caps snapped, and the standard-bearer was cut down by this gallant young officer, and the standard taken possession of by him. He also, on the same day, cut down another Sepoy who was standing at bay, with musket and bayonet, keeping off a Sowar [i.e. a mounted soldier]. Lieutenant Roberts rode to the assistance of the horseman, and, rushing at the Sepoy, with one blow of his sword cut him across the face, killing him on the spot.
	Of all the recipients of the Victoria Cross, Roberts probably enjoyed the greatest subsequent career, becoming a Field Marshal, Commander in Chief of the British Army, and a member of the Knights of St. Patrick and Order of Merit. When he died in 1914, he became the first non-royal to lie in state in Westminster Hall (Sir Winston Churchill in 1965 was the only other occurrence.)
	Roberts' son, Frederick Hugh Sherston Roberts, also won a (posthumous) Victoria Cross for his bravery at the Battle of Colenso during the 2nd Boer War on 15 December 1899.
	The special remainders to the Viscountcy of St. Pierre and the Earldom of Roberts created in 1901
	From the London Gazette of 12 February 1901 (issue 27283, page 1058):-
	The King has been pleased to direct Letters Patent to be passed under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, granting the dignities of Viscount and Earl of the said United Kingdom unto Frederick Sleigh, Baron Roberts of Kandahar, K.G., K.P., G.C.B., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., V.C., Field-Marshal and Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces, lately Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief the Forces in South Africa, by the names, styles, and titles of Viscount St. Pierre and Earl Roberts of Kandahar in Afghanistan, and Pretoria in the Transvaal Colony, and of the City of Waterford; with remainder to the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten: And in default of male issue with remainder to his elder daughter, the Honourable Aileen Mary Roberts, Spinster, to hold the names, styles, and titles of Viscountess St. Pierre and Countess Roberts of Kandahar in Afghanistan, and Pretoria in the Transvaal Colony, and of the City of Waterford; and after her decease to the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten, by styles, and titles of Viscount St. Pierre and Earl Roberts of Kandahar in Afghanistan, and Pretoria in the Transvaal Colony, and of the City of Waterford: With the like remainder in default of such issue of the said Aileen Mary Roberts to the Honourable Ada Edwina Stewart Roberts, Spinster, younger daughter of the said Baron Roberts, and the heirs male of her body lawfully begotten; With the like remainder in default of such issue to every other younger daughter lawfully begotten of the said Baron Roberts, successively in order of seniority of age and priority of birth, and to the heirs male of their bodies lawfully begotten.

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