PEERAGES
Last updated 17/11/2018 (20 Jan 2024)
Date	Rank	Order	Name	Born	Died	Age
SAATCHI
4 Oct 1996	B[L]		Maurice Nathan Saatchi Created Baron Saatchi for life 4 Oct 1996	21 Jun 1946
SACKS
1 Sep 2009 to     7 Nov 2020	B[L]		Sir Jonathan Henry Sacks Created Baron Sacks for life 1 Sep 2009 Chief Rabbi of the UK and the Commonwealth 1991‑2013 Peerage extinct on his death	8 Mar 1948	7 Nov 2020	72
SACKVILLE
11 Feb 1782	V	1	Lord George Germain (Sackville until 1770) Created Baron Bolebrooke and Viscount Sackville 11 Feb 1782 MP [I] for Portarlington 1733‑1760; MP for Dover 1741‑1761, Hythe 1761‑1768 and East Grinstead 1768‑1782; Chief Secretary for Ireland 1751‑1755; President of the Board of Trade 1775‑1779; Secretary of State for the Colonies 1779‑1782; PC [I] 1751; PC 1758	26 Jan 1716	26 Aug 1785	69
26 Aug 1785 to     29 Jul 1843		2	Charles Sackville-Germain, later [1815] 5th Duke of Dorset Peerages extinct on his death	27 Aug 1767	29 Jul 1843	75
2 Oct 1876	B	1	Mortimer Sackville-West Created Baron Sackville 2 Oct 1876 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of this peerage, see the note at the foot of this page	22 Sep 1820	1 Oct 1888	68
1 Oct 1888		2	Lionel Sackville Sackville‑West For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	19 Jul 1827	3 Sep 1908	81
3 Sep 1908		3	Lionel Edward Sackville‑West For further information on this peer's wife, see the note at the foot of this page	15 May 1867	28 Jan 1928	60
28 Jan 1928		4	Charles John Sackville‑West	10 Aug 1870	9 May 1962	91
9 May 1962		5	Edward Charles Sackville‑West	13 Nov 1901	4 Jul 1965	63
4 Jul 1965		6	Lionel Bertrand Sackville‑West	30 May 1913	27 Mar 2004	90
27 Mar 2004		7	Robert Bertrand Sackville‑West	10 Jul 1958
SAHOTA
2 Nov 2022	B[L]		Kuldip Singh Sahota Created Baron Sahota for life 2 Nov 2022	1 May 1951
SAINSBURY
3 May 1962 to     21 Oct 1998	B[L]		Alan John Sainsbury Created Baron Sainsbury for life 3 May 1962 Peerage extinct on his death	13 Aug 1902	21 Oct 1998	96
SAINSBURY OF PRESTON CANDOVER
31 Jan 1989 to     14 Jan 2022	B[L]		John Davan Sainsbury Created Baron Sainsbury of Preston Candover for life 31 Jan 1989 KG 1992 Peerage extinct on his death	2 Nov 1927	14 Jan 2022	94
SAINSBURY OF TURVILLE
3 Oct 1997	B[L]		David John Sainsbury Created Baron Sainsbury of Turville for life 3 Oct 1997	24 Oct 1940
ST. ALBANS
27 Jan 1621 to     9 Apr 1626	V	1	Francis Bacon Created Baron Verulam 11 Jul 1618 and Viscount Saint Albans 27 Jan 1621 MP for Melcombe Regis 1584‑1586, Taunton 1586‑1587, Liverpool 1588‑1589, Middlesex 1592‑1593, Ipswich 1597-1598, 1601, 1604‑1611 and Cambridge 1614; Solicitor General 1607‑1613; Attorney General 1613‑1617; Lord Chancellor 1618‑1621 Peerages extinct on his death	22 Jan 1561	9 Apr 1626	65
23 Aug 1628	E	1	Richard Bourke, 4th Earl of Clanricarde Created Baron of Somerhill and Viscount Tunbridge 3 Apr 1624 and Baron of Imanney, Viscount Galway and Earl of St. Albans 23 Aug 1628	1572	12 Nov 1635	63
12 Nov 1635 to     Jul 1657		2	Ulick Bourke, 5th Earl of Clanricarde, later [1646] 1st Marquess of Clanricarde Peerage extinct on his death	Dec 1604	Jul 1657	52
27 Apr 1660 to     2 Jan 1684	E	1	Henry Jermyn, 1st Baron Jermyn Created Earl of St. Albans 27 Apr 1660 KG 1672 Peerage extinct on his death	c 1604	2 Jan 1684
10 Jan 1684	D	1	Charles Beauclerk Created Baron Hedington and Earl of Burford 27 Dec 1676, and Duke of St. Albans 10 Jan 1684 Illegitimate son of Charles II; Lord Lieutenant Berkshire 1714‑1726; KG 1718	8 May 1670	10 May 1726	56
10 May 1726		2	Charles Beauclerk MP for Bodmin 1718‑1722 and Windsor 1722‑1726; Lord Lieutenant Berkshire 1727‑1751; KG 1741	6 Apr 1696	27 Jul 1751	55
27 Jul 1751		3	George Beauclerk Lord Lieutenant Berkshire 1751‑1761 and 1771‑1786	25 Jun 1730	1 Feb 1786	55
1 Feb 1786		4	George Beauclerk	5 Dec 1758	15 Feb 1787	28
15 Feb 1787		5	Aubrey Beauclerk, 2nd Baron Vere of Hanworth MP for Thetford 1761‑1768 and Aldborough 1768‑1774	3 Jun 1740	9 Feb 1802	61
9 Feb 1802		6	Aubrey Beauclerk MP for Hull 1790‑1796	21 Aug 1765	12 Aug 1815	49
12 Aug 1815		7	Aubrey Beauclerk	7 Apr 1815	19 Feb 1816	-
19 Feb 1816		8	William Beauclerk	18 Dec 1766	17 Jul 1825	58
17 Jul 1825		9	William Aubrey de Vere Beauclerk	24 Mar 1801	26 May 1849	48
26 May 1849		10	William Amelius Aubrey de Vere Beauclerk Lord Lieutenant Nottingham 1880‑1898; PC 1869	15 Apr 1840	10 May 1898	58
10 May 1898		11	Charles Victor Albert Aubrey de Vere Beauclerk	26 Mar 1870	19 Sep 1934	64
19 Sep 1934		12	Osborne de Vere Beauclerk For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	16 Oct 1874	2 Mar 1964	89
2 Mar 1964		13	Charles Frederick Aubrey de Vere Beauclerk For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	16 Aug 1915	8 Oct 1988	73
8 Oct 1988		14	Murray de Vere Beauclerk	19 Jan 1939
ST. ALDWYN
6 Jan 1906 22 Feb 1915	B E	1 1	Sir Michael Edward Hicks‑Beach, 9th baronet Created Viscount St. Aldwyn 6 Jan 1906 and Viscount Quenington and Earl St. Aldwyn 22 Feb 1915 MP for Gloucestershire East 1864‑1885 and Bristol West 1885‑1906; Chief Secretary for Ireland 1874‑1878; Secretary of State for Colonies 1878‑1880; Chancellor of the Exchequer 1885‑1886 and 1895‑1902; Chief Secretary for Ireland 1886‑1887; President of the Board of Trade 1888‑1892; PC 1874; PC [I] 1874	23 Oct 1837	30 Apr 1916	78
30 Apr 1916		2	Michael John Hicks-Beach PC 1959	9 Oct 1912	29 Jan 1992	79
29 Jan 1992		3	Michael Henry Hicks Beach	7 Feb 1950
ST. AMAND
29 Dec 1299 to     29 Jul 1310	B	1	Almaric de St. Amand Summoned to Parliament as Lord St. Amand 29 Dec 1299 Peerage extinct on his death		29 Jul 1310
22 Mar 1313	B	1	John de St. Amand Summoned to Parliament as Lord St. Amand 22 Mar 1313		Jan 1330
Jan 1330		2	Amauri de St. Amand	c 1314	11 Sep 1381
11 Sep 1381 to     13 Jun 1402		3	Amauri de St. Amand On his death the peerage fell into abeyance	c 1341	13 Jun 1402
15 Dec 1416 to     15 Apr 1422		4	Gerard Braybrooke He became sole heir in 1416. On his death the peerage again fell into abeyance		15 Apr 1422
1428		5	Elizabeth Braybrooke She became sole heir in 1428. She married William Beauchamp who was summoned to Parliament as Lord St. Amand 2 Jan 1469		2 Dec 1491
2 Dec 1491 to     Jul 1508		6	Richard Beauchamp Peerage extinct on his death		Jul 1508
ST. ANDREWS
12 Oct 1934	E	1	HRH George Edward Alexander Edmund Created Baron Downpatrick, Earl of St. Andrews and Duke of Kent 12 Oct 1934 See "Kent"	20 Dec 1902	25 Aug 1942	39
ST. ASAPH
14 May 1730	V	1	John Ashburnham, 3rd Baron Ashburnham Created Viscount St. Asaph and Earl of Ashburnham 14 May 1730 See "Ashburnham"	13 Mar 1687	10 Mar 1736	48
ST. AUDRIES
22 Jun 1911	B	1	Sir Alexander Fuller‑Acland‑Hood, 4th baronet [Hood 1809] and 6th baronet [Bateman 1806] Created Baron St. Audries 22 Jun 1911 MP for Wellington (Somerset) 1892‑1911; PC 1904	26 Sep 1853	4 Jun 1917	63
4 Jun 1917 to     16 Oct 1971		2	Alexander Peregrine Fuller‑Acland‑Hood Peerage extinct on his death	24 Dec 1893	16 Oct 1971	77
SAINT BRIDES
8 Feb 1977 to     26 Nov 1989	B[L]		Sir John Morrice Cairns James Created Baron Saint Brides for life 8 Feb 1977 PC 1968 Peerage extinct on his death	30 Apr 1916	26 Nov 1989	73
ST. COLME
7 Mar 1611	B[S]	1	Henry Stewart Created Lord St. Colme 7 Mar 1611		12 Jul 1612
12 Jul 1612 to     c 1620		2	James Stewart Peerage extinct on his death		c 1620
SAINT CYRES
3 Jul 1885	V	1	Stafford Henry Northcote Created Viscount Saint Cyres and Earl of Iddesleigh 3 Jul 1885 See "Iddesleigh"	27 Oct 1818	12 Jan 1887	68
ST. DAVIDS
6 Jul 1908 17 Jun 1918	B V	1 1	Sir John Wynford Philipps, 13th baronet Created Baron St. Davids 6 Jul 1908 and Viscount St. Davids 17 Jun 1918 MP for Lanarkshire Mid 1888‑1894 and Pembrokeshire 1898‑1908; Lord Lieutenant Pembroke 1911‑1932; PC 1914	30 May 1860	28 Mar 1938	77
28 Mar 1938		2	Jestyn Reginald Austen Plantagenet Philipps He subsequently [1974] succeeded to the Baronies of Hungerford and Strange de Knockin	19 Feb 1917	10 Jun 1991	74
10 Jun 1991		3	Colwyn Jestyn John Philipps	20 Jan 1939	26 Apr 2009	70
26 Apr 2009		4	Rhodri Colwyn Philipps	16 Sep 1966
SAINT GEORGE
18 Apr 1715 to     18 Aug 1735	B[I]	1	Sir George Saint-George, 2nd baronet Created Baron Saint George 18 Apr 1715 MP [I] for Roscommon County 1692‑1693, 1695‑1699, 1703‑1713 and 1713‑1715; PC [I] 1715 Peerage extinct on his death	c 1658	18 Aug 1735
19 Apr 1763 to     2 Jan 1775	B[I]	1	St. George Saint-George Created Baron Saint George 19 Apr 1763 MP [I] for Carrick 1741‑1763 Peerage extinct on his death	c 1715	2 Jan 1775
SAINT GERMANS
28 Nov 1815	B	1	John Eliot, 2nd Baron Eliot of St. Germans Created Earl of Saint Germans 28 Nov 1815 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of this peerage, see the note at the foot of this page MP for Liskeard 1784‑1804	30 Sep 1761	17 Nov 1823	62
17 Nov 1823		2	William Eliot MP for St. Germans 1791‑1802 and Liskeard 1802‑1823	1 Apr 1767	19 Jan 1845	77
19 Jan 1845		3	Edward Granville Eliot MP for Liskeard 1824‑1832 and Cornwall East 1837‑1845; Chief Secretary for Ireland 1841‑1845; Postmaster General 1845‑1846; Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1853‑1855; PC 1841; PC [I] 1841	29 Aug 1798	7 Oct 1877	79
7 Oct 1877		4	William Gordon Cornwallis Eliot MP for Devonport 1866‑1868 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Eliot 14 Sep 1870	14 Dec 1829	19 Mar 1881	51
19 Mar 1881		5	Henry Cornwallis Eliot For information of the death of his son and heir, Lord Eliot, see the note at the foot of this page	11 Feb 1835	24 Sep 1911	76
24 Sep 1911		6	John Granville Cornwallis Eliot	11 Jun 1890	31 Mar 1922	31
31 Mar 1922		7	Granville John Eliot	22 Sep 1867	20 Nov 1942	75
20 Nov 1942		8	Montague Charles Eliot	13 May 1870	19 Sep 1960	90
19 Sep 1960		9	Nicholas Richard Michael Eliot For further information on this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	26 Jan 1914	11 Mar 1988	74
11 Mar 1988		10	Peregrine Nicholas Eliot	2 Jan 1941	15 Jul 2016	75
15 Jul 2016		11	Albert Eliot	2 Nov 2004
ST. HELENS
26 Jan 1791 31 Jul 1801 to     19 Feb 1839	B[I] B	1 1	Alleyne Fitzherbert Created Baron St. Helens [I] 26 Jan 1791 and Baron St. Helens [UK] 31 Jul 1801 MP [I] for Carysfort 1788‑1790; Chief Secretary for Ireland 1787‑1789; PC 1787; PC [I] 1787 Peerages extinct on his death	1 Mar 1753	19 Feb 1839	85
31 Dec 1964	B	1	Michael Henry Colin Hughes‑Young Created Baron St. Helens 31 Dec 1964 MP for Wandsworth Central 1955‑1964	28 Oct 1912	27 Dec 1980	68
27 Dec 1980		2	Richard Francis Hughes‑Young	4 Nov 1945
ST. HELIER
23 Feb 1905 to     9 Apr 1905	B	1	Francis Henry Jeune Created Baron St. Helier 23 Feb 1905 Judge Advocate General 1892‑1904; PC 1892 Peerage extinct on his death	17 Mar 1843	9 Apr 1905	62
SAINT JOHN
9 Mar 1539	B	1	William Paulet Created Baron Saint John 9 Mar 1539, Earl of Wiltshire 19 Jan 1550 and Marquess of Winchester 11 Oct 1551 See "Winchester"	c 1483	10 Mar 1572
4 Oct 1544			John Paulet He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron St. John 4 Oct 1544 He succeeded as 2nd Marquess of Winchester in 1572	c 1510	4 Nov 1576
5 May 1572			William Paulet He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron St. John 5 May 1572 He succeeded as 3rd Marquess of Winchester in 1576	1533	24 Nov 1598	65
10 Feb 1624			John Paulet He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron St. John 10 Feb 1624 He succeeded as 5th Marquess of Winchester in 1629	c 1598	5 Mar 1675
2 Jul 1716	V	1	Sir Henry St. John, 4th baronet Created Baron St. John of Battersea and Viscount St. John 2 Jul 1716 These creations contained special remainders to his younger sons, John and Hollis, and the heirs male of their bodies respectively and with an ultimate remainder to the heirs male of his own body MP for Wootton Bassett 1679‑1695 and 1698‑1700, and Wiltshire 1695‑1698	17 Oct 1652	8 Apr 1742	89
8 Apr 1742		2	John St. John MP for Wootton Bassett 1727‑1734	3 May 1702	26 Nov 1748	46
26 Nov 1748		3	Frederick St. John He succeeded to the Viscountcy of Bolingbroke in 1751 with which title this peerage became united and so remains		5 May 1787
ST. JOHN DE BASING
29 Dec 1299	B	1	John St. John Summoned to Parliament as Lord St. John de Basing 29 Dec 1299		14 May 1329
14 May 1329		2	Hugh St. John		1337
1337 to     1347		3	Edmund St. John On his death the peerage fell into abeyance		1347
1361		4	Isabel She married Lucas de Poynings who was summoned in her right. He died c 1385		16 Oct 1393
16 Oct 1393 to     13 Mar 1429		5	Thomas Poynings On his death the peerage again fell into abeyance		13 Mar 1429
ST. JOHN OF BLETSO
13 Jan 1559	B	1	Oliver St. John Created Baron St. John of Bletso 13 Jan 1559		23 May 1582
23 May 1582		2	John St. John		23 Oct 1596
23 Oct 1596		3	Oliver St. John	c 1540	Jun 1618
Jun 1618		4	Oliver St. John, later [1624] 1st Earl of Bolingbroke	c 1584	Jun 1646
14 May 1641		5	Oliver St. John He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron St. John of Bletso 14 May 1641 On his death the peerage reverted to his father (see above)		23 Oct 1642
Jun 1646		6	Oliver St. John, 2nd Earl of Bolingbroke	c 1634	18 Mar 1688
18 Mar 1688		7	Paulet St. John, 3rd Earl of Bolingbroke	23 Nov 1634	5 Oct 1711	76
5 Oct 1711		8	Sir Paulet St. Andrew St. John, 5th baronet		10 May 1714
10 May 1714		9	William St. John		11 Oct 1720
11 Oct 1720		10	Rowland St. John		4 Jul 1722
4 Jul 1722		11	John St. John		24 Jun 1757
24 Jun 1757		12	John St. John	15 Nov 1725	27 Apr 1767	41
27 Apr 1767		13	Henry Beauchamp St. John	2 Aug 1758	19 Dec 1805	47
19 Dec 1805		14	St. Andrew St. John MP for Bedfordshire 1780‑1784 and 1785‑1806; PC 1806	22 Aug 1759	15 Oct 1817	58
15 Oct 1817		15	St. Andrew Beauchamp St. John	8 Nov 1811	27 Jan 1874	62
27 Jan 1874		16	St. Andrew St. John	5 Oct 1840	2 Nov 1887	47
2 Nov 1887		17	Beauchamp Mowbray St. John Lord Lieutenant Bedford 1905‑1912	5 Dec 1844	10 May 1912	67
10 May 1912		18	Henry Beauchamp Oliver St. John	24 Jun 1876	17 Oct 1920	44
17 Oct 1920		19	Moubray St. Andrew Thornton St. John	5 Nov 1877	28 Oct 1934	56
28 Oct 1934		20	John Moubray Russell St. John	3 Aug 1917	13 Apr 1976	58
13 Apr 1976		21	Andrew Beauchamp St. John	23 Aug 1918	11 Feb 1978	59
11 Feb 1978		22	Anthony Tudor St. John [Elected hereditary peer 1999-]	16 May 1957
ST. JOHN OF FAWSLEY
19 Oct 1987 to     2 Mar 2012	B[L]		Norman Antony Francis St. John‑Stevas Created Baron St. John of Fawsley for life 19 Oct 1987 MP for Chelmsford 1964‑1987; Minister of State for the Arts 1973‑1974; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1979‑1981; PC 1979 Peerage extinct on his death	18 May 1929	2 Mar 2012	82
ST. JOHN DE LAGEHAM
21 Sep 1299	B	1	John St. John Summoned to Parliament as Lord St. John de Lageham 21 Sep 1299		Jun 1316
Jun 1316		2	John St. John		23 Apr 1323
23 Apr 1323		3	John St. John		1 Apr 1349
1 Apr 1349		4	Roger St. John		28 Mar 1353
28 Mar 1353 to     1355		5	Piers St. John On his death the peerage became dormant		1355
ST. JOHN OF LYDIARD
7 Jul 1712	B	1	Henry St. John Created Baron St. John of Lydiard and Viscount Bolingbroke 7 Jul 1712 See "Bolingbroke"	10 Oct 1678	12 Dec 1751	73
ST. JUST
29 Jun 1935	B	1	Edward Charles Grenfell Created Baron St. Just 29 Jun 1935 MP for London 1922‑1935	29 May 1870	26 Nov 1941	71
26 Nov 1941 to     14 Oct 1984		2	Peter George Grenfell Peerage extinct on his death	22 Jul 1922	14 Oct 1984	62
ST. LAWRENCE
3 Sep 1767	V[I]	1	Thomas St. Lawrence, 15th Baron Howth Created Viscount St. Lawrence and Earl of Howth 3 Sep 1767 See "Howth"	10 May 1730	29 Sep 1801	71
SAINT LEONARDS
1 Mar 1852	B	1	Edward Burtenshaw Sugden Created Baron Saint Leonards 1 Mar 1852 MP for Weymouth & Melcombe Regis 1828‑1831, St. Mawes 1831‑1832 and Ripon 1837‑1841; Solicitor General 1829‑1830; Lord Chancellor [I] 1835 and 1841‑1846; Lord Chancellor 1852; PC 1834; PC [I] 1835 For information about the St. Leonards Will Case of 1875‑76, see the note at the foot of this page	12 Feb 1781	29 Jan 1875	93
29 Jan 1875		2	Edward Burtenshaw Sugden For further information about this peer, see the note at the foot of this page	12 Aug 1847	18 Mar 1908	60
18 Mar 1908		3	Frank Edward Sugden	11 Nov 1890	18 Jul 1972	81
18 Jul 1972 to     1 Jun 1985		4	John Gerard Sugden Peerage extinct on his death	3 Feb 1950	1 Jun 1985	35
SAINT LEVAN
4 Jul 1887	B	1	Sir John St. Aubyn, 2nd baronet Created Baron Saint Levan 4 Jul 1887 MP for Cornwall West 1858‑1885 and St. Ives 1885‑1887	23 Oct 1829	14 May 1908	78
14 May 1908		2	John Townshend St. Aubyn	23 Sep 1857	10 Nov 1940	83
10 Nov 1940		3	Francis Cecil St. Aubyn	18 Apr 1895	10 Jul 1978	83
10 Jul 1978		4	John Francis Arthur St. Aubyn	23 Feb 1919	7 Apr 2013	94
7 Apr 2013		5	James Piers Southwell St. Aubyn	6 Jun 1950
ST. LIZ
2 Feb 1664	B	1	Basil Feilding, 2nd Earl of Denbigh Created Baron St. Liz 2 Feb 1664 See "Denbigh"	c 1608	28 Nov 1675
ST. MAUR
29 Jul 1313	B	1	Nicholas St. Maur Summoned to Parliament as Lord St. Maur 29 Jul 1313		8 Nov 1316
8 Nov 1316		2	Thomas St. Maur		8 Aug 1361
8 Aug 1361		3	Nicholas Seymour		Jan 1362
Jan 1362		4	Richard Seymour		15 May 1401
15 May 1401		5	Richard Seymour		Jan 1409
Jan 1409		6	Alice Seymour She married William Zouche, Lord Zouche, who assumed the peerage in her right
20 Nov 1317 to     after 1322	B	1	William de Saint Maur Summoned to Parliament as Lord Saint Maur 20 Nov 1317 Peerage extinct on his death		after 1322
19 Jun 1863 to     28 Nov 1885	E	1	Edward Adolphus Seymour, 12th Duke of Somerset Created Earl Saint Maur 19 Jun 1863 Peerage extinct on his death	20 Dec 1804	28 Nov 1885	80
SAINT OSWALD
6 Jul 1885	B	1	Rowland Winn Created Baron Saint Oswald 6 Jul 1885 MP for Lincolnshire North 1868‑1885	19 Feb 1820	17 Jan 1893	72
17 Jan 1893		2	Rowland Winn MP for Pontefract 1885‑1893	1 Aug 1857	13 Apr 1919	61
13 Apr 1919		3	Rowland George Winn	29 Jul 1893	25 Feb 1957	63
25 Feb 1957		4	Rowland Denys Guy Winn MEP 1973‑1979	19 Sep 1916	19 Dec 1984	68
19 Dec 1984		5	Derek Edward Anthony Winn	9 Jul 1919	18 Mar 1999	79
18 Mar 1999		6	Charles Rowland Andrew Winn	22 Jul 1959
ST. PHILIBERT
20 Nov 1348	B	1	John St. Philibert Summoned to Parliament as Lord St. Philibert 20 Nov 1348		3 Sep 1358
3 Sep 1358		2	Adam St. Philibert		1359
1359 to     1361		3	John St. Philibert Peerage extinct on his death		1361
ST. PIERRE
11 Feb 1901	V	1	Frederick Sleigh Roberts VC, 1st Baron Roberts Created Viscount St. Pierre and Earl Roberts 11 Feb 1901 See "Roberts"	30 Sep 1832	14 Nov 1914	82
ST. VINCENT
23 Jun 1797 to     14 Mar 1823 27 Apr 1801	E     V	1     1	John Jervis Created Baron Jervis and Earl of St. Vincent 23 Jun 1797 and Viscount St. Vincent 27 Apr 1801 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of the Viscountcy, see the note at the foot of this page MP for Launceston 1783‑1784, Great Yarmouth 1784‑1790 and Wycombe 1790‑1794; First Lord of the Admiralty 1801‑1804; Admiral of the Fleet 1821; PC 1801 On his death the Barony and Earldom became extinct whilst the Viscountcy passed to - For information on two claims made for these peerages, see the note at the foot of this page	9 Jan 1735	14 Mar 1823	88
14 Mar 1823		2	Edward Jervis Jervis	1 Apr 1767	25 Sep 1859	92
25 Sep 1859		3	Carnegie Robert John Jervis	12 Aug 1825	19 Jul 1879	53
19 Jul 1879		4	Edward John Leveson Jervis	3 Apr 1850	22 Jan 1885	34
22 Jan 1885		5	Carnegie Parker Jervis	5 Apr 1855	22 Sep 1908	53
22 Sep 1908		6	Ronald Clarges Jervis	3 Dec 1859	16 Feb 1940	80
16 Feb 1940		7	Ronald George James Jervis	3 May 1905	4 Sep 2006	101
4 Sep 2006		8	Edward Robert James Jervis	12 May 1951
SALFORD
22 Jul 1897 to     16 Mar 1909	E	1	Wilbraham Egerton, 2nd Baron Egerton of Tatton Created Viscount Salford and Earl Egerton of Tatton 22 Jul 1897 On his death these creations became extinct whilst the barony continued - see "Egerton of Tatton"	17 Jan 1832	16 Mar 1909	77
SALISBURY
c 1145	E	1	Patrick de Salisbury Created Earl of Salisbury c 1145		27 Mar 1168
27 Mar 1168		2	William de Salisbury		17 Apr 1196
17 Apr 1196		3	Isabella She married William de Longspee who assumed the peerage in her right. He was born c 1175 and died 7 Mar 1226		24 Aug 1261
7 Mar 1226		4	William de Longspee		8 Feb 1250
8 Feb 1250		5	William de Longspee		1257
1257		6	Margaret de Lacy		22 Nov 1310
22 Nov 1310 to     1322		7	Alice Plantagenet Her husband was executed in 1322 when the peerage reverted to the Crown		2 Oct 1348
13 Mar 1337	E	1	William de Montacute, 3rd Lord Montacute Created Earl of Salisbury 13 Mar 1337		30 Jan 1344
30 Jan 1344		2	William de Montacute KG 1348	25 Jun 1328	3 Jun 1397	68
3 Jun 1397 to     7 Jan 1400		3	John de Montacute, 4th Lord Monthermer KG 1397 He was attainted and the peerage forfeited		7 Jan 1400
26 Oct 1409		4	Thomas de Montacute Restored to the peerage in 1409 KG 1414	1388	3 Nov 1428	40
3 Nov 1428		5	Alice She married Richard Nevill who assumed the peerage in her right		31 Dec 1460
31 Dec 1460 to     15 Apr 1471		6	Richard Nevill, 3rd Earl of Warwick On his death the peerage fell into abeyance	22 Nov 1428	15 Apr 1471	42
25 Mar 1472 to     15 Jan 1478	E	1	George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence Created Earl of Salisbury and Earl of Warwick 25 Mar 1472 He was attainted and the peerages forfeited	21 Oct 1449	18 Feb 1478	28
15 Feb 1478 to     31 Mar 1484	E	1	Edward Plantagenet Created Earl of Salisbury 15 Feb 1478 Later created Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales - peerages extinct on his death	1473	31 Mar 1484	10
16 Mar 1485 to     28 Nov 1499		7	Edward Plantagenet Restored to the peerage 1485. He was attainted and the peerage forfeited	21 Feb 1474	28 Nov 1499	25
1513 to     1539		8	Margaret Pole Restored to the peerage 1513. She was attainted and the peerage forfeited	14 Aug 1473	27 May 1541	67
4 May 1605	E	1	Sir Robert Cecil Created Baron Cecil of Essendon 13 Aug 1603, Viscount Cranborne 20 Aug 1604 and Earl of Salisbury 4 May 1605 MP for Westminster 1584‑1585, 1586‑1587, and Hertfordshire 1588, 1592‑1593, 1597‑1598 and 1601; Secretary of State 1596‑1612; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1597‑1599; Lord Privy Seal 1597‑1612; Lord Lieutenant Hertford 1605; Lord Treasurer 1608‑1612; KG 1606	1 Jun 1563	24 May 1612	48
24 May 1612		2	William Cecil MP for Weymouth 1610‑1611; Lord Lieutenant Hertford 1612 and Dorset 1642; KG 1624	Feb 1591	3 Dec 1668	77
3 Dec 1668		3	James Cecil MP for Hertfordshire 1668; KG 1679	1648	Jun 1683	34
Jun 1683		4	James Cecil	Sep 1666	3 Nov 1694	28
3 Nov 1694		5	James Cecil Lord Lieutenant Hertford 1712‑1714	8 Jun 1691	9 Oct 1728	37
9 Oct 1728		6	James Cecil	20 Oct 1713	19 Sep 1780	66
19 Sep 1780 24 Aug 1789	M	7 1	James Cecil Created Marquess of Salisbury 24 Aug 1789 MP for Great Bedwyn 1774‑1780, Plympton Erle 1780 and Launceston 1780; Lord Lieutenant Hertford 1771-1823; PC 1780; KG 1793 For information about this peer's wife, see the note at the foot of this page	4 Sep 1748	13 Jun 1823	74
13 Jun 1823		2	James Brownlow William Gascoyne‑Cecil MP for Weymouth & Melcombe Regis 1813‑1817 and Hertford 1817‑1823; Lord Privy Seal 1852; Lord President of the Council 1858‑1859; Lord Lieutenant Middlesex 1841‑1868; PC 1826; KG 1842	17 Apr 1791	12 Apr 1868	76
12 Apr 1868		3	Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne‑Cecil MP for Stamford 1853‑1868; Secretary of State for India 1866‑1867 and 1874‑1878; Foreign Secretary 1878‑1880, 1885‑1886, 1887‑1892 and 1895‑1902; Prime Minister 1885‑1886, 1886‑1892 and 1895‑1902; PC 1866; KG 1878	3 Feb 1830	22 Aug 1903	73
22 Aug 1903		4	James Edward Hubert Gascoyne‑Cecil MP for Darwen 1885‑1892 and Rochester 1893‑1903; Lord Privy Seal 1903‑1905 and 1924‑1929; President of the Board of Trade 1905; Lord President of the Council 1922‑1924; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1922; PC 1903; KG 1917	23 Oct 1861	4 Apr 1947	85
4 Apr 1947		5	Robert Arthur James Gascoyne‑Cecil MP for Dorset South 1929‑1941; Paymaster General 1940; Secretary of State for Dominions 1940‑1942; Secretary of State for Colonies 1942; Lord Privy Seal 1942‑1943 and 1951‑1952; Secretary of State for Dominions 1943‑1945; Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations 1952; Lord President of the Council 1952‑1957; PC 1940; KG 1946 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Cecil of Essendon in Jan 1941	27 Aug 1893	23 Feb 1972	78
23 Feb 1972		6	Robert Edward Peter Gascoyne‑Cecil MP for Bournemouth West 1950‑1954	24 Oct 1916	11 Jul 2003	86
11 Jul 2003		7	Robert Michael James Cecil MP for Dorset South 1979‑1987; Lord Privy Seal 1994‑1997; PC 1994 He was summoned to Parliament by a Writ of Acceleration as Baron Cecil of Essendon in 1992. Created Baron Gascoyne‑Cecil for life 17 Nov 1999	30 Sep 1946
SALMON
10 Jan 1972 to     7 Nov 1991	B[L]		Sir Cyril Barnet Salmon Created Baron Salmon for life 10 Jan 1972 Lord Justice of Appeal 1964‑1972; Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 1972‑1980; PC 1964 Peerage extinct on his death	28 Dec 1903	7 Nov 1991	87
SALTER
16 Oct 1953 to     27 Jun 1975	B	1	Sir James Arthur Salter Created Baron Salter 16 Oct 1953 MP for Oxford University 1937‑1950 and Ormskirk 1951‑1953; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1945; Minister of State for Economic Affairs 1951‑1952; PC 1941 Peerage extinct on his death	15 Mar 1881	27 Jun 1975	94
SALTERSFORD
7 Jun 1796	B	1	James Stopford, 2nd Earl of Courtown Created Baron Saltersford 7 Jun 1796 See "Courtown"	28 May 1731	30 Mar 1810	78
SALTOUN
28 Jun 1445	B[S]	1	Laurence Abernethy Created Lord Saltoun 28 Jun 1445		13 Mar 1460
13 Mar 1460		2	William Abernethy		Jun 1488
Jun 1488		3	James Abernethy		1505
1505		4	Alexander Abernethy		Jun 1527
Jun 1527		5	William Abernethy		Dec 1543
Dec 1543		6	Alexander Abernethy	1537	Apr 1587	49
Apr 1587		7	George Abernethy	c 1555	27 Apr 1590
27 Apr 1590		8	John Abernethy	c 1577	21 Sep 1612
21 Sep 1612		9	Alexander Abernethy	26 Mar 1611	18 Dec 1668	57
18 Dec 1668		10	Alexander Fraser	Mar 1604	11 Aug 1693	89
11 Aug 1693		11	William Fraser	21 Nov 1654	18 Mar 1715	60
18 Mar 1715		12	Alexander Fraser	1684	24 Jul 1748	64
24 Jul 1748		13	Alexander Fraser	1710	10 Oct 1751	41
10 Oct 1751		14	George Fraser	10 Oct 1720	30 Aug 1781	60
30 Aug 1781		15	Alexander Fraser	27 Jun 1758	12 Sep 1793	35
12 Sep 1793		16	Alexander George Fraser KT 1852	22 Apr 1785	18 Jul 1853	68
18 Jul 1853		17	Alexander Fraser	5 May 1820	1 Feb 1886	65
1 Feb 1886		18	Alexander William Frederick Fraser	8 Aug 1851	19 Jun 1933	81
19 Jun 1933		19	Alexander Arthur Fraser	8 Mar 1886	31 Aug 1979	93
31 Aug 1979		20	Flora Marjory Ramsay [Elected hereditary peer 1999‑2014]	18 Oct 1930
SAMPSON
28 Dec 1299 to     after 1306	B	1	William Sampson Summoned to Parliament as Lord Sampson 28 Dec 1299 Peerage extinct on his death		after 1306
SAMUEL
8 Jun 1937	V	1	Herbert Louis Samuel Created Viscount Samuel 8 Jun 1937 MP for Cleveland 1902‑1918 and Darwen 1929‑1935; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 1909‑1910 and 1915‑1916; Postmaster General 1910‑1914 and 1915‑1916; Home Secretary 1916 and 1931‑1932; PC 1908; OM 1958	6 Nov 1870	5 Feb 1963	92
5 Feb 1963		2	Edwin Herbert Samuel	11 Sep 1898	14 Nov 1978	80
14 Nov 1978		3	David Herbert Samuel	8 Jul 1922	7 Oct 2014	92
7 Oct 2014		4	Dan Judah Samuel	25 Mar 1925	7 Nov 2014	89
7 Nov 2014		5	Jonathan Herbert Samuel	17 Dec 1965
SAMUEL OF WYCH CROSS
3 Jul 1972 to     28 Aug 1987	B[L]		Sir Harold Samuel Created Baron Samuel of Wych Cross for life 3 Jul 1972 Peerage extinct on his death	23 Apr 1912	28 Aug 1987	75
SANDBERG
2 Oct 1997 to     2 Jul 2017	B[L]		Sir Michael Graham Ruddock Sandberg Created Baron Sandberg for life 2 Oct 1997 Peerage extinct on his death	31 May 1927	2 Jul 2017	90
SANDERSON
20 Dec 1905 to     21 Mar 1923	B	1	Sir Thomas Henry Sanderson Created Baron Sanderson 20  Dec 1905 Peerage extinct on his death	11 Jan 1841	21 Mar 1923	82
18 Jun 1930 to     25 Mar 1939	B	1	Henry Sanderson Furniss Created Baron Sanderson 18 Jun 1930 Peerage extinct on his death Lord Sanderson was blind from birth	1 Oct 1868	25 Mar 1939	70
SANDERSON OF AYOT
4 Jul 1960	B	1	Basil Sanderson Created Baron Sanderson of Ayot 4 Jul  1960	19 Jun 1894	15 Aug 1971	77
15 Aug 1971 to     28 Sep 1971		2	Alan Lindsay Sanderson He disclaimed the peerage for life 28 Sep 1971	12 Jan 1931	16 Dec 2022	91
16 Dec 2022		3	Michael Sanderson	6 Dec 1959
SANDERSON OF BOWDEN
5 Jun 1985	B[L]		Sir Charles Russell Sanderson Created Baron Sanderson of Bowden for life 5 Jun 1985	30 Apr 1933
SANDERSON OF WELTON
8 Oct 2019	B[L]		Elizabeth Jenny Rosemary Sanderson Created Baroness Sanderson of Welton for life 8 Oct 2019	24 May 1971
SANDFORD
20 Jan 1891 to     31 Dec 1893	B	1	Francis Richard John Sandford Created Baron Sandford 20 Jan 1891 PC 1885 Peerage extinct on his death	14 May 1824	31 Dec 1893	69
14 Jul 1945	B	1	Albert James Edmondson Created Baron Sandford 14 Jul 1945 MP for Banbury 1922‑1945 For further information on the death of his wife, see the note at the foot of the page	29 Jun 1886	16 May 1959	72
16 May 1959		2	John Cyril Edmondson	22 Dec 1920	13 Jan 2009	88
13 Jan 2009		3	James John Mowbray Edmondson	1 Jul 1949
SANDHURST
28 Mar 1871	B	1	Sir William Rose Mansfield Created Baron Sandhurst 28 Mar 1871 PC [I] 1870	21 Jun 1819	23 Jun 1876	57
23 Jun 1876 1 Jan 1917 to     8 Nov 1921	V	2 1	William Mansfield Created Viscount Sandhurst 1 Jan 1917 Governor of Bombay 1895‑1899; PC 1906 On his death the Viscountcy became extinct whilst the Barony passed to -	21 Aug 1855	2 Nov 1921	66
8 Nov 1921		3	John William Mansfield	10 Jul 1857	6 Jan 1933	75
6 Jan 1933		4	Ralph Sheldon Mansfield	19 Jul 1892	28 Oct 1964	72
28 Oct 1964		5	John Edward Terence Mansfield	4 Sep 1920	2 Jun 2002	81
2 Jun 2002		6	Guy Rhys John Mansfield [Elected hereditary peer 2021-]	3 Mar 1949
SANDON
19 Jul 1809	V	1	Dudley Ryder, 2nd Baron Harrowby Created Viscount Sandon and Earl of Harrowby 19 Jul 1809 See "Harrowby"	22 Dec 1762	26 Dec 1847	85
SANDWICH
12 Jul 1660	E	1	Edward Montagu Created Baron Montagu of St. Neots, Viscount Hinchingbrooke and Earl of Sandwich 12 Jul 1660 MP for Huntingdonshire 1644‑1647, 1653, 1654 and 1656 and Dover 1660; Lord Lieutenant Huntingdon 1660‑1672; KG 1660	27 Jul 1625	28 May 1672	46
28 May 1672		2	Edward Montagu MP for Dover 1670‑1672; Lord Lieutenant Huntingdon 1683‑1685 and Cambridge 1685‑1687	3 Jan 1648	29 Nov 1688	40
29 Nov 1688		3	Edward Montagu	10 Apr 1670	20 Oct 1729	59
20 Oct 1729		4	John Montagu First Lord of the Admiralty 1748‑1751, 1763 and 1771‑1782; Secretary of State 1763‑1765 and 1770‑1771; PC 1749 For further information on this peer, and the death of his mistress Martha Reay, see the notes at the foot of this page	13 Nov 1718	30 Apr 1792	73
30 Apr 1792		5	John Montagu MP for Brackley 1765‑1768 and Huntingdonshire 1768‑1792; PC 1771	26 Jan 1743	6 Jun 1814	71
6 Jun 1814		6	George Montagu MP for Huntingdonshire 1794‑1814	4 Feb 1773	21 May 1818	45
21 May 1818		7	John William Montagu Lord Lieutenant Huntingdon 1841‑1884; PC 1852	8 Nov 1811	3 Mar 1884	72
3 Mar 1884		8	Edward George Henry Montagu MP for Huntingdon 1876‑1884; Lord Lieutenant Huntingdon 1891‑1916	13 Jul 1839	26 Jun 1916	76
26 Jun 1916		9	George Charles Montagu MP for Huntingdon 1900‑1906; Lord Lieutenant Huntingdon 1922‑1946	29 Dec 1874	15 Jun 1962	87
15 Jun 1962 to     24 Jul 1964		10	Alexander Victor Edward Paulet Montagu MP for Dorset South 1941‑1962 He disclaimed the peerage for life 24 Jul 1964	22 May 1906	25 Feb 1995	88
25 Feb 1995		11	John Edward Hollister Montagu [Elected hereditary peer 1999-]	11 Apr 1943
SANDYS
20 Dec 1743	B	1	Samuel Sandys Created Baron Sandys 20 Dec 1743 MP for Worcester 1718‑1743; Chancellor of the Exchequer 1742‑1743; President of the Board of Trade 1761‑1763; PC 1742	10 Aug 1695	21 Apr 1770	74
21 Apr 1770 to     11 Mar 1797		2	Edwin Sandys MP for Droitwich 1747‑1754, Bossiney 1754‑1762 and Westminster 1762‑1770 Peerage extinct on his death	18 Apr 1726	11 Mar 1797	70
19 Jun 1802	B	1	Mary Hill Created Baroness Sandys 19 Jun 1802 For details of the special remainder included in the creation of this peerage, see the note at the foot of this page	19 Sep 1774	1 Aug 1836	61
1 Aug 1836		2	Arthur Moyses William Hill MP for Down 1817‑1836	10 Jan 1793	16 Jul 1860	67
16 Jul 1860		3	Arthur Marcus Cecil Sandys MP for Newry 1832‑1835 and Evesham 1838‑1852; PC 1841	28 Jan 1798	10 Apr 1863	65
10 Apr 1863		4	Augustus Frederick Arthur Sandys	1 Mar 1840	26 Jul 1904	64
26 Jul 1904		5	Michael Edwin Sandys Sandys	31 Dec 1855	4 Aug 1948	92
4 Aug 1948		6	Arthur Fitzgerald Sandys Hill	4 Dec 1876	24 Nov 1961	84
24 Nov 1961		7	Richard Michael Oliver Hill	21 Jul 1931	11 Feb 2013	81
11 Feb 2013		8	Arthur Francis Nicholas Wills Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire He had previously [2003] succeeded to the Marquessate of Downshire, with which title this peerage then merged	4 Feb 1959

	The special remainder to the Barony of Sackville created in 1876
	From the London Gazette of 26 September 1876 (issue 24367, page 5199):-
	The Queen 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 dignity of a Baron of the said United Kingdom to Mortimer Sackville‑West, Esq. (commonly called the Honourable Mortimer Sackville‑West), and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Baron Sackville, of Knole, in the county of Kent, with remainders, in default of such issue male, to his brothers Lionel Sackville Sackville‑West, Esq. (commonly called the Honourable Lionel Sackville Sackville‑West), and William Edward Sackville‑West, Esq. (commonly called the Honourable William Edward Sackville‑West), severally and successively, and to their heirs male of their respective bodies lawfully begotten.
	Victoria-Josefa Sackville-West, wife of the 3rd Baron Sackville (1862‑1936)
	The following is extracted from The Emperor of the United States of America and Other Magnificent British Eccentrics by Catherine Caufield (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1981)
	Spanish passion and Anglo-Saxon reserve were united in Lady Sackville - the illegitimate child of a Latin dancer [Josefa de la Oliva] and an English diplomat [the 2nd Baron Sackville - she therefore married her cousin] - to create a contradictory and unpredictable temperament. Her attitude towards money, for example, veered without warning from reckless indulgence to extreme parsimony. In certain moods money slipped through her hands like water; she once absentmindedly left a £10,000 cheque from J P Morgan made out to bearer in a taxi; on another occasion a stranger whom she met on the forty-minute train journey from London to Sevenoaks and never again laid eyes on persuaded her to invest £60,000 in a gold mine. In neither case was the money recovered.
	On the other hand for a time she took to cutting up used postage stamps and piecing together the non-postmarked bits to save the cost of a new stamp. She also economised by writing letters on filched hotel notepaper, and on one occasion on a slice of cooked ham. She was especially pleased with toilet paper pinched from Harrod's ladies' room. She corresponded regularly on this for quite some time and praised it to her daughter, the writer Vita Sackville‑West, for taking ink so nicely.
	Lady Sackville was a high-spirited woman, capable of being utterly charming, but with a quick, if short-lived, temper. Those closest to her, her servants and her family, suffered the brunt of her mood changes, though they did not always take it lying down: several times the entire household staff resigned en masse. One much loved nanny was summarily dismissed on suspicion of having eaten three-dozen quail which had not arrived in time for a dinner party.
	Fresh air was one of Lady Sackville's great passions. She never had a fire in her room, kept the windows and doors at Knole always open, and insisted upon taking her meals outdoors in all weathers. Often a meal with her meant sitting wrapped in fur coats with a hot water bottle on one's knees and a rug draped over one's lap. A lamp provided some light in the darkness and illuminated the drifting snowflakes as they piled up on the food and the cutlery. The compensation for all this was Lady Sackville saying cosily, 'Now, aren't you deliciously warm?' Luckily, she was apparently immune to colds; her favourite remedy for sore throats was to tie a pair of the architect Edwin Lutyens' old socks around her neck.
	Knole, the ancient Sackville home in the Kentish countryside, was Lady Sackville's pride and joy. There and at various smaller houses she had bought and sold over the years, she was able to put her peculiar notions of interior decoration into practice. One bedroom at Knole was papered entirely with postage stamps. The risers of a staircase at another house were painted to look like bookshelves. The Persian Room was furnished completely with objects from Turkey, a geographical contradiction which Lady Sackville absolutely refused to acknowledge. She took great trouble over minor details, and had a special individually designed bookplate printed for each book she owned.
	Her daughter Vita was of course a distinguished gardener, as well as a writer, but Lady Sackville preferred artificial flowers. Tin delphiniums were among her favourites because, as she explained to Vita, they are always in bloom and never plagued by slugs. Rather than planting living things, she often landscaped using only potted plants and porcelain flowers. On one occasion when Vita was coming to lunch, Lady Sackville's garden looked particularly dismal and, wanting to make a show for her daughter, she sent a friend out to buy £30 worth of paper and satin flowers which she 'planted' in an artistic arrangement in the bare earth.
	An expensive lawsuit about the Sackville title had eaten into the family's fortune [for further details see below] and Lady Sackville worried constantly that Knole's upkeep would become too expensive for them. When Lionel, her husband, was called up for the First World War, she wrote directly to Lord Kitchener saying that he must not be posted to a dangerous position as Knole could not possibly survive the massive death duties that would fall due if he was killed.
	Later she wrote to complain that Knole was being deprived of its staff by the call-up: 'I think perhaps you do not realize, my dear Lord K., that we employ five carpenters and four painters and two blacksmiths and two footmen and you are taking them all from us! I do not complain about the footmen, although I must say that I had never thought I would see parlourmaids at Knole! … Dear Lord K., I am sure you will sympathize with me when I say that parlourmaids are so middle-class, not at all what you and me are used to. But, as I said, that is not what I complain about … I know that we must give an example. You are at the War Office and must neglect your dear Broome [Kitchener's house], which you love so much. I think you love it as much as I love Knole? and of course you must love it even more because the world says you have never loved any woman - is that true? I shall ask you next time I come to luncheon with you. But talking about luncheon reminds me of parlourmaids, and I said that I would not complain about them (because I am patriotic after all) but I do complain about the way you take our workmen from us.'
	The distinction between charitable enterprises and profit-making ones eluded Lady Sackville. She was not in the least shy of soliciting funds on her own behalf - sometimes without actually saying so. The energy, invention and ruthless charm she put into such enterprises was staggering. One of her pet 'charities' in later years was The Homeless Sleeping on Brighton Beach, an organisation which was not registered with the Charity Commissioners and of which she was the only known member or beneficiary.
	In 1928 she wrote letters to all her acquaintances asking for donations to her Roof of Friendship Fund. Each person was asked to give the price of a tile to be dedicated to his or her friendship with Lady Sackville and to form with all the others an inspirational symbol of friendship to replace her distinctly uninspiring and leaky roof. Quite a few did contribute, but she was furious with [the painter] William Nicholson, who had the effrontery to send in a real tile.
	Later on came the Million Penny Fund, designed to eliminate the National Debt. Lady Sackville perused the papers for mentions of famous people celebrating their birthdays and wrote asking them to contribute one penny for each year of their life. The form letter she had written for the purpose ended with a plea: 'and do give me stamped envelopes which means one for my begging letter, one for having the pleasure of thanking you, and one for a fresh VICTIM.'
	Another time she decided to hold a white elephant sale. 'You know, people have them at bazaars,' she told Vita, 'but I shall have this one for myself. And then I thought as elephants come from Siam I would write to the King and ask him for a white one'. To the surprise of everyone but Lady Sackville, the King of Siam replied with a gift of a small but valuable solid-silver elephant.
	***************
	In May 1903, an action was brought by Ernest Henri Jean Baptiste Sackville West against the then Lord Sackville. His case was that he was the lawful and eldest son of Lord Sackville; that Sackville had married Josephine Duran de Ortega in 1864 or 1865 either in Spain or in France; and that he had been born on 24 June 1869. For his part, Sackville denied that he had ever been married and further stated that Josephine had previously married, in 1851, one Juan Antonio Gabriel de la Oliva and that, at the time of her alleged marriage to Sackville, she was still married to de la Oliva.
	There is no doubt that Josephine had been Sackville's mistress for many years and that she had been the mother of three of his children, including Victoria‑Josefa, who was therefore the claimant's older sister.
	The claim was finally rejected by the Probate Court in February 1910. The following extract is from The Times of 15 February 1910.
	Pepita, the mother of the claimant, was, somewhere about the fifties [i.e. the 1850s], a fascinating dancer "with glorious black eyes and hair", the idol of Madrid, with admirers whereever she went. The German students took the horses out of her carriage and drew it, to show perhaps their opinion that she was another or a better Lola Montez. She had many of the triumphs of a danseuse and one day she danced away the heart of a young Englishman, a diplomatist, the heir to a peerage and an ancient title. His was no fugitive fancy. They lived together for many years, and children were born to them. But they were not married. They could not be so. There was abundant evidence that in 1851 she became the wife of a Spanish dancer, de Oliva. The certificate of her marriage was found among her papers at her death. The late Lord Sackville, who had been told of the marriage to Oliva, stated that he was anxious to marry her if her husband was out of the way, 'but I never did marry her, or go through any form of marriage with her'. While they lived together his intimate friends knew the true state of things, which he did not conceal from them. When he went to Washington the Diplomatic Circle was made aware that his children were not legitimate. After her death he did his duty towards them, but not at the expense of truth. The late peer had his faults, but he was kind, not only to his children, but to Pepita. He no doubt introduced her and spoke of her as his wife. He registered his children as legitimate, and she was buried as his wife. The explanation of this was simple; he desired to spare her feelings while she lived and to respect her memory when she died. He knew that his friends were well acquainted with the facts; in business matters he took care to state the truth; and letter after letter from him, unequivocal as to his children's positions, was put in evidence.
	***************
	While viewing the Wallace Collection in 1897, Lady Sackville first met Sir John Murray Scott. For further information on him, see the note at the foot of the page containing details of the Wallace baronetcy created in 1871. Following the deaths of his mentor, Sir Richard Wallace and his wife, Scott had inherited over a million pounds in cash and securities, two valuable estates in Britain and the historic pavilion of Bagatelle in Paris, once owned by Marie Antoinette.
	A friendship developed between Sir John and Lady Sackville. She visited Paris to view the collection of Marie Antoinette's furniture at Bagatelle; he, in turn, visited Knole to see the art treasures there. Once the litigation outlined above had commenced, Sir John was anxious that none of the collection at Knole be sold to meet the costs of the court case. Accordingly, he advanced the sums necessary to fight the case.
	When Sir John died in 1912, he left an estate valued at £1,180,000. In his will, he left Lady Sackville £150,000 in cash and the magnificent art collection at his house in Paris, valued at £350,000. Sir John's four brothers and two sisters were furious when they heard of this, and this fury was increased when they realised that the bequest was tax-free, meaning that any taxation would have to be paid by the residue of the estate. They claimed that, after paying this tax, the value of the remaining estate would be negligible.
	They therefore contested the will and the case became famous as 'The Million Pound Case' when it opened in the Probate Court in June 1913. Lady Sackville was represented by Sir Edward Carson, later Baron Carson, and the Scotts by F E Smith, later Earl of Birkenhead. The Scotts maintained that the amount advanced to the Sackvilles to fight their court case was nearly £90,000. They alleged that Lady Sackville had insinuated herself into Sir John's good graces and had completely mesmerised him. She had become virtual mistress of his home in Connaught Place, choosing his guests, riding in his carriages, managing his servants and once even banishing one of his sisters from the table during a dinner party. One of the brothers, Walter Scott, accused her of trying to trap him into a love affair in order to turn Sir John against him.
	The Scotts were forced to admit, under questioning by Carson, that Sir John had been most generous to them in his lifetime. To one he had given a fully-stocked farm worth £57,000 with a allowance of £2,000 a year. Another brother admitted receiving £26,000.
	It took the jury only 12 minutes to find in favour of Lady Sackville. Contrary to Sir John's good intentions however, and proving her fickle nature, she reputedly lost no time in selling the art treasures, obtaining, it is said, some £270,000 from a Paris art dealer.
	Osborne de Vere Beauclerk, 12th Duke of St. Albans
	The following is extracted from The Emperor of the United States of America and Other Magnificent British Eccentrics by Catherine Caufield (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1981)
	'Obby', as his friends called him, took little part in public life; in fact, his forays into that arena seem mostly to have been motivated by a gleeful desire to cause havoc. He held the hereditary post of Grand Falconer and proposed attending the 1953 Coronation with a live falcon on his wrist. When the organisers suggested a stuffed bird instead, he boycotted the ceremony. Parishioners at the church near his home in Ireland remember him snoozing through sermons with a handkerchief over his face, rousing himself occasionally to shout out "Rubbish!"
	He married late in life and never had any legitimate children, partly for fear of passing on a streak of madness that ran in his branch of the family. About illegitimate children, however, he had no such inhibitions, and boasted of having large numbers of them. Obby professed to be unsure of exactly how many he had. On one occasion a certain baronet and his wife who were lunching with the Duke were mystified to hear him repeatedly muttering to a friend in very audible asides "What do you think? Is he one of mine?"
	His sense of decorum was strict, if unpredictable. Once, when his wife was late coming down to a lunch, Obby gave her seat to a man who had come to check the fire extinguishers and when she did appear he refused to allow her to join the table. He expected the hall porter at his club, Brooks's, to wind his watch for him, holding out his arm and saying "there's a good fellow". Once, while he was eating in a hotel restaurant, a fire broke out. The Duke remained at his table and when urged by the waiters to escape, he replied "Nonsense! Bring me some more toast." On the other hand the ducal dignity was allowed to slip rather badly when on a visit to Lord Dunraven he arrived carrying only a toothbrush and a pair of pyjamas in a brown paper bag.
	Obby lived to be 89, with little thought of growing old gracefully. At 83, he took a freighter to the US, crossed the country by Greyhound bus, and toured Latin America, travelling second class all the way. A newspaper interview two years previously in which he expressed a desire for a young wife brought him 68 offers of marriage, including a number of titled and highly eligible ladies. He opted for continued singleness, the state in which eccentricity and crotchetiness best thrive.
	Charles Frederick Aubrey de Vere Beauclerk, 13th Duke of St. Albans
	At the time he succeeded to the Dukedom, Charles Beauclerk was employed in the film division of the Central Office of Information, having previously contributed articles to the Evening Star newspaper and lived in rented accommodation.
	Once he succeeded to the title, his immediate ambition was to use the title to advance his business prospects. However, he showed poor judgement in his choice of business colleagues and, after a series of financial scandals, he was forced to admit that his involvement in the world of commerce had brought him nothing but grief. In December 1973, when he was chairman of Grendon Trust, he was severely criticized by the UK Department of Trade over his actions during a takeover bid. The Duke held a 3.9% holding in Grendon which he sold, despite having given an undertaking not to sell without advance notice to the Grendon board. The Takeover concluded that, although they had no reason to believe that the Duke acted from improper motives, they could not avoid the conclusion that the sale of the Duke's shares was prejudicial to the interests of other Grendon shareholders and was therefore open to serious criticism. The Duke was reported to have made £793,000 from the sale of his shares.
	After the Inland Revenue sued him for £182,000 in 1978, he sold his two houses in Chelsea and went to live in southern France, returning regularly to London to have his hair cut at the Ritz.
	The special remainder to the Earldom of Saint Germans
	From the London Gazette of 30 September 1815 (issue 17066, page 1997):-
	His Royal Highness has … been pleased, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty, to grant the dignity of Earl of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to the Right Honourable John Craggs Lord Eliot, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style, and title of Earl of Saint Germains, in the county of Cornwall.
	A week later, there appeared in the London Gazette of 7 October 1815 (issue 17068, page 2042)
	Errata in the Gazette of Saturday last
	For His Royal Highness the Prince Regent has … been pleased to grant the dignity of an Earl of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto the Right Honourable John Craggs Lord Eliot, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten,
	Read His Royal Highness the Prince Regent has been … pleased to grant the dignity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto the Right Honourable John Lord Eliot, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, and in default of such issue, to his brother William Eliot, Esq. and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten.
	Edward Henry John Cornwallis Eliot, styled Baron Eliot, son and heir of the 5th Earl of Saint Germans
	Lord Eliot committed suicide on 24 August 1909. The following obituary appeared in The Times on 25 August:-
	Lord Eliot, elder son and heir of the Earl of St. Germans, was found shot dead at the family seat, Port Eliot, St. Germans, Cornwall, yesterday.
	Lord Eliot was a subaltern in the Coldstream Guards and had been serving with his battalion, the third, at Khartoum. He went out in January last and recently came home on sick leave, but was not believed to be in a serious state of ill-health. He had, however, felt the effects of the climate of the Sudan. He was an enthusiastic cricketer, and had, during his stay at home, taken part in several matches. It had been arranged that a team from Plymouth should go down to St. Germans yesterday for a match. On the arrival at St. Germans of Major Cawdor and his team from Plymouth, Lord Eliot could not be found, and search was made for him. About 2 o'clock his dead body was found in the gun-room. Lord Eliot had been shot through the head, and an empty cartridge case was found in one of the barrels of a double-barrelled gun which was beside the body. Lord Eliot was personally very popular in the district, and his death has caused great regret.
	Edward Henry John Cornwallis, Lord Eliot, was born on August 30, 1885, so that he was within a few days of completing his 24th year. He was educated at Eton and Magdalene College, Cambridge, and was gazetted an ensign in the Coldstream Guards in May last year. His younger brother, the Hon. John Granville Cornwallis, who was born in June, 1890, and is a cadet at Sandhurst, now becomes heir to the title.
	Nicholas Richard Michael Eliot, 9th Earl of Saint Germans
	St. Germans (or Lord Eliot as he was known until 1960) was dubbed the 'Bookie Peer'. Having participated in horse racing as an owner and trainer, he opened a turf commission agency in 1950. In 1953, he was called as a witness in the 'Francasal affair' where a racecourse gang ran a horse named Francasal at the Bath races in the name of a considerably slower horse called Santa Amaro. Shortly before the start of the race, the gang placed bets totalling £6,000 on 'Santa Amaro'. The ring-in duly won, but the circumstances aroused suspicion and payment of bets was withheld. The gang were later found guilty and imprisoned. In his evidence at the trial, St. Germans testified that one of the conspirators had come to him with 'quite a childish suggestion'; that the wife of the Chief Constable of Bath should be presented with a fur coat. St. Germans immediately informed Scotland Yard of this approach.
	After he succeeded to the title in 1960, St. Germans migrated to Tangier as a tax exile. There he called himself the 'Tangerine Earl'. He was a popular figure among the locals but admitted that there were things he missed about England, including treacle tart and a decent game of backgammon. In 1963, he fired an unauthorized gun in the Safari Bar, for which he spent a night in a police cell.
	The Saint Leonards Will case of 1875‑1876
	The following article, written by Dalrymple Belgrave, is taken from a series entitled Romances of High Life published in the Manchester Times in 1898:-
	The Lord Chancellors are a long-lived race. Lord Lyndhurst lived to ninety-one, Lord Brougham to eighty-nine, and Lord Chelmsford to an old age, but the oldest ex-Chancellor of late years was Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, the first Lord St. Leonards, who was over 70 in 1852, when he was made Lord Chancellor by Lord Derby, and who lived for 23 years after that great event in his life. Lord St. Leonards, when the time came for him to go into the House of Commons as a step in the career of a great lawyer, had probably troubled himself very little about politics. Unlike Lord Lyndhurst, who was always interested in politics, or Lord Brougham, of whom it was said that if he had known some law he would have known a little of everything, Lord St. Leonards was a great lawyer, who was interested in nothing but law. He served the Tory party by the great ability he showed when he was their law officer, and amused it when he was in Opposition by losing no opportunity, in the law courts, of exposing the ignorance of law of the Whig Chancellor, Lord Brougham, but he took little part in debates.
	He was always loyal to his party, though his promotion came very slowly. In 1829 he was made by the Duke of Wellington Solicitor-General. In 1834 Sir Robert Peel gave him the Irish Chancellorship. After that he went back to the Bar and the House of Commons. After he was made Chancellor in 1852, he did not hold that office for long, as the Ministry only lasted a few months. Six years later Lord Derby came into office, and again offered the old lawyer the woolsack, but he considered that at 77 he was too old for the responsibilities of office. For years after that, however, he did a great deal of work in the House of Lords as a law lord, while he also was of great service to his country in the House as a law reformer. Towards the end of his life, however, he lived most of his time at Boyle Farm, near Thames Ditton, which was the place he had chosen as his home. He was a man of humble birth, for his father was a hair-dresser, but for years he had had a large practice at the bar, and he had made a great deal of money, a large portion of which he had invested in the purchases of landed estates.
	He had bought the Childerly Hall Estate, Cambridgeshire, which had a rent roll of £1,580 a year, Sutton Scotney, Hampshire, with £1,200 a year, Peaswood, Berkshire £1,200 a year, Filgate, Sussex, worth £283 a year, and Boyle Farm and some land, worth £405 a year. Boyle Farm was his residence, and he had spent a good deal of money in improving and furnishing the house. Some years after he bought Boyle Farm he purchased another estate, Kingsdown, in Sussex. When he was a young man, a year after he had been called to the Bar, he had married. He had a family of three sons and five daughters. Two of his sons, the eldest (Henry) and the youngest (Arthur), died in his lifetime. Both, however, had married and left sons, and all his daughters but one were married. This daughter, the Hon. Miss Charlotte Sugden, was her father's constant companion. During his busy life at the Bar, the old Chancellor had written several great law books, and in his old age he devoted a great deal of time to a work which he called "The Handy-Book of Real Property Law". The idea of this book was that it should explain the law of real property - which had occupied the great lawyer's life - to unlearned readers, and make most of its intricacies and difficulties easy for them to understand. To some extent he may be said to have succeeded in doing this, for the book is admirably clear. In doing this work it was his custom to use his daughter, Miss Sugden, as his amanuensis and assistant. He would read over what he had written to her, and explain it, and when he saw that she perfectly understood it he would say that the general public ought to understand what he had written. Possibly he was over-confident in this respect, for Miss Sugden seems to have had no small talent for the branch of learning in which her father so greatly excelled.
	The book is written in the form of letters to some person whom the writer is supposed to be anxious to instruct. There is one of them which has a curious interest, considering what afterwards happened. It relates to the subject of wills. "I am somewhat unwilling," he writes, "to give you instructions for making your will without the assistance of your professional legal adviser. It is quite shocking to reflect on the litigation that had been caused by men making their own wills or employing incompetent persons to do so, to save a few guineas. Looking at it as a money transaction, lawyers might be in despair if everyone's will was prepared by a competent person." In another place in his book he discusses the new regulations of the Probate Office, which not only takes care of the wills of deceased persons, but also provides repositories where people can, if they choose, place their own wills for safe custody. "If you are from time to time likely to alter your will, I should advise you not to place it within this depository. If I were a devisee of a living testator I should like to hear that the will was in the new depository. The expense and difficulty of the gathering of the will out of this custody would deter many men from capriciously altering their donations."
	Possibly Lord St. Leonards thought that his warning against people making their own wills do not apply to the case of an ex-Lord Chancellor, who probably knew more about the law on the subject than any man alive, and yet he was destined to prove the truth of the old adage about the sort of client that the man has who is his own lawyer. Lord St. Leonards will was an object of art, on which he spent much time, and he probably could not stand the idea of any other lawyer having anything to do with it. He had made a will in 1867, in which he had left all his landed estate in trust for his grandson - who would succeed him in the peerage - for his life, with remainders to his first and other sons, and with other remainders, so that as far as the estate could be settled it would go with the peerage. He made his pictures and objects of art at Boyle Farm heirlooms, and he gave to his daughter, Miss Charlotte Sugden, a legacy of £6,000, and directed that she should have from his farm stock two cows, to be selected by herself, from his conservatory two dozen plants, and two dozen bottles of his old sherry.
	On January 13th, 1870, Miss Sugden noticed that her father was very busy with his papers, and that he had the will of 1867 before him. When she called him to luncheon he would not suspend his labours, but he went on writing until he had finished, and then he expressed his pleasure at having completed his will. He then read slowly over to her what he had written. This began: "This is an addition to my will," and it disposed of the Kingsdown Estate, which he had then lately bought, and which was worth about £1,200 a year, to his living son, Frank, who was a clergyman. It gave certain other legacies, and named his daughter, Charlotte Sugden, and two married daughters, Caroline Turner and Augusta Reilly, his residuary legatees. This, with the will of 1867, covered sixteen sheets of blue paper, which were pinned together. After he had made his will he locked it in his will box. On March 3rd, 1870, he added a codicil to his will; on July 4th, 1871, a second codicil; September 15th, 1871, a third; a few days afterwards he made another codicil, and he made a fifth codicil on November 27th, 1871. These codicils were not of much importance, except that one of them left three meadows at Thames Ditton to Miss Sugden, on one of which in 1873 she built a house. On March 25th, 1872, however, he made a codicil which was of much more importance, for it most materially altered the position of his heir. It had happened that in 1870 his grandson, who was then little more than of age, had at Rome met a young lady, and had become engaged to marry her. Now, Lord St. Leonards had a great objection to the idea of his grandson's marrying. First of all, he considered he was too young; but a more serious or more lasting objection was the trouble that it would give to draw his marriage settlements.
	The old ex-Chancellor probably felt that he was too old to set about drawing the marriage settlement for his heir, and at the same time he probably did not like the idea of their being drawn by anyone else. The one way of obviating this difficulty that he saw seems to have been that his grandson should not marry. When he became engaged to marry in 1870, the old lord became very angry, but he managed to break off the engagement. To do this he prepared a codicil leaving his grandson only £800 a year. A copy of this was sent to his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Henry Sugden, the young man's mother, but when the young lady's friends heard that Lord St. Leonards disapproved of the marriage they at once broke off the engagement, and the grandfather and grandson became reconciled and the codicil was destroyed. In 1872, however, the young man again became engaged, and this occasioned the sixth codicil, which was executed in March, 1872.
	By this codicil he left Sutton Scotney to his son Frank, while he left Filgate to Mrs. Henry Sugden, and afterwards to her younger sons. A month or so afterwards, he made another codicil, leaving Boyle Farm to his son Frank. On August 20th, 1873, he made a last codicil, confirming all the dispositions he had made in favour of his daughter, Miss Sugden, and leaving her some further property. Miss Charlotte Sugden was present at the execution of all of these codicils, and on each occasion she saw the will, and on several occasions she read it over to her father. As her father locked up the will after he had put the eighth codicil to it, he said: "There, I have done the last earthly thing I wish". All the codicils were written on loose sheets of paper, which were put in the folds of the will. The will has put into a small despatch box, which was kept in the room in which her father generally sat and wrote. It was locked up, and the key was locked up in a drawer of an escritoire, the key of which Lord St. Leonards always kept. After some time the box was kept for safety in Miss Sugden's bedroom.
	Lord St. Leonards had been much annoyed by a series of hoaxes which he had been made the object of. Things had been sent him which he had never ordered. Amongst other things which had been sent was a monument with a false inscription to the late Lady St Leonards. Detectives had been employed to find out who the evilly disposed person was, but they had not discovered the culprit. In the year 1874, Lord St. Leonards became very ill, and during his illness told Miss Sugden that he had been trying to remember how he had left his estates. She then repeated to him how he had disposed of them. He listened, and then said: "That is exactly as I desire". From this illness he got better again, and he sometimes would say to his daughter how pleased he was to think that he had settled his earthly affairs. He would say that he thought it to be the duty of every man to make a disposition of his property in such a manner as to prevent litigation, and he considered that he had done so. At the beginning of 1875, he was taken ill again, and on January 29th he died. A very short time before he died he said to his daughter that if he thought that he had not left her everything she desired he should not die happy.
	Towards the end of her father's life Miss Sugden generally kept the keys that unlocked the will box, and on only one occasion did she part with them. That was when she went to Brighton for [a] change of air, after an illness in 1873, when she gave them to her brother Frank, taking them back when she returned. After the death, Mr. Trollope, the family lawyer, went to Boyle Farm, and, having been given the keys in the presence of the family, he opened the will box. The will, however, was not in the will box. There were the eight codicils, but the will itself was not there, and no one could find it. Mr. Trollope, the lawyer, knew that Miss Sugden was well acquainted with her father's affairs, and had often seen the will, and he at once suggested that it would be best for her to write down all she remembered of the will. She at once went away from the others, and, without speaking to anyone, she sat down and wrote out all she remembered. In the meantime the house was searched, but in vain. The young Lord St. Leonards properly enough left the task of looking for the will to the other members of the family. A reward of £500 was offered for the will, but no one gave any information about it. One thing was learnt that was rather curious. It had been believed that no one could open the will box except the person who had in his possession the key of the escritoire, where the key of the will box was locked up. When a search was made, however, it was found that there were at least three other keys in the house that would open that drawer. If any members of the family had any suspicion they kept them to themselves. Had the old ex-Chancellor destroyed his will with the intention of revoking it? To believe that he had done so without making another will would be to believe that he wished all his landed estates to go absolutely to his grandson, the second Lord St. Leonards, so that he should be able to deal with them exactly as he chose.
	Of course, if the will had been revoked, the codicils which depended upon it would also have become of no effect. To leave all his landed property absolutely to his heir-at-law would have been a strange thing for anyone to do who was in possession of a peerage, which he wished to protect and establish in prosperity. Lord St. Leonards had, again and again, both in his "Handy-Book of Real Property Law", and in his conversation, expressed his opinion that "for a man to put off making his will until the hand of death was upon him was either cowardice or gross carelessness". Therefore, that he who took simply a delight in legal settlements should have willingly died intestate was quite inconceivable. The question was, could the will as remembered by Miss Sugden be proved in the Probate Court without its production? Before that time lost wills had been proved, but it happened that these had been cases of wills that had been made by lawyers, and there had been drafts from which they had been copied out, or the instructions to the lawyers. Lord St. Leonards had dispensed with the services of a lawyer. He had thought, as he said to his daughter, "that he could make his will as well as any lawyer could," and so there was no means of proving the contents of the will but the recollection of Miss Sugden. Still, those who benefited under the will were advised to go to court. The lady gave her evidence, and on the part of the defendant to the suit, the present Lord St. Leonards, whose conduct seems to have been unexceptionable in the matter, there was really no attempt made to suggest in any way that she was telling a false story. Then some of the servants were called, and they proved statements that the old lord had made up to the very last, which showed that he believed that Miss Sugden would be left well off, and that his son Frank would have the Kingsdown Estate.
	Mr. Samuel Warren, a Commissioner in Lunacy and the famous author, was called. He was then an old man, and he had been one of Lord St. Leonard's great friends. "It was a shame to trouble Mr. Warren to come to the Probate Court," said Mr. Hawkins, the plaintiff's counsel, when he had already given us all 'ten thousand a year'." [This reference is to Warren' best known novel, which was entitled "Ten Thousand a Year".] Mr. Warren said that the old lord had told him that he had purchased an estate for £40,000, which he had left to his son Frank. In cross-examination, Mr. Warren said that Lord St. Leonards had always been proud of the dignity of his peerage, and that he was anxious that there should be an adequate income to keep it up.
	This, however, cut two ways, for though it might be used as an argument against his leaving properties away from the peerage, it was a stronger argument against his revoking a will without making another, and so giving his heir-at-law the absolute disposal of all his landed estates. A suggestive piece of evidence was given by one of the menservants, who said that he had often heard his old master hum to himself a song about an old lady who hid her will away in a cabinet. For the defendant it was argued, as a point of law, that a will could not be proved by only one witness, who was greatly interested in the will. The suggestion was made also that Lord St. Leonards had torn up his will with the intention of making another, and that he had kept the codicils in order to be guided in making his new will. For the defendant, also, reliance was placed upon the presumption of law that, when a will is not to be found, which was in the custody of the testator, it has been torn up with the intention of revoking. It was argued that if any other person had taken away the will from the box, out of curiosity or malice, that person would also have taken away the codicils.
	In giving judgment, Sir James Hannen, of course, admitted the presumption of law that a will that had been in possession of the testator and could not be found had been destroyed by him with the intention of revoking it. That presumption could be rebutted by evidence, and in this case he considered that it had been. Then he considered that the contents had been proved. It would have been more satisfactory if there had been a draft with an instruction for the will, as there would have been if the will had been made by a lawyer. It would have been more satisfactory if a professional man could have been called to prove what the contents of the will were. But Miss Sugden, though a lady, had been the constant companion of a great lawyer, who had always delighted in explaining law to her, and he declared himself satisfied that the contents of the will were as she stated them to be. There was one point which Sir James Hannen had probably some satisfaction in referring to, and that was the advice in his "Handy-Book" which Lord St. Leonards had given people, not to use the depositories for wills provided by the Court of Probate. There was nothing, he said, to prevent any person altering his will by making a new one at any time he liked, although he might have placed the first will in the depository.
	So Sir James Hannen declared in favour of the will as remembered by Miss Sugden, and the aged ex-Lord Chancellor, who had done so much in his lifetime to make and elucidate the law, left behind him a will suit which will always be the leading case as to the amount of evidence by which a lost will can be proved.
	Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, 2nd Baron Saint Leonards
	The 2nd Lord Saint Leonards was charged with indecent assault in May 1884. The following edited report appeared in the Hampshire Advertiser of 24 May 1884:-
	Edward Burtenshaw Sugden, Lord St.Leonards, aged 36, was charged yesterday morning before the Recorder at the Old Bailey with indecently assaulting Emma Cole. The prisoner pleaded not guilty … Mr. Mathews [for the prosecution] having remarked that there was nothing in the case to distinguish it from any other charge of the similar character, except the rank of the prisoner, narrated the facts of the charge.
	Emma Cole, the prosecutrix, was then called. She said that she lived at 12, Victoria-road, Twickenham, as domestic servant to Mr. Crawford. She had been about three weeks in that employment. Until the Sunday before the 6th of May she had never seen the prisoner. On Tuesday, the 6th of May, the prisoner called at the house and asked for Mr. Crawford. She told him that Mr. and Mrs. Crawford were both in town. As she was closing the door, the prisoner, who appeared to be drunk, forced it open and came into the hall. He asked for a piece of string for his dog. He said, "I suppose I can go in here," and he went into the parlour. The witness said she would go and get the string. As she was about to leave the room, the prisoner took hold of her, tried to push her on the sofa, and assaulted her. She struggled and got away from him. The witness went downstairs and called George Detmar, who was working in the garden. The prisoner rang the bell, and Detmar went upstairs. The prisoner was still in the parlour, and he asked Detmar for some string. He was then got out of the house, but he returned for a clay pipe which he left in the parlour. The witness said that she complained to Detmar and to her master of the prisoner's conduct. She was bruised by the prisoner, and the next day she was examined by the doctor.
	Witness, on being pressed by Mr. Clarke [for the defence], admitted that a long time since she had behaved improperly with a man.
	George Detmar said he had worked for Mr. Crawford for a number of years. On the evening of the 6th of May he was at Mr. Crawford's when he saw the prisoner, who asked for a bit of string for his dog. Emma Cole made a complaint to him about Lord St. Leonards' conduct towards her. The witness thought the prisoner had had a little to drink.
	In cross-examination the witness said he heard the prisoner knock at the door. When the witness came into the house he noticed that Emma Cole looked flurried. He asked her what was the matter. After Lord St. Leonards he gone she complained to him.
	Mr. Samuel Crawford said that when he got home on the night of the 6th of May, Emma Cole opened the door. She afterwards made a complaint as to the prisoner. He had only seen Lord St. Leonards on the previous Sunday at Eel Pie Island.
	Dr. Benthal said he had known Emma Cole for five years. On the 7th inst. he was called in to examine her. He found two slight bruises on her left breast and bruises on her right thigh. He examined her again upon a subsequent occasion. Cross-examined - There were no bruises on the arm, and there were no signs of a violent struggle.
	No evidence was called for the defence. Mr. Clarke addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He urged that to convict Lord St. Leonards on the evidence produced would be an unheard-of wrong.
	The Recorder, in summing up, said that in all cases of rape and indecent assault there were, as a rule, only the accuser and the accused present at the time alleged. Such charges were easy to make and difficult to refute, and the jury must therefore always look to see what corroboration there was. His Lordship read at length the evidence of the prosecutrix. Her examination showed that she was not a virtuous woman, but that would not disentitle her to the protection of the law. In dealing with the question of corroboration the jury would consider both whether there were such marks upon her of bruises as would lead to the belief there was a struggle and whether her character was such as would entitle her to belief. If they had any reasonable doubt, the prisoner was entitled to it; but if, on the other hand, they thought the case proved, they would find him guilty of the offence with which he was charged.
	The jury retired to consider their verdict at 2.25. After an absence of nearly an hour and a half, they returned into court with a verdict of Guilty.
	Sentencing was postponed until the next session, when the Recorder imposed a sentence of seven weeks' imprisonment, dating from 7th May. As a result, Lord St. Leonards was released immediately after being sentenced.
	Lord Saint Leonards appears to have spent the next few years in Australia, where he attracted attention for all the wrong reasons. In August 1885, he was involved in a drunken confrontation in a Melbourne hotel when he was refused service of liquor after hours. Shortly thereafter, the York Herald of 5 December 1885 reported that "A Melbourne journal states that Lord St. Leonards, who was at St. Kilda, a fashionable watering-place near Melbourne, recently received a very sound thrashing from a Colonial bushman, for having, at a public bar, spoken irreverently and indecently of her Majesty the Queen." In June 1886, the licensee of the hotel in which Lord Saint Leonards was staying was forced to seize and sell his personal effects to recover moneys owed to him.
	The special remainder to the Viscountcy of St. Vincent created in 1801
	From the London Gazette of 18 April 1801 (issue 15356, page 421):-
	The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Viscount of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to the Right Honorable John Earl of St. Vincent, Knight of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath, and Admiral of the White Squadron of His Majesty's Fleet, and to the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten by the Name, Style, and Title of Viscount St. Vincent, of Meaford, in the County of Stafford, with Remainders severally and successively to William Henry Ricketts, Esq; Captain in the Royal Navy, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten; to Edward Jervis Ricketts, Esq; Barrister at Law, Brother of the said William Henry Ricketts, and Sons of Mary Ricketts by William Henry Ricketts. Esq; late of the Island of Jamaica, deceased, and sister to the said John Earl of St. Vincent, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, and the Dignity of Viscountess St. Vincent, of Meaford, in the said County of Stafford, to the Right Honourable Mary Countess of Northesk, Daughter of the said Mary Ricketts, and Widow of William Henry Ricketts aforesaid, and the Dignity of Viscount St. Vincent to the Heirs Male of her Body lawfully begotten.
	On the death of the 1st Viscount in 1823, he was succeeded by Edward Jervis Ricketts, who changed his surname to Jervis shortly after inheriting the title.
	Claims to the peerage of St. Vincent
	Newspapers in the years 1881 and 1901 reported upon claims that were supposedly about to be made for the title of Viscount St. Vincent. In neither case have I been able to find any details of any subsequent actions taken by the claimants, and I therefore assume that both claims were not proceeded with.
	The first (and more realistic) claim arose in 1881, when the Essex Telegraph published an article which was reprinted in The Isle of Wight Observer on 14 May 1881:-
	That truth is stranger than fiction was never more forcibly exemplified than by the event we are now about to chronicle. Indeed the most imaginative romancist never conceived a more perfect picture of unjust suspicion, of unmerited obloquy, and of ultimate clearance and restoration to right; and even that sensational and gifted novelist, Wilkie Collins, never concocted a story of the recovery of deeds, or discovery of registers more improbable and romantic than the actual occurrences in this case. Unsuspected by them, the inhabitants of St. Paul's district, Lexden [a suburb of Colchester in Essex], have, during the last six years, had their spiritual wants ministered to by a Peer of the Realm. Succeeding the Rev. Samuel Farman, some six years ago, the Rev. William Henry Edward Ricketts Jervis took up his residence in the St. Paul's district - now ecclesiastically a parish - and ever since has laboured most zealously in the neighbourhood. To a few people it was known some years ago that Mr. Jervis believed himself to be the legal successor to the title and emoluments of Viscount St. Vincent, and that there was but one hiatus in the chain by which his claim was supported.
	This missing link, however, was a most serious one, being none other than the parish register in was recorded the marriage of Captain William Henry Ricketts, R.N., Mr. Jervis' paternal grandfather. How Captain Ricketts could stand in this relation to Mr. Jervis may at first sight appear strange, seeing that the family patronymic is not the same; but this will be explained by the following facts: Admiral Sir John Jervis, K.B., was elevated to the Peerage on June 23rd, 1797, by the title[s] of Baron Jervis of Meaford, in the county of Stafford, and Earl [of] St. Vincent, in acknowledgment of his services and splendid victory over the Spanish fleet off Cape St. Vincent. The Earl was married, but had no children; and in the year 1801 he applied to the King, in order to save the title from extinction, to be created Viscount St. Vincent, with remainder to his sister's (Mrs. Ricketts') children. Upon this the Rev. Mr. Jervis' grandfather, being the eldest son, became heir-apparent to the Viscountcy, and in June, 1801, he assumed, by sign manual, the surname and arms of Jervis, instead of Ricketts. Four years afterwards (on the 26th of January, 1805) Captain Jervis was unfortunately drowned by the upsetting of the barge used by him in carrying despatches to the Commander-in-Chief off Rochefort. Capt. Jervis married, first, Lady Elizabeth Jane Lambart, from whom, on his own petition, he was divorced in 1797, by Act of Parliament, the only method in those days of dissolving a marriage. By this wife he had two daughters.
	The second marriage has been, until lately, a subject of doubt and mystery, and, in the absence of proof of it, a great wrong has been done to the Rev. Mr. Jervis and his father. However, it now appears that he married, secondly (in 1800), Cecilia Jane Vinet, a lady well known in society at that time. There never was any doubt of the fact that by his lady he left issue - two sons, the eldest of whom, born Oct 11, 1802, was the Vicar of St. Paul's father, afterwards Vice-Admiral William Henry Jervis, Knight Commander of the Portuguese Order of the Tower and Sword. The second son was born shortly after Capt Jervis was drowned, and died in Jamaica in 1837.
	The object of concealing this marriage with Miss Vinet may forever remain a mystery, but it will most surely be keenly discussed, by-and-bye, when the case is legally investigated. Circumstances point clearly to the conclusion that it was a private marriage. There is no lack of proof that Capt Jervis' maternal uncle, the gallant Admiral Earl St. Vincent, had a strong objection to naval officers marrying. Having probably once had experience of his uncle's anger in regard to marriage, he feared that a further remonstrance in the same direction might result in his being disinherited. Anyhow, it is perfectly clear that he must have bound his wife to maintain the secret for a time, intending, in all probability, to divulge the affair upon the death of the Admiral. However, the Captain was drowned some eighteen years before the Earl died. This latter event occurred on March 13th, 1823.
	Not the least mysterious feature of this most mysterious case is to understand why it was that the widow of Captain Jervis maintained to the end the secret of the entry in the marriage register of the Dorsetshire church. The motive to divulge and thus legitimatise her children must have been strong; yet ever stronger was the motive to keep the secret locked in her breast. To speculate at this period as to whether her motives were honourable or otherwise we leave to other people, and proceed with our narrative.
	On the death of the Earl St.Vincent, and failing proof of Capt Jervis' marriage with Miss Vinet, the title passed to Capt Jervis' next brother, Edward Jervis Ricketts, and has from that time been in possession of members of the younger branch of the family, to the exclusion of Vice-Admiral Jervis and his eldest son, the Rev. W.H.E.R. Jervis, the present claimant to the honour, and whom the marriage certificate proves undoubtedly to be the rightful possessor of the title and whatever follows with it.
	The Rev Mr Jervis was first made aware of his possible position upon his coming of age, his father then narrating to him the history of the affair. As may well be understood, this chapter of family history was not often a subject of conversation, and the Admiral seldom mentioned it himself, and gave no countenance to others bringing it up for discussion. It was, we understand, only when on his death-bed that he freely opened his heart, and told all he knew and suspected in the matter.
	The Vice-Admiral died on November 19th, 1874, and when his papers were examined a most important statement in his own handwriting was discovered. This put the matter in so tangible a form that it could not fail to influence the rev. Gentleman, and to make him resolve that no efforts should be spared to determine the question at issue. His clerical duties and his family affairs prevented him giving much continuous time and attention to the enquiry, but the one object to be attained was, nevertheless, ever kept in view. Advertisements were occasionally inserted in the London newspapers offering a reward for the discovery of proof of the marriage of Captain William Henry Ricketts (or Jervis if after June, 1801) to Miss Vinet.
	Subsequently (in 1879) the rev. Gentleman instructed Mr. A.M. White, solicitor, of Colchester, to act for him, and the reward was increased to £500. These advertisements were productive of no result, and after a time they were withdrawn. In May last, however, Mr. Jervis, acting on the suggestion of a clerical friend, inserted a similar advertisement in the Ecclesiastical Gazette, a copy of which, it appears, is sent gratuitously to every incumbent in the kingdom. Here, we have no doubt, the reward came under the notice of many whom it would not otherwise have reached, and, although no immediate result followed, it was through this agency that the long-sought proof was eventually discovered.
	Without the fearful storm of the 18th of January last, however, the Ecclesiastical Gazette would have been useless. The two together effected the wonderful purpose, but either without the other would have been powerless. A Church of England newspaper and a terrible snowstorm seem a somewhat remarkable combination, but it was by these conjointly that the identity of the Rev. W.H.E.R. Jervis, vicar of St. Paul's, Colchester, and rector-designate of Cranford, Middlesex, with Viscount St. Vincent was established.
	Like most other incumbents, the rector of a village in Dorsetshire, the name of which we are not at present moment at liberty to divulge, saw the advertisement offering £500 for the certificate, and, like most other incumbents, he no doubt wished, though he scarcely dared to hope, that so substantial a reward might fall to his portion. He did not, however, deem it worth while to search the parish records, and it was only by a fortuitous combination of circumstances that he eventually came upon the entry which had so long been sought for.
	In the first place there was a storm of a phenomenal character; in the second place, the roof of the Parish Church was defective; in the third place, the sliding covering of the keyhole of the chest in which old registers were kept was left aside, and the keyhole, which was in the top of the box, exposed; in the fourth place, the snow and water came through the roof exactly on to this chest, and a good deal of it went through the unprotected keyhole. The latter fact led to the all-important discovery. The Rector, on finding how the wet had got in, opened the chest to see what damage had been done, and it was while turning over the leaves of an old register that his eye lit upon an entry of the marriage of William Jervis Ricketts with Cecilia Jane Vinet, which marriage was celebrated in the year 1800. The names at once seemed to be familiar to him, and few moments' reflection brought his mind back to the Ecclesiastical Gazette and the reward of £500. He accordingly communicated with Mr. Jervis, and that gentleman, accompanied by his solicitor, Mr. A.M. White, proceeded to the church and inspected the register on Tuesday last, finding it to contain the veritable entry which had so long been anxiously sought for.
	Attached to the title is a pension of £3000 a year, which was granted to Earl St. Vincent, not as a "perpetual pension", but one for three lives only - himself and two others. The title having gone, as it now appears, in the wrong branch of the family, the pension ceased with the holder who died in 1879; but should the Rev.  Mr. Jervis be declared by the Committee of Privileges to be the rightful heir, it will have to be revived, he being, under those circumstances, the third and last life entitled to the pension. Nothing less than this would be substantial justice; it would follow as a matter of course. The title carries with it a seat in the House of Lords, and should he establish his claim, as there is every reason to suppose he will, we shall shortly see the present vicar of St. Paul's, Colchester, sitting and voting in the Upper Chamber, and Cranford will have a peer for its rector.
	Unfortunately for the worthy Reverend, the discovery of the missing marriage register was too good to be true, since the Isle of Wight Observer, in its edition of 24 September 1881, contained the following report:-
	It will be remembered that some little time since we gave an account of the discovery of an entry in a parish registry by which the Rev. W.H.E.R. Jervis, vicar of Cranford, Middlesex (who is not unknown here), was led to claim the title of Viscount St. Vincent. It will be remembered that in order to establish his claim to this title the rev. gentleman offered a reward of £500 for the discovery of the register of the marriage of his paternal grandfather, William Henry Ricketts, with Celia Jane Vinet, in the year 1800. After the lapse of some time the rector of a parish in Dorsetshire wrote that he had found the entry of the marriage in examining the registers of his church to see what damage they had sustained by the memorable storm of January last, and Mr. Jervis gave him a security for the amount of the reward. The services of M. Chabot have since been called in, and it is now stated that he has unhesitatingly pronounced the entry to be a forgery, and that Mr. Jervis, who for a time assumed the title of Lord St. Vincent, has demanded a full investigation into the alleged fraud, and has obtained a return of the security from the clergyman in question.
	**************************
	Compared with the potential claim which surfaced in 1881, the claim which was made 20 years later can at best be described as being very unlikely. The following report of this claim appeared in the Broken Hill Barrier Miner of 13 July 1901:-
	An interesting romance of an earldom was brought under the notice of the board of management of the Launceston [Tasmania] Benevolent Asylum, last week. The superintendent (Mr. T. Clements) stated that he had received inquiries relative to a late inmate of the institution, known as "Sammy Cox", and letters and documents went to show that the latter was heir to the first Earl St. Vincent. The asylum books showed that Cox died on January 5, 1891, at the great (recorded) age of 105 years, but his real age is supposed to have been 116 years [!!].
	He was a midshipman on board a ship under the command of his uncle, Admiral Jervis, and visited Tasmania long before settlement took place. The vessel ran short of water, and a party was landed at the mouth of the River Tamar to obtain a supply. Young Jervis, whose story was that he was ill-treated by his uncle, made off into the bush and escaped. He joined a tribe of blacks and lived with them for years. When settlement began Jervis wandered down to Norfolk Plains, and fell in with a family named Cox, who had recently settled there. Descendants of the family are now residing in Launceston. He gave his name as Jervis, but subsequently adopted the family name of Cox. He often told the family the story of his career, how he escaped into the bush and lived with the blacks, but it was generally thought that he was romancing, although there was always a mystery about his life before joining them. They knew he was not an escaped convict, but ultimately decided in their own minds that he was a shipwrecked sailor.
	After some years "Sammy", as he was familiarly known, left Norfolk Plains, and worked in various parts of the island, subsequently drifting to the Launceston Benevolent Asylum, where he ended his days. A relative - a great grandnephew of the first Earl St. Vincent - who was on a visit to Tasmania towards the end of last year, heard by chance of "Sammy's" story, and his contention that he belonged to the Jervis family. He instituted close inquiries, searched records and interviewed old colonists who knew the deceased, with the result that he seems satisfied that the old man's story was correct. In his letter to the superintendent of the asylum, read at the meeting, he says:-
	"The statements made by 'Sammy Cox' differ (not materially) from those made by him a few years earlier. I have a letter from Mr. Monds, of Launceston, who writes that 'Sammy's' statement was to the effect that his father was Squire Jervis, of Lichfield; that he (Sammy) voyaged to Van Diemen's Land with his uncle (Admiral Jervis), who subsequently became the Earl St. Vincent. The ship was the Regent Fox, named, no doubt, after a prominent politician in England at that time. The uncle ill-treated and threatened to maroon the young midshipman and then take possession of his estates in Lichfield. When the boat went ashore at the Tamar for a supply of water he ran away and the uncle sailed without making any attempt to find him. There is no doubt Sammy was nephew and, subsequently, heir to his uncle (who was created Earl St. Vincent), besides being heir to his father, Squire Jervis. No doubt they never looked or inquired for him, thinking him dead. I am satisfied my statement is true, and, further that he was my grand uncle, and Sammy should have been the second Earl St. Vincent. His uncle, the first earl, having died without male issue, the title, according to 'Burke's Peerage', became extinct. What a life the poor old fellow must have lived, heir to an earldom, and earning his living by hard work."
	There are a number of facts which go to prove that Sammy Cox's claim is not capable of belief:-
	* Cox claimed that it was in 1789 that he fled into the Tasmanian bush. According to naval records as quoted in The Australian Encyclopedia only one ship is recorded as being in Tasmanian waters in that year, and it was not named the Regent Fox. In any event, the ship only approached the extreme southern tip of Tasmania, whereas the place where Cox claimed to have fled into the bush is on the north coast.
	* In order to reach the Tamar River, any ship would necessarily have had to navigate through the body of water which separates Tasmania from the Australian mainland (Bass Strait). Until 1798, Tasmania was thought to be part of the mainland, and it was only in this year, 9 years fter Cox claimed to have been there that George Bass, after whom the strait is named, made the first recorded voyage in these waters.
	* Sir John Jervis's entry in the Dictionary of National Biography makes no mention of his ever having been in Australian waters.
	* Even if Cox's story is believed in its entirety, he was never heir to the earldom of St. Vincent, and therefore could never have succeeded to it. The remainder in the creation of the earldom was the usual remainder - i.e. to heirs male of the body of the grantee. As Sammy Cox was not the son of the 1st Earl, he had no right to succeed him in that peerage.
	Mary Cecil, Marchioness of Salisbury (1750‑1835)
	The following is summarised from Great Political Eccentrics by Neil Hamilton (Robson Books, London 1999)
	Mary was the daughter of the 1st Marquess of Downshire and married Salisbury in December 1773. The Marchioness offended conventional opinion by her hunting, free-spoken talk, extravagance and gambling. She shocked society by arranging card parties on Sunday evenings and concert parties earlier in the day, to co-incide with the times of the local church service at Hatfield.
	Occasionally the Marchioness did attend church, but then only for social reasons. On one occasion she arrived late at the Chapel Royal in London, but found the chapel to be full. When one of her daughters asked, 'Where shall we go, mama?', she replied, 'Home again, to be sure. If we cannot get in, it is no fault of ours - we have done the civil thing.'
	Once, while attending Hatfield Church, she heard for the first time the biblical story of Adam and Eve. She was outraged to learn that Adam had blamed Eve when God rebuked them for eating the apple. When she heard Adam's excuse, 'The woman tempted me, and I did eat', she exclaimed in a loud voice, 'A shabby fellow, indeed'.
	At the Handel Festival, held in Westminster Abbey in the presence of King George III and Queen Charlotte, she arrived late and sat in the box erected for the Lord Chamberlain's party. Shortly afterward, the music was interrupted by a loud hammering and banging. The King asked what was happening, to be told that Lady Salisbury, finding her box divided in two by an inconvenient partition, had sent for the Abbey carpenters to dismantle it at once.
	She resolutely refused to accept the infirmities of age, surrounded herself with young people and modelled her dress and behaviour on theirs. At the age of 80, she still insisted on going out hunting. Too feebled by age to be able to hold onto the horse unaided, she had herself strapped onto it. Because she was too blind to see where she was going, the horse was attached by a leading-rein to a groom. Every time they came to a hedge, the groom would shout 'Damn you, my Lady, jump', and over the hedge they went.
	Her death was as spectacular as her life. On 27 November 1835, a servant raised the alarm that clouds of smoke were pouring out of the windows of Lady Salisbury's bedroom in the West Wing of Hatfield House. The room was well ablaze, fanned by a strong wind and, although making many attempts, the fire was so fierce that the servants were unable to fight their way through the flames. When the fire was finally extinguished, all that remained of Lady Salisbury was a few charred bones.
	At the subsequent inquest, it was found that the fire had started at the top of her head. She had habitually worn her hair piled high and decorated with feathers. Getting up from a table, it was thought that her hair had caught in a chandelier and started the blaze which consumed her.
	Edith Elizabeth, wife of Albert James Edmondson, 1st Baron Sandford and her daughter
	Lady Sandford's death was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 21 March 1946:-
	Lady Sandford, wife of Lord Sandford, who, as Sir James Edmondson, was M.P. for the Banbury Division of Oxfordshire until last year when he went to the House of Lords, was found dead at her home at Sandford St. Martin, Oxfordshire, on Tuesday night. Lord Sandford was in London yesterday and heard of her death when he returned home.
	They were married in 1911. In her younger days Lady Sandford was a member of the Suffragette movement. She recently retired from the Oxfordshire County Council after serving on the Public Health and Regional Planning Committees.
	An inquest is being held at Sandford St. Martin this morning.
	In 1934 Lord and Lady Sandford's 20-year-old daughter Margaret died as the result of injuries received in an accident during a bathing party at Studland Bay [for further details see beneath].
	The Daily Telegraph on 22 March 1946 contained the following account of her inquest:-
	At the inquest on Lady Sandford at Sandford St. Martin, Oxfordshire today, the coroner recorded a verdict of suicide while the balance of her mind was disturbed.
	Lord Sandford said his wife, who was 61, had been more or less confined to bed for the last four weeks, suffering from nervous exhaustion and deep depression. He returned from London on Tuesday evening to find her hanging from a wardrobe in the bathroom.
	Dr. J.C. Russell said that during the past six years he had repeatedly told Lady Sandford that she was doing too much, and that she ought to rest. When he arrived at the house shortly after 8 p.m. on Tuesday she had been dead for about four hours.
	As referred to above, one of the Sandfords' daughters died by accident during a bathing party. The accident was reported in the Daily Telegraph on 1 October 1934:-
	Commander Archibald J.R. Southby, M.P. for the Epsom Division, told a dramatic story at the Swanage inquest on Saturday on Miss Margaret Ursula ("Peggy") Edmondson, 20, daughter of Sir James Edmondson, M.P. for Banbury. Miss Edmondson died in Swanage Hospital on Friday from injuries received in an accident on Studland Bay, on Sept. 14, when she slipped from her father's motor launch into the water while watching her friends surf riding.
	Miss Edmondson's arms and legs were caught in the revolving propeller, and she was sucked under the water. She underwent two blood transfusions while in hospital.
	Cmdr. Southby said, "I helped Miss Edmondson in from the surf board and she went forward. Miss Pinching, another member of the party, then got on to the surf board. Sir James and his son and another man were in the driving cock-pit, and Miss Croft, another of the party, and Miss Edmondson were somewhere on the fore deck.
	"Sir James was driving the boat, and I was in the after cockpit looking after the surf board. Miss Pinching came off the surf board, and I saw her come to the surface. He slowed the boat down and was turning slowly to starboard to pick her up when there was a distinct bump forward. At the same moment there was a violent bump under my feet.
	"Sir James said, 'What was that?' I at once looked over the stern expecting to find the mooring buoy, and coming up from the wash of the propeller I saw a figure. As it came through the wash I saw it was that of a girl. She called out, 'Oh, stop, stop.' Her right hand came up at the same time and I grasped it. I did not recognise Miss Edmondson at the moment.
	"I shouted to Sir James to stop, and he and the mechanic came out and helped to get her in. Sir James got over the side himself to get the girl on board. When we were bringing her ashore at Studland we recognised that it was Miss Edmondson."
	A verdict of accidental death, due to septicaemia in the wounds, was returned. The Coroner said the tragedy was due to a pure accident.
	John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich
	The following biography of Sandwich appeared in the September 1956 issue of the Australian monthly magazine Parade:-
	Often the memory of a man hangs on little things, ensuring him a measure of immortality not enjoyed by more worthy men, as witness the case of John Montagu, fourth Earl of Sandwich. He lived in an age commencing with the beginning of England's struggle with France and Spain for colonial possessions, and ending with the loss of her north American colonies that was both an heroic and a tragic period in his country's history, enjoying high office in its government most of the time. Yet all he is remembered for today is the device he is said to have invented to enable him to eat without leaving the gaming table, that poor substitute for a decent meal, the sandwich. He would not be worth remembering at all except that his career helps to explain how the heroism of Englishmen abroad was reduced to naught by the ineptitude of those at home in Georgian times of harsh living for the poor and loose living for the rich.
	Sandwich belonged by inclination to the set that in the reigns of the second and third Georges made libertinism as bad as it had been in Restoration times. By birth, in an age when a few great families made up a Parliament unrepresentative of the people, he was a politician.
	He was great-grandson of a famous admiral of Restoration times, Edward Montagu [1st Earl of Sandwich], who went down with his ship, The Royal George, in a heroic fight against the Dutch in Southwold Bay in 1672. He followed in his great-grandsire's footsteps to the extent of attaining the office of First Lord of the Admiralty three times, but his tenure of office coincided with the disastrous period for England, on land and sea, between the fall of the elder Pitt and the rise of Pitt the younger in the closing 1700s.
	One of the few triumphs of his term of office was the despatch of James Cook on his great second and third and fatal voyage following his discovery of the east coast of Australia; but his adventitious part in that did not enable him to escape the judgment: "for corruption and incapacity Sandwich's administration is unique in the history of the British Navy". It was during his last and longest term of office that England lost her North American colonies.
	In his public life Sandwich mirrored the parliamentary decadence of his day. He rose to high office after the ascent of George III to the throne in 1760 by tagging the coat-tails of Lord Bute, who in turn tagged the coat­tails of the Duke of Bedford, chief "yes-man" to a king determined to make himself supreme over the parliament of the land. They all rose to high office together to a tune of "Yes, yes, yes" with George on the rostrum, while the elder Pitt, whose firm policy had saved Canada and India from passing to the French, was pushed aside for daring to say "No", until the follies of George at last compelled him to call for the aid of "a man of the people" to govern, and the King stood back to let the younger Pitt lead the nation back from total ruin.
	And in his private life Sandwich showed the source of that decadence. He was only 11 when, in 1729, as a rather scrubby-looking Eton scholar, he succeeded to the title won by his great-grandsire. He emerged from Trinity College, Cambridge, eight years later with a sheeplike vacuity of countenance that was the outward label of a mind inclined to follow wherever Folly led. Folly straight away seized upon him in the person of a raking young reprobate, Francis Dashwood, [later 15th Lord Despencer], 10 years his senior and already the inspiration of the artist Hogarth's famous series of prints, the "Rake's Progress".
	In the company of Dashwood, Sandwich made a Mediterranean tour, combining orgies of gambling, drunkenness and woman-chasing with heady Jacobite talk with rebels sheltering on the Continent and hoping for an invasion of England to place Charles Stuart upon the throne. Upon his coming of age Sandwich took his seat in the House of Lords. Two years later he married the Honourable Dorothy Fane, third daughter of an Irish peer [Viscount Fane]. Except that during the next ten years Dorothy became the mother of his five children, she might as well not have existed so far as his loyalty was concerned.
	In between founding, with his boon companion Dashwood, the Hell-Fire Club for the smart young men about town with few interests other than eating, drinking, women, gambling and bawdy stories, Sandwich commenced his public life under the auspices of the Duke of Bedford, voting solidly for the Opposition. In 1744 he was Second to Bedford's First Lord of the Admiralty. In private life he was a member of the Divan Club, another rake-hellion affair whose members addressed each other solemnly as "Pasha" and "Effendi" and had their portraits painted as Turkish aristocrats - only Heaven knows why.
	When the Jacobite rebellion came to a head in 1745, Sandwich was a captain in Bedford's regiment and later colonel in the ordnance - "most active in raising men to oppose the rebels". His lobbying, his knowing the "right people" - and, in fact, being one of them - brought him into Royal favour. In 1746 he was plenipotentiary to the Congress of Breda and again at the Aix-La-Chapelle Treaty which ended the Seven Years' War. In another three years he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty.
	In 1751, when Bedford was dropped, Sandwich suffered a like fate. In search of diversion, when Dashwood began to plan his infamous "monastery" he enthusiastically became a "monk". There were 12 foundation members of this, an exclusive society, sybarites all, who gathered frequently, along with their current mistresses or light ladies, for feasting and revelry in an old house Dashwood had remodelled on the site of Medmenham Abbey on the Thames. The remodelling had been done secretly by workmen put under oath not to divulge the decorations. The place was staffed by servants forbidden to speak to outsiders. The country people called it the "Hell-Fire Club", and Sandwich was reckoned by his cronies in the slang of the day, "the saddest dog of them all".
	The "monastery's" secrets were well kept, and for seven or eight years none but the initiates, under Dashwood as "Father Superior", knew what was going on behind the low square entrance on which was engraved the motto "Do What You Will". Gossip did its best, and it appears the iniquities of the members were little exaggerated. The sacred rites were profane orgies, and since all of the members were rabid Protestants their services were mostly mock celebrations of Roman Catholic religious services. Dotted about the grounds were statues of Priapus, symbol of the powers of procreation, and in a garden grotto stood a statue of the nude Venus stooping to pull a thorn from her foot, her back to the beholder. At this shrine, the "holy monks" offered toasts from indecently wrought goblets.
	In 1760, when George III ascended the throne, Sandwich found himself again in the political swim, for men of his political association were in favour of Lord Bute, George's ex-tutor and adviser in all things. Despite George's own strict code of life, the revels at Medmenham continued. Sandwich and John Wilkes, the latter now the stormy Member for Aylesbury, had become boon companions, given to insulting each other cheerfully, as on the occasion when Sandwich laughingly predicted to Wilkes that he would die either of a dread disease or on the gallows. "That depends whether I embrace your mistress or your morals", was Wilkes' prompt retort. [This quotation has often been misattributed - it was actually said by the actor Samuel Foote (1720‑1777).]
	At about this time when Sandwich had reached his mid-forties, his eye was taken by a pretty girl in Covent Garden. Her name was Martha Ray, a milliner in her teens. She welcomed with alacrity Sandwich's offer to set her up as his mistress. What Lady Sandwich thought of the proceedings is not on record, but having already borne much, her husband's establishing Martha as the mistress of his country seat, Hinchinbrooke, near Huntingdon, probably would not have worried her unduly. Lord Sandwich's liaison with Martha was to survive so long as to become almost respectable. She became the mother of nine of his children, three of whom reached adulthood; and to the, end of her life Sandwich was indulgent if not faithful.
	Martha may have been the main reason why Sandwich, appointed Ambassador Extraordinary to Spain early in 1763, did not proceed to that post. At all events, three months later George III, in appointing Bedford Lord President of the Council, reappointed Sandwich First Lord of the Admiralty, and before the year was out he blossomed as one of the Secretaries of State. The elevation to this high office came at an awkward time for Sandwich. John Wilkes had recently attacked the Government in his paper, The North Briton, thus attacking by implication the King, since the King was the Government. When The North Briton criticised the King's speech after the Peace of Paris, Wilkes was arrested. This arrest was declared illegal by the courts, and he was freed to reprint The North Briton and add other attacks on the Ministry.
	As Secretary of State, Sandwich had been the instrument of government in pursuing Wilkes, and it is thought that he was influenced into being so willing a tool by a lampoon of himself he saw among Wilkes' papers ridiculing his fondness for female society. Sandwich, instructed by the King, attacked Wilkes in the House of Lords as the author of an indecent poem, notwithstanding their earlier boon companionship. Assuming on his large heavy face an expression of virtuous indignation, and in a voice full of pious horror Sandwich informed the House of Wilkes' publications and proceeded to read some of the more obscene passages aloud. The ironic humour of Sandwich moralising was not lost upon the House, and "Hell-Fire" Francis Dashwood (recently become 15th Baron le Despenser) leant over and stage-whispered to his neighbour that it was "the first time he had heard the devil preaching". Most of the House, despite the mingled ribaldry, mirth and shocked deprecation with which the reading was received, considered Sandwich guilty of treachery to his old friend. However, they obediently voted Wilkes' publication a scandalous libel.
	All London had espoused the cause of Wilkes against an unpopular government, and made a butt of Sandwich, who became the target for many attacks. The nickname "Jemmy Twitcher" was stuck to him; but he remained sheepishly imperturbable. He continued to plod along in his slow style, clinging to office like a limpet. Whatever discomfort he suffered in his political life, however, his life at Hinchinbroke was happy and full of interest. Always interested in music, he had Martha's voice trained and gave concerts with an orchestra of 60 raised from the countryside. Not infrequently he played kettle-drum to Martha's prima donna.
	In 1768 he shared with his old friend, Dashwood, the office of Postmaster-General, and two years later when Lord North became Prime Minister he was appointed First Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The following year he resigned this post and for the third time became First Lord of the Admiralty. It was to him that Captain Cook reported when he returned from his first voyage along the east coast of New South Wales, and under Sandwich's commission Cook made the second voyage in 1772 which resulted in the discovery of (inter alia) New Caledonia and Norfolk Island, and his third and last voyage in 1776, which ended with his death at the hands of natives on Hawaii, rediscovered by Cook and named by him the Sandwich Isles.
	Throughout his term of office, however, things went from bad to worse with Britain on the high seas, and there were hints of peculation in the admiralty. In the London Evening Post of early 1773, Sandwich was accused of setting up for sale the office of Commissioner in the Navy. He vindicated in an action for libel by securing a verdict for £2000 damages. Six years later the House of Lords introduced an inquiry into the management of Greenwich Hospital, for which Sandwich was responsible, but after three months' proceedings he was acquitted of these charges, also.
	Meantime, however, he had been involved in a queer tragedy. Martha, still comely, though middle-aged, had attracted the devotion of a young ensign named Hackman, who had been staying near Hinchinbroke. She was considerably older than her admirer and alternately led him on and stood him off, flattered by his adoration but wary of losing the ease and comfort of Lord Sandwich's "patronage". The affair had been proceeding in this indecisive fashion for some time, during which Hackman had resigned his commission and become a curate. As a clergyman he still pursued her, but unable to persuade her to return his love he shot her dead in April 1779, as she was coming out of Covent Garden Theatre with a woman friend. [For further details, see the note immediately following this.]
	Sandwich wrote to a friend that he had been "robbed of all comfort in the world", and requested postponement of discussions on Navy matters in the House, pleading the excuse: "I am at present totally unfit for business of any kind."
	Lord North's Government was defeated in 1782, however, and Sandwich was displaced. He contented himself with the office of Rangership of the Parks, but resigned from this in January 1784. For the rest of his life he lived as a retired, elderly country gentleman keeping open house for guests and neighbours. In 1790 "a complaint in the bowels to which his Lordship had at times been subject" became more than usually troublesome, and by the end of the year the disorder had sealed his fate. On April 30, 1792, he died, gloomily reflecting on the revolutionary spirit abroad. It probably did not occur to him that men such as he were the inspirers of that spirit, nor to reflect upon what he and his ilk had cost their country, for his self-esteem as a "nobleman" was as alive as ever at the end.
	Martha Reay, mistress of John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich
	Sandwich was a man of very few, if any, redeeming features. He had been a member of the infamous "Hellfire Club" and had clawed his way to high administrative rank by hanging on to the coat-tails of the 'yes-men' who surrounded the mad King George III. Among his political posts was that of First Lord of the Admiralty, where he proved to be a total incompetent. He was totally corrupt in this post, and was accused of selling preferments in the navy. Also under his management was Greenwich Hospital, which was known as 'death ditch' by all who were sent there. His major claim to fame was he was supposed to have invented the humble sandwich, which he ate in order to avoid having to leave the gaming tables to dine.
	This note, however, is more concerned with his long-term mistress, Martha Reay (or Ray). Martha was born in 1742, the daughter of a corsetmaker. Possessed with a fine singing voice, at the age of 17 she came to the attention of the Earl of Sandwich, who soon installed her as his permanent mistress. She gave birth to a number of the Earl's illegitimate children - the sources vary in number between five and nine.
	In November 1775 a young army ensign, James Hackman, of the 68th Regiment of Foot, invited the officers of that regiment to dine with him, and young Hackman (he was 23 at the time) was among the smart uniformed company that assembled round the Earl's dining table. Presiding over the table with the Earl was Martha Reay, and Hackman fell in love with her at first sight. A fellow officer later recalled that Hackman's gaze never left her face. After the meal was completed and the gentlemen rejoined the ladies, Martha entertained the company with a number of ballads. Hackman became so agitated that a fellow officer was forced to remind him that Martha was the Earl's mistress, and ten years older than Hackman. This only inflamed Hackman's passions, since this information led him to believe that Martha was the innocent victim of the lecherous Earl.
	Hackman obtained leave and began to pester Martha with protestations of love and begged her to marry him, but she refused. In desperation, he resigned his commission in the army and turned to the church. He was ordained in February 1779, and posted to the remote parish of Wiveton, in Norfolk. But he could not get Martha out of his mind.
	On 7 April 1779, Hackman was in the audience at Covent Garden when Martha entered her box at the theatre. For the first two acts of the play he gazed at her, and then he went to his lodgings, where he pocketed two of his army pistols, wrote two letters - one a suicide note - and then returned to the theatre just as the play ended. As Martha was walking out of the theatre, Hackman stepped out from behind a pillar, clapped one of his pistols to her forehead and blew out her brains. He then drew the other pistol and tried to shoot himself, but his hand was trembling so much all he succeeded in doing was giving himself a flesh wound.
	Hackman's entry in the Newgate Calendar reads as follows:-
	Mr. James Hackman was born in Gosport, in Hampshire, and originally designed for trade; but he was too volatile in disposition to submit to the drudgery of the shop or counting-house. His parents, willing to promote his interest as far as lay in their power, purchased him an ensign's commission in the 68th Regiment of Foot. He had not long been in the army when he was sent to command a recruiting party, and being at Huntingdon he was frequently invited to dine with Lord Sandwich, who had a seat in that neighbourhood. There it was that he first became acquainted with Miss Reay, who lived under the protection of that nobleman.
	This lady was the daughter of a staymaker in Covent Garden, and served her apprenticeship to a mantua-maker in George's Court, St. John's Lane, Clerkenwell. She was bound when she was only thirteen, and during her apprenticeship was taken notice of by the nobleman above mentioned, who took her under his protection, and treated her with every mark of tenderness. No sooner had Mr. Hackman seen her than he became enamoured of her, though she had then lived for nineteen years with his lordship. Finding he could not obtain preferment in the army, he turned his thoughts to the Church, and entered into orders. Soon after he obtained the living at Wiveton, in Norfolk, which was only about Christmas preceding the shocking deed which cost him his life, so that it may be said that he never enjoyed it.
	Miss Reay was extremely fond of music, and as her noble protector was in a high rank we need not be surprised to find that frequent concerts were performed both in London and at Hinchinbrook. At the latter place Mr. Hackman was generally of the party, and his attention to her at those times was very great. How long he had been in London previous to this affair is not certainly known, but at that time he lodged in Duke's Court, St. Martin's Lane. On the morning of the 7th of April, 1779, he sat some time in his closet, reading Dr. Blair's Sermons; but in the evening he took a walk to the Admiralty, where he saw Miss Reay go into the coach along with Signora Galli, who attended her. The coach drove to Covent Garden Theatre, where she stayed to see the performance of Love in a Village. Mr. Hackman went into the theatre at the same time, but, not being able to contain the violence of his passion, returned to his lodgings, and having loaded two pistols again went to the playhouse, where he waited till the play was over. As Miss Reay was ready to step into the coach he took a pistol in each hand, one of which he discharged against her, which killed her on the spot, and the other at himself, which, however, did not take effect.
	He then beat himself on his head with the butt-end, in order to destroy himself, so fully bent was he on the destruction of both. After some struggle he was secured, and his wounds dressed. He was then carried before Sir John Fielding, who committed him to Tothill Fields Bridwell, and next to Newgate, where a person was appointed to attend him, lest he should lay violent hands upon himself. In Newgate, as he knew he had no favour to expect, he prepared himself for the awful change he was about to make. He had dined with his sister on the day the murder was committed, and in the afternoon had written a letter to her husband, Mr. Booth, an eminent attorney, acquainting him with his resolution of destroying himself.
	At the trial the jury pronounced their fatal verdict, and the unhappy man heard the sentence against him with calm resignation to his fate.
	During the procession to the fatal tree at Tyburn he seemed much affected, and said but little; and when he arrived at Tyburn, and got out of the coach and mounted the cart, he took leave of Dr. Porter and the ordinary. After some time spent in prayer he was turned off, and, having hung the usual time, his body was carried to Surgeon's Hall for dissection.
	The special remainder to the Barony of Sandys created in 1802
	From the London Gazette of 12 June 1802 (issue 15488, page 613):-
	The King has been pleased to grant the Dignity of a Baroness of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Most Honorable Mary Marchioness of Downshire, Widow of the Most Honorable Arthur late Marquis of Downshire, for and during her natural Life, by the Name, Style, and Title of Lady Sandys, Baroness of Ombersley, in the County of Worcester, and from and immediately after her Decease, the Dignity of a Baron of the said United Kingdom to the Right Honorable Arthur Moyses William Hill, (commonly called Lord Arthur Moyses William Hill), Second Son of the said Arthur late Marquis of Downshire by the said Mary his Wife, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten, and in default of such issue to the Right Honorable Arthur Marcus Cecil Hill, (commonly called Lord Arthur Marcus Cecil Hill), Third Son of the said Arthur, late Marquis of Downshire, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten; and in default of such Issue to the Right Honorable Arthur Augustus Edwin Hill, (commonly called Lord Arthur Augustus Edwin Hill), Fourth Son of the said Arthur, late Marquis of Downshire, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten; and, in default of such Issue to the Right Honorable George Augusta Hill, (commonly called Lord George Augusta Hill), Fifth Son of the said Arthur, late Marquis of Downshire, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten; and in default of such Issue to the Most Honorable Arthur Blundell Sandys Trumbull Marquis of Downshire, Eldest Son of the said Arthur, late Marquis of Downshire, and the Heirs Male of his Body lawfully begotten.

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