Last updated 31/03/2018
Date Rank Order Name Born Died  Age
29 Dec 1905 B 1 Edmund Beckett Faber 9 Feb 1847 17 Sep 1920 73
to     Created Baron Faber 29 Dec 1905
17 Sep 1920 MP for Andover 1901-1905
Peerage extinct on his death
18 Oct 1627 B[S] 1 Sir Thomas Fairfax 1560 2 May 1640 79
Created Lord Fairfax of Cameron
18 Oct 1627
2 May 1640 2 Ferdinando Fairfax 29 Mar 1584 12 Mar 1648 63
MP for Boroughbridge 1640 and Yorkshire
12 Mar 1648 3 Thomas Fairfax 17 Jan 1612 12 Nov 1671 59
MP for Yorkshire 1660-1661
12 Nov 1671 4 Henry Fairfax 20 Dec 1631 9 Apr 1688 56
MP for Yorkshire 1678-1688
9 Apr 1688 5 Thomas Fairfax 16 Apr 1657 6 Jan 1710 52
MP for Malton 1685-1687 and Yorkshire
1689-1702 and 1707
6 Jan 1710 6 Thomas Fairfax 1692 12 Mar 1782 89
12 Mar 1782 7 Robert Fairfax 1707 15 Jul 1793 86
MP for Maidstone 1740-1754 and Kent
15 Jul 1793 8 Bryan Fairfax 1737 7 Aug 1802 65
7 Aug 1802 9 Thomas Fairfax 1762 21 Apr 1846 83
21 Apr 1846 10 Charles Snowden Fairfax 8 Mar 1829 4 Apr 1869 40
4 Apr 1869 11 John Contee Fairfax 13 Sep 1830 28 Sep 1900 70
28 Sep 1900 12 Albert Kirby Fairfax 23 Jun 1870 4 Oct 1939 69
For further information on this peer's successful
claim to the title in 1908,see the note at the
foot of this page
4 Oct 1939 13 Thomas Brian McKelvie Fairfax 14 May 1923 8 Apr 1964 40
8 Apr 1964 14 Nicholas John Albert Fairfax  [Elected hereditary 4 Jan 1956
peer 2015-]
10 Feb 1629 V[I] 1 Sir Thomas Fairfax 1574 23 Dec 1636 62
Created Viscount Fairfax of Emley
10 Feb 1629
23 Dec 1636 2 Thomas Fairfax c 1604 24 Sep 1641
24 Sep 1641 3 William Fairfax 6 Jun 1620 1648 28
1648 4 Thomas Fairfax 25 Feb 1651
25 Feb 1651 5 Charles Fairfax 6 Jul 1711
Lord Lieutenant N Riding Yorkshire 1687-1688
6 Jul 1711 6 Charles Fairfax 23 Oct 1715
23 Oct 1715 7 Charles Fairfax 6 Jan 1719
6 Jan 1719 8 William Fairfax 18 Nov 1738
18 Nov 1738 9 Charles Gregory Fairfax 20 Jan 1772
to     Peerage extinct on his death
20 Jan 1772
1 Feb 1939 B 1 Sir Frederick Arthur Greer 1 Oct 1863 4 Feb 1945 81
to     Created Baron Fairfield 1 Feb 1939
4 Feb 1945 Lord Justice of Appeal 1927-1938. PC 1927
Peerage extinct on his death
28 Aug 1772 V 1 Wills Hill,1st Earl of Hillsborough [I] 30 May 1718  7 Oct 1793 75
      Created Viscount Fairford and Earl of
Hillsborough [GB] 28 Aug 1772
He was subsequently created Marquess of
Downshire (qv) with which title these
peerages then merged
20 Mar 1929 B 1 Urban Huttleston Broughton 31 Aug 1896 20 Aug 1966 69
to     Created Baron Fairhaven 20 Mar 1929
20 Aug 1966 and 25 Jul 1961
25 Jul 1961 B 1 For details of the special remainder included in the
creation of the Barony of 1961,see the note at the 
foot of this page
For information as to the reason for the creation
of two peerages,see the note at the foot of 
this page
On his death the creation of 1929 became
extinct whilst the creation of 1961 
passed to -
20 Aug 1966 2 Henry Rogers Broughton 1 Jan 1900 6 Apr 1973 73
6 Apr 1973 3 Ailwyn Henry George Broughton 16 Nov 1936
19 Oct 2017 B[L] 1 Rona Alison Fairhead 28 Aug 1961
Created Baroness Fairhead for life 19 Oct 2017
23 Jul 1897 B 1 David Boyle,7th Earl of Glasgow 31 May 1833 13 Dec 1915 82
Created Baron Fairlie of Fairlie 23 Jul 1897
see "Glasgow"
26 Jan 1976 B[L] 1 Lucy Faithfull 26 Dec 1910 13 Mar 1996 85
to     Created Baroness Faithfull for life 26 Jan 1976
13 Mar 1996 Peerage extinct on her death
20 Dec 1646 B[S] 1 Sir Alexander Falconer c 1595 1 Oct 1671
Created Lord Falconer 20 Dec 1646
1 Oct 1671 2 Alexander Falconer 17 Jun 1620 4 Mar 1684 63
4 Mar 1684 3 David Falconer Feb 1724
Feb 1724 4 Sir Alexander Falconer,2nd baronet 17 Mar 1727
17 Mar 1727 5 David Falconer May 1681 24 Sep 1751 70
24 Sep 1751 6 Alexander Falconer c 1707 5 Nov 1762
5 Nov 1762 7 William Falconer 12 Dec 1776
12 Dec 1776 8 Anthony Adrian Keith-Falconer,later [1778]
5th Earl of Kintore 30 Aug 1804
30 Aug 1804 9 William Keith-Falconer,6th Earl of Kintore 11 Dec 1766 6 Oct 1812 45
6 Oct 1812 10 Anthony Adrian Keith-Falconer,7th Earl of
Kintore 20 Apr 1794 11 Jul 1844 50
11 Jul 1844 11 Francis Alexander Keith-Falconer,8th Earl of
Kintore 7 Jun 1828 18 Jul 1880 52
18 Jul 1880 12 Algernon Hawkins Thomond Keith-Falconer,
9th Earl of Kintore 12 Aug 1852 3 Mar 1930 77
3 Mar 1930 13 Arthur George Keith-Falconer,10th Earl of
to     Kintore 5 Jan 1879 25 May 1966 87
25 May 1966 On his death the peerage became dormant
14 May 1997 B[L] 1 Charles Leslie Falconer 19 Nov 1951
Created Baron Falconer of Thoroton for life
14 May 1997
Solicitor General 1997-1998. Lord Chancellor
2003-2007  PC 2003
11 Jul 1974 B[L] 1 Marcia Matilda Falkender 10 Mar 1932
Created Baroness Falkender for life 11 Jul 1974
14 Nov 1620 V[S] 1 Sir Henry Cary c 1575 25 Sep 1633
Created Lord Carye and Viscount of 
Falkland 14 Nov 1620
MP for Hertfordshire 1614-1622.
25 Sep 1633 2 Lucius Cary 1610 20 Sep 1643 33
MP for Newport 1640. Secretary of 
State 1642
20 Sep 1643 3 Lucius Cary 5 Jul 1632 17 Sep 1649 17
17 Sep 1649 4 Henry Cary 21 Nov 1634 2 Apr 1663 28
MP for Arundel 1660,Oxford 1660 and Oxfordshire
1661-1663. Lord Lieutenant Oxford 1660-1663
PC [I] 1662
2 Apr 1663 5 Anthony Cary 15 Feb 1656 24 May 1694 38
MP for Oxfordshire 1685-1687,Great Marlow
1689-1690 and Great Bedwyn 1690-1694
Treasurer of the Navy 1681-1689. First
Lord of the Admiralty 1693-1694. PC 1692
24 May 1694 6 Lucius Henry Cary 27 Aug 1687 31 Dec 1730 43
31 Dec 1730 7 Lucius Charles Cary c 1707 27 Feb 1785
27 Feb 1785 8 Henry Thomas Cary 27 Feb 1766 28 May 1796 30
28 May 1796 9 Charles John Cary Nov 1768 2 Mar 1809 40
2 Mar 1809 10 Lucius Bentinck Cary 5 Nov 1803 12 Mar 1884 80
Created Baron Hunsdon 15 May 1832
Governor of Nova Scotia 1840-1846 and
Bombay 1848-1853.  PC 1837
12 Mar 1884 11 Plantagenet Pierrepont Cary 8 Sep 1806 1 Feb 1886 79
1 Feb 1886 12 Byron Plantagenet Cary 3 Apr 1845 10 Jan 1922 76
10 Jan 1922 13 Lucius Plantagenet Cary 23 Sep 1880 24 Jul 1961 80
24 Jul 1961 14 Lucius Henry Charles Plantagenet Cary 25 Jan 1905 16 Mar 1984 79
16 Mar 1984 15 Lucius Edward William Plantagenet Cary 8 May 1935
[Elected hereditary peer 1999-]
2 Jun 2004 B[L] 1 Kishwer Falkner 9 Mar 1955
Created Baroness Falkner of Margravine 
for life 2 Jun 2004
22 Oct 2015 B[L] 1 Catherine Susan Fall 2 Oct 1967
Created Baroness Fall for life 22 Oct 2015
17 Mar 1665 E 1 George Berkeley,1st Viscount Fitzhardinge 11 Jan 1630 3 Jun 1665 35
to     Created Baron Botetourt of Langport
3 Jun 1665 and Earl of Falmouth 17 Mar 1665
Peerages extinct on his death
1 Oct 1674 V 1 George Fitzroy 28 Dec 1665 3 Jul 1716 50
to     Created Baron of Pontefract,
3 Jul 1716 Viscount Falmouth and Earl of
Northumberland 1 Oct 1674 and Duke
of Northumberland 6 Apr 1683
Illegitimate son of Charles II. Lord
Lieutenant Surrey 1702-1714. KG 1684
PC 1713
Peerages extinct on his death
9 Jun 1720 V 1 Hugh Boscawen c 1680 25 Oct 1734
Created Baron of Boscawen-Rose and
Viscount Falmouth 9 Jun 1720
MP for Tregony 1702-1705, Cornwall 1705-
1710,Truro 1710-1713 and Penryn 1713-
1720.  PC 1714  PC [I] by 1731
25 Oct 1734 2 Hugh Boscawen 20 Mar 1707 4 Feb 1782 74
MP for Truro 1727-1734  PC 1756
4 Feb 1782 3 George Evelyn Boscawen 6 May 1758 11 Feb 1808 49
PC 1790
11 Feb 1808 4 Edward Boscawen 10 May 1787 29 Dec 1841 54
14 Jul 1821 E 1 Created Earl of Falmouth 14 Jul 1821
MP for Truro 1807-1808
29 Dec 1841 5 George Henry Boscawen 8 Jul 1811 29 Aug 1852 41
to     2 MP for Cornwall West 1841
29 Aug 1852 On his death the Earldom became extinct
whilst the Viscountcy passed to -
29 Aug 1852 6 Evelyn Boscawen 18 Mar 1819 6 Nov 1889 70
6 Nov 1889 7 Evelyn Edward Thomas Boscawen 24 Jul 1847 1 Oct 1918 71
He subsequently succeeded as 18th Lord
Despencer (qv) in 1891
1 Oct 1918 8 Evelyn Hugh John Boscawen 5 Aug 1887 18 Feb 1962 74
18 Feb 1962 9 George Hugh Boscawen 31 Oct 1919
Lord Lieutenant Cornwall 1977-1994
20 Aug 1383 B 1 Sir John de Falvesley c 1392
to     Summoned to Parliament as Lord
c 1392 Falvesley 20 Aug 1383
Peerage extinct on his death
22 Apr 1718 V[I] 1 Charles Fane 30 Jan 1676 4 Jul 1744 68
Created Baron Loughguyre and 
Viscount Fane 22 Apr 1718
PC [I] 1718
4 Jul 1744 2 Charles Fane after 1708 24 Jan 1766
to     MP for Tavistock 1734-1747 and Reading 
24 Jan 1766 1754-1761
Peerages extinct on his death
17 Jul 1433 B 1 Sir John Cornwall 1 Dec 1443
to     Created Baron of Fanhope 17 Jul 1433
1443 KG 1410
Peerage extinct on his death
5 Sep 1661 V[I] 1 Sir Thomas Fanshawe c 1596 30 Mar 1665
Created Viscount Fanshawe 5 Sep 1661
MP for Lancaster 1625 and Hertford 1640
and 1660
30 Mar 1665 2 Thomas Fanshawe 17 Jun 1632 19 May 1674 41
19 May 1674 3 Evelyn Fanshawe 9 Aug 1669 10 Oct 1687 18
10 Oct 1687 4 Charles Fanshawe 6 Feb 1643 28 Mar 1710 67
MP for Mitchell 1689
28 Mar 1710 5 Simon Fanshawe 1648 23 Oct 1716 68
to     Peerage extinct on his death
23 Oct 1716
27 Sep 1983 B[L] 1 Sir Anthony Henry Fanshawe Royle 27 Mar 1927 28 Dec 2001 74
to     Created Baron Fanshawe of Richmond for life
28 Dec 2001 27 Sep 1983
MP for Richmond 1959-1983
Peerage extinct on his death
19 Aug 1673 E[L] 1 Louise Renee de Penancort de Keroualle c 1647 14 Nov 1734
to     Created Baroness Petersfield,Countess of
14 Nov 1734 Fareham and Duchess of Portsmouth 
for life 19 Aug 1673
Mistress of Charles II
Peerages extinct on her death
24 Jan 1916 B 1 Sir Alexander Henderson,1st baronet 28 Sep 1850 17 Mar 1934 83
Created Baron Faringdon 24 Jan 1916
MP for Stafford West 1898-1906 and St.
Georges,Hanover Square 1913-1916  CH 1917
17 Mar 1934 2 Alexander Gavin Henderson 20 Mar 1902 29 Jan 1977 74
For further information on this peer,see the note
at the foot of this page
29 Jan 1977 3 Charles Michael Henderson 3 Jul 1937
5 Sep 2014 B[L] 1 Michael Stahel Farmer 17 Dec 1944
Created Baron Farmer for life 5 Sep 2014
8 Jul 1826 B 1 Charles Long 29 Jan 1760 17 Jan 1838 77
to     Created Baron Farnborough 
17 Jan 1838 8 Jul 1826
MP for Rye 1789-1796,Midhurst 1796-1802,
Wendover 1802-1806, and Haslemere 1806-1826 
PC 1802  PC [I] 1805
Peerage extinct on his death
11 May 1886 B 1 Sir Thomas Erskine May 8 Feb 1815 17 May 1886 71
to     Created Baron Farnborough 
17 May 1886 11 May 1886
PC 1884
Peerage extinct on his death
6 May 1756 B[I] 1 John Maxwell 1687 6 Aug 1759 72
Created Baron Farnham 6 May 1756
6 Aug 1759 2 Robert Maxwell c 1720 16 Nov 1779
13 May 1763 E[I] 1 Created Viscount Farnham 10 Sep 1760
to     and Earl of Farnham 13 May 1763
16 Nov 1779 MP for Taunton 1754-1768  PC [I] 1760
On his death the Earldom and the
Viscountcy became extinct whilst the 
Barony passed to -
16 Nov 1779   3 Barry Maxwell 1723 7 Oct 1800 77
22 Jun 1785 E[I] 1 Created Viscount Farnham 10 Jan 1781
and Earl of Farnham 22 Jun 1785
PC [I] 1796
7 Oct 1800 4 John James Maxwell 5 Feb 1760 23 Jul 1823 63
to     2 On his death the Earldom and the
23 Jul 1823 Viscountcy became extinct whilst the 
Barony passed to -
23 Jul 1823 5 John Maxwell-Barry 18 Jan 1767 20 Sep 1838 71
MP for Cavan 1806-1823. PC [I] 1809
20 Sep 1838 6 Henry Maxwell 1774 19 Oct 1838 64
19 Oct 1838 7 Henry Maxwell 9 Aug 1799 20 Aug 1868 69
MP for Cavan 1824-1838  KP 1845
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of this page.
20 Aug 1868 8 Somerset Richard Maxwell 18 Oct 1803 4 Jun 1884 80
MP for Cavan 1838-1840
4 Jun 1884 9 James Pierce Maxwell 1813 26 Oct 1896 83
MP for Cavan 1843-1865
26 Oct 1896 10 Somerset Henry Maxwell 7 Mar 1849 22 Nov 1900 51
Lord Lieutenant Cavan July-Dec 1900
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of this page.
22 Nov 1900 11 Arthur Kenlis Maxwell 2 Oct 1879 5 Feb 1957 77
5 Feb 1957 12 Barry Owen Somerset Maxwell 7 Jul 1931 22 Mar 2001 69
22 Mar 2001 13 Simon Kenlis Maxwell 12 Dec 1933
30 Nov 1922 E 1 Sir Horace Brand Farquhar,1st baronet 18 May 1844 30 Aug 1923 79
to     Created Baron Farquhar 20 Jan 1898,
30 Aug 1923 Viscount Farquhar 21 Jun 1917 and
Earl Farquhar 30 Nov 1922
MP for Marylebone West 1895-1898  PC 1907
Peerages extinct on his death
22 Jun 1893 B 1 Sir Thomas Henry Farrer,1st baronet 24 Jun 1819 11 Oct 1899 80
Created Baron Farrer 22 Jun 1893
11 Oct 1899 2 Thomas Cecil Farrer 25 Oct 1859 12 Apr 1940 80
12 Apr 1940 3 Cecil Claude Farrer 8 May 1893 11 Mar 1948 54
11 Mar 1948 4 Oliver Thomas Farrer 5 Oct 1904 24 Jan 1954 49
24 Jan 1954 5 Anthony Thomas Farrer 22 Apr 1910 16 Dec 1964 54
to     Peerage extinct on his death
16 Dec 1964
29 Sep 1994 B[L] 1 Josephine Farrington 29 Jun 1940 30 Mar 2018 77
to     Created Baroness Farrington of
30 Mar 2018 Ribbleton for life 29 Sep 1994
Peerage extinct on her death
23 Jun 1295 B 1 Walter de Fauconberg 1 Nov 1304
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Fauconberg 23 Jun 1295
1 Nov 1304 2 Walter de Fauconberg 1264 31 Dec 1318 54
31 Dec 1318 3 John de Fauconberg 24 Jun 1290 17 Sep 1349 59
17 Sep 1349 4 Walter de Fauconberg 1319 29 Sep 1362 43
29 Sep 1362 5 Thomas de Fauconberg 20 Jul 1345 9 Sep 1407 62
to     On his death the peerage fell into
9 Sep 1407 abeyance
3 Aug 1429 6 Joan Fauconberg 18 Oct 1406 1490 83
to     She married William Nevill who was 
9 Jan 1463 summoned to Parliament as Lord Fauconberg
in her right 3 Aug 1429. He was later created Earl
of Kent in 1461 (qv)
On his death in 1463 the peerage fell 
into abeyance
29 Sep 1903 7 Marcia Amelia Mary Anderson-Pelham, Baroness
Conyers in her own right [13th in line] 18 Oct 1863 17 Nov 1926 63
Abeyance terminated in her favour 1903
For information on this termination, see the
note at the foot of this page
17 Nov 1926 8 Sackville George Pelham,later [1936] 5th Earl of
to     Yarborough 17 Dec 1888 7 Feb 1948 59
7 Feb 1948 On his death the peerage again fell into 
17 May 2012 9 Diana Mary Miller 5 Jul 1920 2 Mar 2013 82
to     On the death of her younger sister and co-heir
2 Mar 2013 on 17 May 2012,the abeyance automatically
terminated in her favour. On her death in March
2013 the peerage again fell into abeyance
31 Jan 1643 V 1 Sir Thomas Belasyse,2nd baronet 1577 18 Apr 1652 74
Created Baron Fauconberg 25 May 
1627 and Viscount Fauconberg 31 Jan 
MP for Thirsk 1597-1598,1621-1622 and
18 Apr 1652 2 Thomas Belasyse 16 Mar 1628 31 Dec 1700 72
9 Apr 1689 E 1 Created Earl Fauconberg 9 Apr 1689
to     Lord Lieutenant Durham 1660-1661 and 
31 Dec 1700 N Riding Yorkshire 1660-1687 and 1689-1692
PC 1679
On his death the Earldom became extinct
whilst the Viscountcy passed to -
31 Dec 1700 3 Thomas Belasyse 26 Nov 1718
26 Nov 1718 4 Thomas Belasyse 27 Apr 1699 4 Feb 1774 74
16 Jun 1756 1 Created Earl Fauconberg 16 Jun 1756
4 Feb 1774 5 Henry Belasyse 13 Apr 1743 23 Mar 1802 58
to     2 MP for Peterborough 1768-1774. Lord
23 Mar 1802 Lieutenant N Riding Yorkshire 1778-1802
On his death the Earldom became extinct
whilst the Viscountcy passed to -
23 Mar 1802 6 Rowland Belasyse 12 Feb 1745 30 Nov 1810 65
30 Nov 1810 7 Charles Belasyse 7 May 1750 24 Jun 1815 65
to     Peerages extinct on his death
24 Jun 1815
7 Feb 1977 B[L] 1 Arthur Brian Deane Faulkner 18 Feb 1921 3 Mar 1977 56
to     Created Baron Faulkner for life 7 Feb 1977
3 Mar 1977 PC [NI] 1959
Peerage extinct on his death
14 Jul 1999 B[L] 1 Richard Oliver Faulkner 22 Mar 1946
Created Baron Faulkner of Worcester for life
14 Jul 1999
21 Jul 2010 B[L] 1 Edward Peter Lawless Faulks 19 Aug 1950
Created Baron Faulks for life 21 Jul 2010
11 Jul 2001 B[L] 1 Ronald Cyril Fearn 6 Feb 1931
Created Baron Fearn for life 11 Jul 2001
MP for Southport 1987-1992 and 1997-2001
6 Mar 1974 B[L] 1 Victor Grayson Hardie Feather 10 Apr 1908 28 Jul 1976 68
to     Created Baron Feather for life 6 Mar 1974
28 Jul 1976 Peerage extinct on his death
20 Oct 2015 B[L] 1 Lynne Choona Featherstone 20 Dec 1951
Created Baroness Featherstone for life 
20 Oct 2015
MP for Hornsey and Wood Green 2005-2015
PC 2014
14 Sep 1622 V 1 William Feilding c 1582 8 Apr 1643
Created Baron of Newnham Paddockes
and Viscount Feilding 30 Dec 1620 and
Earl of Denbigh 14 Sep 1622
See "Denbigh"
7 Nov 1622 B[I] 1 George Feilding 31 Jan 1665
Created Baron Feilding and Viscount
Callan 7 Nov 1622
He succeeded to the Earldom of Desmond
(qv) in 1628
15 Jan 1996 B[L] 1 Sir Basil Samuel Feldman 23 Sep 1923
Created Baron Feldman for life 15 Jan 1996
17 Dec 2010 B[L] 1 Andrew Simon Feldman 25 Feb 1966
Created Baron Feldman of Elstree for life
17 Dec 2010
PC 2015
12 Jul 1999 B[L] 1 Sir Robert Fellowes 11 Dec 1941
Created Baron Fellowes for life 12 Jul 1999
PC 1990
12 Jan 2011 B[L] 1 Julian Alexander Kitchener-Fellowes 17 Aug 1949
Created Baron Fellowes of West Stafford for
life 12 Jan 2011
8 Jan 1313 B 1 Robert de Felton 24 Jun 1314
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Felton 8 Jan 1313
24 Jun 1314 2 John de Felton after 1325
to     On his death the peerage is presumed to
after 1325 have become extinct
18 Mar 1606 V[S] 1 Thomas Erskine 1566 12 Jun 1639 72
Created Lord Dirletoun c 1602,
Viscount Fentoun 18 Mar 1606 and
Earl of Kellie 12 Mar 1619
See "Kellie"
16 Jun 1703 V[I] 1 Sir John Verney,2nd baronet 5 Nov 1640 23 Jun 1717 76
MP for Buckinghamshire 1710-1715 and
Amersham 1715-1717
Created Baron Verney and Viscount of 
the County of Fermanagh 16 Jun 1703
23 Jun 1717 2 Ralph Verney 18 Mar 1683 4 Oct 1752 69
  MP for Amersham 1717-1727 and Wendover
He was created Earl Verney (qv) in 1743
with which title this peerage then merged
until its extinction in 1791
13 Jun 1792 B[I] 1 Mary Verney 21 Oct 1737 15 Nov 1810 73
to     Created Baroness Fermanagh
15 Nov 1810 13 Jun 1792
Peerage extinct on her death
13 Jan 1876 B 1 John Crichton,3rd Earl of Erne 30 Jul 1802 3 Oct 1885 83
Created Baron Fermanagh of Lisnaskea
13 Jan 1876
See "Erne"
c 1461 V[I] 1 David Roche c 1485
Recognized as Vicount Roche of
Fermoy c 1461
c 1485 2 Maurice Roche c 1515
c 1515 3 David Roche 1539
1539 4 Maurice Roche c 1560
c 1560 5 David Roche 1582
1582 6 Maurice Roche 24 Oct 1600
24 Oct 1600 7 David Roche 22 Mar 1635
22 Mar 1635 8 Maurice Roche 1670
1670 9 David Roche 1681
1681 10 John Roche c 1694
c 1694   11 David Roche 1703
1703 12 Ulick Roche 1733
to     On his death the peerage is presumed to
1733 have become extinct
10 Sep 1856 B[I] 1 Edmond Burke Roche Aug 1815 17 Sep 1874 59
Created Baron Fermoy 10 Sep 1856
MP for co.Cork 1837-1855 and Marylebone
1859-1865. Lord Lieutenant Cork 1857-1874
17 Sep 1874 2 Edward Fitzgerald Burke Roche 23 May 1850 1 Sep 1920 70
1 Sep 1920 3 James Boothby Burke Roche 28 Jul 1852 30 Oct 1920 68
MP for Kerry East 1896-1900
For further information on this peer, see the
note at the foot of this page
30 Oct 1920 4 Edmund Maurice Burke Roche 15 May 1885 8 Jul 1955 70
MP for King's Lynn 1924-1935 and 1943-1945
8 Jul 1955 5 Edmund James Burke Roche 20 Mar 1939 19 Aug 1984 45
19 Aug 1984 6 Patrick Maurice Burke Roche 11 Oct 1967
22 Nov 1797 V[I] 1 Margaretta Amelia Foster 1736 20 Jan 1824 87
Created Baroness Oriel of Collon
5 Jun 1790 and Viscountess Ferrard
22 Nov 1797
20 Jan 1824 2 Thomas Henry Skeffington by Jan 1772 18 Jan 1843 71
MP for Drogheda 1807-1812 and Louth
1822-1824.  PC [I] 1809
He succeeded as Baron Oriel of Ferrard in 1828
18 Jan 1843 3 John Skeffington 30 Nov 1812 28 Apr 1863 50
He had succeeded to the Viscountcy of
Massereene (qv) with which title this
peerage then merged and still remains so
9 Oct 1715 B[I] 1 Sir Henry Tichborne,1st baronet 1663 3 Nov 1731 68
to     Created Baron Ferrard of Beaulieu
3 Nov 1731 9 Oct 1715
PC [I] 1714
Peerage extinct on his death
3 Sep 1711 E 1 Robert Shirley,13th Baron Ferrers of Chartley 20 Oct 1650 25 Dec 1717 67
Created Viscount Tamworth and Earl 
Ferrers 3 Sep 1711
Lord Lieutenant Staffordshire Sep-Nov 1687
PC 1698
25 Dec 1717 2 Washington Shirley 22 Jun 1677 14 Apr 1729 51
Lord Lieutenant Stafford 1725-1729
14 Apr 1729 3 Henry Shirley 14 Nov 1691 6 Aug 1745 53
Lord Lieutenant Stafford 1731-1742
6 Aug 1745 4 Lawrence Shirley 18 Aug 1720 5 May 1760 39
For further information on this peer, who was
hanged for murder, see the note at the foot of
this page
5 May 1760 5 Washington Shirley 26 May 1722 11 Oct 1778 56
11 Oct 1778 6 Robert Shirley 18 Jul 1723 17 Apr 1787 63
17 Apr 1787 7 Robert Shirley 25 Sep 1756 2 May 1827 70
2 May 1827 8 Washington Shirley 13 Nov 1760 2 Oct 1842 81
2 Oct 1842 9 Washington Sewallis Shirley 3 Jan 1822 13 Mar 1859 37
For further information of this peer, see the 
note at the foot of this page
13 Mar 1859 10 Sewallis Edward Shirley 24 Jan 1847 26  Jul 1912 65
26 Jul 1912 11 Walter Knight Shirley 5 Jun 1864 2 Feb 1937 72
2 Feb 1937 12 Robert Walter Shirley 7 Jul 1894 11 Oct 1954 60
11 Oct 1954 13 Robert Washington Shirley 8 Jun 1929 13 Nov 2012 83
PC 1982  [Elected hereditary peer 1999-2012]
13 Nov 2012 14 Robert William Saswalo Shirley 29 Dec 1952
6 Feb 1299 B 1 John de Ferrers 20 Jun 1271 1325 54
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Ferrers of Chartley 6 Feb 1299
1325 2 Robert de Ferrers 1310 28 Aug 1350 40
28 Aug 1350 3 John de Ferrers 1329 2 Apr 1367 37
2 Apr 1367 4 Robert de Ferrers 1360 12 Mar 1413 52
12 Mar 1413 5 Edmund Ferrers 1389 17 Dec 1435 46
17 Dec 1435 6 William Ferrers 1412 9 Jun 1450 37
9 Jun 1450 7 Anne Devereux
She married Walter Devereux who was
summoned to parliament as Lord Ferrers
in her right. KG 1472. He died 22 Aug 1485
22 Aug 1485 8 John Devereux 1463 7 May 1501 37
7 May 1501 9 Walter Devereux,later [1550] 1st Viscount Hereford 1491 27 Feb 1558 66
27 Feb 1558 10 Walter Devereux,1st Earl of Essex 16 Sep 1541 22 Sep 1576 35
22 Sep 1576 11 Robert Devereux,2nd Earl of Essex 10 Nov 1567 25 Feb 1601 33
to     he was attainted and the peerage
25 Feb 1601 forfeited
18 Apr 1604 12 Robert Devereux,3rd Earl of Essex 22 Jan 1591 14 Sep 1646 55
to     Restored to the peerages 1604. On his
14 Sep 1646 death the peerage fell into abeyance
14 Dec 1677 13 Robert Shirley,later [1711] 1st Earl Ferrers 20 Oct 1650 25 Dec 1717 67
Abeyance terminated in his favour 1677
25 Dec 1717 14 Elizabeth Compton 19 Aug 1694 13 Mar 1741 46
to     On her death the peerage again fell into
13 Mar 1741 abeyance
1749 15 Charlotte Townshend 14 Sep 1770
Abeyance terminated in her favour 1749
14 Sep 1770 16 George Townshend,later [1807] 2nd Marquess
Townshend 18 Apr 1755 27 Jul 1811 56
27 Jul 1811 17 George Ferrars Townshend,3rd Marquess
to     Townshend 13 Dec 1778 31 Dec 1855 77
31 Dec 1855 On his death the peerage again fell into
26 Sep 1300 B 1 William Ferrers 1270 20 Mar 1325 54
Summoned to Parliament as Lord
Ferrers de Groby 26 Sep 1300
20 Mar 1325 2 Henry Ferrers 1303 15 Sep 1343 40
15 Sep 1343 3 William Ferrers 28 Feb 1333 6 Jan 1372 38
6 Jan 1372 4 Henry Ferrers 16 Feb 1356 3 Feb 1388 31
3 Feb 1388 5 William Ferrers 25 Apr 1373 18 May 1445 72
18 May 1445 6 Elizabeth Grey 1419 c 1460
c 1460 7 John Grey 28 feb 1461
28 Feb 1461 8 Thomas Grey 1451 26 Apr 1501 49
He was created Marquess of Dorset (qv)
1475 with which title this peerage then
24 Sep 1958 B[L] 1 Victor Ferrier Noel-Paton 29 Jan 1900 4 Jun 1992 92
to     Created Baron Ferrier for life 24 Sep 1958
4 Jun 1992 Peerage extinct on his death
5 Jun 1695 B[I] 1 John Vaughan c 1670 5 Apr 1721
Created Baron Fethard and Viscount
Lisburne 5 Jun 1695
See "Lisburne"
Albert Kirby Fairfax, 12th Lord Fairfax of Cameron
The 11th Lord Fairfax of Cameron died in September 1900, at which time his son, Albert Kirby
Fairfax, inherited the title. It was not until 1908, however, that the 12th Lord was able to
establish his claim to the title, after the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords had
examined his claim. The following report of the Committee's decision appeared in 'The Times' of
18 November 1908:-
'[After a lengthy description of the membership of the Committee and the process to be 
undertaken] The claimant claims to be the 12th Lord Fairfax and was born on June 23, 1870. He
is the eldest son of John Contee, the 11th lord who, like most of his predecessors, was a 
citizen of the United States, and has been naturalized in this country.
'Mr. Woollaston [Bluemantle Puirsuivant at the Heralds' College and counsel for the claimant]
detailed the steps of succession. The first peer was Sir Thomas Fairfax of Denton, in the 
county of York, who by letters patent dated October 18, 1627, was created Lord Fairfax of 
Cameron to hold to him and the heirs of his body. He died in 1640. The second peer, 
Ferdinando, was a general in the Parliamentary army and fought at Naseby and Marston Moor, 
dying in 1647 [1648]. The third, Thomas, was general-in-chief of that army, and assisted 
Monck in the restoration of the Monarchy, dying in 1671. The sixth lord, also Thomas, settled 
in Virginia and died in 1781 [1782] unmarried. He was succeeded by his brother Robert, who for
some time sat in Parliament for Maidstone and died without issue in 1793. Bryan, eighth Lord 
Fairfax, was a clergyman and proved his title to the peerage before a Committee for Privileges
in 1800. As evidence of his marriage with his first wife, Elizabeth, daughter of Colonel Wilson 
Cary, of Culys, Virginia, a monumental inscription in Ivy-hill Cemetery, Alexandria, Virginia, was
proved by a certified copy. He died at the age of 75, but the year is not given either of his or 
his wife's death; but the inscription states that Thomas, his eldest son, died in 1846, aged 84. 
A copy of the will of Wilson Cary, referring to his "daughter Elizabeth" and "Bryan Fairfax her
husband," was produced. The evidence in support of Bryan's death in August, 1802, consisted 
of the probate of his will in September and a certified extract from the Baltimore Federal 
Gazette of 13 August, 1802, stating the death to have been on "Monday, the 7th inst., at
Mount Eagle near Cameron." Thomas, the ninth lord, who died in 1846, left an eldest son, 
Albert, born in 1802, who predeceased his father, dying in 1835, and his son Charles Snowden, 
born in 1829, grandson of the ninth earl [sic], died in 1869. The evidence was of a secondary 
character, among it extracts from the Fairfax family Bible and a copy of a monumental 
inscription in Rock Creek Cemetery, Washington, where, after the dates March 8, 1829, and 
April 4, 1869, of the birth and death, the words are added:-
"Brave, gallant and gifted,
He was the tenth Lord Fairfax, Baron
Of Cameron, in the Peerage of Scotland,
But he preferred to be
An American Gentleman."
'Charles Snowden Fairfax married in 1855 Ada Benham, and the certificate was produced of the
marriage and a certified copy of the monumental inscription at Rock Creek Cemetery. A number
of original letters were also put in evidence. The 11th peer was Charles Snowden's brother, 
John Contee, father of the claimant, who was born September 13, 1830, and died September
28, 1900.
'Mr. John Barrett, a barrister, of New York, was called, and stated that no systematic records
of births, marriages, and deaths were kept in the United States before 1880. In the Southern
States particularly there was great carelessness on the part of officials and clergy. There was
no legal requirement before 1851. In the United States parish registers were receivable as 
evidence and marriage could be established, as in Scotland, by repute.
'Mr. Wilson Cary, a cousin of the claimant, stated that he was born in 1838, and was a cavalry
officer during the Civil War and served on the staff of General Lee. He had practised at the Bar 
from 1887 to 1897 and was well versed in the law of Maryland. His father's sister married a
brother of the ninth lord. Greatly interested in records, he had made search among the 
surviving records, which were here and there intact, but mostly in confusion. The Bishop of 
Virginia had collected parish registers; but no records of Fairfax marriages had been discovered.
After the Civil War there was great confusion and much destruction. In effect there were no 
registers before 1853. The monument to Bryan Lord Fairfax was erected about 1860 by a 
daughter of the ninth lord, his aunt. The witness gave further evidence with respect to the 
documentary evidence and the Fairfax family Bible. William, brother of George Washington, 
married a daughter of the fifth Lord Fairfax.
'Miss Caroline Snowden, a Sister of Mercy at Folkestone, who was descended from Thomas, 
the ninth Lord Fairfax, gave evidence of the family history of her own knowledge and
remembered the birth of the present claimant.
'The Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate had no opposition to make on behalf of the 
Crown. The recent family history had been elucidated by the last witness.
'On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the claim was allowed.'
Urban Huttleston Broughton, 1st Baron Fairhaven (creations of 1929 and 1961)
The following article, which appeared in 'The Observer' of 21 August 1966 following the death of
Lord Fairhaven, explains why two separate baronies were created:-
'The death, announced yesterday, of 69-year-old Lord Fairhaven, the racehorse-owner and
landowner, is a reminder of the England which existed before Harold Wilson came to Downing
Street and heredity and wealth ceased to count in the honours system.
'Lord Fairhaven's father, Mr. Urban Broughton, was an engineer who went to the United States
at the age of 30, made a large fortune in copper and married the daughter of a Standard Oil king.
'After 25 years, he returned to England and within a year or two was the Conservative MP for
Preston. He was a personal friend of Bonar Law and a strong supporter of Baldwin.
'In 1929, the outgoing Baldwin Government planned to give him a barony. But he died before he
could receive it. So, as if he had received it, his widow was given special permission to call
herself Lady Fairhaven - the name of her Massachusetts home - and her younger son was given
the rank of the younger son of a baron - i.e. an Hon.
'These courtesy titles, in case of sudden death, are uncommon but not without precedent. Much
more unusually, at the same time, Mr. Broughton's elder son, then only 33, was created the
first Lord Fairhaven.
'The years passed, and it was realised that the title would die with Lord Fairhaven, who was a
bachelor, for his brother could not succeed because his father had never held the title.
'So, in 1961, when Mr. Macmillan was Prime Minister, Lord Fairhaven was made a baron all over
again, this time with special remainder to his younger brother, Major the Hon. Henry Rogers
Broughton, 65, who now succeeds to this second barony, the first becoming extinct.'
The entry in the "London Gazette" of 25 July 1961 (issue 42421, page 5506) reads as follows:-
"The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date
the 25th instant, to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom unto Urban Huttleston
Rogers, Baron Fairhaven, by the name, style and title of Baron Fairhaven, of Anglesey Abbey in 
the County of of Cambridge, to hold to him and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten; and
in default of such issue with remainder to his younger brother Henry Rogers Broughton (commonly
called the Honourable Henry Rogers Broughton) and to the heirs male of his body lawfully
Alexander Gavin Henderson, 2nd Baron Faringdon
Reference to Burke's Peerage will reveal that Alexander Gavin Henderson, later 2nd Baron
Faringdon, married, on 2 June 1927, Honor Chedworth Phillipps, daughter of Baron Kylsant.
The wedding was notable for two reasons - firstly, the events which occurred at Henderson's
'bucks' night,' and, secondly, the theft or forging of invitations to the wedding service. Henderson
was prosecuted as a result of the events at the bucks' party, as reported in the "Irish Times" of
5 August 1927:-
"It has often been said of young men that they are not likely to set the Thames on fire, but
you have before you today a young man who actually accomplished it."
'This statement was made at Henley Police Court yesterday by Mr. Gerald Dodson, who appeared
on behalf of the Thames Conservancy Board to prosecute Mr. Gavin Henderson, summoned for
causing oil to pass into the Thames near Henley, and setting the oil alight during a bachelor's 
party which he gave on the eve of his marriage to the Hon. Honor Phillipps, daughter of Lord and
Lady Kylsant, on June 2.
'Mr. Henderson is the eldest son of the late Colonel the Hon. Harold Henderson, and grandson and
heir of Lord Faringdon. There were four summonses.
'The case for the prosecution, as stated by counsel, was that Mr. Henderson gave a dinner party
at the Phyllis Court Club on the eve of his marriage. There were about 30 guests, and after the
dinner some of the party procured a quantity of petrol, poured it into the Thames and set it on
"There were flames which could be seen for a considerable distance, and attracted the attention
of a police sergeant," said counsel. "The flames scorched the front of the brickwork and the 
roses growing in front of Phyllis Court for a distance, so far as one can judge, of about 20 yards,
and stretched over the river for a considerable distance. When the social secretary went to
investigate he saw a number of guests on the lawn. They were somewhat excited. Mr. Henderson
was there." Mr. Dodson said that as an indication of the spirit of the occasion, some of the 
guests threw heavy garden seats into the river. When the excitement subsided and the fire was
out Mr. Henderson admitted to the social secretary that he was responsible, and said he would 
"pay for everything." In fact, he paid for the petrol used.
'When the police sergeant arrived he learned that Mr. Henderson had accepted full responsibility,
and no further inquiries were made, but on July 22 Mr. Henderson's solicitors wrote stating that
Mr. Henderson denied taking any part whatever in ordering petrol to be put into the river and set
on fire.
"The fire was so terrifying," said Captain J.A. Harvey, Social Secretary of the Phyllis Court Club, 
"that I rushed down to the riverside. I found that all the shrubs, rose bushes and creepers on the
riverside were blazing. The flames were so high that they burned the trees which stand about a
yard and a half from the riverside and only a yard or two from the grandstand.
"There was a screen of flames in front of the river, and it was impossible to tell how far the fire
extended, but there was no doubt that petrol was burning behind the screen of flames because
of the density of the smoke.
"Fortunately there were no craft on the river at the time. Silhouetted against the sheet of flame
I saw a lot of figures in evening dress."
'Mr. Dodson - Did you notice anything about their behaviour? They were excited and dancing, 
and some of the members of the party were throwing garden seats into the river.
'Mr. Henderson's defence,' said Mr. Roland Oliver, 'is that he knew nothing about this business,
he did not authorise it, was not told that it was going to happen, and is entirely innocent of
any participation in it. There is not a shred of evidence against him. He was doing what I suppose
a good many other people do when they celebrate their departure from the hard days of
bachelordom, giving a dinner at his own club, and he has from the beginning felt morally bound
to this club when this thing took place to see that the damage should be put right. Any 
gentleman whose guests misconducted themselves would feel this responsibility, but before you
can find criminally liable you must find that he organised it and took some part in it.'
'Mr. Gavin Henderson gave evidence. He said: "I did not go to the garage, I did not order any
petrol, and I did not know that any of my guests had done so. I was on the bank when the fire
started, and I had nothing to do with the fire. The petrol burst into flame just as I arrived at
the bank."
'Did you realise that as a member of the club you would have to pay for the damage? - Obviously.
The bill for the dinner, including the item for the petrol, was a hundred guineas. He paid it by
'Further evidence having been given, the magistrates dismissed the charges.'
The wedding itself was thrown into confusion by the theft or forgery of a number of invitations.
Some sources say that up to 80 false invitations were sent to various people. The following is
taken from the 'Manchester Guardian' of 3 June 1927:-
'A hoax, the extent of which is not yet fully known, was perpetrated in connection with the 
wedding of the Hon. Honor Chedworth Phillipps, youngest daughter of Lord Kylsant, to Mr. Gavin
Henderson, which took place at St. Margaret's, Westminster, yesterday.
'Bogus invitations to the wedding and to the reception at Chelsea House, Cadogan Place, were
received by a number of theatrical "stars" and certain charitable organisations, and it was when
these recipients who were otherwise engaged sent messages of regret of inability to attend that
the hoax was discovered.
'The genuine invitations were sent from Lord and Lady Kylsant's home in Wales at Easter, and by
Mr. Gavin Henderson about the same time. On Wednesday night, however, at the Winter Garden
Theatre, Miss Norah Blaney and Mr. Mark Lester, who are playing the principal parts in the
"Vagabond King," received invitations to the wedding and reception. The cards were in every 
respect similar to the genuine invitations, except that they were asked to bring the invitation
cards with them.
'Miss Annie Croft and Mr. Billy Merson, who are playing the leading parts in "My Son John" at the
Shaftesbury Theatre, and Mr. Harry Welchman, the leading man in "The Desert Song" at Drury
Lane Theatre, received similar invitations. A certain Eastern legation received a bogus invitation.
Two charitable societies were "invited," with a request that they should attend and collect at St.
Margaret's, Westminster, and at the reception afterwards.
'Fortunately no embarrassment was caused at the wedding, with the exception that one 
charitable institution did send a representative to St. Margaret's to make a collection. Lady
Kylsant stated last night that although there were people present whom she did not know
everybody who attended was treated as a guest. They had had many messages and wires from
people whom they had no idea had been invited, saying how sorry they were they could not
attend the wedding. It is believed that the invitation cards had been stolen or obtained in some
other way.'
Henry Maxwell, 7th Baron Farnham
The 7th Baron, together with his wife and 31 others, was killed in a railway accident which
occurred at Abergele on the north coast of Wales on 20 August 1868. Up until that time,
this accident was the worst rail disaster that had ever occurred in Britain.
The following account is summarised from L T C Rolt's fascinating book 'Red for Danger; A 
History of Railway Accidents and Railway Safety' (Pan Books, 1978 edition).
On the morning of 20 August 1868, while the Irish Mail was speeding north from Euston, a
goods train left Crewe for Holyhead. Along the way, it picked up two wagons loaded with 
fifty casks of paraffin oil, weighing just under 8 tons. The goods train, consisting of 26
empty and 17 loaded wagons reached the station at Llandulas, the next station to the west
of Abergele, at 12.24 pm. The Irish Mail was due to pass at 12.39 pm. Because the goods
train was so long, it obstructed the main line and therefore had to divided into two sections.
The wagons containing the casks of paraffin oil were left on the track for shunting into a side
line. During the shunting operation, a number of other wagons cannoned into the stationary
wagons and caused the brakes to slip. As a result, the wagons containing the paraffin oil
began to roll down the incline towards Abergele Station, and despite efforts by the railwaymen
to catch up with them, the runaway wagons soon disappeared out of sight around a curve in 
the tracks.
The Irish Mail had left Chester at 11.47 am. At 12.39 pm the train ran through Abergele Station
at about 40 mph. About one and three-quarter miles west of Abergele, the driver of the Irish
Mail saw the runaway wagons but assumed they were on the other line. By the time he realised
that the wagons were on his line, it was too late. He saved himself by jumping out of the 
engine but the wagons smashed into his train seconds later. The coals from the engine's firebox 
ignited the paraffin oil and the front coaches of the Irish Mail became a roaring inferno, while
the rear coaches were quite undamaged and their occupants unharmed.
There were no survivors from the first two carriages. Indeed, the bodies were so charred that 
only three were able to be identified - including Lady Farnham who was able to be identified by
some fused jewellery worn by her, and Lord Farnham from a watch. Also aboard the train, but
travelling in the rear carriages, were the Duchess of Abercorn and her family, and Viscount
Castlerosse (heir to the Earldom of Kenmare) and his family, but none of these people were 
badly hurt.
Somerset Henry Maxwell, 10th Baron Farnham
The following article is extracted from 'The Times' of 11 February 1899:-
'Before Mr Justice Johnson at the City Commission [i.e. Dublin] yesterday, Joseph Hale and
his wife, Martha Hale, were charged with having on December 10, 1897, unlawfully published
certain libels, in the form of a letter to Mr Norris Goddard, solicitor, with intent thereby to
extort money from Lord Farnham, and also with having threatened Mr Goddard, as solicitor
for Lord Farnham, to publish certain libellous matter to the effect that the last true will of
the late Lord Farnham had been destroyed, and that a forged and fraudulent document had
been substituted by the present Lord Farnham. The male prisoner, who had been a servant in
the Farnham family since 1876, had been left an annuity of £30 by the late Lord Farnham. Mr
Wright QC, for the Crown, called Mr Norris Goddard and other witnesses to prove that Mrs 
Hale, on behalf of her husband, had written a series of letters to Mr Goddard, stating that, in
addition to the legacy which they were receiving, there were three other annuities in their
favour under an original will which had been suppressed by the present Lord Farnham and by
Mr Goddard. In the year 1897 these demands became intolerable, and on December 10 of that
year a letter was sent by Hale to Mr Goddard stating that it was time he was settled with, 
that he did not intend to keep silence any longer, that he had been unjustly treated, and was
determined to have what the late Lord Farnham had left him. Under the circumstances nothing
remained for Lord Farnham but to invoke the aid of the Criminal Court. Mr Nevinson, solicitor,
of Malvern, proved the authenticity of the filed will of the late Lord Farnham. The jury found
the prisoners guilty, but owing to their previous very good character and long service,
recommended them to mercy. Mr Justice Johnson sentenced Joseph Hale to five months'
imprisonment and Martha Hale was discharged.'
The year 1897 was not a good one for the 10th Baron. His son, Barry Somerset Farnham, 
was killed in September when he fell off his bicycle during the festivities to celebrate his 
coming of age.
Marcia Amelia Mary Anderson-Pelham, 7th Baroness Fauconberg in her own right
The abeyance of the barony of Fauconberg, which had been in that state since 1463, was term-
inated by the Committee for Privileges in 1903 as a result of a petition by Marcia Amelia 
Anderson-Pelham, Countess of Yarborough. The following two reports outline the hearings before
the Committee; firstly the London "Daily Telegraph" of 23 July 1903:-
'Today the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords is to assemble, and the order paper of
their lordships' House indicates that the first business will be to deliver judgment in the claims
in regard to ancient baronies of Darcy (de Knayth), Meinill, and Fauconberg. The arguments in
support of the claims were heard some months ago before the committee, which was composed
of the Earl of Morley (presiding), the Lord Chancellor [the Earl of Halsbury], the Lords 
Macnaghten, Davey, Robertson, and Lindley. The claimants are the Countess of Yarborough (in
her own right Baroness Conyers) and the Countess of Powis, co-heirs to the baronies of
Fauconberg, Darcy (de Knayth) and Meinill.
'The Barony of Fauconberg is said to be the oldest in existence, having been created by writ in
1283 - the earliest date to which the creation of a peerage has so far been assigned [the barony
of De Ros dates from 1264]. These baronies have at times fallen into abeyance. Such has been 
the case with that of Fauconberg, for a considerable period. The present petitioners now claim
that on the death of their father - the twelfth Lord Conyers, fifteenth Lord Darcy, thirteenth Lord
Meinill - they inherited an undivided moiety of these three baronies, and each one half of the 
entire moiety of the barony of Fauconberg. The real point which their lordships have to decide
arises in the early history of these peerages, and involves the consideration of pedigree going 
back for many centuries, as well as reference to documents of the greatest antiquity. These
include summonses to the earliest gatherings to which the term of "parliament"  has ever been
applied. In support of the claim it was shown that Lord Fauconberg was commanded to attend 
the assembly which was held in Shrewsbury in 1283. It was summoned chiefly for the trial of
someone who had been captured [Dafydd ap Gruffydd, the last independent Prince of Wales],
the enormities of which he had been guilty and the kindness which the King had shown him being
set forth in the summons, which is the earliest known.
'To another Parliament held at Lincoln in the year 1300 Lord Fauconberg was also summoned, and
the proof of his presence is provided in an ancient document of great historical interest. This is a
letter of which, as is supposed, the duplicate originals are now in the possession of the Keeper of
Records and Historical Manuscripts. It was addressed to the Pope, and the circumstances which 
led to its being drawn up were peculiar. The Scots, after the Battle of Falkirk [22 July 1298] felt
that they were being placed in a state of semi-subjection to King Edward I, and, casting about
them for some high authority to plead their cause, they conceived the idea of appealing to the
then Pope - Boniface [VIII]. The reply to that appeal, apparently, was not such as they 
expected. It was not addressed to the Scotch people, but to King Edward I, and took the form
of a Bull [Scimus Fili], in which his Holiness submitted numerous arguments against the claims of 
the King to rule the Scots. It concluded by asserting that he (Boniface) was the liege-lord of 
Scotland. For some reason the Bull was delayed in transmission - possibly because, as its tenor
would be displeasing to King Edward, the ecclesiastic to whom it had been entrusted for delivery
waited an opportunity to present it when his Majesty would be likely to receive it with some 
degree of calm. When finally presented, according to Mr. Asquith, who stated the argument on
behalf of the petitioners, it created a great tumult, and Edward at once summoned the Lincoln
Parliament to consider the Papal claim. Thither Lord Fauconberg was bidden, and that he did 
attend is shown from the fact that his seal is appended to the letter which at that assembly was
adopted for presentation to the Pope. Neither original nor copies of this communication can be 
found in the archives of the Vatican, but in the archives of the Chapter of Westminster were
discovered, not so very long ago, the duplicate documents referred to.
'Sir H[enry] Maxwell-Lyte, Deputy-Keeper of the Records, appeared before their lordships in the
course of the arguments, and produced the duplicates, which are preserved in a large mahogany
box. For their better protection they are placed under glass and separated with cotton-wool. In
another case which he submitted for inspection are contained the seals of the signatories in the
order in which they are believed to have been attached to the originals, the attaching ribbons
having in the course of years decayed. Both these documents having been discovered in the
Westminster archives, there is every probability that the ecclesiastic entrusted to convey one 
of them to the Pope - the other no doubt being intended for retention in this country - thought 
it expedient to suppress it, realising that the tenor of the letter repudiating the claim of the Pope
would be as displeasing to his Holiness as had previously been to King Edward the Bull repudiating
the rights of that monarch.
'To their lordships Sir H. Maxwell-Lyte stated that he had no doubt as to the authenticity of the
letter, the seals corresponding to the names of the persons mentioned in it. The strictest invest-
igation had failed to discover any discrepancy in this respect. The document of course, as the
decision of their lordships will no doubt disclose, has a most important bearing on the question
under consideration, because, if the Parliament at which it was drawn up was regular, the 
ancestor of the appellants attended as a baron, and thus the title of Lord Fauconberg would take
precedence as regards antiquity to most other titles in the United Kingdom.'
The decision of the Committee was reported in the "Daily Telegraph" on the following day:-
'The decision of the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords given yesterday in the claim 
for the revival of the ancient baronies of [Darcy] de Knayth, Meinill, and Fauconberg was that 
the Barony of Darcy de Knayth was allowed from the date of a writ issued in the sixth year of
Edward III [i.e.1332] to the ancestor of the petitioners. As to the Meinill barony, the Committee
held that it had not been proved that there had been a sitting by any person under that title
in their lordships' House. The Fauconberg barony they held must be allowed from the date of the
sitting of Parliament in the reign of Henry VI.
'The effect of this is that the Barony of Darcy de Knayth is granted as claimed, and the Barony
of Meinill is not allowed, owing to there being no proof of a sitting following upon the writ to
Nicholas Meinill. With regard to the Fauconberg barony the claim was for a barony dating from
1283, and an endeavour was made to prove a sitting by the barons' letter to the Pope, drawn
up under circumstances detailed in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. This was disregarded by the
House as proof of a sitting, and the barony is only granted from the date of a sitting in the
fourteenth year of the reign of Henry VI by William Nevill, who married the heiress of the
Fauconbergs. This finding also appears to show that a sitting of a husband of an heiress does
not give a barony to the descendants of the heiress unless both writs and sitting in her ancestor
can be satisfactorily proved. The decision presumably does not affect the authenticity of the
barons' letter to the Pope, the committee having been content to revive the barony as at a later
James Boothby Burke Roche, 3rd Baron Fermoy
It is not given to many people to have the dubious honour of reading their own obituaries. In 
the case of James Burke Roche, this honour happened twice.
The first occasion was in 1879, when the following report appeared in the 'New York Times' on
20 August:-
'Few who move in society in New York will read the following telegram without knowing to whom
it refers, or will fail to express a hope that he has not met the fate it indicates:
                                                                            DENVER, Col., Aug. 19, 1879.
To C.C. Waite, Brevoort House:
     Reported from Rocky Creek that the Hon. J.B. Roche has been killed by Indians on the
Yellowstone River. Inform his party with you now.               A. SUMNER
'Sumner is an Indian scout who has safely piloted many sportsmen through the Big Horn region.
At the Brevoort House he is well spoken of, and for this reason little hope is entertained by Mr.
Roche's personal friends that the story of his death is not well founded. The gentleman in 
question is the Hon. James Boothby Burke Roche, second son of Baron Fermoy, of Ireland. He
was born in 1851 [sic], is a well-knit young man, six feet tall, admirably schooled to move in
the world without giving offense. He was engaged to be married to a daughter of Frank Work,
was an honorary member of the Knickerbocker and Union Clubs, and had the entrée of every
society circle in this City. Mr. Roche first came to America in August of last year. He went
west with M. Frewen and R. Frewen, of Somersetshire, England, young men of high birth. The
Frewens made large purchases of land, and wintered in the North-west. Mr. Roche remained 
with them until January last, when he returned to New York. In February he went to England
and returned here May 7 with his younger brother Alexis Charles [of whom more below]. On 
the 22nd of May they went to the Yellowstone region to hunt, and there met the Frewens. The
party referred to in the dispatch from the scout, Sumner, consists of Lieut. J.F. Brocklehurst, of 
the Royal Horse Guards, and his wife; the Hon. Hugh Lowther, brother of the Earl of Lonsdale, 
and his wife, Lady Grace, sister of the Marquis of Huntley [sic]; the Hon. Charles Fitzwilliam, son 
of Earl Fitzwilliam and Capt. J.T. Hare, formerly of the British Army. These distinguished persons 
arrived by the Scythia, and left immediately to join Mr. Roche's party, at Rock Creek, near Fort 
Fetterman, Wyoming Territory…….
'Mr. Roche was an ardent sportsman, and his outfit for the Big Horn region, where he went to
hunt elk, black-tailed deer, antelope, and buffalo, is spoken of as complete.'
Roche, however, was not dead. Although a number of English papers picked up the story in 
the 'New York Times' which reported Roche's supposed death, I have been unable to find any
subsequent newspaper reports about his survival. In any event, he married his fiancée, Frances
Work in September 1880, after which the couple sailed for England, where they lived together 
until December 1886 and had four children, one of whom died in infancy. After 1886, the 
marriage failed, and Roche applied to his father-in-law for sufficient money to pay his gambling
debts. This being refused, Roche travelled to New York with his two (twin) sons, and allegedly
abandoned both infants on his father-in-law's doorstep. In 1891, Frances sought, and was
granted, a divorce under the law of the American state of Delaware. Five years later, in June
1896, Roche won a lawsuit against 'Burke's Peerage' restraining the publication from including
an entry to the effect that he had been divorced by his wife. There appears to have been
some doubt as to the efficacy of a divorce granted in America as far as it related to a British
resident - certainly Roche appears to have never accepted the Delaware court's decision.
In 1896, Roche was returned at a by-election for the constituency of Kerry East, which he
represented until 1900. It was during this period that Roche is supposed to have read his
obituary for the second time. According to a report in the 'Chicago Daily Tribune' of 10
October 1908 "James Burke Roche… lost in the Klondike, while on the way from the
Canadian Pacific railroad to the Klondike gold fields. His companions, after searching for him
for several days, found a skeleton which they, rashly assuming it to be his, bore with much
difficulty to the nearest town, interred it in the local cemetery, and set up a tombstone,
on which a long list of virtues were attributed to him. Roche, who happened along in full life
some weeks later, saw the tombstone, caused it to be photographed, and now carries about
its picture in his pocketbook as a post mortem testimonial of his excellent character." Whilst
I have been unable to find any corroboration of this story, contemporary newspaper reports
confirm that Roche was in the Klondike in late 1897.
Roche succeeded his brother as 3rd Baron Fermoy on 1 September 1920. He enjoyed his title
for less than two months before he died on 30 October 1920.
For further information regarding Lord Fermoy's younger brother, Alexis Charles Burke Roche,
see the note under Sir Timothy O'Brien in the baronetage pages.
Lawrence Shirley, 4th Earl Ferrers
The following is extracted from 'The Newgate Calendar'…..
'Laurence, Earl Ferrers, was descended of an ancient and noble family. The royal blood of the
Plantagenets flowed in his veins, and the Earl gained his title in the following manner. The 
second baronet of the family, Sir Henry Shirley, married a daughter of the celebrated Earl of
Essex, who was beheaded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and his son, Sir Robert Shirley, died
in the Tower, where he was confined during the Protectorate, for his attachment to the cause
of the Stuarts. Upon the Restoration, the second son of Sir Robert succeeded to the title and
estates, and Charles, anxious to cement the bonds which attached his friends to him, 
summoned him to the Upper House of Parliament by the title of Lord Ferrers of Chartley, as the
descendant of one of the co-heiresses of the Earl of Essex; the title, which had existed since
the reign of Edward III, having been in abeyance since the death of that unfortunate nobleman.
In the year 1711, Robert, Lord Ferrers, was created by Queen Anne, Viscount Tamworth and
Earl Ferrers, and it appears that although the estates of the family were very great, they were
vastly diminished by the provisions which the Earl thought proper to make for his numerous
progeny, consisting of fifteen sons and twelve daughters, born to him by his two wives. At the
death of the first Earl his title descended to his second son, but he dying without issue it went
in succession to the ninth son, who was childless, and the tenth son, who was the father of 
the Earl, Laurence, the subject of the present sketch. 
'This nobleman was married in the year 1752 to the youngest daughter of Sir William Meredith;
but although his general conduct, when sober, was not such as to be remarkable, yet his 
faculties were so much impaired by drink that, when under the influence of intoxication, he
acted with all the wildness and brutality of a madman. For a time his wife perceived nothing 
which induced her to repent the step she had taken in being united to him, but he subsequently
behaved to her with such unwarrantable cruelty that she was compelled to quit his protection,
and, rejoining her father's family, to apply to Parliament for redress. An Act was in consequence
passed, allowing her a separate maintenance, to be raised out of her husband's estate; and
trustees being appointed, the unfortunate Mr. Johnson, who fell a sacrifice to the ungovernable
passion of Lord Ferrers - having been bred up in the family from his youth, and being 
distinguished for the regular manner in which he kept his accounts, and his fidelity as a 
steward - was proposed as receiver of the rents for her use. He at first declined the office; but
subsequently, at the desire of the Earl himself, consented to act, and continued in this
employment for a considerable time.
'His lordship at this time lived at Stanton, a seat about two miles from Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in 
Leicestershire; and his family consisted of Mrs. Clifford, a lady who lived with him, and her four
natural daughters, besides five men-servants, exclusive of an old man and a boy, and three
maids. Mr. Johnson lived at the house belonging to the farm, which he held under his lordship,
called the Lount, about half-a-mile distant from Stanton. It appears that it was his custom
to visit his noble master occasionally, to settle the accounts which were placed under his care;
but his lordship gradually conceived a dislike for him, grounded upon the prejudice raised in his
mind on account of his being the receiver of the Countess's portion, and charged him with
having combined with the trustees to prevent his receiving a coal contract. From this time he
spoke of him in opprobrious terms, and said he had conspired with his enemies to injure him,
and that he was a villain; and with these sentiments he gave him warning to quit an
advantageous farm which he held under his lordship. Finding, however, that the trustees under
the Act of separation had already granted him a lease of it, it having been promised to him by
the Earl or his relations, he was disappointed, and probably from that time he meditated a more
cruel revenge.
'On Sunday, the 13th of January, 1760, Earl Ferrers went to the Lount, and, after discourse
with Mr. Johnson, ordered him to come to him at Stanton on the Friday following, the 18th,
at three o'clock in the afternoon. His lordship's usual dinner-hour was two o'clock, and soon
after that meal was disposed of, on the Friday, he went to Mrs. Clifford, who was in the still-
house, and desired her to take the children for a walk. She accordingly prepared herself and 
her daughters, and, with the permission of the Earl, went to her father's, at a short distance
being directed to return at half-past five. The men-servants were next dispatched on errands
by their master, who was thus left in the house with the three females only. In a short time 
afterwards Mr. Johnson came, according to his appointment, and was admitted by one of the 
maid-servants, named Elizabeth Burgeland. He proceeded at once to his lordship's apartment,
but was desired to wait in the still-house; and then, after the expiration of about ten minutes,
the Earl, calling him into his own room, went in with him and locked the door. Being thus
together, the Earl required him first to settle an account, and then, charging with the villainy
which he attributed to him, ordered him to kneel down. The unfortunate man went down on 
one knee, upon which the Earl, in a tone of voice loud enough to be heard by the maid-
servants without, cried: "Down on your other knee! Declare that you have acted against Lord 
Ferrers. Your time is come - you must die." Then suddenly drawing a pistol from his pocket,
which was loaded, he presented it and immediately fired. The ball entered the body of the
unfortunate man, but he rose up, and entreated that no further violence might be done him,
and the female servants at that time coming to the door, being alarmed by the report, his
lordship quitted the room. A messenger was immediately dispatched to Mr. Kirkland, a surgeon,
who lived at Ashby-de-la-Zouch; and Johnson being put to bed, his lordship went to him and
asked him how he felt. He answered that was dying, and desired that his family might be sent
for. Miss Johnson soon after arrived, and Lord Ferrers immediately followed her into the room
where her father lay. He then pulled down the clothes and applied a pledget [a small flat
absorbent pad], dipped in arquebusade water [distilled water from a variety of aromatic plants,
often applied to gunshot wounds of that era], to the wound, and soon after left him.
'From this time it appears that his lordship applied himself to his favourite amusement - drinking -
until he became exceedingly violent (for at the time of the commission of the murder he is 
reported to have been sober), and on the arrival of Mr. Kirkland he told him that he had shot
Johnson, but believed he was more frightened than hurt; that he had intended to shoot him 
dead, for that he was a villain, and deserved to die; "but," said he, "now that I have spared his
life, I desire you to do what you can for him." His lordship at the same time desired that he
would not suffer him to be seized, and declared that if anyone should attempt it he would shoot
him. Mr. Kirkland told him that he should not be seized, and directly went to the wounded man.
He found the ball had lodged in his body, at which his lordship expressed great surprise, 
declaring that he had tried that pistol a few days before and that it then carried a ball through
a deal board nearly an inch and a half thick. Mr. Kirkland then went downstairs to prepare some
dressings, and my lord soon after left the room. From this time, in proportion as the liquor
which he continued to drink took effect, his passions became more tumultuous, and the 
transient fit of compassion, mixed with fear for himself, which had excited him, gave way to
starts of rage and the predominance of malice. He went up into the room where Johnson was
dying and pulled him by the wig, calling him a villain, and threatening to shoot him through the
head; and the last time he went to him he was with great difficulty prevented from tearing the 
clothes off the bed, that he might strike him.
'A proposal was made to him in the evening by Mrs. Clifford that Mr. Johnson should be removed
to his own house; but he replied: "He shall not be removed; I will keep him here, to plague the 
villain." He afterwards spoke to Miss Johnson about her father, and told her that if he died he
would take care of her and the family, provided they did not prosecute.
'When his lordship went to bed, which was between eleven and twelve, he told Mr. Kirkland that
he could, if he would, set the affair in such a light as to prevent his being seized, desiring that 
he might see him before he went away in the morning, and declaring that he would rise at any
hour. Mr. Kirkland, however, was very solicitous to get Mr. Johnson removed, and, as soon as
the Earl had gone, he set about carrying his object into effect. He in consequence went to 
Lount and, having fitted up an easy-chair with poles, by way of a sedan, and procured a guard,
returned at about two o'clock and carried Mr. Johnson to his house, where he expired at about
nine o'clock on the following morning.
'The neighbours now began to take measures to secure the murderer, and a few of them,
having armed themselves, set out for Stanton; and as they entered the yard they saw his 
lordship, partly undressed, going towards the stable, as if to take out a horse. One of them,
named Springthorpe, then advancing towards his lordship with a pistol in his hand, required him 
to surrender; but the latter putting his hand towards his pocket, his assailant, imagining that 
he was feeling for some weapon of offence, stopped short, and allowed him to escape into the
house. A great concourse of people by this time had come to the spot, and they cried out 
loudly that the Earl should come forth. Two hours elapsed, however, before anything was seen
of him, and then he came to the garret window and called out: "How is Johnson?" He was
answered that he was dead. But he said it was a lie, and desired that the people should
disburse - and then he gave orders that they should be let in and furnished with victuals and
drink, and finally he went away from the window, swearing that no man should take him. The
mob still remained on the spot, and in about two hours the Earl was descried by a collier,
named Curtis, walking on the bowling-green, armed with a blunderbuss, a brace of pistols and
a dagger. Curtis, however, so far from being intimidated by his bold appearance, walked up to
him; and his lordship, struck with the resolution he displayed, immediately surrendered himself,
and gave up his arms, but directly afterwards declared that he had killed the villain, and gloried
in the act. He was instantly conveyed in custody to a public house at Ashby, kept by a man
named Kinsey, and a coroner's jury having brought in a verdict of wilful murder against him, he
was on the following Monday committed to the custody of the keeper of the jail at Leicester.
Being entitled, however, by his rank to be tried before his peers, he was, about a fortnight
afterwards, conveyed to London, in his landau, drawn by six horses, under a strong guard, and,
being carried before the House of Lords, he was committed to the custody of the Black Rod, 
and ordered to the Tower, where he arrived at about six o'clock on the evening of the 14th of
February. He is reported to have behaved, during the whole journey and at his commitment,
with great calmness and propriety. He was confined in the Round Tower, near the drawbridge;
two wardens were constantly in the room with him, and one at the door, two sentinels were
posted at the bottom of the stairs, and one upon the drawbridge, with their bayonets fixed, 
and from this time the gates were ordered to be shut an hour sooner than usual
'During his confinement he was moderate both in eating and drinking: his breakfast was a half-
pint basin of tea, with a small spoonful of brandy in it, and a muffin; with his dinner he
generally drank a pint of wine and a pint of water, and another pint of each with his supper. In
general his behaviour was decent and quiet, except that he would sometimes suddenly start,
tear open his waistcoat, and use other gestures, which showed that his mind was disturbed.
'Mrs. Clifford and the four young ladies, who had come up with him from Leicestershire, took a
lodging in Tower Street, and for some time a servant was continually passing with letters
between them, but afterwards this correspondence was permitted only once a day. Mrs. 
Clifford came three times to the Tower to see him, but was not admitted, but his children were 
suffered to be with him some time.
'On the 16th of April, having been a prisoner in the Tower two months and two days, he was
brought to his trial, which continued until the 18th, before the House of Lords, assembled for
that purpose. Lord Henley, Keeper of the Great Seal, having been created Lord High Steward 
upon the occasion. The murder was easily proved to have been committed, and his lordship 
then proceeded to enter upon his defence. He called several witnesses, the object of whose 
testimony was to show that the Earl was not of sound mind, but none of them proved such an
insanity as made him not accountable for his conduct. His lordship managed his defence himself
in such a manner as showed an uncommon understanding: he mentioned the fact of his being
reduced to the necessity of attempting to prove himself a lunatic, that we might not be 
deemed a murderer, with the most delicate and affecting sensibility, and, when he found that 
his plea could not avail him, he confessed that he made it only to gratify his friends; that he 
was always averse to it himself, and that it had prevented what he had proposed, and what 
perhaps might have taken off the malignity at least of the accusation.
'The Peers having in the usual form delivered their verdict, of guilty, his lordship received
sentence to be hanged on Monday, the 21st of April, and then to be anatomised, but, in
consideration of his rank, the execution of this sentence was respited till Monday, the 5th of
May. During this interval he made a will, by which he left one thousand, three hundred pounds
to Mr. Johnson's children, one thousand pounds to each of his own four natural daughters, and
sixty pounds a year to Mrs. Clifford for life; but this disposition of his property, being made
after his conviction, was not valid, although it was said that the same, or nearly the same,
provision was afterwards made for the parties named.
'In the meantime a scaffold was erected under the gallows at Tyburn, and part of it, about a
yard square, was raised about eighteen inches above the rest of the floor, with a contrivance
to sink down upon a signal given, in accordance with the plan then invariably adopted; the 
whole being covered with black baize. On the morning of the 5th of May, at about nine o'clock,
his lordship's body was demanded of the keeper of the Tower, by the sheriffs of London and
Middlesex, and his lordship, being informed of it, sent a message to the sheriffs, requesting
that he might be permitted to be conveyed to the scaffold in his own landau, in preference to
the mourning-coach which was provided for him. This being granted, his landau, drawn by six
horses, immediately drew up, and he entered it, accompanied by Mr. Humphries, the Chaplain
of the Tower, who had been admitted to him that morning for the first time. On the carriage
reaching the outer gate, the Earl was delivered up to the sheriffs, and Mr. Sheriff Vaillant
entered the vehicle with him, expressing his concern at having so melancholy a duty to
perform; but his lordship said he "was much obliged to him, and took it kindly that he 
accompanied him."
'The Earl was attired in a white suit, richly embroidered with silver, and when he put it on he 
said: "This is the suit in which I was married, and in which I will die." The procession, being
now formed, moved forward slowly, the landau being preceded by a considerable body of
Horse Grenadiers, and by a carriage containing Mr. Sheriff Errington, and his under-sheriff, Mr.
Jackson, and being followed by the carriage of Mr. Sheriff Vaillant, containing Mr. Nichols, his
under-sheriff, a mourning-coach and six, containing some of his lordship's friends, a hearse-
and-six for the conveyance of his body to Surgeon's Hall after execution, and another body
of military. The pace at which they proceeded, in consequence of the density of the mob, was
so slow that his lordship was two hours and three-quarters in his landau, but during that time
he appeared perfectly easy and composed, though he often expressed his anxiety to have the
whole affair over, saying that the apparatus of death and the passing through such crowds
were worse than death itself, and that he supposed so large a mob had been collected because
the people had never seen a lord hanged before. He told the sheriff that he had written to the
King to beg that he might suffer where his ancestor, the Earl of Essex, had been executed, and
that he had had greater hopes of obtaining that favour as he had the honour of quartering part
of the same arms, and of being allied to his Majesty, but that he had refused, and he thought
it hard that he must die at the place appointed for the execution of common felons.
'When his lordship had arrived at that part of Holborn which is near Drury Lane he said he was
"thirsty, and should be glad of a glass of wine-and-water," upon which the sheriffs, 
remonstrating with him, said that a stop for that purpose would necessarily draw a greater
crowd about him, which might possibly disturb and incommode him, yet, if his lordship still
desired it, it should be done. He most readily answered; "That's true - I say no more - let us 
by no means stop." 
'When the landau advanced to the place of execution his lordship alighted from it, and ascended
the scaffold with the same composure and fortitude of mind he had exhibited from the time he 
left the Tower. Soon after he had mounted the scaffold, Mr. Humphries asked his lordship if he
chose to say prayers, which he declined; but upon his asking him if he did not choose to join
with him in the Lord's Prayer he readily answered he would, for he always thought it a very fine
prayer. Upon which they knelt down together upon two cushions covered with black baize, and
his lordship, with an audible voice, very devoutly repeated the Lord's Prayer, and afterwards,
with great energy, ejaculated "Oh, God, forgive me all my errors - pardon all my sins!"
His lordship, then rising, took his leave of the sheriff and the chaplain; and, after thanking them
for their many civilities, presented his watch to Mr. Sheriff Vaillant of which he desired his
acceptance, and requested that his body might be buried at Breden or Stanton, in 
'The executioner now proceeded to do his duty, to which his lordship, with great resignation,
submitted. His neck-cloth being taken off, and a white cap, which he had brought in his
pocket, being put upon his head, his arms secured by a black sash, and the cord put round 
his neck, he advanced by three steps to the elevated part of the scaffold, and, standing
under the cross-beam which went over it, which was also covered with black baize, he asked
the executioner; "Am I right?" Then the cap was drawn over his face, and, on a signal given by
the sheriff (for his lordship, upon before being asked, declined to give one himself) that part
upon which he stood immediately sank down from beneath his feet, and he was launched into
eternity, the 5th of May, 1760.
'The accustomed time of one hour being passed, the coffin was raised up, with the greatest
decency, to receive the body; and, being deposited in the hearse, was conveyed by the 
sheriffs, with the same procession, to Surgeon's Hall, to undergo the remainder of the 
sentence. A large incision was then made from the neck to the bottom of the breast, and
another across the throat; the lower part of the belly was laid open and the bowels taken 
away. It was afterwards publicly exposed to view in a room up one pair of stairs at the Hall, 
and on the evening of Thursday, the 8th of May, it was delivered to his friends for interment.'
Washington Sewallis Shirley,9th Earl Ferrers
The following article, written by Dalrymple Belgrave, is taken from a series entitled "Romances
of High Life" published in the 'Manchester Times' in 1898:-
'[After a lengthy preliminary survey of the history of the Shirley family, including the hanging of
the 4th Earl, which largely repeats the information shown above - i.e. under the entry for the
4th Earl, the author writes] ……….There is another legal story connected with an Earl Ferrers - 
not in any way to his discredit - which is perhaps stranger and more romantic, and as it
happened in living memory, it is just old enough to be forgotten.
'It was in the year 1846 that one of the most curious actions for breach of promise of marriage
that ever came into a court of law was brought by a Miss Mary Elizabeth Smith against
Washington Sewallis Shirley, the ninth Earl Ferrers, who was the great-grandson of a younger
brother of the bad Earl Laurence, and who was then only 24 years old. This case was tried in
London before Mr. Justice Wightman, and opened by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who was counsel for the
plaintiff. It did not at first seem, except for the rank of the defendant, to be of a very 
remarkable character.
'[After a paragraph which briefly summarises the legal career of Sir Fitzroy Kelly, the author
continues] … There was no question that Lord Ferrers had, shortly after he had come of age,
married Lady Isabella Chichester, a daughter of the Earl of Donegall. The case, so said Fitzroy,
involved all that was dearest in life to the plaintiff, Miss Mary Elizabeth Smith. She was a young
lady who had only just attained her twenty-first year, and at the early age of 16 or 17 she had
first become acquainted with the defendant. She lived with her parents at Anstrey, in
Warwickshire, where Lord Ferrers, when a young man, was at a tutor's. As far back as 1839 
she had attracted attention, for she was a young lady of great personal attractions, and she
engaged the attentions of Lord Ferrers, who made her the most unequivocal promises of
marriage. She had become most sincerely attached to him. After some time this reached the
ears of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who felt that the attentions of one so much above their daughter
in rank were to be looked upon with suspicion. They sent her to London, and then to France,
to finish her education. In 1840, Lord Ferrers - then Lord Tamworth - went abroad, and 
returned in 1842, and from that time a correspondence continued between them, and the
marriage was fixed to take place on a certain day. He frequently went over to Anstrey, and in
the early part of 1844 it was agreed between them that the union should take place in the
month of May, but it was afterwards postponed until July or August.
'Every preparation was made. The dresses were prepared, the bride-cake ordered, and every-
thing was done that was usual on such occasions, and it was only at the end of July that the
unhappy young lady was apprised of the fact that the defendant could not marry her by reading
the account of his marriage in the newspapers. The letters which had been written by the
defendant before 1843 had been lost, so Sir Fitzroy Kelly said, but they had those which had
been written in that year. They were written on scraps of paper crossed and recrossed until 
they were rather difficult to read. But when the jury heard them they would appreciate what
Miss Smith's feelings must have been when she read of the defendant's marriage. Then he read
many of the letters, and there could be no question that either from a lover's or a lawyer's 
point of view they were thoroughly satisfactory documents. They were charmingly sentimental,
and full of the most devoted affection. They left no doubt about a promise of marriage. "Will
not the old hall be bright and happy when its future mistress takes possession of it?" wrote
Lord Ferrers in one of them, and there were many more passages which even more directly
proved the promise. The letters were really very well written and poetically expressed. Yet,
after he had read some of them, those who knew the eloquent counsel's methods might be
pretty certain that he was not quite satisfied with them, and saw rocks ahead. With that air of 
careless candour which counsel often on such occasions affect, he attempted to steer clear 
of them. 
'One peculiar feature in the letters, he said, was that the writer was evidently a young man of
strangely wild ideas, who continually alluded to persons and things which were creatures of his
own imagination. Then there was a curious trait in his character shown in the way he made
presents to his lady-love. They would see from the letters that he had lost £3,000 on one
occasion at play, and the consequence of this loss was that he was unable to purchase for
Miss Smith some books, jewellery, and dresses which he wished her to have. The expedient
which he hit upon was to ask her to buy for herself on credit, and he promised to pay the bills
for her. She bought the things at Tamworth, but had felt ashamed to tell her parents that her
wealthy lover had not the money to pay for her presents. But the bills duly came in, and she 
had to tell her father. Her father wrote to Lord Ferrers on the matter. The latter replied 
promising to pay the bills, but did not do so. Money to pay for them was borrowed from Miss
Smith's grandfather, for which he was suing Lord Ferrers. Then there was one pink bonnet, the
bill for which had not been included amongst the others, but came in after the matter had been
settled. Mr. Smith was very angry, and the plaintiff, in a moment of terror, denied that she had
ordered it. She had deceived her parent, said Sir Fitzroy, and he must leave it to his friend [i.e. 
the counsel for Lord Ferrers, Sir Frederick Thesiger, later Baron Chelmsford] to make what he 
liked of it, but he added that it would ill become Lord Ferrers, who had led her into the scrape, 
to make it a reproach to her.
'Then the learned counsel began to turn to the defence, and he naturally made a great deal of
the fact that a plea of infancy had been put on the record. A shabby plea for his lordship to
have recourse to, he said, but that plea would only cover any promise which was made before
1843 [i.e. before the Earl came of age]. Then he touched upon a more important point for the
defence. He said that he believed that his friend was actually going to set it up that Lord
Ferrers had never spoken to the young lady in his life, and that the correspondence, amounting
to more than 10,000 lines, was a tissue of forgeries. It was incredible that any forger would
forge such a mass of documents, and certainly incredible that a girl like the plaintiff could
perpetrate such a fraud. The letters, he said, were sent by post by Lord Ferrers to Adkins, his
servant, who brought them to Miss Smith. From Adkins, however, he had not been able to get
a proof. He was Lord Ferrer's servant. "It is," exclaimed Sir Fitzroy, "no equal fight between
this noble earl and this young girl." Still he could prove the handwriting of the letters by a 
highly respectable clergyman and chaplain to Lord Ferrers, and by two officers in the Yeomanry
regiment in which Lord Ferrers had held a commission, and by some other witnesses.
'Nowadays the first witness to be called would be the plaintiff. If Miss Smith had given her
evidence the jury would probably have been greatly guided by her manner in the witness-box,
and they would probably have heard a cross-examination which would have left no doubt one
way or the other. In those days, however, a plaintiff could not give evidence. It was supposed
that a jury could gain nothing by hearing so interested a witness. Sir Fitzroy therefore began 
his case by trying to establish the letters, and the first witness he called was his highly
respectable clergyman. He was positive about the handwriting, but when Sir Frederick Thesiger
took him in hand his excessive respectability began to fall away from him. Then there came 
over his character a strong suggestion of drink and immorality, and from a highly-respectable
clergyman, he began to take the character of a parson of ill repute, who just managed not to 
be unfrocked. Then Sir Frederick managed to show that he had been doing a good deal to help
the plaintiff get up her case. Altogether, when this respectable parson left the box, he had
done the plaintiff much more harm than good. The next witnesses were the officers of the
Yeomanry regiment, two gentlemen who were obviously only wishing to tell the truth. They 
both expressed their belief that the signature to the letters was in the handwriting of Lord
Ferrers, from whom they had received notes, and whose signatures to accounts connected
with the regiment they had often seen. Sir Frederick's manner towards them was very different.
He treated them with courtesy and respect, but he showed that they had not much opportunity
of seeing Lord Ferrers's handwriting. "Did he sign himself Ferrers or Washington Ferrers?" he
asked one of the latter, for in his letters to Miss Smith Lord Ferrers used his Christian name.
"But were the letters you received love letters?" put in Sir Fitzroy, who was always ready with 
a retort. A late footman of Lord Ferrers was called to prove the handwriting. Then came a string
of Anstrey witnesses who had seen Miss Smith and Lord Ferrers together before 1840. Then Mr.
Smith, the plaintiff's father, went into the box, but his evidence was not very important, as he
was an invalid, living much in his room. He had, however, written to Lord Ferrers, and he had
directed the letter himself.
'Then came an incident which puzzled the counsel for Miss Smith. Sir Frederick Thesiger 
produced some letters, folded so that they could not be read, and asked the witness if they
were in his daughter's handwriting. The witness was not quite sure. The counsel wished to see
them, but Sir Frederick would not gratify their curiosity. Then Mrs. Smith went into the box. She
gave evidence as to Lord Ferrers's attachment to her daughter before 1840. She said that in 
1843 her daughter told her that she had seen Lord Ferrers again. She saw letters from Lord
Ferrers when they arrived in 1844. She saw her daughter write one letter, which was enclosed
with two handkerchiefs, and sent to Lord Ferrers. She gave that letter to her servant to post. 
She remembered the letter Mr. Smith wrote to Lord Ferrers. He read it over to her, and she 
sealed it. She saw Mr. Smith address it, and she put it into a drawer. Next morning she posted
it at Ashby in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Holgate, two relations of hers, who were staying
with her. It was when it was least easy to see what he was driving at that Sir Frederick's 
cross-examination was often most dangerous, and Sir Fitzroy must have been rather nervous
when his skilled opponent directed his questions to showing that Miss Smith was dark and had
black hair, that she had gone to a ball at Tamworth, where she said she expected to meet Lord
Ferrers, and that on that occasion she wore a white rose in her hair. It was after the bills for
the presents came in that she first saw the letter from Lord Ferrers. The pink bonnet came on
29th June, 1844, after the bills for the other things had come in, and Mrs. Smith understood
that it had come from London. But the next Christmas a bill for it was received from Miss
Wyman, of Ashby. "We shall have a great deal to do before we get to Ashby, and before the 
bonnet is paid for," said Sir Frederick.
'Then it came out that the proceedings against Lord Ferrers had been commenced when the
bill for the bonnet arrived. The witness had to tell how her daughter denied having ordered it,
and how she, with her daughter and the attorney in the case, went to Miss Wyman, and told
her that her daughter had received such a bonnet, but that it had been a present from a noble
individual, and that a note to that effect had come in the bonnet box. She had afterwards paid
Miss Wyman, and asked her to say nothing about the former interview. There was a note in
the bonnet, which purported to be written by Mr. Devereux Shirley, Lord Ferrers's brother. Her
daughter afterwards explained the matter. Mr. Shirley told her that he wished her to buy the
bonnet as a present. But she had been unwilling to order it unless he would write something
that would convince her papa and mamma that the bonnet came from Lord Ferrers, and Mr.
Shirley wrote the letter that came out of the bonnet box. "How did it get into the box?" asked
the judge. Mrs. Smith had to admit that her daughter must have slipped it in after it arrived at
'After all, the story of the pink bonnet was not quite the simple affair that Sir Fitzroy Kelly had
made it out to be. Then Sir Frederick not only admitted that the handkerchiefs had been sent,
but he produced them. The witness had to admit that she once said that Lord Ferrers's alleged
letters were like her daughter's handwriting. She had accounted for this by saying that her
daughter must have tried to make her handwriting like his. Then again, the mysterious folded
letters were produced. The witness said they were all written by her daughter. When Mrs.
Smith left the box the intense interest of the case was sustained, for the plaintiff's sister, Anne
Smith, a girl of fourteen, swore that she remembered Lord Ferrers when he was a pupil at
Anstrey, and that afterwards, in 1843, she twice saw him at her mother's house, calling on her
sister. As to one occasion she could not fix the date; the other was on the day of Anstrey 
Wake, December 9th, 1843. After Anne Smith, witnesses who had posted letters to Lord Ferrers
were called, and this part of the case Sir Frederick hardly seemed to fight. A villager of Anstrey
swore to having seen Lord Ferrers walking with Miss Smith at Anstrey in 1843, and the post-
mistress of Chartley swore to the letters being in Lord Ferrers's handwriting. There were two or
three more witnesses, whose evidence was not very important, and then the case for the
plaintiff was closed.
'Sir Frederick Thesiger then made one of the most brilliant speeches he ever delivered to a jury.
Some counsel in such cases would have begun by denouncing the plaintiff. His method was 
more polished. First, he gave instances of young girls, such as Elizabeth Canning and Maria 
Glen, well-known cases in the law-books, who had deceived judges and juries by their lies. He
did not yet ask the jury to say that the plaintiff had committed a fraud, but they must not
consider it impossible that she should have done so. Next he came to the question of who 
wrote the letters. There were no postmarks on them. Adkins would swear he never delivered
them. He asked how the plaintiff got them. As to the evidence of Anne Smith, he opened a
perfect 'alibi' for Lord Ferrers as to the only day to which she swore. Then he became more 
stern. Anne Smith's story was a false one, and a girl of tender age had been allowed to perjure
herself. Then he discussed the letters, and as he read some of them, commenting upon them,
they did not seem to be such satisfactory documents as they did in Sir Fitzroy Kelly's hands.
It became pretty clear why that astute counsel had prepared the jury for some strange
statements in them.
'They were full of expressions that Lord Ferrers would not have used. He talked of dining with
the Hon. Charles Davey, and Sir Frederick pointed out that if there had been such a person,
which there was not, as there was no family of Davey in the peerage, Lord Ferrers would not
have written of him as "the Hon." but as Charles Davey. In another letter he wrote: "I rather
fancy the child of Evelyn, who wedded Walker, is very unhappy with her husband." There were
two persons, Sir Frederick explained, whom Lord Ferrers might write of as Evelyn - Mr. Evelyn
Philip Shirley, who was Lord Ferrers's guardian, and had two infant daughters, and that 
gentleman's father, who had two daughters, Lady Heathcote and Mrs. Malcolm. Neither of 
them had a daughter married to anyone of the name of Walker. The letter went on; "Walker
is a cold-hearted man, who makes a wife a secondary consideration, not perceiving that his
wife is dying from secret grief; but this will hardly interest you, and my writing is such that I
hardly like to send it you. Let no other eye but yours see it." In another letter there was an 
allusion to his cousin Evelyn: "Would he were made of less worldly material, less stern, and
then his poor child would not have wedded the brute Walker." "I am happy to inform you,"
said Sir Frederick, "that the child of Mr. Evelyn Shirley alluded to is safe from the brute Walker,
or any other brute, for many years to come, for I believe at present she is of the mature age 
of six months."
'In reading one letter, Sir Frederick made a characteristic little slip. "she goes on to say," he
said, then he stopped and corrected himself ; "he goes on - I beg her pardon for saying 
'she' as yet." "But whose were the letters?" he asked , and he then reminded the jury of Mrs.
Smith's admission as to the similarity of the handwriting. He admitted, however, that letters
were posted from Miss Smith to Lord Ferrers; but he reminded the jury how she had juggled
with the letter found in the bonnet-box. "Why," he exclaimed, "here are the pocket-
handkerchiefs! Here we stop short and find the case complete against Lord Ferrers. Will Lord
Ferrers after this venture to deny that he carried on a correspondence with the plaintiff? Yes,
he will, and in the very face of this we will say it, and, what is more, will prove it." "Now," he
continued, later, "we come to the third volume. Let us unravel the mystery." And then he
reverted to questions he had asked Mrs. Smith as to her daughter's appearance, and as to her
having been at a ball at Tamworth, with a white rose in her hair. "What does all this mean? you
will ask. Everything; it is of the greatest importance. Lord Ferrers, after he came back from the
Continent, received a variety of anonymous letters, most of which he burnt. He has, however,
after careful search, been able to find four. Mrs. Smith has proved all these to be in the hand-
writing of her daughter." Then he read the letter in which Lord Ferrers was told to go to a ball
in Tamworth, where he would meet a young lady, "haughty and graceful as a Spaniard, tall and
majestic as a Circassian, beautiful as an Italian. She is your destiny. Go at all risks. She may
wear a white rose in her dark hair. Go early." "Do you understand the case now?" exclaimed
Sir Frederick. "Can you doubt that this artful girl, assisted, I fear, by others, has been contriving
from beginning to end a scheme of the most arrant falsehood." Having read three other letters
in the same strain he said: "My task is done; the case is proved."
'And so it was. Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who had been out of court, was sent for. When he came back
he got up, and, addressing the court, said that the letters produced by Sir Frederick had come
as a surprise to him, and that under the circumstances he must submit to a non-suit.
'It may be interesting to add that Miss Smith afterwards published a pamphlet on her case. In
this she insists on her having been the object of Lord Ferrers's affection when he was at a 
tutor's, and she describes how, when she was sent to school by her parents, he stood with his
cloak wrapped round his shoulders watching her departure. "Aye, and tears were shed for him,
which parting from my parents, and my home, much as they and it were loved, could not call
forth. I then, for the first time, felt what anguish was." She says on her return home a person
dressed in deep black called upon her, who professed to be Lord Ferrers, and, from her 
recollection of him, she believed him. She half suggests, however, in her pamphlet, that this
person might have been someone personating Lord Ferrers. Some years afterwards she 
exercised her literary faculty in a long poem called "A Deed Once Done." In it she writes in a 
very despondent tone about herself and the opinion people had of her. As  one reads over the 
case, one of the strangest that was ever brought into a court of law, one wonders how far this 
young woman was accountable for her actions, and whether she had not some strange faculty 
of making the creatures of her imagination become, so far as she was concerned, real flesh and
Copyright © 2020