BARONETAGE TERCENTENARY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10231, 14 August 1911, Page 2

BARONETAGE TERCENTENARY.

F \CTS ABOUT THE PREMIER S NEW TITLE. On May 22, 1611, the first twenty patents of the new Order of Baronets were issued by James 1., that lea » ed and judicious Prince, whose memory has been honoured this year already as tho "principal Mover ] or the Authorised Version of the Bible. Tho " baron-ets," as tho name in its oricrin plainly indicated, simply means ' : little barons," and was the generic name applied to the " lesser ba-ions of England.. The Greater Barons, who hold, their estates directly from the Kins and were summoned personally to the Great Council, ultimately became the House of Lords; while the Lebber J 'irons or "Baron-ets,'' holding their lands from the Greater Barons bv military tenure, gradually became absorbed in the House of Commons. Ihe creation cf the Order of Baronets is muallv imputed to the empty state o the King's purse; but wo might as well sav that tho first William s barons were disgraced in accepting their nets from the' Conqueror, with the stimulation attached of having to fight »or the iCiiif as suggest that the new baronets each"accepted a dishonourable dignity in exchange for a guarantee to pay the upkeep for three years ot thirty soldiers in Ireland at Sd each per diem. Ihe Greater Baron m his day was bound to provide the living soldier ; the " baron-et," in his time, was bound to provide for his contingent's up-keep. it was no part of the latter s inquire into the disposal of the supp-ies thus acquired by the King's Tieasiuy. Whilst the actual credit of the idea is said to belong to Sir Thomas Sherley, .if Wiston, it was Sir Robert Cotton, tho famous antiquary, and much m the King's confidence, who brought the subject to James's notice; and Cottons sponsorship was a sufficient guarantee that the institution of the new Order was approached from a strictly histoncal attitude. It is at least not too much to give tho first btuart Iving of England tho credit of seeking to revive for°the leading county families outside tho peerage the ancient dignity of " baron-et," which, without placing tlium amuiig the nobility, marked them out for a no less honourable hereditary distinction. Had the granting of a baronetcy been a mere sale—however disguised-—to the highest or any bidder, we should expect to hnd the parvenus of the period among the new baronets. Far rroni that. In tho instructions issued to the Commissioners charged with the affairs, the King ordered them only to choose for the new dignity " men of quality, state of living and good reputation, worthy of the same, and at the least descended of a grandfather (by the father's side) that bore arms." In reality) in the new Oraer Janios I. created a hereditary caste, u sort -j1 apprentice peers, midway between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, eligible to sit in the latter aud with considerable authority _ there; while from their ranks many of the existing noble families rose to their places in the Lords. In the reign of King Jame3 himself live of the new baronets were raised to the peerage. The list of baronets as generally given to-day conveys no indication of the large percentage of living peers who are also holders of baronetcies. Of the dukes, seven —Abercorn, Lee-ds, Northumberland, Iloxburghe, Somerset, Sutherland and Westminster—are also baronets, and in the lesser ranks of peerage tho same proportion of baronets is apparent. To add in time greater dignity to tho new Order, King James ordained that the number of baronets should never exceed 20. When any of these became extinct none was to be created in its place, so that, tho number diminishing, greater honour would accrue, to those remaining. For his part, James stood by his original plan, but his successor was not so scrupulous, and exceeded that number, which was never afterwards adhered to. Although the baronets had their place assigned to them in the King's Army " near and about tlie Royal Standard for its defence," when it catno to a question of their precedency the other Orders cast jealous eyes upon them. Some of the Greater Barons viewed the new class with apprehension. The officers of the Navy presented a remonstrance against the privileges conferred, and their precedency was disputed by the younger sons of viscounts and barons. The latter point was referred to the King, who in 1612 issued a decree, placing the baronets after the younger sons. Of course. hn<! James decided otherwise, it would have been a partial admission of the baronets into the ranks of the nobility —an untenable position, however disappointing to the former. But as a compromise the- King also bound himself, Ins heirs and successors, not at any time to pive precedence to any persons beneath the degree of Lords of Parliament lusher before or equal to the place of baronets.