438 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
[No. 27. 
the person to whom they are applied, —with the 
exception, indeed, of certain combinations of cir- 
cumstances under which the word “Gentleman” 
is applied as a character. ; 
It would be an interesting occupation to trace 
the mutations of meaning which these words have 
undergone, and the circumstances which gave rise 
to the successive applications of them. ‘The sub- 
ject has been often touched upon more or less 
slightly ; but I know of no work in which it is dis- 
eussed fully, though, indeed, there may be such. 
Of course, many of your readers are men whose 
pursuits have lain in other directions than social 
customs, social language, and social tastes ; and, as 
one of them, I may be permitted to ask either 
where a full discussion can be found, or that some 
of your correspondents will furnish through your 
medium a clear and tolerably full exposition of 
the question. I believe it would be of general 
and public interest. j 
We naturally expect, that in official corre- 
spondence, the public boards, through their proper 
officers, would be very precise in assigning to 
every person his proper title, in the address of a 
letter. Yet nothing can be more negligent and 
capricious than the way in which this is done. | 
have held an appointment in the public service, 
which is generally considered to carry with it the 
title of “ Esquire,” (but really whether it do or 
not, I am unable to tell), and have at different 
times had a good deal of official correspondence, 
sometimes mere routine, and sometimes involving 
topics of a critical character. From my own ex- 
perience I am led to think that no definite rule 
exists, and that the temper of the moment will 
dictate the style of address. For instance, in 
matter-of-course business, or in any correspon- 
dence that was agreeable to official persons, I was 
addressed as “ Esq.;” but if the correspondence 
took a turn that was unpleasant, it was “ Mr. 2% 
and on one occasion I received a note addressed 
with my name denuded of all title whatever, even 
of the office I filled. ‘The note, I hardly need say, 
was “full of fire and fury ;” and yet, in less than 
half an hour, I received a second (the writer having 
discovered his mistake), opening with “ My dear 
Sir,’ and superseribed with the “ Esquire” at 
full length. ‘This, I think, proves the capricious- 
ness of men in public stations in their assignment 
of titles of this kind. 
I certainly expected to find, however, in the 
“ List of the Fellows of the Society of Antiqua- 
ries,” due attention paid to this circumstance. 
The one just circulated was therefore referred to, 
and it would seem to be as full of anomalies as a 
“ Court Guide” or a “ Royal Blue Book.” We 
have, indeed, the Knights and Baronets duly titled, 
and the Peers, lay and spiritual, sufficiently dis- 
tinguished both by capitals and mode of insertion. 
All those who have no other title (as D.D. or 
F.R.S.) recognised by the Society, are courteously 
designated by the affix “ Esq.” In this, it will be 
strange indeed if all be entitled to the appella- 
tion in its legitimate sense; or, in other words, 
if the principle of courtesy does not supersede, 
amongst the otherwise untitled mass of Fellows, 
the principle of social rank. ‘To this in itself, as 
the distinction of “Gent” after a man’s name 
has become derogatory, there cannot be the least 
objection; for antiquarianism does not palliate 
rudeness or offensive language. 
At the same time, the adoption of this principle 
should surely be uniform, and invidious distinc- 
tions should not be made. The title ‘ Esq.,” 
should not be given to one man, and left out in 
designating another whose social position is pre- 
cisely the same. Jor instance, we find in this list 
i » MED:,” and,“ , Esq., M.D.,” employed 
to designate two different Doctors in Medicine. 
We find “ , F.R.S.” and “ , Esq., F.R.S.” 
to designate two Fellows of the Society of Anti- 
quaries, who are also Fellows of the Royal. We 
see one or two D.D.’s deprived of their titles of 
“Qey.,” and, as if to make amends (in point of 
quantity at least), we have one Fellow with titles 
at each end of his name that seem incompatible 
with each other, viz., ‘ Rev. , Esq.” 
Anomalies like these can only be the result of 
sheer carelessness, or of the ignorance of some clerk 
employed to make out the list without adequate 
instructions given to him. It has, in my hearing, 
been held up as a specimen of invidious distinction 
to gratify some petty dislike; but this notion is 
simply absurd, and deserves no notice. At the 
same time, it betokens a carelessness that it is 
desirable to avoid. 
As amere question of dignity, it appears to me 
to savour too much of Clapham-Common or Hamp- 
stead-Heath grandeur, to add much to our respect- 
ability or worldly importance. It would, indeed, 
be more ‘“ dignified” to drop, in the lists, all use 
of “ Esq.” under any circumstances ; or, if this be 
objected to, to at least treat ‘“ M.A.,” “D.D.,” 
“F.R.S.” as higher titles, in which the ‘“ Esq.” 
may properly be merged, and thus leave the ap- 
pellation to designate the absence of any higher 
literary or scientific title. 
A good deal of this is irrelevant to the primary 
object of my letter; but certainly not altogether 
irrelevant to the dignity of the highest English 
representative body of archzology, the Society of 
Antiquaries. I hope, at least, that this irrelevancy 
will give neither pain nor offence to any one, for 
nothing could be further from my wish or inten- 
tion than such an effect. I have only wished to 
illustrate the necessity for an accurate description 
of what are really the original, subsequent, and 
present significations of the words “ Esquire” and 
“Gentleman,” and to urge that either some definite 
rule should be adopted as to their use in official 
