342 Proceedings of Payed Society of Edinburgh. [july 4, 
As the numbers we are now dealing with are smaller than before, 
the results do not proceed with so much regularity as those we 
formerly obtained. The figures relating to the sons of peers, how- 
ever, strongly support the above views ; as a much larger proportion 
of the younger sons are childless, than is the case with those sons 
who married as heir-apparent. The same is not the case, with the 
peers ; in fact, if we take those peers who married under 40, the 
figures in the two classes are : — 
Marriages. 
Of which were Childless. 
Percentage. 
Married as Heir-apparent, 
291 
38 
13*1 
Did not so marry, 
65 
8 
12-3 
the results being thus practically identical. One reason at once 
suggests itself why the difference between the two classes should 
be much less among the peers than among the sons ; namely, that 
among the peers who did not marry as peer or heir-apparent, a 
large proportion may at the time of their marriage have had, from 
special circumstances, a practical certainty of succeeding to the title ; 
for instance, through being heir-presumptive to an elderly unmarried 
peer ; but I have not at present attempted to follow up this idea. 
Combining the peers and sons of peers, we get the following- 
figures : — 
Table F . — Marriages of Peers and tlieir Sons ( Combined ), distin- 
guishing those which were entered into by a Man who ivas Peer 
or Heir-Apparent. 
Age at Marriage. 

Peers and Sons of Peers. 
Married as Peer or 
Heir-Apparent. 
Did not so marry. 
02 
O 
bo 
.2 
5 
§ 
Of which were 
Childless. 
02 
<D 
bO 
03 
5 
3 
Of which were 
Childless. 
Number. 
Per- 
centage. 
Number. 
Per- 
centage. 
19 to 29 
272 
35 
12-9 
no 
18 
16-4 
30 „ 39 
119 
17 
14-3 
52 
10 
19-2 
40 „ 49 
33 
9 
27 3 
8 
2 
25-0 
50 ,, 59 
17 
9 
52-9 
2 
1 
50-0 
60 and upwards 
12 
8 
66 ‘7 
1 
1 
100-0 
Total 
453 
78 
17-2 
173 
32 
18-5 
1 
