DEBRETT'S PEERAGE, 1 841.
THERE are various indications of the political feelings of a people besides elections; and if any doubt could exist as to the aristocratic tendency of the popular mind in this country, the publication and steady sale of the numerous " Peerages " would show it. The English dearly love a Lord, and all that belongs to a Lord ; and no sooner do they come within a Lordly circle, or have their attention drawn to any particular nobleman, than they fly to their " Peerage," to see whom he married, how many children he has begotten, and for every other par- ticular respecting him. The interest felt about Baronets is, as be- comes their inferior rank, of a lesser degree ; so that the demand for "Baronetcies " bears no proportion to that for "Peerages,"—a fact which proves that the sale of these works is not confined to the families whom they record, because the number of Baronets is nearly twice as great as of Peers. There is, however, another use to which "Peerages" might be applied. These works contain a valuable body of facts illustrative of the fecundity, duration of life, numbers of each family that leave descendants, &c. of one particular class of the community, for three or more generations ; and it is remarkable, that while the Statistical Society is searching through uncertain sources for similar information, they have allowed a mass of highly valuable data, which only requires time and labour to digest and arrange, to pass unheeded. With so great a demand for " Peerages," it might be expected that DEBRETT'S, the oldest among them, (of which the editions have been so numerous as to be, we suppose, beyond reckoning, since the number is no longer mentioned in the titlepage,) would have been "got up" in the most careful manner, both as regards editor- ship and illustrations. With much respect for Miss INNES'S Peer- age, which bears the name of "LODGE," we have never shaken off our old allegiance to DEBRETT'S; and if only common taste and industry were bestowed on it, both its merits and sale would proba- bly surpass those of all its rivals. Instead, however, of having taken the lead in improvement, DEBRETT'S Peerage resisted a change as long. as it was practicable ; and when at last driven to alter its plan, the imitation was as servile and effected at as little cost as possible. Originally and until recently, it was arranged according to the de- grees and seniority of the Peers, instead of on the far more convenient plan of LODGE'S Peerage, where the names were placed in alphabetical order, thus saving the trouble of referring to the index. When Denasres adopted the alphabetical plan, the engravings of the arms were put in the margin of the page in which the family to whom they belonged was treated of; and the arms were blazoned— e. described. All this was judicious ; but impressions of the arms ought also to be given together, as formerly, at the commencement of the volume ; because the principal use of them is to ascertain to whom any particular coat belongs,—which, when they were col- lected in a dozen pages, could be done in a few moments, whereas it may now require an examination of eight hundred pages. This is mistaken economy ; and so, we apprehend, is the imperfect manner in which the wood-cuts have been executed. Heraldic engravings ought to be clear and distinct ; but in this edition of DEBaaTT's Peerage it is quite impossible, in many places, even to guess at the objects intended to be represented.
Nor are all these defects redeemed by the literary department. A want of editorial care and tact is more conspicuous than either research or industry ; and when new information is attempted to be given, it is little else than pretence. Our space admits but of few examples to justify our remarks. When a title becomes extinct, all trace of it is removed from the body of these works ; so that there are no means of discovering any fact respecting the widows, or daughters, or sisters of the last Lord. To remedy this
defect, the editor says, " A list of the Dowager Peeresses, whose late husbands' titles are extinct, having been considered desirable, has been inserted." Accordingly, in p. xv. there is a "list" of the titles of eleven ladies, occupying just three lines and a half; but not even stating their maiden names, or the names of their hus- bands, or giving one single fact or date respecting them, though there are precisely the same reasons for giving their history as for giving that of any other Peer or Peeress. Who, for ex- ample, can find in DEBRETT'S Peerage the maiden name of the Countess of BLESSINGTON, the date of her marriage, the name of her husband, or the history of his family ? All that appears in p. xv is "Blessington I. Countess"; and at the distance of 996 pages, " 1815, Blessington e. Gardiner-1829." Very sa- tisfactory information for a biographer ! Another example of carelessness is in the arms just assigned to the little Princess Royal, which are engraved in p. lxiv ; whence it seems that they are those of the Queen, differenced by a label of three points, having the arms of her father in the centre of the escut- cheon,* with the Royal supporters, charged with a similar label. But as the arms of none of the Royal Family are " blazoned," (a deviatiop from the general plan, which is perhaps intended as a complimentary distinction to Royalty, but which is nevertheless very inconvenient, for in no part of the volume is there a descrip- tion of the Royal arms of England,) and as the Princess's arms are even more imperfectly engraved than the others, there are no means of knowing from this book either the colour or the charges of the label : the colour we believe to be white, and the charges are, on the centre point a red rose, and on the two other points St. George's cross. The omission of the blazon of the Royal arms is absurd enough ; but it is preferable to such an inaccurate descrip- tion as occurs of the well-known arms of HASTINGS Earls of Hunt- ingdon. Of other omissions, the most important are with respect to the limitations of the patents of creation. No one, for instance, could be aware from what is said in p. 538, that the Barony of NELSON of the Nile and the Viscountcy of Nelson were limited only to the heirs-male of the hero's body, and became extinct at his death, except inferentially from his brother being said to have succeeded to the Barony of Nelson of Hilborough, without any allusion to the other titles. In the case of the Earl of ST. GERMANS : John second Baron Eliot, it is said, was "created 28th November 1815, Earl of St. Germans "; and as no limitation is mentioned, it is to be inferred that the limi- tation was to the heirs-male of his body : but it proceeds to say- " dying without issue, was succeeded by his brother, William, pre- sent and second Earl." Surely it ought to have been distinctly stated that the Earldom was granted to the first Earl and the heirs- male of his body ; failing whom, to his brother and the heirs-male of his body. So also in the case of the Baroness KEITH : her father, it is said, " was created Baron Keith in the Irish Peerage, with remainder, on failure of issue-male, to his eldest daughter, the present Baroness." " On the 17th September he was created Baron Keith of Banheath, co. Dumbarton, with remainder, on failure of issue-male, to his eldest daughter, the present Baroness." Here there are two material omissions-1st, the date of the patent of the Irish Barony is not given ; 2d, it is not said to whom the dignities are to descend on the death of the Baroness, viz. the heirs- male of her body. It must be obvious that the exact terms of the grants of peerages are most essential facts in a work of this de- scription. Other errors unfortunately abound, both in this and the former editions. Ex. gr. In the general list of Peers, p. xv, Lord BLOOMFIELD stands as an English Peer. "John Henry" is called Marquis of Lorn, and heir-apparent of the Duke of ARGYLL; whereas the Marquis is dead, and his brother George Douglas is now the Duke's eldest son. In the account of Lord SUDELEY'S family, Robert Tracy, a Justice of the Common Pleas, is made the father of John the third Viscount ; whereas the third Viscount was the son of Robert the second Viscount, and brother of the Judge. Lord LYNDHURST is made to appear as if he never had a father or mother ; though his father was far more celebrated than the fathers of many Peers whose parentage is set forth.
To this account of a defective work it may be desirable to add
• The arrangement of the Princess Royal's arms is altogether inconsistent with the principles of English heraldry ; for they do not, according to those principles, appear as the arms of her father, or mother, or of an unmarried lady; but as the escutcheon of a widow, who was an heiress of the house of Saxony and had been the wife of a Prince of England. The more proper plan would, we submit, have been to assign to the Princess Royal the arms of the Royal Family of England only, distinguished by a label; or, if it were deemed neces- sary to introduce the arms of Prince ALBERT, to give her the arms of the Pnnce as they have been lately arranged—namely, the Royal arms of England quartering those of Saxony, the latter being placed in the second and third quarters. The precedent followed was that of the arms granted to the children of Prince GEORGE of Denmark by the Princess ANNE; but there is this great distinction between the two cases, that Prince GEORGE had not, like Prince ALBERT, obtained permission to bear die Royal arms of England quarterly with his own. the name of the most useful and the cheapest book of this class- " The Peerage, Baronetage, and Knightage of Great Britain and Ireland, including the junior branches of the nobility and all the titled classes, by CHARLES R. DODD, Esq." ; where we find that Lord LYNDHURST is the "son of the late John S. Copley, Esq., R.A., the eminent painter, by the daughter of Richard Clarke,Esq." ; and where, too, an account will be found of Lady BLESSINOTON, and of the widows and daughters of all the other Peers and Ba- ronets whose titles are extinct.
Previous page
