V Mr. Dixon writes to justify his spelling of 'Fitzwater,'
and his statement that the latter was created Earl of Egremont, with which wo found fault in last week's notice of his History of Two Queens. Ho rests his justification on the passage in one of Mr. Brewer's Calen- dars of State Papers, that Lord Fitzwater was created Earl of Egre- mont." Now, in the original MS. in the British Museum from which this passage is supposed to emanate there is nothing about Lord Fitzwalter being made Earl of Egremont; he is described as Earl of Sussex, Grand Chamberlain of England, Viscount Fitzwalter, Sgr. (i.e., Seigneur) of Egremont and Burnell. There is no con- firmation of this creation of Earl of Egremont to be met with anywhere ; it is not mentioned in the actual State Papers, where we are told that Lord Fitzwalter was made Viscount Fitzwaltor and Earl of Sussex ; nor do any of the extinct " Peerages " refer to it in connection with the Fitzwalter family. As to the spoiling of 'Fitzwater,' it is so spelt in the above MS., and occasionally in Mr. Brewer's Calendar, but other- wise the spelling of 'Fitzwalter' is universal, not only by modern usage, but by every historical authority that has come down to us. We are still of opinion that Mr. Dixon's spelling of the name is "ugly ;" we have not said it is incorrect.
Previous page
