NOBILITY. Who noble is, may laugh to scorn BOWRING'S "GERMAN EPIGRAMS." To an American, visiting England for the first time, there is one object of curiosity, which is perhaps, for the moment, as strongly attractive to his fancy as any which the country possesses,-namely, the sight of a British nobleman. He has read, in English history and English novels, about dukes and earls, barons and baronets, and his childhood's imagination has pictured the possessors of these highsounding titles, as a kind of superhuman personages. In his own country, there are only men; and, though man is declared to be created in the image of God, and in sober thought, therefore, he knows there can be nothing higher or nobler on earth than a man— yet he has an undefined idea that these great names must mean great things, and entertains a vague expectation that, in seeing a "lord," he shall behold, not exactly a man, but some sort of elegant monster. Accordingly, my curiosity was not a little aroused, when, as I was standing in the hall of the Adelphi hotel, a day or two after my arrival in Liverpool, I was informed that the Duke of had just alighted from his carriage, and was entering. I looked with some eagerness towards the door, and beheld a tall, and rather elderly, person, of gentlemanly bearing, ascending the steps, followed by a young man, equally tall, and a little dashing in his appearance, who, I was told, was the Duke's son, Lord The Duke wore a rose in his buttonhole, and his son had upon his head a light traveling cap: they had just returned from a yachting excursion. As I looked after them ascending the stairs, I drew a long breath, and exclaimed to myself, "Really-these are exceedingly like other people: -is that all?" I began to philosophize. And these are some of the grand personages, of whom I have heard and read so much! This is "your Grace," and that "your Lordship." Sure enough, distance does "lend enchantment to the view." Now, an American is accustomed to question everything—that is, everything of a public-social and political character, -and to demand a reason for its existence; to require a reason, though, unlike Falstaff, it have to give it "on compulsion." These then, said I to myself, are the hereditary lords of England: by what right are they such? that is the question. These assume to be the heads and leaders of society; on what just ground is this assumption? These few individuals set themselves up above the great mass of Englishmen, and claim peculiar privileges over the millions of their fellow-countrymen, as intelligent, as moral, as religious, in every way as excellent, as themselves. What is the meaning of all this? I began I set about an analysis of the matter. with "duke." What is a duke? The term is derived from the Latin dux, "a leader." Dukes, I found, were originally military leaders or commanders, and, as among the ancient Germans, were appointed for their valor (duces ex virtute, says Tacitus). The same title was given to the officers who were set over provinces or districts, to regulate the military affairs; while Counts (comites, that is, companions or followers of the prince), were those who had charge of the administration of justice and other civil concerns. The term Marquis is derived from march, a boundary (as the "Welsh marches," boundaries between England and Wales). A marquis, originally, was an officer appointed to look after and guard the boundaries or frontiers of the kingdom. An Earl (a Danish word) was originally the governor of a shire, and hence was called shire-man : the office answered to that of Count on the Continent, and hence a shire is also called a county. A Viscount (vice-comes) was the lieutenant of a Count or Earl, and held an office answering nearly to that of sheriff. A Baron signifies, etymologically, simply a man (being derived from the Latin vir). In the feudal system of the middle ages, at first the immediate tenant of any superior was called his "baron:" in old records, the citizens of London are so styled; and the members of the House of Commons, elected by the Cinque-Ports, are still sometimes called "barons." The name was introduced into England by William the Conqueror, and was used to signify an immediate vassal of the crown. From this account it will be seen, that these five names, which are now called titles of nobility, were, -with the exception of the last-originally, the titles of officers military and civil, just as Fieldmarshal, Governor, and Sheriff are. These offices were not hereditary, but were held at the will of the prince. Gradually, they began to be continued in the same families. In times of trouble and confusion, for instance, as in the kingdoms and empires of the Continent, the dukes and marquises, or military governors of distant and frontier districts, took advantage of the difficulties and weakness of the prince, to hold fast the possession of their offices, and retain them in their own families. So, in England, the aldormen (eldermen) - afterwards called "earls"—were, among the Saxons, simply governors of the shires or counties. In time, these offices, also, began to be kept in families, and thus gradually became hereditary. At length, the office itself was abolished, but the families still kept the empty title. Such was the origin of ranks. In England, for a long time, there were no other titles than earls and barons, till the reign of Edward III. (1327-77), who introduced from the Continent the title of duke, making his eldest son Duke of Cornwall, and his younger sons Dukes of Clarence and Lancaster, respectively. This example was followed by Richard II., who created his uncles Dukes of York and of Gloucester. This title was bestowed also on some others besides members of the royal family; but, during the long wars between the houses of York and Lancaster, it became nearly extinct, and was first revived, in modern times, in favor of that worthless favorite of James I. and Charles I., Villiers, who was created Duke of Buckingham. The title of marquis also was first conferred by Richard II. on his favorite, Robert Vere. The title of viscount was introduced during the reign of Henry VI. The title of baronet (that is, little baron), was instituted by James I. in 1611, as a means of raising money. He granted to one hundred persons the right of prefixing Sir to their names on the payment of one thousand pounds each. This title has since been conferred on a great many, and is therefore held comparatively cheap, there being now between eight and nine hundred baronets. Still cheaper is the rank of knight, which also confers the title of "Sir," but is not hereditary. This distinction is quickly bestowed: it is but a stroke on the shoulder with a sword, and at once Mr. John Smith, manufacturer, rises up Sir John Smith, knight. These different titles of nobility have been conferred, in modern times, on numerous individuals; for this kind of "creation" is an easy process, and is done at pleasure by the king or his ministers. In the reign of George III., there were created, we learn, 2 dukes, 16 marquises, 47 earls, 17 viscounts, and 106 barons. In the reign of queen Anne there was created a "batch," as it is termed, of no less than twelve of these "peers" in one day; and a similar creation was threatened at the time of the Reform bill in 1832, in order to compel the House of Lords to withdraw their opposition to that measure. This easy method of making great people has been exemplified, in a striking manner, within a few years past, in the newly erected empire of Hayti or St. Domingo. Faustin I., the negro Emperor, |