For the following appropriate Essay on the "Landed Gentry," I am indebted to my friend, the Rev. John Hamilton Gray, of Carnyne, Vicar of Bolsover, county of Derby.

We constantly hear it, with truth, asserted that among families of the untitled gentry of Great Britain there are many more ancient than the majority of those which have been elevated to the peerage. But stronger language might, with equal truth, assert that the nobility of Great Britain is inadequately represented by the peerage; and that blood, not only more ancient, but most noble, flows in the veins of many who are not descended, either paternally or maternally, for many generations, from any ancestor that has borne a title. Within the last few centuries, the word nobility has been misapplied to signify exclusively those persons who have been raised to the peerage, and their immediate families. And the multitude of races of the ancient aristocracy which exist throughout England, without ever having been decorated with titles, together with the more remote cadets of the families of peers, have gradually lost the tradition of nobility, and, under the name of Commoners, have been confounded with those of recent origin, who in later times, have risen to wealth.

This restriction of the epithet noble, according to an abuse of terms, to the members of the peerage mattered comparatively little to Englishmen, isolated, as they have for the most part been during later generations, from their continental neighbours. Because, in the various circles of English society, from the court down to the most provincial town, the claim to consideration of the ancient untitled gentry was acknowledged without question. And the constant marrying and giving in marriage between them and the peerage proved that, however erring the use of the terms Noble and Commoner might have become, the truth was recognised, in fact , although it was not expressed in words, viz., that the well-born English gentleman was in fact a nobleman. But in our intercourse with nations of the continent this insular confusion of terms is fraught with great inconvenience; and it is much to be desired that both foreigners and Englishmen should take a true view of the case.

We are zealous in asserting that England is the first nation under the sun, that the English aristocracy stands pre-eminent above that of every other country, and that the English gentleman is the most perfect type of civilised, educated, honourable, and manly character. The well-born, well-educated and affluent Englishman is apt to indulge in a feeling of self-gratulation and conscious superiority when he compares his qualifications and advantages with those possessed by his continental neighbours; and he may almost be excused, if he is unable wholly to repress the pride which leads him internally to call on the Frenchman, Italian , or German to "stand back, for I am better than thou art." This feeling is modified, and its expression is repressed by a continued intercourse with polished society of various nations. But we should be sorry to think that its existence was not fully justified by the high standing of the English gentleman among the men of rank, fortune, and education of every country in Europe.

But while the Englishman is disposed to arrogate to himself his full share of honour, and to demand a place higher than his neighbours are always willing to concede to him, it must, on the other hand, be admitted that he is generally strangely ignorant of the real station which he holds in respect to the society with which he is in the habit of mixing on the continent. And while he is too ready to claim for himself, individually and personally, an overweening share of social consideration, he is, at the same time, ignorant of the real position held by the class to which he belongs.

While, with a full purse and broad acres, the home-bred English squire is disposed to undervalue the high-sounding titles of the German Count, the French Vicomte, or the Italian Marchese, he is, at the same time, in ignorance of his own proper station, too ready to admit that, in point of birth and rank, they stand above him. Thus with "insular pride" and "insular blindness," he, at once, undervalues and overvalues those with whom he is brought into contact in continental circles; and not knowing his own right place, he is a puzzle to the nobility of the country where he happens to sojourn, who do not know what to make of the haughty pretensions of this man, who, after all, frankly proclaims himself to be a commoner, not a nobleman, and consequently to belong to what they call the "Bourgeoisie," the "Roture."

The fact is, that Englishmen, during the last few centuries, have been, from various causes, political, religious, and social, very much wrapped up in insular isolation, and have lost the place which was once assigned to them in the great European family. And the descendants of great and noble knights, who gained honour in French and German tournaments, and whose offshoots were received with open arms into the most exclusive of the orders of religious chivalry, have lost their footing among the aristocracy of the continent, and would, with ignorant conscientiousness, repudiate any claim to be reckoned as noble.

Many causes have contributed to make Englishmen forgetful of their proper position. The law of primogeniture has kept titles and great estates in the hands of a few; and has established a barrier of separation between the eldest branch of noble families and their cadets. While the Duke, Earl, or Baron has handed down his coronet, his rank and his political privileges, along with his wealth, from generation to generation in one favoured line, the younger branches have gradually descended to the common level; and excepting the preservation of a tradition that they are of an ancient and good family, they differ in nothing from the multitudes around them. In this country, high-sounding titles and great political privileges, being in the hands of a few, the fortunate holders of these advantages have become surrounded with a peculiar halo, and have gradually appropriated to themselves, and have received from others, the exclusive distinction of nobility. So that it would probably greatly astonish the lord paramount of an English county to be told by one of his neighbouring squires, or even by a remote cadet of his own family, that they were quite as noble as himself; that he might, indeed, be their superior in rank and in illustration, but that his nobility was not more real or ancient than their own.

Another cause, it must freely be admitted even by the most strenuous asserters of the nobility of the British Gentry, has tended greatly to complicate their position; and that is the tendency which has existed in England, from time immemorial, on the part of men who have risen from humble rank to wealth, to consolidate that wealth on landed possessions, and to establish themselves among the territorial aristocracy of the country.

This desire of acquiring an estate and founding a family does not exist in the same degree among those who have risen to wealth in the countries of the continent. Exceptions do, indeed, occur; but they are mere exceptions. A rich Frankfort banker, or Hamburg merchant, does not in general invest his gains in land. He may live luxuriously, and gratify his tastes with houses, gardens, full cellars, and paintings; but his investments are chiefly in personal property, which at his death can be easily and equally divided among his children. He seldom thinks of acquiring land; and still less of endeavouring to obtain nobility and found a Majorat in favour of his eldest son. And unless he became noble and executed an entail, or created a Majorat, the purchase of land would be, in his case, a small satisfaction; because at his death it would have to be sold, in order to be equally divided among his children. Now, the conduct of the rich merchant of London, or Manchester, or Glasgow is almost invariably the very opposite of this. As soon as he has realised a good fortune by trade, it is his ambition to become a country gentleman, and to endeavour to find a place among some county aristocracy. And as, in this country, the ancient gentry and the remote cadets of the highest peers' families have gradually ceased to call themselves noble, our wealthy merchant has a less difficult task to accomplish than one of the same class would have in Germany or Italy. His efforts to obtain a footing are generally successful, and the next generation sees the son or grandson of the Liverpool or Manchester trader, associated with, and even allied to, the most ancient houses, which were distinguished in the wars of the Roses or of the Barons. There is scarcely a peer, however exalted his station may be, who has not some degree of family connection with very new men; and not a few of the most influential statesmen who have done honour to England are but one remove from the manufactory or the counting-house , and that oftentimes through the intermediate step of a trader turned country squire. In this country no conventional barrier impedes the admission of a family just risen from among the people into the ranks of the aristocracy; and when once there, they are generally found to be among the most exclusive preservers of the footing which they have acquired; and their wealth is centred on their eldest sons. This rich, flourishing, and popular aristocracy exhibits a singular contrast to the often poverty-stricken nobility of Europe, which, on the one hand, rarely admits of accessions from the people, and on the other, fritters away its possessions by subdivisions of titles and estates among every branch of its race, however remote.

One of the most remarkable exceptions to what has been asserted of the rare admission of mercantile families into the ranks of the continental aristocracy is Torlonia of Rome. The late Duke of Bracciano began life as an assistant to his father in the humble occupation of "boots" to the couriers who attended rich foreign travellers to Rome; and by talent, industry, and rare good fortune, this man died possessed of a Roman Dukedom. His daughters were married to the heads of the great houses of Orsini and Marescotti; and his sons married the daughters of Sforza-Cesarini and Colonna.

But while the English gentry hold out their hands to welcome the races of wealthy traders who anxiously seek for admission into their ranks, and who bring their great riches to add to the influence and importance of county aristocracies, a very different feeling of class antagonism pervades continental society. If the noble shrinks from contact with the trader, he, on his side, regards with no cordial feeling a connection with the nobility.

In illustration of this, we may mention what was said many years ago by a man of European celebrity (Baron von Bunsen) in the diplomacy of one of the first continental states, who was himself a bourgeois, but has since been admitted to the nobility, and held a distinguished rank in his own country:- "My Sovereign," said he, "has offered to make me noble, and give me a title. I have hitherto declined the honour, but, one day, I shall accept it. However, if I wish my sons to marry rich German wives, I must make haste. While I am bourgeois, with the position I hold as an ambassador and a man of a certain degree of celebrity, it is probable that they might now be welcome sons-in-law to the wealthiest of our mercantile families. But their chance is over as soon as I become a Baron. Such is the dislike of our bourgeoisie for the nobility!" The words of this distinguished man are stated just as they were spoken, and they describe a feeling perfectly true in Germany, however incomprehensible it may be to English ideas, and however contrary to the almost proverbial advice to a poor Lord to go into the City to pick up an heiress.

But it is well for England that industry, good character, and ability may raise a poor man to a place among the gentry of the country, and that, in another generation, his family may become influential, not only from wealth, but from high alliances. It is the safeguard of English institutions that admission to the aristocracy is not exclusively barred against the ambition of a man of humble birth, and that a place there, when once gained , is jealously guarded by the right of primogeniture.

But while we are claiming for the English gentry a place among the continental nobility, it seems only fair at the outset to confess the principal circumstance which complicates the question; and that is, that in England, among the most ancient and noble of the gentry, others are admitted to take equal rank whose claims to consideration are comparatively recent, and both (being untitled) are with difficulty distinguished the one from the other, unless the skill of heralds and the lore of genealogists are brought into requisition.

Having now, once and for all, made the admission that among the English gentry many are to be found who cannot boast of a long line of ancestors, we must proceed to the vindication of the claim of the untitled aristocracy of Great Britain, as a class, to be placed upon a footing with those families on the continent who are reckoned noble. And as high-sounding titles are multiplied ad infinitum among the junior branches of the continental nobility, and in this country are restricted to one in each family, it follows that very many of the plain untitled English gentry are, in blood, to say the least, upon an equality with German Counts and Italian Marquises. Mr. Howard, of Corbey, is as noble as his chief, the Duke of Norfolk, Mr. Hamilton, of Raploch; is as noble as his chief, the Duke of Hamilton; and in France, Germany or Italy they would be decorated with imposing titles. Moreover, many ancient families, which in this country are untitled, would, on the continent, where such honors have been much more lavishly bestowed, have attained to titles which here are the exclusive concomitants of peerages. Dundas of Dundas, had an Earldom conferred upon him in the 15th century; but the monarch who conferred it was dethroned before the patent was made out, and his successor would not acknowledge the claim. Subsequently three cadets of his family have been raised to the peerage; yet he himself continues what is called a commoner, while his younger branches are what is called noble! Such is the erroneous mode of expression whereby the nobility of the English Gentry has been suffered to fall into abeyance. Really, Dundas and all his branches are equally noble; but he is untitled, while several of them are titled.

When we look back to the annals of past times both in England and in Scotland, we find many instances of Princesses, daughters, sisters, and nieces of Kings, being given in marriage to gentlemen whose highest title was that of knighthood. Are we to suppose that those persons who were thus accounted worthy of a royal alliance were not noble? There is now a Scottish gentleman of a very ancient race, but one that has never been raised to the peerage, and who, according to modern English perversion of terms, is not a nobleman (Sir Archibald Edmonstone) whose ancestors, in two successive generations, matched with the Royal family of Scotland. The daughters of King Robert II. and King Robert III. both married into the family of Edmonstone; and the husband of the latter princess was, moreover, a younger son.

Those gentlemen who were accounted worthy to become the sons-in-law of Kings must needs have been noble in the 14th and 15th centuries. How comes it, then, that their descendants, heirs of those Royal marriages, should in the 19th century have lost their nobility?

In the year 1100, William de Candela was a free Baron, and Lord of Anstruther in the county of Fife. Unlike most of the ancient proprietors of great Scottish estates, he did not assume the name of his lands. He was already the possessor of a noble family name. In a subsequent generation his descendant, in compliance with the custom of his cotemporaries, adopted the name of his lands as a surname, and became de Anstruther. His descendants were never raised to the peerage, and they continue to this day Commoners. But are they not noble, as their ancestor was in the year 1100?

One of the most ancient families of the Scottish untitled nobility was Innes of Tunes. The late head of this house, Sir James Innes, became, by female succession, Duke of Roxburghe. Here was not an instance of a roturier suddenly raised to the highest order of the nobility. It was a noble raised to the highest rank in the peerage.

If we assume some particular date as our test of antiquity, it will be interesting to inquire what number of existing English peers were then proprietors of land in England. We will not go back to remote antiquity, and we will not inquire into the extent of the land then possessed by the ancestors of existing peers. We will take as the date the year 1500, when we shall find the ancestors of many of our peers to have been very obscure country gentlemen. But what we want to ascertain is, how many peers had ancestors in the direct male line who were landowners at the beginning of the 16th century? They are as follows :-

Dukes - Norfolk, Somerset, Marlborough, Devonshire, Buckingham, Bedford, Rutland, Sutherland, Newcastle, Cleveland.