be of general and public interest.

We naturally expect, that in _official correspondence_, the public
boards, through their proper officers, would be very precise in
assigning to every person his proper title, in the address of a letter.
Yet nothing can be more negligent and capricious than the way in which
this is done. I have held an appointment in the public service, which is
generally considered to carry with it the title of "Esquire," (but
really whether it do or not, I am unable to tell), and have at different
times had a good deal of official correspondence, sometimes mere
routine, and sometimes involving topics of a critical character. From my
own experience I am led to think that no definite rule exists, and that
the temper of the moment will dictate the style of address. For
instance, in matter-of-course business, or in any correspondence that
was agreeable to official persons, I was addressed as "Esq.;" but if the
correspondence took a turn that was unpleasant, it was "Mr. ----;" and
on one occasion I received a note addressed with my name denuded of all
title whatever, even of the office I filled. The note, I hardly need
say, was "full of fire and fury;" and yet, in less than half an hour, I
received a second (the writer having discovered his mistake), opening
with "My dear Sir," and superscribed with the "Esquire" at full length.
This, I think, proves the capriciousness of men in public stations in
their assignment of titles of this kind.

I certainly expected to find, however, in the "List of the Fellows of
the Society of Antiquaries," due attention paid to this circumstance.
The one just circulated was therefore referred to, and it would seem to
be as full of anomalies as a "Court Guide" or a "Royal Blue Book." We
have, indeed, the Knights and Baronets duly titled, and the Peers, lay
and spiritual, sufficiently distinguished both by capitals and mode of