insertion. All those who have no other title (as D.D. or F.R.S.)
recognised by the Society, are courteously designated by the affix
"Esq." In this, it will be strange indeed if _all_ be entitled to the
appellation in its legitimate sense; or, in other words, if the
principle of courtesy does not supersede, amongst the otherwise untitled
mass of Fellows, the principle of social rank. To this in itself, as the
distinction of "Gent" after a man's name has become derogatory, there
cannot be the least objection; for antiquarianism does not palliate
rudeness or offensive language.

At the same time, the adoption of this principle should surely be
uniform, and invidious distinctions should not be made. The title
"Esq.," should not be given to one man, and left out in designating
another whose social position is precisely the same. For instance, we
find in this list "----, M.D.," and "----, Esq., M.D.," employed to
designate two different Doctors in Medicine. We find "----, F.R.S." and
"----, Esq., F.R.S." to designate two Fellows of the Society of
Antiquaries, who are also Fellows of the Royal. We see one or two D.D.'s
deprived of their titles of "Rev.," and, as if to make amends (in point
of quantity at least), we have one Fellow with titles at each end of his
name that seem incompatible with each other, viz., "Rev. ----, Esq."

Anomalies like these can only be the result of sheer carelessness, or of
the ignorance of some clerk employed to make out the list without
adequate instructions given to him. It has, in my hearing, been held up
as a specimen of invidious distinction to gratify some petty dislike;
but this notion is simply absurd, and deserves no notice. At the same
time, it betokens a carelessness that it is desirable to avoid.

As a mere question of _dignity_, it appears to me to savour too much of