The List of Honours, usually published on Her Majesty’s Birthday, is this year reserved till the Jubilee Day, and to sanguine aspirants I would say, in Mrs. Gamp’s immortal words, “Seek not to proticipate.” Such a list always contains food for the reflective mind, and some of the thoughts which it suggests may even lie too deep for tears. Why is my namesake picked out for knighthood, while I remain hidden in my native obscurity? Why is my rival made a C.B., while I “go forth Companionless” to meet the chances and the vexations of another year? But there is balm in Gilead. If I have fared badly, my friends have done little better. Like Mr. Squeers, when Bolder’s father was two pound ten short, they have had their disappointments to contend against. A., who was so confident of a peerage, is fobbed off with a baronetcy; and B., whose labours for the Primrose League entitled him to expect the Bath, finds himself grouped with the Queen’s footmen in the Royal Victorian Order. As, when Sir Robert Peel declined to form a Government in 1839, “twenty gentlemen who had not been appointed Under Secretaries for State moaned over the martyrdom of young ambition,” so during the first fortnight of 1897 at least that number of middle-aged self-seekers came to the regretful conclusion that Lord Salisbury was not sufficiently a man of the world for his present position, and inwardly asked why a judge or a surgeon should be preferred before a company-promoter or a party hack. And, while feeling is thus fermenting at the base of the social edifice, things are not really tranquil at the summit.

It is not long since the chief of the princely House of Duff was raised to the first order of the peerage, and one or two opulent earls, encouraged by his example, are understood to be looking upward. Every constitutional Briton, whatever his political creed, has in his heart of hearts a wholesome reverence for a dukedom. Lord Beaconsfield, who understood these little traits of our national character even more perfectly than Thackeray, says of his favourite St. Aldegonde (who was heir to the richest dukedom in the kingdom) that “he held extreme opinions, especially on political affairs, being a Republican of the reddest dye. He was opposed to all privilege, and indeed to all orders of men except dukes, who were a necessity.” That is a delicious touch. St. Aldegonde, whatever his political aberrations, “voiced” the universal sentiment of his less fortunate fellow-citizens; nor can the most soaring ambition of the British Matron desire a nobler epitaph than that of the lady immortalized by Thomas Ingoldsby:-

“She drank prussic acid without any water,
And died like a Duke-and-a-Duchess’s daughter.”

As, according to Dr. Johnson, all claret would be port if it could, so, presumably, every marquis would like to be a duke; and yet, as a matter of fact, that Elysian translation is not often made. A marquis, properly regarded, is not so much a nascent duke as a magnified earl. A shrewd observer of the world once said to me: “When an earl gets a marquisate, it is worth a hundred thousand pounds in hard money to his family.” The explanation of this cryptic utterance is that, whereas an earl’s younger sons are “misters,” a marquis’s younger sons are “lords.” Each “my lord” can make a “my lady,” and therefore commands a distinctly higher price in the marriage-market of a wholesomely-minded community. Miss Higgs, with her fifty thousand pounds, might scorn the notion of becoming the Honourable Mrs. Percy Popjoy; but as Lady Magnus Charters she would feel a laudable ambition gratified.

An earldom is, in its combination of euphony, antiquity, and association, perhaps the most impressive of all the titles in the peerage. Most rightly did the fourteenth Earl of Derby decline to be degraded into a brand-new duke. An earldom has always been the right of a Prime Minister who wishes to leave the Commons. In 1880 a member of the House of Russell (in which there are certain Whiggish traditions of jobbery) was fighting a hotly contested election, and his ardent supporters brought out a sarcastic placard-“Benjamin, Earl of Beaconsfield! He made himself an earl and the people poor”; to which a rejoinder was instantly forthcoming-“John, Earl Russell! He made himself an earl and his relations rich.” The amount of truth in the two statements was about equal. In 1885 this order of the peerage missed the greatest distinction which fate is likely ever to offer it, when Mr. Gladstone declined the earldom proffered by her Majesty on his retirement from office. Had he accepted, it was understood that the representatives of the last Earl of Liverpool would have waived their claims to the extinct title, and the greatest of the Queen’s Prime Ministers would have borne the name of the city which gave him birth.

But, magnificent and euphonious as an earldom is, the children of an earl are the half-castes of the peerage. The eldest son is “my lord,” and his sisters are “my lady;” and ever since the days of Mr. Foker, Senior, it has been de rigueur for an opulent brewer to marry an earl’s daughter; but the younger sons are not distinguishable from the ignominious progeny of viscounts and barons. Two little boys, respectively the eldest and the second son of an earl, were playing on the front staircase of their home, when the eldest fell over into the hall below. The younger called to the footman who picked his brother up, “Is he hurt?” “Killed, my lord,” was the instantanteous reply of a servant who knew the devolution of a courtesy title.

As the marquises people the debatable land between the dukes and the earls, so do the viscounts between the earls and the barons. A child whom Matthew Arnold was examining in grammar once wrote of certain words which he found it hard to classify under their proper parts of speech that they were “thrown into the common sink, which is adverbs.” I hope I shall not be considered guilty of any disrespect if I say that ex-Speakers, ex-Secretaries of State, successful generals, and ambitious barons who are not quite good enough for earldoms, are “thrown into the common sink, which is viscounts.” Not only heralds and genealogists, but every one who has the historic sense, must have felt an emotion of regret when the splendid title of twenty-third Baron Dacre was merged by Mr. Speaker Brand in the pinchbeck dignity of first Viscount Hampden.

After viscounts, barons. The baronage of England is headed by the bishops; but, as we have already discoursed of those right reverend peers, we, Dante-like, will not reason of them, but pass on-only remarking, as we pass, that it is held on good authority that no human being ever experiences a rapture so intense as an American bishop from a Western State when he first hears himself called “My lord” at a London dinner-party. After the spiritual barons come the secular barons-the “common or garden” peers of the United Kingdom. Of these there are considerably more than three hundred; and of all, except some thirty or forty at the most, it may be said without offence that they are products of the opulent Middle Class. Pitt destroyed deliberately and for ever the exclusive character of the British peerage when, as Lord Beaconsfield said, he “created a plebeian aristocracy and blended it with the patrician oligarchy.” And in order to gain admission to this “plebeian aristocracy” men otherwise reasonable and honest will spend incredible sums, undergo prodigious exertions, associate themselves with the basest intrigues, and perform the most unblushing tergiversations. Lord Houghton told me that he said to a well-known politician who boasted that he had refused a peerage: “Then you made a great mistake. A peerage would have secured you three things that you are much in need of-social consideration, longer credit with your tradesmen, and better marriages for your younger children.”

It is unlucky that a comparatively recent change has put it out of the power of a Prime Minister to create fresh Irish peers, for an Irish peerage was a cheap and convenient method of rewarding political service. Lord Palmerston held that, combining social rank with eligibility to the House of Commons, it was the most desirable distinction for a politician. Pitt, when his banker Mr. Smith (who lived in Whitehall) desired the privilege of driving through the Horse Guards, said: “No, I can’t give you that; but I will make you an Irish peer;” and the banker became the first Lord Carrington.

What is a Baronet? ask some. Sir Wilfrid Lawson (who ought to know) replies that he is a man “who has ceased to be a gentleman and has not become a nobleman.” But this is too severe a judgment. It breathes a spirit of contempt bred of familiarity, which may, without irreverence, be assumed by a member of an exalted Order, but which a humble outsider would do well to avoid. As Major Pendennis said of a similar manifestation, “It sits prettily enough on a young patrician in early life, though, nothing is so loathsome among persons of our rank.” I turn, therefore, for an answer to Sir Bernard Burke, who says: “The hereditary Order of Baronets was created by patent in England by King James I. in 1611. At the institution many of the chief estated gentlemen of the kingdom were selected for the dignity. The first batch of Baronets comprised some of the principal landed proprietors among the best-descended gentlemen of the kingdom, and the list was headed by a name illustrious more than any other for the intellectual pre-eminence with which it is associated-the name of Bacon. The Order of Baronets is scarcely estimated at its proper value.”

I cannot help feeling that this account of the baronetage, though admirable in tone and spirit, and actually pathetic in its closing touch of regretful melancholy, is a little wanting in what the French would call “actuality.” It leaves out of sight the most endearing, because the most human, trait of the baronetage-its pecuniary origin. On this point let us hear the historian Hume-“The title of Baronet was sold and two hundred patents of that species of knighthood were disposed of for so many thousand pounds.” This was truly epoch-making. It was one of those “actions of the just” which “smell sweet and blossom in the dust.” King James’s baronets were the models and precursors of all who to the end of time should traffic in the purchase of honours. Their example has justified posterity, and the precedent which they set is to-day the principal method by which the war-chests of our political parties are replenished.

Another authority, handling the same high theme, tells us that the rebellion in Ulster gave rise to this Order, and “it was required of each baronet on his creation to pay into the Exchequer as much as would maintain thirty soldiers three years at eight-pence a day in the province of Ulster,” and, as a historical memorial of their original service, the baronets bear as an augmentation to their coats-of-arms the royal badge of Ulster-a Bloody Hand on a white field. It was in apt reference to this that a famous Whip, on learning that a baronet of his party was extremely anxious to be promoted to the peerage, said, “You can tell Sir Peter Proudflesh, with my compliments, that we don’t do these things for nothing. If he wants a peerage, he will have to put his Bloody Hand into his pocket.”

For the female mind the baronetage has a peculiar fascination. As there was once a female Freemason, so there was once a female baronet-Dame Maria Bolles, of Osberton, in the County of Nottingham. The rank of a baronet’s wife is not unfrequently conferred on the widow of a man to whom a baronetcy had been promised and who died too soon to receive it. “Call me a vulgar woman!” screamed a lady once prominent in society when a good-natured friend repeated a critical comment. “Call me a vulgar woman! me, who was Miss Blank, of Blank Hall, and if I had been a boy should have been a baronet!”

The baronets of fiction are, like their congeners in real life, a numerous and a motley band. Lord Beaconsfield described, with a brilliancy of touch which was all his own, the labours and the sacrifices of Sir Vavasour Firebrace on behalf of the Order of Baronets and the privileges wrongfully withheld from them. “They are evidently the body destined to save this country; blending all sympathies-the Crown, of which they are the peculiar champions: the nobles, of whom they are the popular branch; the people, who recognize in them their natural leaders.... Had the poor King lived, we should at least have had the Badge,” added Sir Vavasour mournfully.

“The Badge?”

“It would have satisfied Sir Grosvenor lé Draughte; he was for compromise. But, confound him, his father was only an accoucheur.”

A great merit of the baronets, from the novelist’s point of view, is that they and their belongings are so uncommonly easy to draw. He is Sir Grosvenor, his wife is Lady lé Draughte, his sons, elder and younger, are Mr. lé Draughte, and his daughters Miss lé Draughte. The wayfaring men, though fools, cannot err where the rule is so simple, and accordingly the baronets enjoy a deserved popularity with those novelists who look up to the titled classes of society as men look at the stars, but are a little puzzled about their proper designations. Miss Braddon alone has drawn more baronets, virtuous and vicious, handsome and hideous, than would have colonized Ulster ten times over and left a residue for Nova Scotia. Sir Pitt Crawley and Sir Barnes Newcome will live as long as English novels are read, and I hope that dull forgetfulness will never seize as its prey Sir Alfred Mogyns Smyth de Mogyns, who was born Alfred Smith Muggins, but traced a descent from Hogyn Mogyn of the Hundred Beeves, and took for his motto “Ung Roy ung Mogyns.” His pedigree is drawn in the seventh chapter of the Book of Snobs, and is imitated with great fidelity on more than one page of Burke’s Peerage.

An eye closely intent upon the lesser beauties of the natural world will find a very engaging specimen of the genus Baronet in Sir Barnet Skettles, who was so kind to Paul Dombey and so angry with poor Mr. Baps. Sir Leicester Dedlock is on a larger scale-in fact, almost too “fine and large” for life. But I recall a fleeting vision of perfect loveliness among Miss Monflathers’s pupils-“a baronet’s daughter who by some extraordinary reversal of the laws of Nature was not only plain in feature but dull in intellect.”

So far we have spoken only of hereditary honours; but our review would be singularly incomplete if it excluded those which are purely personal. Of these, of course, incomparably the highest is the Order of the Garter, and its most characteristic glory is that, in Lord Melbourne’s phrase, “there is no d -d nonsense of merit about it.” The Emperor of Lilliput rewarded his courtiers with three fine silken threads, one of which was blue, one green, and one red. The Emperor held a stick horizontally, and the candidates crept under it, backwards and forwards, several times. Whoever showed the most agility in creeping was rewarded with the blue thread.

Let us hope that the methods of chivalry have undergone some modification since the days of Queen Anne, and that the Blue Ribbon of the Garter, which ranks with the Golden Fleece and makes its wearer a comrade of all the crowned heads of Europe, is attained by arts more dignified than those which awoke the picturesque satire of Dean Swift. But I do not feel sure about it.

Great is the charm of a personal decoration. Byron wrote:

“Ye stars, that are the poetry of heaven.”

“A stupid line,” says Mr. St. Barbe in Endymion; “he should have written, ‘Ye stars, that are the poetry of dress.’” North of the Tweed the green thread of Swift’s imagination-“the most ancient and most noble Order of the Thistle”-is scarcely less coveted than the supreme honour of the Garter; but wild horses should not drag from me the name of the Scottish peer of whom his political leader said, “If I gave - the Thistle, he would eat it.” The Bath tries to make up by the lurid splendour of its ribbon and the brilliancy of its star for its comparatively humble and homely associations. It is the peculiar prize of Generals and Home Secretaries, and is displayed with manly openness on the bosom of the statesman once characteristically described by Lord Beaconsfield as “Mr. Secretary Cross, whom I can never remember to call Sir Richard.”

But, after all said and done, the institution of knighthood is older than any particular order of knights; and lovers of the old world must observe with regret the discredit into which it has fallen since it became the guerdon of the successful grocer. When Lord Beaconsfield left office in 1880 he conferred a knighthood-the first of a long series similarly bestowed-on an eminent journalist. The friends of the new knight were inclined to banter him, and proposed his health at a dinner in facetious terms. Lord Beaconsfield, who was of the company, looked preternaturally grave, and, filling his glass, gazed steadily at the flattered editor and said in his deepest tone: “Yes, Sir A.B., I drink to your good health, and I congratulate you on having attained a rank which was deemed sufficient honour for Sir Philip Sidney and Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Isaac Newton and Sir Christopher Wren.”

But a truce to this idle jesting on exalted themes-too palpably the utterance of social envy and mortified ambition. “They are our superiors, and that’s the fact,” as Thackeray exclaims in his chapter on the Whigs. “I am not a Whig myself; but, oh, how I should like to be one!” In a similar spirit of compunctious self-abasement, the present writer may exclaim, “I have not myself been included in the list of Birthday Honours,-but, oh, how I should like to be there!”