It may tend to show the status of the untitled gentry of Great Britain, if we give a number of instances of their intermarriages with Royalty, and of the descendants in the male line of such Royal marriages.

As regards the alliances of the Royal family of Scotland, we will not pursue our inquiries beyond the reign of King ROBERT I.; for he and his royal successors afford a sufficient number of instances to prove that the untitled gentry of Scotland were not, at least, in the 14th and 15th centuries regarded as belonging to the Roture.

King ROBERT BRUCE had, besides his daughter, Margery, wife of the Lord High Steward, through whom the Scottish Crown afterwards passed to the House of Stewart, two younger daughters, I. Margaret, married 1st, to an untitled gentleman of the name of Robert Glen, and 2ndly to the Earl of Sutherland; II. Matilda, married to an untitled gentleman of the name of Thomas de Izac. Her dau. and heir wedded De Ergadia, Lord of Lorn. King DAYID II. had for his second Queen a lady of a private family, Margaret, daughter of John de Logie.

King ROBERT II., the first of the Stewarts, married 1st, Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Adam Mure, of Rowallan, an ancient family of untitled gentry in Ayrshire, where it continued to flourish untitled until our own day. It is now represented, in the female line, by the Marquis of Hastings. King ROBERT II.'s daughter, the Princess Jean, married, twice over, untitled gentlemen - Sir John Lyon and Sir James Sandilands. It is true that her descendants have been raised to the peerage as Earls of Strathmore and Lords Torphichen. But they continued untitled during many generations; and according to the popular modern mistake were during all that time Bourgeois. King ROBERT II.'s daughter, Princess Margaret, who first married the Earl of Douglas, married 2ndly, an untitled gentleman, Sir John Edmonstone. Her descendants flourish to the present day in precisely the same station, and according to popular mistake are not noble. Another daughter of the same King married Robert Logan. Another dau. of the same king married Sir John Swinton. From her descends a long line of Swintons of Swinton, flourishing to the present day without title, and according to popular ignorance belonging to the Roture.

King ROBERT III. married Annabella Drummond, the daughter of an untitled family, which, according to modern notions, was first ennobled three generations after this royal alliance! The Princess Mary, daughter of this king, was the most prolific lady in Scotland, having been four times married, and having given birth to four different sets of sons. Her first husband was the Earl of Angus. Her second was Sir James Kennedy, her son by whom became a Lord. Her third was Sir William Graham, by whom she had a numerous family, who flourished as untitled Scottish Lairds of Fintry, Duntroon, and Balgowan. Two of her remote descendants have been raised to the peerage, viz., Viscount Dundee and Lord Lynedoch. Her fourth husband was Sir William Edmonstone, the younger son of Sir John Edmonstone; and her aunt the Princess Margaret. Her descendants are the Edmonstones of Duntreath, whose only title is a very modern baronetcy. Jane Beaufort, Queen of JAMES I., took to her second husband the Black Knight of Lorn.

Now, according to the ideas which obtain on this subject in the present day, these kings and princesses all intermarried with families which were not noble, and consequently were Bourgeois; and all the direct descendants in the male line of those Royal marriages have, ever since, continued Bourgeois, excepting one or two, who have been made Lords. Can anything more clearly point out the preposterous nature of this modern ignorance!

We shall also find that the proud House of Plantagenet did not disdain the alliance of Commoners. To begin with the family of King EDWARD I., the contemporary of King ROBERT BRUCE.

EDWARD I., by his second marriage with the Princess Margaret, daughter of PHILIP III., King of France, had two sons, II. Thomas, of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk, who, by Alice, dau. Of Sir John Halys, had a daughter, Margaret Plantagenet, created Duchess of Norfolk, whose second husband was Sir Walter Manny; II. Edmund, Earl of Kent, whose daughter and heir, Joan Plantagenet, the fair maid of Kent, before she married EDWARD, the Black Prince, was the wife of Sir Thomas Holland.

Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, the rightful heir to the Crown of England, and father of King EDWARD IV., George, Duke of Clarence, and King RICHARD III., had a daughter, Anne Plantagenet, whose second husband was Sir Thomas St. Leger. George, Duke of Clarence, had a daughter, Margaret Plantagenet, Countess of Salisbury, who married Sir Richard Pole. King EDWARDIV. Married Elizabeth Woodville, daughter of Sir Richard Woodville. Queen CATHERINE of France, the widow of King HENRY V., selected as her second husband a very obscure gentleman of Wales, of the name of Tudor, and by him she was the ancestress of a proud line of Kings. Several of the Queens of King HENRY VIII. Belonged to the untitled gentry - Anne Boleyne, Jane Seymour, and Catherine Parr. Now, according to the ideas which have prevailed in this country during late generations on the subject of nobility and gentry, all these above-mentioned intermarriage between kings, and the immediate blood of kings, with their subjects, were contracted between Royal persons and Bourgeoisie; for not one of those whom we have designated belonged to titled families.

It would certainly have much astonished a Swinton, or an Edmonstone, at the time that ROBERT II. And ROBERT III. Singled them out as fit husbands for their daughters, if they had been informed that from a revolution in the ideas of their countrymen, the direct male line of the descendants and representatives of the Royal marriages were to be reckoned as merely on a par with the mercantile classes and higher tradespeople of the Continent. For that is, in fact, the position to which the British gentry reduce themselves by voluntarily ignoring their nobility.

We are much too well-inclined to concede to foreigners a superiority to which they are not really entitled, but which they are glad to take when it is offered to them. It is truly absurd to see a French Countess, or an Italian Marchioness ranked in fashionable lists on the same footing with the wives of English Marquises and Earls. A German Count of the Empire stands in a much higher position than most foreign nobles, and is well entitled to all the respect which we can show him. But the ignorant love of foreign title, which is so common in this country, does not distinguish between a Prince or Count of the Empire and a Russian or Neapolitan Prince, or a French Count. We have known an English gentleman, who gave the precedency to a Princess ______ over Her Royal Highness the Countess of ______ merely because the one had a more high-sounding title than the other! Whatever degree of courtesy may be shown to a foreigner, it is forgetfulness of their proper place then the high English nobility yield precedency to those of them whose titles in this country hold a more exalted rank than their own. An English Baron of Viscount ought not to yield the pas to a French Count or and Italian Marquis. And even if a Scottish laird, who is lord of a lesser barony, is content to do so, we are not sure but that he is conceding much more than the stranger is entitled to claim.

The European nobility in general may be considered as standing on the same footing. One title is common in one country, while a different one obtains in another. And in some countries there is a vast body of ancient untitled nobility, such as Venice and England. There are, indeed, untitled nobles in all the countries of the continent. But, as in most of them, titles are so abundant, we apprehend that there are very few nobles of any account who are not thus distinguished. If a continental noble of ordinary rank, a French Count, a German Baron, or an Italian Marquis, were to settle in England, his letters of nobility should be considered equivalent to a British grant of armorial bearings of equal antiquity. It has been well remarked that "A German Baron, whose ancestor flourished under Henry the Lion, may rank with an English gentleman, whose ancestor fought under Richard Coeur de Lion. But the new Baron of yesterday deserves no precedence over the parvenu who has just purchased a coat of arms at the Heralds' Office (Vide a work entitled "Nobility of the British Gentry."). If neither Britons visited the Continent, nor foreigners Great Britain, it would be indifferent what titles they bore. The common people in England pay as much respect to their superiors as the common people in any other country. The shopkeepers in London are as civil behind their counters as the shopkeepers in Paris or Vienna. In the inns in towns and along the road; his 'honour' or his 'worship' is waited on with as much respectful attention as his 'Gnaden' in Germany, or his 'Excellenza' in Italy. A landlord in England, with the title of Baronet, is of no less importance among his tenants than a landlord in Sicily with the title of Prince among his vassals; and a squire in his ancient hall in Lancashire might vie with any baron in his moated castle in Languedoc. But should they travel, the advantage would always be in favour of the continental noblesse. A foreigner in England usually passes for a person of greater dignity than he is; while an Englishman abroad often loses his importance. And this, because our gentry bear more modest titles, and seem to have forgotten that they are nobles."

We have not yet adverted to the claims of the Celtic races of princes and chiefs to rank with the ancient nobility. But certainly whatever distinction must be conceded to an old English 'squire or Scottish laird belongs, with at least equal justice, to the representative of ancient Highland, Welsh, or Milesian blood. In the Highlands of Scotland there are doubtless many Macdonalds and Campbells who cannot trace their descent to the patriarch of their race, and who may be descended from illegitimate offshoots, or from vassals who have adopted the family name of their lord. At the same time, the genuine noble blood of the great highland families is very widely spread, and many are to be found in a humble position who can boast of a certain and authentic descent from the cadets of some high and mighty chief. The same may be said of the old Welsh and Irish Houses.

Although we cannot here enter at length upon the subject of the nobility of the gentry of the Highland clans, we may take one or two by way of example. Somerled, King of the Isles, was killed in battle in 1164. From him are descended the various families of the great House of Macdonald, viz., Sleat, Clanranald, Glengarry, Keppoch, and their manifold branches. Certainly, those families which can authenticate their direct male descent from a sovereign Prince who reigned in the 12th century, may well claim to be noble; and yet, according to modern ideas, only one of those branches is considered noble, and that in consequence of the lowest step in the Irish peerage granted two generations back!

A distinct branch of the mighty sovereigns of the Isles was represented by the great family of De Ergadia, Lord of Lorn. Its direct descendant is MacDougal, of Dunolly, who is most certainly well entitled to be reckoned noble. The Macfarlans of Arrochar, and their cadets, are descended from a younger brother of the third Earl of Lennox; and this illustrious descent, from the ancient Celtic Earls of the district in which their possessions lay, can be clearly proved by charters. Surely this illustrious pedigree, dating from the 11th century, entitles them to be ranked among the nobles of the land. A similar claim may be advanced by Robertson of Strowan, whose original designation of De Atholia distinctly indicates a descent from the ancient Earls of Athol, and the history of the succession of their lands points to the same genealogical result. We do not assert that every Macdonald, MacDougall, Macfarlane, or Robertson is necessarily noble. But that all the chief families of these clans are most noble is an undoubted fact. And as their cadets were numerous and prolific, it is probable that the same nobility has been inherited by many families of these names, who are now in an obscure position.

We have given these four Clans as specimens of the great Highland races, because they continue untitled to the present day (with the exception of the Irish Barony of the chief branch of the Macdonalds), and because they are clearly proved to be the direct male descendants of Princes and Earls of the 11th and 12th centuries. Many other Highland clans are neither less ancient nor less noble.

The same arguments may be used in favour of the nobility of the ancient Welsh untitled houses, many of whom can boast of a descent from the former princes of their country.

In Ireland, that class to which modern ignorance restricts the right of nobility, viz., the peerage, is but a poor specimen of the real aristocracy of the land, In England, and still more in Scotland, the peerage may by regarded as, upon the whole, giving a favourable specimen of the nobility of the two countries. But this cannot be said of the Irish peers, very few of whom belong to the original illustrious races of the island, With the exception of some splendid houses of Anglo-Norman descent, and a few respectable families of the Elizabethan times, the great body of Irish peers must confess their inferiority to those of the same class in Great Britain. And it is quite astonishing how few among them are, like O'Neil and O'Brien, connected with the history of their native country during its days of independence. The real nobility of Ireland are often to be found in very subordinate stations in their own island, or in the service of foreign princes, where they have occasionally risen to honours as high, or even higher, than those which graced their fathers in the old country. No country in Europe has had such astonishing revolutions of property as Ireland. The high have been laid low, and the obscure have been exalted, not, as in England and Scotland, by gradual decay and equally gradual advancement, but by sweeping catastrophes which have overspread the land like a hurricane or a flood. Earl Strongbow, Essex, Strafford, Cromwell, William the Third, and (last and greatest of all the spoilers) the hammer of the Encumbered Estates Court, have prostrated successive generations and races of ancient Irish landowners, and introduced new men into the possessions of the banished lords of the old soil. This has produced an unhappy social antagonism as well as genealogical confusion, from which England and Scotland have been comparatively free. Since the Norman conquest of the former country, and the Saxon and Norman colonization of the time of Edgar and David the First in the latter, the change of property and the rise and fall of families have been gradual and partial without effecting any social revolution.

We trust that enough has been said in the foregoing pages to vindicate for the gentry of Great Britain the right to take the place of nobility in the real and original sense of the word. Our connection with continental countries is now so close, and English gentlemen are so frequently permanent residents abroad, that it is very important that they should be aware of their relative position as regards the natives of the countries where they reside; and that they should know the degree of distinction to which foreigners are entitled. From ignorance they are led to estimate some titled foreigners too highly, while perhaps they occasionally underrate others. A German Baron, a French Count, and an Italian Marchese may be regarded as nearly equal in rank, when of equally good family. But none of them are in reality more noble than an English country squire of good old blood. And when an alliance is formed between an ancient titled family of the continent and an equally ancient untitled English family it is one of perfect equality. On the continent much more respect is paid to ancient blood than to mere title; and as an old untitled noble looks down upon an upstart Count or Baron, so ought an English untitled gentleman to do. In countries where the line of demarcation between the classes is strictly drawn, nobility is an essential, but it is no distinction. In Germany, for instance, everybody that one meets in good society is at least a Baron or a Baroness. But it is only a well-born Baron or Baroness that is regarded as a real gentleman or lady.

From our ignorance of the position of foreigners in their own country, we sometimes make fatal mistakes in our intercourse with them. A gentlemanly foreigner may ingratiate himself with an English Lady, and induce her to marry him, on the supposition that although he has no title, nor yet the magical De before his name, he is nevertheless a man of her own social rank. Her mortification will be grievous when she finds that she has entered a family of the bourgeoisie; that she can be received at no Court, and that no noble salon will be open to her. Moreover, the fact that her birth in her own country is good will not avail her in that of her adoption. Nay, it will occasion to her the deeper mortification, for she will find herself the more completely out of her proper place. In like manner, an English gentleman who has the misfortune to ally himself with the daughter of a continental Roturier will find himself in an entirely false position, and the station of his children will be effected by their mother's inferiority. The only remedy in such cases is for the well-born wife or husband to induce the unequal partner whom they have selected to migrate to England, where the line of demarcation, not being so strictly defined, the exclusion may be overcome; a result which, in a strict continental country like Germany, would be hopeless. A British lady who marries a Roturier, or a low-born Englishwoman who marries a foreigner of distinguished family, will find themselves, when on that continent, liable to perpetual mortification.

Without, however, taking so serious a step as embarking in a matrimonial speculation with foreigners, English gentlemen and ladies are constantly visiting the continent; and they frequently establish themselves permanently there. It is, therefore, essential that they should be fully aware of their proper place on the social scale and that they should not allow themselves to be placed on a footing of inferiority to the nobility of the country where they are residing. They ought to call themselves noble; and if they do not thus call themselves, they will lose their proper place. Every man born a gentleman, who happens not to be the heir to a hereditary title, which is the case with nine-tenths of the British aristocracy, possesses a certain status in society, which is his birthright, and on this he ought not to permit any infringement. And the same jealous care which, in this country, would lead him to maintain his right to associate on an equal footing with persons who, although possessing titles, still belong to the same social grade with himself; ought to lead him, in a continental country, to insist upon standing on an equal footing with the nobility of that country.

We have known the son of the younger son of a Duke, who, from ignorance of his proper rank, said that he was not a nobleman, and was thus placed below the salt in great German society, while, in fact, he was entitled to hold the highest place of any in the room. And on the other hand, we have known an English gentleman, who, probably, had not a drop of peer's blood in his veins, preserve his proper place in continental circles by asserting, and that with perfect truth, that he was a nobleman. He, fact, was as noble as any German Baron; while the other was, if he had only known it, neither more nor less than a German Prince.

English peers, baronets, and landed gentry, entitled to coats of arms, form the great body of the nobility of this country, some of whom are of old, and some of new blood: as is the case with the nobility of every other country. But we must remember that all are noble; that the peers and their families do not exclusively form the nobility; and that a Baronet or a member of a family without title, but possessing a coat of arms, is just as much a nobleman as a Marquis or an Earl, although he cannot pretend to the same rank or illustration. The constant and close alliances which take place between our titled and untitled aristocracy shows that this virtual equality is understood amongst ourselves. But it is necessary that we should be prepared to maintain it in our intercourse with foreigners, and not allow the German Baron, the French Count, or the Italian Marchese to consider as their only equals in this country the privileged few who bear similar titles; while they regard the great body of well-descended old English gentry as belonging to a class with whom they can never be brought into social contact in their own land.

We have seen that in former centuries the untitled gentry of Great Britain were permitted to match with the daughters, sisters, and nieces of kings. The descendants of such royal marriages, and those who, in this country, stand upon a perfect social equality with them, must not allow themselves to be elbowed out of their proper position among the nobility of Europe through the insolent assumption of those who would contest their rank, while they themselves have almost forgotten to maintain it. To remind them that they posses it, has been the object of this Essay on the British Gentry.