 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
no able ancestor nearer in blood to him than a great-grandparent, is
inappreciably better off in the chance of being himself gifted with ability,
than if he bad been taken out of the general mass of men. An old peerage
is a valueless title to natural gifts, except so far as it may have been
furbished up by a succession of wise intermarriages. When, however, as is
often the case, the direct line has become extinct and the title has passed to
a distant relative, who had not been reared in the family traditions, the
sentiment that is attached to its possession is utterly unreasonable. I cannot
think of any claim to respect, put forward in modern days, that is so entirely
an imposture, as that made by a peer on the ground of descent, who has
neither been nobly educated, nor has any eminent kinsman, within three
degrees.
I will conclude this chapter with a few facts I have derived from my
various jottings, concerning the “natural history” of Judges. It appears that
the parentage of the Judges in the last six reigns, viz. since the accession of
George I., is as follows, reckoning in percentages: noble, honourable, or
baronet (but not judges), 9; landed gentlemen, 35; judge, barrister, or
attorney, 15; bishop or clergyman, 8; medical, 7; merchants and various,
unclassed, 10; tradesmen, 7; unknown, 9. There is, therefore, no very
marked class peculiarity in the origin of the Judges. They seem to be
derived from much the same sources as the scholars of our Universities,
with a decided but not excessive preponderance in favour of legal parents.
I also thought it worth while to note the order in which the Judges stood in
their several families, to see whether ability affected the eldest more than
the youngest, or if any important fact of the kind might appear. I find in my
notes that I have recorded the order of the birth of 72 judges. The result of
the percentages is, that the judge was an only son in II cases; eldest in 17;
second in 38;
 |
|
 |
|