“Is Debrett’s Peerage the most accurate record we have of the present state of the nobility of the kingdom? If it be, the peerage, I must say is most miserably recorded. I have just been looking over his list of the Irish peers (in the eleventh edition, considerably improved, printed in 1817), and I do not think I overstep the modesty of calculation, when I assert that it contains at least as many errors as there are articles. It would take a little too much room to prove this assertion at length; but I shall give a couple of examples, selected almost at random.

“Vol. II. p. 989. We are informed that Thomas, 27th baron Howth, married in 1750, Isabella, the Earl of Kingston’s sister, who died in 1794: and that his second son, Thomas, was born in 1795. This, is I think, an important fact in midwifery. But let that pass. This son Thomas is at present bishop of Cork and Ross; and if the above date of his birth be correct, he must have made good use of his time. A bishop and doctor of divinity long before twenty, he may almost rival the most striking examples of precocity or nepotism; but when we find (p. 990) that he has eight children, one married in 1805, con-

326

APPENDIX.

sequently when her father was only ten years of age, and another (a clergyman too) in 1816, in his father’s twenty-first year, we must confess that miracles have not yet ceased. Again we are told (p. 990), that Lord Howth’s eldest daughter, Isabella, was married in 1773 to Lord Sidney, who died in 1744 without issue, which last circumstance I do not much wonder at, as he did not think proper to marry until twenty-nine years after his death. Her mother, I confess, as we have seen already, had a son a year after her decease: this, however, being I imagine a rare case, ought not to be drawn into a precedent. But this family seems to have a fancy for marriage after death, as we find (p. 990) the next daughter, Elizabeth, married in 1806, to Sir P. A. Irving, although the same grave authority informs us she died in 1799. This is a very authentic history; and I can assure your readers it would not be hard to find other tales as astonishing.

“Observing in one of your late numbers, various errata pointed out in Debrett’s account of the Peerage of Ireland, and feeling the same sort of interest in the Scots Peerage that your correspondent appears to do in the Irish, I am induced to submit to you the following list, which I found in the course of a few minutes, and in turning over merely a few pages. They are taken from the tenth edition, published in 1816. I have since compared them with the corresponding passages in the ‘thirteenth edition, considerably improved,’ printed in 1820; and shall add the result in each case.

“‘Earl of Dysart.’ In the account of this noble family, a remarkable circumstance is stated, viz. that Frances, daughter

328

APPENDIX.

of Lionel, third earl, died in 1707—the year before her father was born!—Copied faithfully into the new edition.

“Having given insertion to the two articles of P. P. and J. M. and thus afforded the writers, or rather the Writer, an opportunity of assailing the Peerage in its literal errors, I am induced to hope you will give insertion to my reply; which, as it is composed with more temper, cannot be less creditable to the columns of a Journal building its hopes for reputation on candour and consequent impartiality. I have said writer, because, if similarity of style can ever lead to identity, it is very evident in the present instance; and I may reasonably conclude that the next attack will be on the Peerage of England! thus perfecting the Tria Juncta in uno.

“To attempt perfection in a work crowded by so many difficulties, impediments continually obtruding, changes continually defeating, would be idle; so would my defence, did I seek more than in support of my claim to diligence, and unwearied and

MAGINN: THE PEERAGE.

329

incessant attention: on these points I may claim to justify myself. It was by these efforts my Peerage has obtained unrivalled patronage and support: I owe all that gratitude can urge, and future diligence secure.

“But it is not by diligence alone that the Peerage can arrive at accuracy; it must be assisted by occasional corrections from noble and other correspondents. Sir William Dugdale, Garter King of Arms, the learned author of the admirable History of Warwickshire, the History of St. Paul’s, and other works of the first order of merit—works, the splendid monument of his learning and talents;—he felt the almost insuperable difficulties of a Peerage; and, hopeless of accuracy, confessed his deficiency. Where a Dugdale failed, I could hardly hope for complete success. My efforts were an approach to accuracy; and, I may confidently and without vanity assert, that I have done more than any of my predecessors. Your correspondent P. P. says, ‘I do not think I overstep the modesty of calculation, when I assert, that it contains at least as many errors as there are articles.’ I shall not stop to enquire into the quantum of your correspondent’s modesty, of his accuracy in calculation, or whether there is more of malignity in his assertion than of candour in investigation. I can only reply that most of the errors he has so vauntingly detected might have been easily remedied by the introduction of a figure—mere errors of the compositor, or the dropping of a letter at press. These, Sir, are errors which candour would have supplied. In another part of the article of your correspondent, he charges me with scandalous negligence. Let me ask of your correspondent Sir, whether I may not, with more propriety, and without the loss of temper, charge him with scandalous meanness, in an assertion so wanton and unprovoked. With regard to the playfulness of his satire, I would fain remind him, that he becomes very serious when he would be amusing, and very amusing when he would be serious. To conclude, Sir, as I have never aimed at perfection, never hoping to accomplish it, let me request your correspondent’s attention to the following quotation from the Baronetage; and let me press upon his attention, that, as I have always invited and solicited corrections of the press, his corrections would have been attended to with more pleasure if they had been pointed out with a more liberal feeling:—

330

APPENDIX.

“I have perused with mingled feelings of mirth and compassion, the delectable epistle of Mr. John Debrett, Editor of the Peerage, Baronetage, and Imperial Calendar. Being a plain matter-of-fact man, I cannot hope to compete with that droll personage, in either wit or erudition, and must resign the field to him in those respects, without attempting to crack jokes or quote scraps of latin. Nor shall I take any notice of the personalities which that facetious chronicler has thought it necessary to have recourse to. Patient, however, of injuries as I am, I cannot consent to give up my personal identity. You, Mr. Editor, can assure Mr. Debrett that I, who glory in the signature of the triple P, am quite a different person from him of the bi-literal appellation of J. M. We are, I suspect, from different sides of the channel. Mr. Debrett has thus been affected in

MAGINN: THE PEERAGE.

331

a contrary way to the votaries of Bacchus, who are said to see every object double in their cups, whereas he has blended two people into one while pouring forth his indignation.

“Passing by all this buffoonery, let me call to Mr. Debrett’s recollection the true state of the case. I pointed out in his account of the noble families of Howth and Clarina, errors of the most palpable and ridiculous description; and I added that it was scandalously negligent to continue them in edition after edition, said to be carefully revised and corrected. In answer, he tells me, that it is very easy to rectify these errors (the existence of which he cannot deny), which, if true, renders his negligence in suffering them to remain unamended for so many years, still more inexcusable; and that I am a scandalously mean fellow, which, whether true or not, does not establish the correctness of his peerage.

“I confess, however, such is my obtuseness, that I cannot see wherein I am so scandalous. I gave for Mr. Debrett’s book four and twenty shillings under the impression that it was accurate. If not accurate, it is not worth as many pence: and every approach to inaccuracy, is a sensible, a calculable diminution of its value. And I re-assert that it contains as many errors as articles; but I must also repeat, that to prove the assertion at length, would occupy all your columns. If Mr. Debrett have the honesty to return me my twenty-four shillings, which I can assure him I regret parting with for his Peerage, I engage to forward him, by return of post four and twenty blunders as ridiculous as any already mentioned; but as he seems to wish for a farther exposé in public, I shall, with your permission, oblige him with a dozen specimens of his correctness, which I have collected in less than half-an-hour.

“1st. p. 54. We are told that the late Duke of Dorset was killed at Killarney in Ireland. Now his Grace met with the sad accident, that put an end to his life, above a hundred miles from Killarney, in a different province altogether. He might as well say that a gentleman killed in Norfolk, was killed in Cornwall. I confess I do not lay much stress on such blunders as these, because they are not very material. If I did I could glean a hundred of them by barely casting my eyes over his pages; but as we do not consult peerages for historical facts or

332

APPENDIX.

anecdotes, I shall only notice errors in what we principally do consult them for, that is, in dates.

“2nd. p. 73. George Paulett of Amport, twelfth Marquis of Winchester, married in 1812 Martha Ingoldsby, who died in 1796. In spite of this droll taste of marrying a woman sixteen years after her death, he had three children; and it is not the least wonderful circumstance, that he himself died in 1800, twelve years before his marriage. I have a dim recollection of reading in Mr. Lewis’s Tales of Wonder, an account of a ghost-wedding; but I did not know till now that he had such authentic warrant for the circumstance. I must farther remark, that it is rather scandalous in Mr. Debrett to assert that the noble lady of Sir Joseph Yorke was married twenty-seven years before her mother was united in the holy bonds of matrimony to her father; and that the late Marchioness of Winchester had a grandchild before she had a husband. I omit mentioning that he makes her son to be married a year after his mother. This is almost scandalum magnatum.

“3rd. p.231. Here is more scandal. Bennet, third Earl of Harborough, married, according to this authentic register, in 1748, having had children by his lady in 1739, 1741, 1743, and 1744. What follows is almost as bad. This Earl had a daughter Frances, married to Colonel Morgan in 1776, six years after her father’s death, which occurred in 1770; and yet we are told he left no surviving issue. What is the meaning of this? Does Mr. Debrett mean to insinuate that Lady Frances, though the Earl’s daughter, was not his child?

“4th. p. 986. Here we have scandal against a living lady. The Earl of Mexborough, he says, was married to his Countess, September 25th, 1782, and their daughter Eliza came into the world on the 20th of June preceding. Upon my word Mr. Debrett, this is taking a shocking liberty with Lady Mexborough’s character!

“5th. p. 1248. Again to it! William Townshend, eldest son of Lord Ventry, marries Miss Jones in 1797; but her son by him was born in 1793. On the part of the Hon. Mrs. Mullens, I must take upon me to contradict this calumny, and to expostulate warmly with Mr. Debrett for treating her in this manner, in his scandalous chronicle.

MAGINN: THE PEERAGE.

333

“9th. p. 584. William Brabazon, Baron Ponsonby of Imokilly, was born in 1744, and married in 1726, only eighteen years before his birth. He had three children nevertheless, one of whom Mr. Debrett makes Knight of the Shire for Cork in 1817, though the gentleman at that time was not in parliament at all; and I perceive that the error is repeated in the revised and corrected edition for 1820. If an edition be published in 1850, I suppose he will still figure as M.P.

“12th. p. 1271-2. In the former of these pages, we are told that Richard Handcock was member for Athlone in 1800, and in the latter, that William Handcock, first Lord Castlemaine, represented that town from 1783 to 1801. Now William represented it until 1804, and I believe Richard never at all.

334

APPENDIX.

I should be obliged to Mr. Debrett if he would tell me where he learned that the two Messrs. Handcock sat together for Athlone in 1800?

“There is my dozen for you. It will be in vain for Mr. Debrett to shift these errors on his pressmen. They arise from scandalous negligence somewhere; and it is little matter to the people who like me are out of pocket for Mr. Debrett’s bundle of inaccuracies, whether it is master or man that is to blame for them. I could not help laughing at the suggestion of the worthy editor, that I ought rather to have sent my corrections to him in a private letter, when I recollected how carefully he adds in his advertisement, prefixed to his worthy work, that all correspondence to him on the subject of the Peerage, should be post paid. This is, I suppose what he calls soliciting corrections; but the plain English of it is this—you have lost one pound four shillings by me, and now to enable me to make another edition more correct, you ought to throw away a few additional shillings in postage.

“I believe I take leave of Mr. Debrett here. He refers me to his Baronetage: I have seen that book. Does he wish to have my opinion on it? If so, let him say the word, and I am ready for it, in public or in private.