Sacramento daily record-union., 1883-11-03
MR." AND ESQ. /"

But now comes another of our anomalies.
one which greatly puzzles European conti-
nentals, and which is not always grasped
even by our American kinsfolk. This is the
nature of the Esquire. A class of people are
habitually called plain "Mr." ia ordinary
talk, who would be greatly offended if their
letters were SO addressed. am not speak.
ing of those who claim a higher objective
description mean those who are spoken
of as "Mr. A, but who, in any formal
description, from the address of letter up
ward, must be de4cribed as ga. B., Esq. u
In itself, Esquire, like Knight, is title, il
not of Office, of something very like office ;
and it would not have been wonderful if 1t
had been usual to call men knight A. "
and Esquire B" But Knight A. seems
never to have been in use ; and Esquire, y
or rather esquire B., can hardly be said
to have ever been in polite use. Men, like
Hampden, who would have ranked as no.
bles anywhere out of the British kingdoms,
we're simply "Mr. Hampden, and the
like. To be sure Mr." was then more of
a distinct title than it is now. l have seen
somewhere in the early records of New
England colony an order, in which, among
other pains and penalties decreed against a
certain man, it is forbidden to speak of him
any longer as "Mr." Possibly, though used
to be spoken of as "Mr., he did hold the
technical rank of Esquire" For Esquire
is a technical rank, as much as Earl or
Knight and one odd thing is that when
the word, in contracted shape, is put be-
fore name, it means something different
from that technical rank. Many people
put Esq" after their names, not by mere
assumption or conventionality, but OF per-
feet right, to whom no living soul would
ever think of tacking on esquire" before
their names. esquire a." marks posi-.
ton which, if not strictly official, certainly
comes very near to it, position which is
not held by all who are describedas esquires
even by strict formal right. But the thing
that most puzzles the foreigner is the pres
ence of the distinctive title after the name,
or rather its absence before the name. He
is ready to write Mr.. A. B. Esq. )" it is
hard to persuade hinra to write GA. B..
ESQ.," with nothing before the A. B. And
no wonder, for it is description altogether
without parallel among continental descrip-
tions. We are SO used to it that we hardly
think of its singularity. 1t fails to do, at
least it seems as if it were going to fail to
do, the very thing which titles are invented
to do. Lord" "Sir," "Mr." stand as
guardians before the name, to show that
the mere name is not going to be used.
But the name of the esquire stands bare
without any protection. We do, in fact,
call him by his mere name, though we
stick on his description afterward. "Es-
quire" has no feminine otherwise it would
be curious to see whether woman's name
could be allowed to stand unsheltered in
the same way. How singular our treat
ment of the esquire is seen at once If we
fancy like trea tment of the rank next
above him. We speak of man as Mr..
A B." and we address our letters to him
as "a. B., Esq." 1t would be an exact
parallel if we spoke of man as "Sir a.
B." and addressed our letters to him as
ga. B., Knight. "-[E. A. Freeman, in
Longman's Magazine.