The Style of Esquire

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 09:35
 

zebulon;103990 wrote:

Lords of manor, and a host of others in the gentry, were also accorded the style of esquire.


If you are implying that all lords of manors were accorded the style of esquire, then in the time we are discussing (17th century), that was not the case.  Some were, some weren’t, and (as previously mentioned) the border between the two categories was murky.

 

In the 14th century, this would have been an unquestionably true statement, but not from the late 15th century on.  On the contrary, the acquisition of manorial rights (by marriage or purchase) was one of the principal ways that rising families solidified themselves as gentlemen.  As Keen shows, one of the ways a gentleman could differentiate himself from a yeoman circa 1500 and after was by the exercise of authority, of which the most basic form was the holding of manorial courts.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 09:50
 

As to the traditional definition of esquire in Scottish usage, this is slightly edited from something I posted in a similar discussion in the IAAH forum just a few weeks ago.  For those influenced by the theories of Thomas Innes of Learney, it makes for instructive reading.

The following extracts are from Lord Bankton’s Institute of the Laws of Scotland (1751). Bankton is what is termed in Scots law an "institutional writer." That means, in effect, that what he says is absolutely authoritative unless contradicted by a statute or a judicial decision.  Scottish courts accept the statements of institutional writers as authoritative statements of what the law is, or at least was at the time of writing.  What any dictionary or encyclopedia, or Innes of Learney, or even Wikipedia might say to the contrary does not trump an institutional writer.

 

From Book I, title II, "The State and Distinction of Persons:"

 

- "Barons are properly those who have their lands erected by the king into the feudal dignity of a barony."

 

- "Freeholders are those who, without the dignity of a baron, hold lands of the crown; a forty shilling land of old extent, or four hundred pound of valued rent, qualifies them to vote in the election of commissioners to the parliament for shires, or of being elected." [Note that this is different from the meaning of a freeholder in England; Scottish freeholders were only those who held land directly from the crown, i.e. as tenants in capite.]

- "Esquires are mentioned, in the forecited old statutes, next to barons, but the penalty of lawborrows broken upon them is the same as upon knights, tho’ these three were different titles of dignity; this title is more frequent with us since the union than formerly, and I conceive it is an addition that may be justly given to barons or freeholders, as in England it is a title of dignity betwixt that of knight batchelor and gentleman." [The mention of knights in the first sentence has to do with those who held their lands by knight-service, which had been abolished by statute well before Bankton was writing—"these many ages past," he says in another passage. Esquires "in the forecited old statutes" also derived their status from this obsolete form of tenure.  Note, once again, that not every landowner may "justly" be called esquire in Bankton’s scheme; only those who hold their lands directly from the crown, not from some other feudal superior.]

 

- "Persons holding lands of subjects [i.e., other than directly from the crown], if not distinguished by some other mark of honour or respect, are called feuars, and deemed of an inferior rank to freeholders; they have no title to elect, or be elected commissioners to parliament; sometimes barons, free-holders and feuars are all brought under one common designation of landed gentlemen…but that designation cannot agree to such common feuars as do not consort with gentlemen, and therefore have no claim to that character." [Note that Bankton defines "gentleman" in part by land tenure and in part by whether one is recognized as such by other gentlemen.]

- "[G]entleman, in ordinary discourse, extends only to those under noblemen [i.e., including barons and freeholders], and above the commonality; but as a distinct title, constituting a different rank of persons, it must be limited to those under barons and freeholders, and above common feuars, and such are classed with burgesses; therefore, in this sense, those who are descended of barons and freeholders, or of those of superior dignities, are gentlemen; they generally are honoured with the title of esquire, while they support the dignity of their birth, tho’ of old they had no other designation that of gentleman; and of late those of the laicks that have such offices as become gentlemen, as that of a physician, &c. are commonly thought intitled to the rank and degree of esquire. Offices of distinction, civil, military and ecclesiastical, create those that enjoy them gentlemen: such likewise, as by their virtuous behavior and worthy deportment of gentlemen, are justly intitled to the character." [So "esquire" was used for anyone descended from a peer, baron, or freeholder, provided that he didn’t have an occupation or behave himself in a way inconsistent with the style, whether he himself held land or not, as well as for those in the learned professions. No provision is made for esquires by virtue of holding a civil or military appointment, unlike the situation in England.  Conversely, if you held your land from a feudal superior other than the king (as a feuar), you were not automatically an esquire or even a gentleman, even though the holding of such land would have entitled you under the Lyon Act of 1672 to sign your name with a territorial designation appended to it.]

- "Only gentlemen are intitled to bear a coat of arms, which they may of right demand from the lord Lyon, and get them matriculated in his register." [If you are a gentleman, in other words, Lyon must grant or matriculate a coat of arms upon request.]

So, bottom line: by the mid-1800s, the term "esquire" in Scotland could be applied to those who held lands directly from the crown (whether barons or freeholders), to descendants of peers, barons, or freeholders, and to those in certain of the learned professions, notably medicine.

 

Note that almost all of this has long since been outdated, and everything deriving from feudal tenure became obsolete when feudal tenure was abolished in Scotland a few years back.  I offer it merely for historic interest.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 15:25
 

Joe’s paragraph re: Esquire says in part, "...the penalty of lawborrows broken upon them…"—I’ve seen the term lawborrows once before, in a footnote to an Irish account of a Scottish family before moving to Ulster, but no idea what it means.

Apologies if this is excessively off-topic.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
13 April 2015 17:05
 

Michael F. McCartney;104004 wrote:

Joe’s paragraph re: Esquire says in part, "...the penalty of lawborrows broken upon them…"—I’ve seen the term lawborrows once before, in a footnote to an Irish account of a Scottish family before moving to Ulster, but no idea what it means.

Apologies if this is excessively off-topic.


Wikipedia has an article on it that sounds plausible, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawburrows.

 

The best I can figure out is that the 1429 Statute of Lawburrows solidified the legal authority of the king’s sheriffs and (I guess) correspondingly diminished the ability of knights to throw their weight around.  Bankton’s point seems to be that esquires’ stature was not what it had once been, centuries before the 1700s.

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
14 April 2015 12:15
 

An officer in the College of Arms once told me that any civil magistrates or anyone holding a military rank of army captain or higher receives the honorific appellation of esquire in their Letters Patent. But there are no other distinctions associated with it. It seems to just relate to being a mark of public service in the UK.

In the US republic, where a constitution serves as the embodiment of the nation, legal professionals tend to stand out as the creators, interpreters, caretakers and defenders of the law and even the Constitution itself. Most understand court procedures and all theoretically have special privileges and access in our courts. Most of our political leaders have at least a token JD. With no formal aristocracy, no large government and no national celebrities, local lawyers and judges were probably very eminent people within a community throughout the 19th Century in the US.

 

I don’t know when lawyers exclusively started using esq. as a suffix or when military professionals in the US stopped. In pure conjecture, I would think military men in the US were content to use their military rank as a quasi title to distinguish themselves rather than a suffix; even after they left the military. Even prominent men in the south and north who had served in neither the regular service nor the militias often adopted honorary military titles of colonel or commodore for themselves. Cornelius Vanderbilt and Ulysses Grant’s father-in-law were two of whom I can think off the top of my head. Was Colonel Sanders a real colonel? President Andrew Jackson always referred to others as "major so-and-so" or "colonel this-and-that". I am sure this practice was not exclusive to the US. If it was, it would make an interesting historical study.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 13:06
 

It’s not just lawyers and soldiers / sailors.  Former Presidents, state governors, cabinet Secretaries, judges, retired doctors, professors and ministers, and likely others I can’t think of offhand, are commonly referred to or addressed by their former titles.  Mostly a social convention or courtesy, though some may still legally hold their titles in retirement.

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
14 April 2015 14:50
 

Military officers retain their commission (and rank title) unless they explicitly resign it. Retired officers retain their titles as well. They are also subject to recall to active duty at the pleasure of the President and are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The use of the title "esquire", if appropriate in American usage, would be less specific and redundant. This is why you don’t see even military lawyers using it while on active duty. They will instead use the postnomials JAGC (Judge Advocate General Corps) to specify their profession.

 
liongam
 
Avatar
 
 
liongam
Total Posts:  343
Joined  19-02-2006
 
 
 
14 April 2015 20:22
 

Dear All,

According ‘Honours and Titles’ published by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), it states that the style of ‘Esquire’ is ‘Legally it is a ‘title, honour or dignity’ pertaining hereditarily to the eldest sons and male successors of knights and younger sons of peers; also personally (by reason of office) to military officers of and above the rank of Captain*; Queen’s Counsel; Royal Academicians; Justices of the Peace; and persons in positions of trust in the service of the Crown’.

 

It goes to say that ‘‘Gentleman’ as a title is now seldom used, but pertains technically to all those in right of officially recorded (granted) armorial bearings’.  Therefore, all gentlemen not ranked as ‘Esquires’ at the time of petitioning the Earl Marshal for a grant of arms will styled as ‘Gentleman’ in both the body of the Memorial (petition) to the Earl Marshal and the text of the Letters Patent granting arms.

 

* Together with the equivalent ranks in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.  Whilst junior officers under the rank of Captain are styled ‘Gentlemen’.

 

At one time ‘Esquires’ were distinctly created by Letters Patent.  Queen Victoria during her reign created at least one ‘Esquire’ using this method.

 

Officers of Her Majesty’s Forces on retirement continue to retain their commissions and are often granted honorary rank, the notice of which is published in the weekly Ministry of Defence supplement of The London Gazette every Tuesday.

 

As ever

 

John

 
JJB1
 
Avatar
 
 
JJB1
Total Posts:  83
Joined  31-10-2014
 
 
 
14 April 2015 21:31
 

JJB;104024 wrote:

An officer in the College of Arms once told me that any civil magistrates or anyone holding a military rank of army captain or higher receives the honorific appellation of esquire in their Letters Patent. But there are no other distinctions associated with it. It seems to just relate to being a mark of public service in the UK.


Perhaps what I was told was just the narrower qualification of an esquire only as it relates to an ordinary US citizen. I seem to have misinterpreted his words to assume that this brief encapsulation applies to citizens of the UK as well. Sorry to "muddy the waters".

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 23:11
 

JJB;104024 wrote:

In the US republic, where a constitution serves as the embodiment of the nation, legal professionals tend to stand out as the creators, interpreters, caretakers and defenders of the law and even the Constitution itself. Most understand court procedures and all theoretically have special privileges and access in our courts. Most of our political leaders have at least a token JD. With no formal aristocracy, no large government and no national celebrities, local lawyers and judges were probably very eminent people within a community throughout the 19th Century in the US.


This may be true, but (as I described above) it had nothing to do with the use of the suffix "esq." Many people in the early U.S. who were not lawyers were also accorded the style of esquire. In official usage, there seems to have been a tacit understanding that a line existed between positions that rated "esquire" and those that didn’t. I’ve never seen it written down, but it can be inferred to some degree from historic usage, e.g. in legislative journals, on commissioning documents, and so on. For example, U.S. senators (like members of the upper houses of colonial legislatures) were described as "esq" in their own proceedings while U.S. representatives (like members of the lower houses) were not—at least not by virtue of membership in the House.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by a "token JD." Either one has the degree or one doesn’t. In any case, it isn’t the degree that justifies the "esquire" but designation but admission to the bar, a somewhat higher standard.


Quote:

I don’t know when lawyers exclusively started using esq. as a suffix…

It’s not so much that they started at some known date (they started in the colonial period, following the established English custom), but that they continued when members of other professions stopped. As I mentioned before, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary said in 1856 that "esquire" was used as a courtesy title for officers of all sorts (this would mean civil officers as much as military) as well as lawyers, although no one could demand it as a matter of legal right. By the early 20th century, etiquette writers were saying it was used only for lawyers and foreign service officers. So it was over the course of the second half of the 19th century that it fell out of fashion for other professions.

(Note that apart from legislation in some states purporting to ban use of the term in such a way as to create the false impression that someone is a lawyer, none of this has official standing, certainly not at the federal level. In contrast to England, federal judges, U.S. attorneys, and other legal officials are no longer described as "esquire" in the President’s messages to the Senate nominating them [as they were in the early years of the republic] nor in the President’s letters patent commissioning them, nor is the term used on certificates of admission to the bar of the Supreme Court.)

 

The last example I find of the word in the Journals of the U.S. Senate is in 1869, reporting the content of a report from a U.S. diplomat in China. The last use I can find of it in a non-diplomatic context is in the 1850s referring to the U.S. commissioner for handling negotiations with Indian tribes in Oregon.


Quote:

or when military professionals in the US stopped. In pure conjecture, I would think military men in the US were content to use their military rank as a quasi title to distinguish themselves rather than a suffix; even after they left the military.

I’m not sure that officers of the regular armed forces ever used it, at least officially. It should be possible to find out by looking at old commissions, confirmation proceedings, and so on. I’ve seen a number of examples of "gent" but not "esq" printed on the blank forms used for militia commission during that period, though. "Esq" was used for some officers, but was written in by hand.

http://www.princefamilyhistory.com/4c Captain George Printz commission signed by Thomas Jefferson.jpg


Quote:

Even prominent men in the south and north who had served in neither the regular service nor the militias often adopted honorary military titles of colonel or commodore for themselves. Cornelius Vanderbilt and Ulysses Grant’s father-in-law were two of whom I can think off the top of my head.

I don’t know about Frederick Dent, but Vanderbilt’s rank was bestowed by <strike>the press, not assumed by himself. The senior captain of a shipping line was referred to as commodore by courtesy, so as the owner of a line the media of the day seemed to think it clever to call him that as well.</strike>  Correction:  apparently the nickname was bestowed by rival ferry boat operators when Vanderbilt was first starting out, making fun of his open determination to get to the top of the business.  (Ha, ha, I guess the joke turned out to be on them.)


Quote:

Was Colonel Sanders a real colonel?

Yes, he was commissioned as a colonel and aide-de-camp by the governor of Kentucky in 1935. An honorific title to be sure, but a valid one.


Quote:

President Andrew Jackson always referred to others as "major so-and-so" or "colonel this-and-that". I am sure this practice was not exclusive to the US. If it was, it would make an interesting historical study.

It might well have been, if not exclusive then at least typical. The unusually widespread use of military titles in the colonies was noted by British observers during the colonial period. It apparently had to do with the constant presence of security threats (Indians, the Spanish, the French) and the concomitant importance of the military organization of society, in contrast to the peaceful situation in England at the time. In Virginia, all members of the Council of State were commissioned as colonels because they were seen as having a military role as staff/advisers to the governor in his guise as commander in chief. The king’s chief representative in each county, known as the Lieutenant of the County, was addressed as "colonel" because part of the job included being "Chief Commander of all his Majesty’s Militia, Horse and Foot, in the said County of…."

Sorry to go on so long…I guess I get a little crazed about this kind of stuff.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
14 April 2015 23:38
 

Beating that dead horse a little more:

A collection of Washington’s writings related to the creation of the District of Columbia includes two documents that shed light on usage in the early Federal period.

 

One is the commission, dated Jan 22, 1791, appointing "Thomas Johnson and Daniel Carroll, of Maryland, and David Stuart, of Virginia" the commissioners for surveying the federal district.  Johnson was an attorney (later that year appointed by Washington to the Supreme Court), Carroll a planter, and Stuart a physician.  Note that none are referred to as "esquire" in the commission.

 

However, Carroll is referred to as "esquire" in a letter from Washington to the mayor of Georgetown written a couple of weeks later, as is another official mentioned in that letter and others in other correspondence.

 

For what it’s worth.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2015 00:57
 

Curious about the seal on the commission signed by Thomas Jefferson in Joe’s posting above - do we know what inscription or image is on the seal?

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 April 2015 12:54
 

mghofer;104033 wrote:

They will instead use the postnomials JAGC (Judge Advocate General Corps) to specify their profession.


Unless they’re Marines. smile

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2015 14:53
 

David Pope;104061 wrote:

Unless they’re Marines. smile


Or Air Force.  Or Army.  (Army legal officers sign "MAJ, JA".)

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
15 April 2015 15:12
 

Joseph McMillan;104062 wrote:

Or Air Force.  Or Army.  (Army legal officers sign "MAJ, JA".)


Marines don’t add any reference.  Unlike the other services, Marine and Coast Guard judge advocates are line officers.