but because very few people take the trouble to make themselves acquainted with these subjects. Genealogy is simply the History of particular families, while Heraldry is the language in which we frequently find it written, with or without other documents at the same time; and the account becomes interesting to a parish, county, province, or nation, according to the position occupied by the family whose records it pretends to give. It is said, however, that while the History of Nations is true in the main, partly from the importance, and partly from the publicity of the events, the History of Families is in general of a doubtful character; from the strong disposition to exaggerate, and from the private character of the records. It is undeniable that there are facilities in the one case, which do not exist in the other, for the insertion of Apocryphal statements; but it must be borne in mind at the same time, that the same principles of criticism apply in both cases. There have been men who coincided in the strong statement of Walpole, that "all History is a lie," and they were quite as rational as those who say that all Genealogy is a fable. The very fact that men of character are supposed capable of exaggeration or mistatement, is a proof that the objectors attach importance to illustrious descent: and it rarely happens that a man despises Genealogical inquiries, or suspects their authenticity, if the proofs of his own descent are clear and unquestionable for several generations. If we find on the one hand that a poet traces the descent of Julius Cæsar from Iulus, Eneas, and Venus, we find on the other, that a whole nation claims relationship with Mars, and is of Trojan or of Grecian origin, according as Livy, or Dionysius tells the story. We smile at the remark in Genealogy, that at the time of the deluge "the M'Leans had a boat o' their ain," and we find a parallel for it in the current history of the sober Chinese, that at a certain date "the world was

created." The ancient British Chronicle traces the reigning Sovereign through Egbert, to the Runic Woden, and thence to Gomer, Noah, and Adam: the Irishman, in like manner, pretends to show that the present Viscount O'Neill is descended through the Christian and Pagan Kings of that country from Milesius, and thence through the Spaniards, to perhaps the Carthaginians or Phoenicians. In both these cases, the Genealogist is led astray by the Historian, inasmuch as it is national, not family vanity that is to be gratified. The remarks go to show, however, that both subjects are liable to abuse, but that both are susceptible of great correctness when entered upon in a proper spirit, and with suitable materials.

When authentic records are not made of passing or of past events, and when at the same time tradition ceases to make mention of them, the materials for History disappear. It is through the very same causes, that investigations in Genealogy are interrupted, the absence of written documents, and the silence of tradition. The concurrence of the two, when totally independent of each other, gives a degree of probability which is irresistible, and when still farther confirmed, as they often are, by Heraldic emblazon, the conclusions are rendered completely unquestionable. But it often happens that a comparatively clear stream is lost for a time, and that another appears at some distance, possessing strong features of identity; and here we are left of course to speculation, and to an examination of the Historic probabilities. Thus, the son of a King takes rank and precedence as a Duke, the son of a Duke as a Marquis, and so on down, the son of a legal Esquire being only a plain Gentleman. Hence it may happen, and indeed is a fact of every day occurrence in our own country, that the blood Royal flows in the veins of peasants, the hewers of wood, and the drawers of water among their brethren. The same facts occur with the younger sons of younger sons in

several generations, whose destinies are little cared for, when not identified with territorial possessions, according to the known laws of primogeniture. But the "tide in the affairs of men" flows again as it has ebbed, and by the known pathways of merit, patronage, ambition, money, &c., the sons of these farmers and mechanics may sit as their remote ancestors have done, with princes and with peers. It is now that the Genealogist is referred to; and with very inadequate materials, and, perhaps, nothing but a strong presumption and a vague tradition, he tries to unite the two illustrious periods of the family, through the comparatively obscure one that has intervened. In some instances, the bridge across this chasm is strong and sufficient, in others it is weak and tottering: in some cases the links of the disunited chain are properly brought together, and in others the fine gold has suspended from it the baser metal.

Now, it is worthy of remark that the very same difficulty is presented to the Historian who looks upon Europe at the close of the Roman Empire, and again at the period of the revival of letters. For tribes of barbarians, he sees an industrious population; instead of smoking villages, large monasteries and magnificent cathedrals; and on the site of battle-fields are ripening harvests and corporate towns. He knows that the localities are the same, and he is morally certain of the identity of the people; he is anxious to know, therefore, by what gradual steps the change took place, by what succession of events the interval of centuries is to be filled up. If Genealogy, therefore, is to be sneered at, we must, in honesty, raise the laugh also against the researches of Robertson, Hallam, and Maitland, that are founded upon similar principles: and farther, it must be apparent that the Macedonian had no right to question the Histories of the Hebrew or the Athenian, because they related that he was eating acorns, and clothed in goat skins, while the one

was learning at the feet of Cadmus, or the other assisting the craftsmen of Tyre to construct the Temple of Solomon.

The attention paid to Family History is much greater in some countries than in others; and, accordingly, their records are not of equal importance in point of evidence. It may be regarded, however, as an Ethnological fact, having almost the force of an axiom, that ALL nations, above the rank of barbarians, are interested in the memorials of their forefathers, and anxious to preserve them. This is strikingly illustrated in the case of the Hebrews, the most ancient nation, with one exception, of which any record remains to us. Their history is, in some parts, meagre; their genealogy never. The occupations of their ancestors appear to have been forgotten, and often every circumstance that could be dignified with the name of Biography; their names, however, are carefully preserved, as well as the dates from which the descents of their sons are to be reckoned. The posterity, too, of any distinguished man, are called by his name, and classed with himself, one being known as "the son of David," and others as "the children of Israel." This was the case also with the ancient Britons; and it is still, to some extent, the practice among the Gaël, the native Irish, and the various nations of the East. Accordingly, we have in the several countries "the Mac Callum More," "the O'Neill," and Shone ap Gruffudd, ap Iorwerth, ap Howel, Dda King of all Wales.* Of the extent to which these records and investigations were carried, in the olden time, we have two examples in the New Testament-the one descending from Abraham to Christ, the other ascending from Christ to Adam. It is remarkable that these are not given as extraordinary details, procured with unusual care or pains,

The son (descendant) of Great Callum,-a title of the Duke of Argyle; the son of Niall; and John, the son of Griffith, the son of Edward, whose great ancestor was Howel the Good, King of all Wales.

but as relations of facts well known, and which no one, apparently, would feel inclined to question.

The practice of the people of Wales, in speaking of individuals, is one which has a great tendency to ensure accuracy in Genealogical details. The place of a man's residence is almost invariably mentioned along with his name, and even since surnames were generally adopted, the practice has continued of mentioning the Christian name of the father, grandfather, &c., in regular order, so that any mistake in the identity of an individual is thus rendered impossible. Besides this, it has long been the custom in Wales for every family of any distinction to have its own pedigree carefully preserved, and gradually extended from time to time, as births, deaths, or marriages required it. The coincidence of several of these, totally independent, gives us a degree of certainty rarely attainable; and the incidental notices of collateral branches constitute legal evidence of the strongest kind. Instances of this kind are far from uncommon in our ordinary law courts, and some of those who are now present will probably recollect an interesting case, remotely connected with this town, in which the issue of the action, respecting an ancient estate, was at once determined by the production of the family pedigree.

The evidence derived from Armorial Bearings is also of great importance. Every shield is in itself a historic document, and if its records be correct they tend to alter or to corroborate the less definite records of tradition. For two centuries it was usual to have what were called Heraldic Visitations, when the officers from the College of Arms passed from county to county, summoned the neighbouring gentry to an assembly, investigated their descent, and recorded their pedigrees and armorial bearings in the Visitation Books. These Visitations ceased at the end of the seventeenth century; and it is only necessary for any one to