We have to notice the Thirty - fourth issue of the Local
Government Directory. (Knight.)—" The Local Government Board "is the first item in the table of contents. With this we have a table giving the Inspectors and the Assistant-Inspectors, with their districts. An Almanac furnishes the dates at which various lists, &c., are to be sent in, claims to be made, and so forth. Then comes a review, by Mr. W. Cunningham. Glen, 91 Local Government legislation in the Session of 1874 (erroneously printed "1873" in the Table of Contents), then a list of the Unions with their officers, the Urban Sanitary Authorities, School Boards, &c. How vast the apparatus, and how small the result! Messrs. Knight's Directory is of the greatest utility, for one has to know all about these people, do-nothings as many of them arc; but would not very much more work be done, if the volume could be contracted into fifty pages out of five hundred ?— The Upper Ten Thousand, com- piled by A. B. Thom (Rontledge), is a new work. Its object," according to the preface, " has been to include in one general alphabetical list all those who have any definite position, arising either from hereditary rank, or from any reoognisqd title or order conferred upon them by the Sovereign, or from any of the higher grades of the military, naval, and clerical or colonial services of the State." Of course there are men who are ten times more important than half these notabilities, but who, steadily refusing titles and declining public life, cannot be included in this volume, but Mr. Thom has done all that is possible to make it useful and complete.—Debrat's Illustrated Baronetage and Knightage (Dean and Son) is a well-eitaiffishedi wOrk of reference, whieh it is necessary only to mention. We note, kpithe way, a discrepancy between these two authorities. Mr. Thom 'mentions a Sir Richard Oglander as being eighth baronet, the title 'having been created in 1665. In Delvett we find the late Sir Henry Oglander, who died in 1874, as being the last baronet, " extinct" being put after the name in the obituary. We should be glad to know which is correct. The question is interesting, as the Oglanders are or were one of the oldest families in the kingdom, the descent having gone down in the male line without interruption from the Conquest. May we suggest to Mr. Thom that be is in error when he speaks of a lady as being the "Dowager Viscountess," when there is no one else bearing the title ?
Previous page
