The obtaining of the same ends by opposite means is exemplified as follows:—Jack Cade, when he wanted to be popular, called himself a Mortimer, and said his wife was a Lacy! The great Napoleon, to win the Continent, on the contrary, professed that he belonged to the canaille, though he knew, and his brother Joseph, and all of them well knew, that the Buonapartes were good Italian nobility.—Hannay.
The Union-Jack.
The term “Union-jack” is one which is partly of obvious signification, and in part somewhat perplexing. The “Union” between England and Scotland, to which the flag owed its origin, evidently supplied the first half of the compound title borne by the flag itself. But the expression “jack” involves some difficulty. Several solutions of this difficulty have been submitted, but, with a single exception only, they are by far too subtle to be considered satisfactory. A learned and judicious antiquary has recorded it as his opinion, that the flag of the Union received the title of “Union-jack” from the circumstance of the union between England and Scotland having taken place in the reign of King James, by whose command the new flag was introduced. The name of the king in French, “Jaques,” would have been certainly used in heraldic documents: the union flag of king “Jaques” would very naturally be called after the name of its royal author, Jaques’ union, or union Jaques, and so by a simple process we arrive at union-jack. This suggestion of the late Sir Harris Nicolas may be accepted without any hesitation; and the term “jack” having once been recognised as the title of a flag, it is easy enough to trace its application to several flags. Thus the old white flag with the red cross is now called the “St. George’s jack;” and English seamen are in the habit of designating the national ensigns of other countries as the “jacks” of France, Russia, &c.
We quote this sensible view from the Art Journal. The paper by Sir Harris Nicolas above referred to will be found in the Naval and Military Magazine for 1827; and with engravings, in Brayley’s Historic and Graphic Illustrator.
Field-Marshal.
The title of Field-Marshal is one of comparatively modern date, having been first created only so far back as the reign of George I. In the London Gazette for the month of January, 1736, we find it announced that “His Majesty has been pleased to erect a new post of honour, under the title of Marshal of the Armies of Great Britain, and to confer the same on the Duke of Argyll and the Earl of Orkney, as the two eldest generals in the service.” The corresponding title up to that time would seem to have been that of “captain-general,” which was subsequently revived, as a distinction, in the person of William Duke of Cumberland, just previous to the Rebellion of ’45, and again in that of the late Duke of York in 1799. The title of field-marshal has been but sparingly conferred—only about thirty individuals, exclusive of royalty, having been gazetted as field-marshals during upwards of 120 years.
Change of Surname.
The usage at the Home Office in dealing with applications for Change of Name has been thus stated by the Secretary, Sir George Grey, there being no written law on the subject:
“About two hundred years ago, the practice of applying for permission to change names arose; and in 1783, in consequence of the frequency of the request, it was deemed necessary to put some check on it. A regulation was, therefore, made that all cases should be referred to the College of Arms. That reference is not, however, necessarily decisive, as it is intended only for the information of the department. That usage has been universally adopted, subject to the modification introduced by Sir Robert Peel, that where there are no plausible grounds for an application, and it is obviously the mere result of whim or caprice, it should be at once declined, without any reference to the College of Arms, leaving it to the applicant to change his name on his own responsibility.”