“Aneagle, abawter(vulture), amelown; these belong unto anemperor.Agerfalcon, atercellof gerfalcon are due to aking.There is afalcongentle and atercellgentle; and these be for aprince.There is afalconof therock; and that is for aduke.There is afalconperegrine; and that is for anearl.Also there is abastard; and that hawk is for abaron.There is asacreand asacret; and these ben for aknight.There is alanareand alaurell; and these belong to asquire.There is amerlyon; and that hawk is for alady.There is anhoby; and that is for ayoung man.There is agoshawk; and that hawk is for ayeoman.There is atercell; and that is for apoor man.There is aspave-hawk; she is an hawk for apriest.There is amuskyte; and he is for anholy-water clerk.”
“Aneagle, abawter(vulture), amelown; these belong unto anemperor.
Agerfalcon, atercellof gerfalcon are due to aking.
There is afalcongentle and atercellgentle; and these be for aprince.
There is afalconof therock; and that is for aduke.
There is afalconperegrine; and that is for anearl.
Also there is abastard; and that hawk is for abaron.
There is asacreand asacret; and these ben for aknight.
There is alanareand alaurell; and these belong to asquire.
There is amerlyon; and that hawk is for alady.
There is anhoby; and that is for ayoung man.
There is agoshawk; and that hawk is for ayeoman.
There is atercell; and that is for apoor man.
There is aspave-hawk; she is an hawk for apriest.
There is amuskyte; and he is for anholy-water clerk.”
To this list the ‘Jewel for Gentre’ adds,
“Akesterelfor aknaveorservant.”[241]
“Akesterelfor aknaveorservant.”[241]
Occupying a kind of intermediate rank between the peerage and the commons stands the order of Baronets. These, though really commoners, participate with peers the honour of transmitting their title to their male descendants. James I, the founder of this order, pledged himself to limit its number to two hundred, but successive sovereigns, possessing the same right to enlarge as he had to establish it, have more than quadrupled the holders of this dignity.
Baronets are in reality nothing more than hereditary knights, and some families who have been invested with the honour have gained little by it, seeing that their ancestors regularly, in earlier times, acquired that of knighthood. It is no unusual thing in tracing the annals of an antient house, to find six or seven knights in the direct line, besides those in the collateral branches. In the family of Calverley, there was, if I mistake not, asuccessionofSIXTEENknights. This was a ‘knightly race’ indeed.
Of knighthood Nares remarks, “Since it was superseded by the order of Baronets, it has incurred a kind of contumely that is certainly injurious to its proper character. It has been held cheaper by the public at large, and I fear also by the sovereign himself. How often do we hear the remark when aSirorLadyis mentioned, ‘He isonlya Knight,’ or ‘She isonlya Knight’s lady.’”
We have seen that knight is synonymous with servant. So also is theign or thane, one of the oldest titles ofNorthern nobility. Bede translates it by Minister Regis. Sometimes these thanes were servientes regis more literally than would suit the ambition of modern courtiers, for in Doomsday Book we find them holding such offices as Latinarius, Aurifaber, Coquus, interpreter, goldsmith, cook. Lord Ponsonby bears three combs in his arms, to commemorate his descent from the Conqueror’s barber!
Sir John Ferne traces the origin of knighthood to Olybion, the grandson of Noah; and Lydgate and Chaucer speak of the knights of Troy and Thebes. But the honour is not older than the introduction of the feudal system. When the whole country was parcelled out under that system, the possessor of eachfeuorfee(a certain value in land) held it by knight’s service, that is, by attending the summons of the king, whenever he engaged in war, properly equipped for the campaign, and leading on his vassals. Knighthood was obligatory, as the possessor of every fee was bound to receive the honour at the will of his sovereign or other feudal superior. Such knights were, in reference to their dependants, styled lords. Greater estates, consisting of several knights’ fees, were denominated Baronies, and the possessor of such an estate was called a Baron, or Banneret, on account of his right to display a square banner in the field—an honour to which no one of inferior rank could pretend.
Military aid was commonly all the rent which was required of a vassal. Sometimes, however, sums of money which now appear ludicrously small, or provisions for the lord’s household, were also demanded; and not unusually these payments were commuted for a broad arrow, a falcon, or a red rose. From such rents numerous coats of arms doubtless originated.
Knights are addressed asSir, derived from the French Sire or Sieur, which was primarily applied to lords of a certain territory, as Le Sieur de Bollebec. This title was not limited to knighthood, for the great barons also used it. So also did ecclesiastics, even those holding very small benefices. I have found no instances of priests being called Sir, since the Reformation, except Shakspeare’s Sir Hugh Evans, in the Merry Wives of Windsor, and there the dramatist evidently alludes to the practice of earlier times than his own. Two other applications of the expression may be noticed—Sireis a very respectful mode of address to a king; but what shall we say of the Scots, who apply it in the plural to women, and even to an individual of that sex—Eh Sirs?
To distinguish this, the most antient order of knights, from those of the Garter, Bath, and others, they are called Knights-Bachelors. (“What,” asks Nares, “are the wives and children of abachelor?”) The etymology of this word in all its senses, is extremely obscure; so much so that scarcely any two authorities are agreed upon it. Menage, according to Johnson, derives it frombas chevalier; an unfortunate hypothesis, certainly, for it would make the compound word mean ‘knight low-knight.’
Knighthood at the present day, so far from being restricted to the profession of war, is often given, says Clark,[242]“to gownsmen, physicians, burghers, and artists.” Nares adds, “brewers, silversmiths, attorneys, apothecaries, upholsterers, hosiers, and tailors;” and continues, “I do by no means wish to see such persons placed out of the reach of honours, or deprived of the smiles and favours even ofroyalty. King Alfred undoubtedly showed his wisdom in honouring merchants.” He regards knighthoodinappropriate, however, to the avocations named; but surely he could not have reflected that the successive changes which have come over the face of society have altered the import of nearly every title amongst us. The title of duke (dux, general) is as inappropriate when bestowed upon a civilian as that of knight—nay, more so; for in knighthood the erroneous application dies with the person honoured, while the dukedom (generalship) is hereditary.
The lowest titles borne in England are those ofEsquireandGentleman—titles which Coke (as Blackstone observes) has confounded together. Nor is it easy to discriminate between them, as every esquire is a gentleman, although every gentleman may not be an esquire. In the reign of Henry VI this difference is observable, namely, that the heads of families were commonly accounted esquires, while younger sons were styled gentlemen.
Esquireship, like knighthood, is a military dignity; and its origin is perfectly clear. In the earliest times, possibly in the days of Olybion himself, every warrior of distinction was attended by his armour-bearer. Hence in the romances of the middle ages we find the knight almost invariably attended by a subordinate personage, half-friend, half-servant, who carried his shield and other armour, and who thence acquired the designation of ecuyer, esquire, or (Anglicè) shield-bearer. In later periods, knights selected one, or more frequently, several, of their principal or most valiant retainers, to officiate as esquires during a campaign. These, in the event of a successful issue of the war, they often enriched with lands and goods, giving them, at the same time, the privilege of bearing armorial ensigns, copied in partfrom their own, or otherwise, according to circumstances.[243]After such a grant the person honoured became an esquire in another sense, as the bearer ofhis own shield; and in this sense all persons at the present day whose claim to bear arms would be admitted by the proper functionaries, are virtually,scutifers,armigers, oresquiers. But there is a more restricted use of the term, bearing relation to the honour in a civil rather than a military aspect, as we shall shortly see.
By the courtesies of common life, now-a-days, every person a little removed from theignobile vulgusclaims to be an esquire; and comparatively few, even among the better informed classes, know in what esquireship really consists. For the behoof of such as are confessedly ignorant of this branch of heraldry, and are not too proud to learn, I subjoin the following particulars, gathered from various respectable authorities.Realesquires, then, are of seven sorts:
1. Esquires of the king’s body, whose number is limited to four.
2. The eldest sons of knights, andtheireldest sons born during their lifetime. It would seem that, in the days of antient warfare, the knight often took his eldest son into the wars for the purpose of giving him a practical military education, employing him meanwhile as his esquire. Such certainly was Chaucer’ssquier. With the knight
“ther was his son, a youngSquier,A lover, and a lusty bachelor...And he hadde be somtime in chevachie,[244]In Flaunders, in Artois, and Picardie.”
3. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers of the realm.
4. Such as the king invests with the collar of SS, including the kings of arms, heralds, &c. The dignity of esquire was conferred by Henry IV and his successors, by the investiture of the collar and the gift of a pair of silver spurs. Gower the poet was such an esquire by creation. In the ballad of the King (Edward IV) and the Tanner of Tamworth we find the frolicsome monarch creating a dealer in cowhides a squire in this manner:
“A coller, a coller here, sayd the king,A coller he loud gan crye;Then would he[245]lever than twentye pound,He had not beene so nighe.A coller, a coller, the tanner he sayd,I trowe it will breed sorrowe;After acollercommeth ahalter,I trow I shall be hang’d to-morrowe.”
5. Esquires to the knights of the Bath,for life, and their eldest sons.
6. Sheriffs of countiesfor life, coroners and justices of the peace, and gentlemen of the royal household, while they continue in their respective offices.
7. Barristers-at-law, doctors of divinity, law, and medicine, mayors of towns, and some others, are said to be of scutarial dignity, but not actual esquires.
Supposing this enumeration to comprise all who are entitled to esquireship, it will be evident that thousands ofpersons styled esquires are not so in reality. It is a prevailing error that persons possessed of £300 a year in land are esquires, but an estate of £50,000 would not confer the dignity. Nothing but one or other of the conditions above mentioned is sufficient; yet there are some who contend that the representatives of families whose gentry is antient and unimpeachable, and who possess large territorial estates, are genuine esquires. This, however, does not seem to have been the opinion of such persons themselves two or three centuries ago, for we find many gentlemen possessing both these qualifications who, in documents of importance, such as wills and transfers of property, content themselves with the modest and simple style ofYeoman.
The mention of the word yeoman reminds us of the misappropriation of this expression in modern times. The true definition of it, according to Blackstone, is, one “that hath free land of forty shillings by the year; who is thereby qualified to serve on juries, vote for knights of the shire, and do any other act where the law requires one that isprobus et legalis homo.” Now, however, it is applied almost exclusively to farmers of the richer sort,[246]even though they do not possess a single foot of land. The yeomen of the feudal ages were as much renowned for their valorous deeds on thebattle-field, as those of a later period were for their wealth. In the sixteenth century it was said—
“A knight of Cales, a squire of Wales,And a laird of the North Countree,A Yeoman of Kent, with his yearly rent,Would buy them out all three.”
It is much to be regretted that this substantial class of men is almost extinct. To how few are the words of Horace now applicable—
“Beatus ille, qui procul negotiis,Ut prisca gens mortalium,Paterna rurabobus exercet suis.”“Happy the man whose wish and careA few paternal acres bound;Content to breathe his native airOn his own ground.”
But I am violating the laws of precedence in noticing yeomen before gentlemen. The termgentlemanis, perhaps, one of the most indefinite in the English language. George IV prided himself in being the finest gentleman in Europe; every peer of the realm is agentleman; every judge, member of parliament, and magistrate is agentleman; every clergyman, lawyer, and doctor is agentleman; every merchant and tradesman is agentleman; every farmer and mechanic is agentleman; every draper’s errand-boy and tailor’s apprentice is agentleman; and every ostler who, “in the worst inn’s worst room,” treats the stable-boy with a pot of ale is thereupon declared to be agentleman. So say the courtesies ofsociety; but there is the legal and heraldric, as well as the social, gentleman.
“As forGentlemen(says Sir Thomas Smith[247]) they be made good cheape in this kingdom: for whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth liberal sciences, and (to be short) who can live idly and without manual labour, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and taken for a gentleman.” This is the legal definition; but the heralds of former days recognized several different classes of gentlemen; Sir John Ferne, in his ‘Blazon of Gentry,’[248]enumerates the following:
1. Gentlemen of ancestry, with blood and coat-armour perfect; namely, those whose ancestors, on both sides, have, for five generations at least, borne coat-armour.
2. Gentlemen of blood and coat-armour perfect, but not of ancestry; being those descended in the fifth degree from him ‘that slewe a Saracen or Heathen Gentle-man;’ from him that won the standard, guidon, or coat-armour of a Christian gentleman, and so bare his arms; from him that obtained arms by gift from his sovereign; or from him that purchased an estate to which arms appertained. To this order likewise belong a yeoman who has worthily obtained arms and knighthood; and a yeoman who has been made a doctor of laws and has obtained a coat of arms.
3. Gentlemen of blood perfect, and coat armour imperfect; the ‘yonger blouds’ of a house, of which the elder line has failed after a lineal succession of five generations.
4. Gentlemen of blood and coat-armour imperfect; thethirdin lineal descent from him who slew a Saracen gentleman,&c. &c. &c., as under the third description; also the natural son of a gentleman of blood and coat-armour perfect, and the legitimate son of a yeoman, by a gentlewoman of blood, &c., being an inheritrix.
5. Gentlemen of coat-armour imperfect: those who have slain an infidel gentleman, &c.,ut supra; also gentlemen ofpaper and wax.
6. Gentlemen, neither of blood nor coat-armour, are of three orders; namely, 1,Apocrafat—Students of common law and grooms of the sovereign’s palace, having no coat-armour; 2,Spiritual—A churl’s son made a priest, canon, &c.; and 3,Untriall—He who being brought up in the service of a bishop, abbot, or baron, enjoys the bare title of gentleman; and he that having received any degree of the schools, or borne any office in a city so as to be salutedMaster.
As Saracen-killing has long ceased to be a favourite amusement,—as the winning of standards is an undertaking as rare as it is perilous,—as few in protestant England have the good fortune to serve abbots and bishops,—and, as a grant of arms by the heralds is a somewhat expensive affair,—how very few have now the chance of becominggentlemenin the heraldrical sense of the term. Widely at variance with the courtesies of every-day life are these antiquated laws of chivalry!
We have seen that nearly every man, from the throne to the stable, each in his own sphere, is recognized as a gentleman; yet how few, notwithstanding, like to be so described in a legal, formal manner. Formerly, it was customary to addGent., as an honourable distinction to one’s name, in the address of his letters, in his will, or upon his tombstone; but in these days nothing short ofEsq.is deemed respectful.This foible, however, is not a thing of yesterday; for so long ago as 1709, Mr. Isaac Bickerstaff, of the Tatler, says: “I have myself a couple of clerks; one directs to Degory Goosequill,Esquire, to which the other replies by a note to Nehemiah Dashwell,Esquire, with respect.”
What courtesy at first concedes, the party honoured soon learns to exact. The tenacity with which many persons of some pretensions to family, but with very few of the other qualifications which are supposed to belong to the character of a gentleman, adhere to the courtesy title ofEsq.must have been observed by every one. I have heard of persons of this description, who, from the pressure of circumstances, have entered into trade, being mortified by its omission; though their own good sense must have suggested to them the absurdity of such an address as “Nicholas Smith, Esq. Tailor,” or “Geoffry Brownman, Esq. Butcher.” Not long since asquireenof this order (in a southern county), who eked out the little residuum of his patrimony by the occupation of a farm comprising a few acres of hops, on receiving a letter from the local excise-officer respecting the hop-duty with which he was charged, felt his dignity much insulted at being styled in the address plainMr.Full of rage at the insolence of the official, he appealed to the collector, expecting, probably, that he would reprimand the offender with great severity. The collector, however, treated the matter as a joke, but ordered his clerk to strike outMr.from the beginning of the name, and to addEsq.at the end. This was not satisfactory to the insulted party, who determined to appeal to a higher court. He accordingly paid a visit to the magistrates in petty sessions assembled at H——, and a dialogue somewhat like the following took place.
Chairman.What is your application?
Squireen(with a low salaam). Sir, I come here to have my title confirmed.
Chairman(in surprise). To what title do you allude, Sir?
Sq.I have the honour to be an Esquire; and I have here a document to show that I have not been treated with the respect due to my rank. I demand a summons for the writer of this letter.
The letter was handed to the bench, and the chairman, looking doubtfully at his colleagues, requested our squireen to withdraw while his application was considered. He withdrew accordingly, and the magistrates were not a little amused with the case. Fortunately, a gentleman who had witnessed the scene before the collector happened to be present, and he having related the particulars, the bench ordered the applicant to be recalled. The cry of “N. M.Esquire! N. M.Esquire!” resounded along the room and down the staircase. That gentleman responded to the call with great alacrity, and approached the bench with another profound obeisance; while the chairman, assuming all the gravity he could command, said—
Sir; the magistrates have considered your application, and although they would not feel justified in issuing a summons against the offending party, yet they have come to an unanimous decision that your claim to be considered an Esquire is well founded. Sir, I have the satisfaction to inform you thatYOUR TITLE IS CONFIRMED!
A third inclination followed this highly satisfactory sentence, and our Esquire left the court with as much dignity as if he had just been created an earl, or rather with as much as Don Quixote exhibited in the stable-yard, after the innkeeper had conferred upon him the honour of knighthood.
TheCountry Squiresmay be regarded as an extinct race; and though in the present advanced state of society we can scarcely wish to see that rude and stalwart order revived, yet there are many parts of their character which certainly deserve the imitation of their more polished descendants. The subjoined description of an antient worthy of this class, Mr. Hastings, of Dorsetshire,[249]though familiar to many readers, I venture to introduce.
“Mr. Hastings was low of stature, but strong and active, of a ruddy complexion, with flaxen hair. His clothes were always of green cloth, his house was of the old fashion, in the midst of a large park, well stocked with deer, rabbits, and fishponds. He had a long narrow bowling-green in it, and used to play with round sand bowls. Here, too, he had a banquetting room built, like a stand, in a large tree! He kept all sorts of hounds, that ran buck, fox, hare, otter, and badger; and had hawks of all kinds, both long and short winged. His great hall was commonly strewed with marrow-bones, and full of hawk-perches, hounds, spaniels, and terriers. The upper end of it was hung with fox-skins of this and the last year’s killing. Here and there a polecat was intermixed, and hunters’ poles in great abundance. The parlour was a large room, completely furnished in the same style. On a broad hearth, paved with brick, lay some of the choicest terriers, hounds, and spaniels. One or two of the great chairs had litters of cats in them, which were not to be disturbed. Of these, three or four always attendedhim at dinner, and a little white wand lay by his trencher to defend it, if they were too troublesome. In the windows, which were very large, lay his arrows, crossbows, and other accoutrements. The corners of the room were filled with his best hunting and hawking poles. His oyster table stood at the lower end of the room, which was in constant use twice a day, all the year round, for he never failed to eat oysters both at dinner and supper, with which the neighbouring town of Pool supplied him. At the upper end of the room stood a small table with a double desk, one side of which held a Church Bible, the other the Book of Martyrs. On different tables in the room lay hawks-hoods, bells, old hats, with their crowns thrust in, full of pheasants’ eggs; tables, dice, cards, and store of tobacco-pipes. At one end of this room was a door, which opened into a closet, where stood bottles of strong beer, and wine, which never came out but in single glasses, which was the rule of the house; for he never exceeded himself, nor permitted others to exceed. Answering to this closet, was a door into an old chapel, which had been long disused for devotion; but in the pulpit, as the safest place, was always to be found a cold chine of beef, a venison pasty, a gammon of bacon, or a great apple-pie, with thick crust, well baked. His table cost him not much, though it was good to eat at. His sports supplied all, but beef and mutton, except on Fridays, when he had the best of fish. He never wanted a London pudding, and he always sang it in with “My part lies therein-a.” He drank a glass or two of wine at meals; put syrup of gillyflowers into his sack; and had always a tun glass of small beer standing by him, which he often stirred about with rosemary. He lived to be an hundred, and never lost his eyesight, nor used spectacles. He got on horsebackwithout help, and rode to the death of the stag at fourscore.”[250]
In consequence of the cheapness of titles in foreign countries, our esquires and gentry are frequently undervalued by strangers, who can form no idea of an untitled aristocracy. We are accustomed to consider no families noble except those possessing the degree of baron, or some superior title; and the branches, even of a ducal house, after a certain number of removes from the titled representative cease to be noble. On the continent it is otherwise: all the descendants of a peer are noble. Our antient gentry, possessed of the broad lands which have descended to them through a long line of ancestors, are virtually more noble, in the heraldric sense of the term, than dukes and marquises who are but of yesterday. New nobility cannot compensate for the want of antient gentry.
The caviller will perhaps ask, concerning some of the rambling observations contained in this chapter, and the subject which has called them forth,Cui bono?He may also mutter something about the nobility of virtue, as the only one worth possessing. Well, well, let him enjoy his opinion, and maintain it if he can; but until he has convinced me that true integrity and exalted benevolence cannot reside beneath a coronet, and that the nobility of station obliterates or neutralizes that of virtue, I shall beg leave also to enjoy mine; admitting, meanwhile, the correctness of a sentiment quaintly, though wisely, advanced by Sir JohnFerne: “That kind of gentry which is but a bare noblenes of bloud, not clothed with vertues (the right colours of a gentleman’s coat-armour) is themeanest, yea, and themost baseof all the rest: for it respecteth but onely the body, being derived from the loynes of the auncestors, not from the minde, which is the habitation of vertue, the inne of reason, and the resemblaunce of God; and, in true speach, this gentry of stockonlyshal be said but a shadow, or rather a painture of nobility.”[251]
Historical Notices of the College of Arms.
(Arms of the College.)[252]
“Their consequence was great in the court, in the camp, and, still more than either, in the council; as negociators they had great influence; they were conspicuous for judgment, experience, learning, and elegance; they gained honour whenever they were employed.”—Noble.
“Their consequence was great in the court, in the camp, and, still more than either, in the council; as negociators they had great influence; they were conspicuous for judgment, experience, learning, and elegance; they gained honour whenever they were employed.”—Noble.
Wehave seen, in a former chapter, that at an early period the sovereign and his greater nobles retained in their respective establishments certain officers called heralds, whose duties have been slightly alluded to. In thepresent chapter the reader will find a hasty sketch of the history of these functionaries in their incorporated capacity as aCollege of Arms.
The College of Arms, or, as it is often called, the “Heralds’ College,” owes its origin as a corporation to a monarch who has the misfortune to occupy a very unenviable place in the scroll of fame; to a man whose abilities and judgment would have received all due honour from posterity had they been coupled with the attributes of justice and benevolence, and attended with a better claim to the sceptre of these realms. But, whatever may be said of Richard III as an usurper, a murderer, and a tyrant, impartial justice awards to him the credit of a wise and masterly execution of the duties of the regal office. Many of the regulations in the state adopted by him and continued by his successors bear the impress of a mind of no despicable order. One of his earliest acts was the foundation of this college. “Personally brave, and nurtured from his infancy in the use of the sword, he was more especially ambitious of preserving the hereditary dignity and superior claims of theWhite Rose. He supported, at his own charge, Richard Champneys, Falcon herald, whom upon his accession he created Gloucester king of arms, and at whose instance he was further induced to grant to the body of heralds immunities of great importance.”[253]His letters patent for this purpose bear date March 2d, 1483, the first year of his reign. The heraldic body, as originally constituted, consisted of twelve of the most approved heralds, for whose habitation he assigned a messuage in the parish of All Saints in London, called Pulteney’s Inn, or Cold Harbore.[254]Asusual with every fraternity of those times, the newly-constituted college had a chaplain, whose stipend was fixed at £20 per annum. The ‘right fair and stately house,’ as it is termed by Stowe, was first presided over by Sir John Wriothesley, or Wrythe, whose arms were assumed by the body, and are still perpetuated on their corporate seal. For the better performance of the duties of the heralds, the kingdom was divided into two provinces, over each of which presided a king of arms. The title of the officer who regulated all heraldric affairs south of the river Trent wasClarenceux, and that of him who exercised jurisdiction northward of it,Norroy. From this statement it must not be inferred that kings of arms had not previously existed, for there were aNorroyand aSurroy[255](q. d. ‘northern king’ and ‘southern king,’) as early as the reign of Edward III; although their duties were not so well defined nor their authority so great as both became after the incorporation of the college. Over both these, as principal of the establishment, was appointedGarter, king of arms, an office instituted by King Henry V, and so called from his official connexion with the order of knighthood bearing that designation. Next in point of dignity to the provincial kings, stood severalheraldsbearing peculiartitles, and the third rank was composed of pursuivants, or students, who could not be admitted into the superior offices until they had passed some years of probationary study and practice in the duties of their vocation. These three degrees, it is scarcely necessary to state, still exist in the corporation. From a very early period Garter exercised, and still continues to exercise, a concurrent jurisdiction with the two Provincial Kings of Arms in the grant of Armorial Ensigns, but he had many exclusive privileges; as the right of ordering all funerals of peers of the realm, the two archbishops, the bishop of Winchester, and knights of the Garter; he only could grant arms to these individuals; he was consequently a person of no inconsiderable importance.
The duties of the officers of arms at this period consisted in attending all ceremonials incident to the king and the nobility, such as coronations, creations, the displaying of banners on the field of battle or in the lists, public festivities and processions, the solemnization of baptisms, marriages, and funerals, the enthronization of prelates, proclamations, and royal journeys or progresses. The importance of the presence of heralds at royal funerals of a somewhat later date, is shown in the two following extracts:[256]
“And incontinent all the heraudes did off their cote-armour, and did hange them upon the rayles of the herse,cryinge lamentablyin French, ‘The noble king Henry the seaveneth is dead;’ and as soon as they had so done, everie heraude putt on his cote-armure againe, and cried with a loude voyce, ‘Vive le noble Henry le viijth.’”
At the interment of Prince Arthur, 1502:
“At every Kurie elyeson an officer of arms with a high voyce said for Prince Arthure’s soule and all Christian soules,Pater-noster.... His officer of arms,sore weeping, toke off his coate of armes, and cast it along over the cheaste right lamentablie.”[257]
The fees demanded on the occasions before recited were considerable, but the officers of arms had another source of revenue, namely, the largesses or rewards for proclaiming the styles and titles of the nobility. These were optional, and generally corresponded to the rank and opulence of the donors. “On Newe-yeares-day,” [1486], says Leland, “the king, being in a riche gowne, dynede in his chamber, and gave to his officers of armes vil.of his Largesse, wher he was cryed in his style accustomede. Also the quene gave to the same officersXLs.and she was cried in her style. At the same time my lady the kyngs moder gaveXXs.and she was cried Largesse iij tymes. De hault, puissaunt, et excellent Princesse, la mer du Roy notre souveraigne, countesse de Richemonde et de Derbye, Largesse. Item, the Duc of Bedeforde gaveXLs.and he was cried, Largesse de hault et puissaunt prince, frere et uncle des Roys, duc de Bedeforde, et counte de Penbroke, Largesse. Item, my lady his wiff gave xiijs.iiijd.and she was cried, Largesse de hault et puissaunt princesse, duchesse de Bedeforde et de Bokingham, countesse de Penbrok, Stafford, Harford, et de Northampton, et dame de Breknok, Largesse. Item, the Reverende Fader in God the Lorde John Fox, Bishop of Excester, privy seale, gaveXXs.Item, th’ Erle of Aroundell gaveXs., and he was cried, Largesse de noble et puissaunt seigneur le counte d’Aroundell, et seigneur de Maltravers. Item, th’ Erle of Oxinforde gave xxs.and he was cryede, Largesse de noble et puissaunt le Counte d’Oxinforde,Marquis de Develyn, Vicount de Bulbik, et Seigneur de Scales, Graunde Chamberlayn, et Admirall d’Angleter, Largesse. Item, my lady his wiffXXs.and she was cried, Largesse de noble et puissaunt Dame la Countesse d’Oxinford, Marquise de Develyn, Vicountesse de Bulbik, et Dame de Scales, &c. &c.”
Another perquisite of the heraldic corps were great quantities of the rich stuffs, such as velvet, tissue, and cloth of gold, used as the furniture of great public ceremonials. The following are some of the fees claimed by the officers on state occasions, as recorded in one of the Ashmolean MSS.
“At the coronacion of the Kinge of England cl.[258], appareled in scarlet.“At the displaying of the King’s banner in any campe ... c markes.“At the displaying of a Duke’s banner, £20.“At a Marquis’s, 20 markes.“At an Earle’s, xl., &c. &c.“The Kinge marrying a wife £50,with the giftes of the King’s and Queen’s uppermost garments!“At the birth of the King’s eldest son, 100 markes; at the birth of other younger children, £20.“The King being at any syge (siege) with the crowne on his head, £5.“The wages due to the officers of armes when they go owt of the land:“Garter 8s.a day: every of the other kings 7s.: every herald 4s.: every pursuivant 2s.: and theyr ordinary expences.”
“At the coronacion of the Kinge of England cl.[258], appareled in scarlet.
“At the displaying of the King’s banner in any campe ... c markes.
“At the displaying of a Duke’s banner, £20.
“At a Marquis’s, 20 markes.
“At an Earle’s, xl., &c. &c.
“The Kinge marrying a wife £50,with the giftes of the King’s and Queen’s uppermost garments!
“At the birth of the King’s eldest son, 100 markes; at the birth of other younger children, £20.
“The King being at any syge (siege) with the crowne on his head, £5.
“The wages due to the officers of armes when they go owt of the land:
“Garter 8s.a day: every of the other kings 7s.: every herald 4s.: every pursuivant 2s.: and theyr ordinary expences.”
To return to the thread of our history: at the death of Richard III,[259]all his public acts were declared null and void, as those of an usurper, and the heraldic body, in common with others, fell under the censure of Henry. Driven from their stately mansion of Cold-Harbour, they betook themselves to the conventual house of Rounceval, near Charing Cross, which had been a cell to the priory of Rouncevaulx, in Navarre, and suppressed with the rest of the alien priories by the jealous policy of Henry V. Here they remained for many years, though only by sufferance, for Edward VI granted the site to Sir Thomas Cawarden.
It must not be imagined that the heralds were created merely for the purpose of acting as puppets in the pageantry of the court and the camp: they had other and more useful functions to perform. The genealogies of noble and gentle families were intrusted to their keeping, and thus titular honours and territorial possessions were safely conveyed to lawful heirs, when, in the absence of proper officers, and a recognized depository for documents, much confusion might have been produced by disputed claims. The ecclesiastics had formerly been the chief conservators of genealogical facts, but at the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII, the documents containing them were scattered to the winds. Hence it became necessary to adopt some more general and better regulated means of collecting and transmitting to posterity the materials of genealogy, and out of this necessity sprang those ‘progresses’ of the kings of arms and heralds through the various counties, calledVisitations. Somefaint traces of these visitations occur, it is true, before the Reformation, and even before the incorporation of the heralds, namely, as early as 1412; but it was not until 1528 that they were systematically attended to.[260]After the latter date they were continued about once in every generation, or at intervals varying between twenty-five and forty years. The officers, under the warrant of the earl-marshal, were bound to make inquisitions respecting the pedigree of every family claiming the honour of gentry, and to enter the names, titles, places of abode, &c. in a book. Many such books, between the date just referred to and the year 1687, are now existing in the College of Arms, while many copies of them, and a few of the originals, are in the British Museum and in private collections. To most of the pedigrees thus entered were attached the family arms, which received the confirmation of the ‘kings’ when satisfactory evidence of the bearer’s right to them could be adduced.[261]When a family from any circumstance did not bear arms, a coat was readily granted by the kings, who received fees proportioned to the rank of the parties; for example:
A bishop paid £10.
A dean £6 13s.4d.
A gentleman of 100 marks per annum, in land, £6 13s.4d.
A gentleman of inferior revenue £6.
The passion for emblazoning the arms of the nobility and gentry upon glass, in the windows of churches and halls, imposed considerable employment, and brought no small emolument, to the officers of arms, who undertook to marshal and arrange them, as well as often to draw up short pedigrees of such families, which were set forth in the gloomy chancel or the sombre hall of the long-descended patron or lord of the mansion, exemplified with the shield rich in quarterings.[262]
Henry VIII was a great admirer of the “pomp and circumstance” of chivalry. During his reign the College was in high estimation and full employment. At home and abroad he was constantly attended by his heralds, some of whom were often despatched to foreign courts, to assist in negociations, to declare war, to accompany armies, to summon garrisons, to deliver the ensign of the order of St. George (the Garter) to foreign potentates, to attendbanquets, jousts, and tournaments, and to serve upon every great occasion of state. “There was nothing performed,” says Noble,[263]“of a public nature, but what the heralds were employed in.”
The history of this reign teems with curious anecdotes touching the dignity and prerogatives of the heralds. So great was the regard entertained by the ‘bluff’ monarch for the officers of arms, that he treated even those of foreign sovereigns, who came to his court to deliver hostile messages, with all the courtesy inculcated by the laws of chivalry, and even gave them bountiful largesses. For example, when in 1513 ‘Lord Lyon, King at Arms,’ came to him at Tours upon an errand of a very disagreeable character from the Scottish court, his majesty sent Garter with him to his tent, commanding him to give him ‘good cheer;’ and when his reply to the message was framed he dismissed him courteously, with a gift of one hundred angels.[264]Although the persons of the heralds, in their ambassadorial capacity, were generally regarded as sacred, they sometimes received very rough treatment from desperate enemies. On one occasion, Ponde, Somerset herald, going to Scotland with a message to James V, was slain in his tabard—a violation of the laws of honour which was only compensated by the death of the bailiff of Lowth and two others, who were publicly executed at Tyburn in the summer of 1543.
“It is singular,” says Noble, “that in this reign it was usual to give to pieces of ordnance the same names as those appropriated to the members of the college; names, we must presume, dear to the sovereign and cherished by the people.”[265]
At the Field of the Cloth of Gold, in 1520, the heraldiccorporation attended in magnificent array. It then consisted of the following members: