Dignities and Distinctions. Worth of Heraldry. |
  The only individuals who affect to sneer at heraldic pursuits and studies are those of apocryphal gentility, or whose ancestral reminiscences are associated with the rope sinister, or some such distinctive badge. Heraldry is, however, a branch of the hieroglyphical language, and the only branch which has been handed down to us with a recognised key. It in many cases represents the very names of persons, their birth, family, and alliances; in others it illustrates their ranks and titles; and in all is, or rather was, a faithful record of their illustrious deeds, represented by signs imitative and conventional. Taking this view of the question, it is evident that it is capable of vast improvements: in fact, a well-emblazoned shield might be made practically to represent, at a single glance, a synopsis of biography, chronology, and history. Insignia of individuals and races, which are of a kindred character with heraldry, at least in its original form and design, may be recognised among the nations of antiquity, and may perhaps be carried back to the primeval ages of Egyptian history. The Israelites, from their long captivity familiarized with such objects, naturally adopted them as distinguishing characteristics; and Sir W. Drummond believed that the twelve tribes adopted the signs of the zodiac as their respective ensigns; “nor,” as has been observed, “does the supposed allusion to those signs by Jacob imply anything impious, magical, or offensive to the Deity.” The heraldry (?) of the heroic ages may be traced in the pages of Homer and Æschylus; and in the succeeding generations we have testimony of the adoption of a sort of armorial bearings by the princes of Greece. Omitting Nicias, Lamachus, Alcibiades, and others on record, we will merely observe that the arms of Niochorus, who slew Lysander, were a dragon, thus realizing the prediction of the oracle, Fly from Oplites’ watery strand;
The earth-born serpent too beware.
Nor were mottos by any means unfrequent. The shield which Demosthenes so pusillanimously threw away was inscribed “To good Fortune.” The animals which are frequently represented within shields on the Roman vases sufficiently establish the fact, that this usage was common amongst that great people; and the striking example of a goat, on a specimen in the British Museum, might, by analogy, without any great stretch of imagination, be ascribed to the family of Caprus! Students of heraldry are commonly great enthusiasts; so that, in its pursuit, they are apt to depreciate more important subjects. We remember to have heard an amateur herald, who had filled all his windows with arms of his own painting, condemn Mr. Salt’s collection of Egyptian Antiquities in terms of unmistakeable contempt! Heralds’ College. The corporation of the College of Arms consists of 13 officers—namely, three Kings of Arms (Garter, Clarenceux, and Norroy), and, we believe, six heralds and four pursuivants. According to a Parliamentary Return, the most onerous of their duties is the preservation and safe custody of the vast mass of records and evidences which relate to the genealogical history, pedigrees, and arms of the nobility and gentry of England, from the earliest period to the present time. These officers have no Government grant, but they are household servants of the Crown, under the Earl Marshal; and their duty as such consists in the ordering and conducting all public funerals, such State ceremonials as coronations, and other ceremonials where the person of the Sovereign is more immediately concerned. For these services they receive salaries, the aggregate amount of which to the 13 officers is 252l. 18s. per annum. In their capacity of household servants they also receive certain fees on the creation of dignities and upon the installation of Knights of the Garter, paid by the persons on whom such honours are conferred. A herald and a pursuivant answer all public inquiries, make such searches as may be required, and give official extracts from records; the fees received for such searches and extracts amounted to 94l. in 1861. From all these sources, therefore, they received 600l. in that year. The officers of arms are the agents through whom applications are made to the Earl Marshal (acting in this behalf on the part of the Crown) for the registration of armorial bearings, or the solicitation of the Royal licence for a change of name, or change of name and arms. For the one case it becomes the duty of the officers of arms to see that no memorial be presented to the Earl Marshal by any individual not occupying a fit station in life for such distinction; and in the other that no petition be, through them, presented to the Crown, the allegations of which have not been, before such presentation, fully established, inasmuch as the Crown accepts and endorses such allegations, and directs the Earl Marshal to make them matter of record. The number of these patents and grants of arms or change of name or arms has been 869 in the period from 1850 to 1862 inclusive. The fees taken upon them are:—For grants on voluntary applications, 66l. 10s. and 10l. stamp duty; under Royal licences, 66l. 10s. and 48l. 17s. 6d. for exemplifications, 3l. 10s. of which goes to the Home-office; for grants of supporters, 55l.; for grants to wives or spinsters, 53l. and 10l. stamp duty; for grants of quarterings, 42l. 10s. and 10l. stamp duty; for grants of crests, 42l. 10s. and 10l. stamp duty; and for change of name, 44l. 13s., whereof 10l. 2s. 6d. goes to the Home-office. The Shamrock. Mrs. Lankester describes the Wood-sorrel (Oxalis acetosella) as easily recognised by its three delicately-green leaflets with longish stalks, marked with a darkish crescent in the centre, veined, and its lovely white flowers which at first sight resemble the wood-anemone. There are few walks or shady woods where, in the early spring, the bright half-folded green leaves of this pretty little plant may not be found. The tiny white flowers with their delicate purple veins are called, by the Welsh, “fairy bells,” and are believed to ring the merry peals which call the elves to “moonlight dancing and revelry.” Among the Druids its triple leaflets were regarded as a mysterious symbol of a Trinity, the full meaning of which was involved in darkness. So, too, St. Patrick chose this leaf as his symbol to illustrate the doctrine he sought to teach, and converted many by the apt use of an illustration derived from a plant already sacred in the eyes of his hearers. The original shamrock was undoubtedly the Oxalis, though the name became applied to all sorts of trefoiled plants. It is, however, suspected that any three-leaved plant may be called the shamrock, the wood-sorrel no more undoubtedly than the Dutch clover, all leaves of this kind having been beheld with superstitious veneration, as possessing— The holy trefoil’s charm. Irish Titles of Honour. Titles of honour are still borne by the representatives of some of the old Milesian families in Ireland. Some of these titles have become extinct in course of time, such as the M‘Carty More, the White Knight, the O’Sullivan Bear, the O’Moore, &c., and some have been merged in peerages. The O’Bryens in the titles of Thomond (now extinct) and Inchiquin, the O’Neills in an Earldom (extinct), the O’Callaghan in Lord Lismore, and the descendant and representative of the O’Byrnes in Lord de Tabley. But the following titles are still preserved and generally acknowledged:— These are the O’Donoghue of the Glens, the O’Conor Don, the Knight of Kerry, the Knight of Glen, the O’Grady, the M‘Gillicuddy of the Reeks; and the M‘Dermot, Prince of Coolvain. The two first of these represent Irish constituencies, and it is believed are the only Irish chieftains who have adhered to the national religion; all the others are Protestants. Indeed, it is a curious circumstance that while we see the O’Neills, the O’Briens, the O’Callaghans, the O’Byrnes, indeed almost all the lineal descendants of the old Irish families, staunch Protestants (some of them even Orangemen; the late Lord O’Neill was Grand Master of the Orangemen); we find, on the other hand, that the leading Roman Catholic nobility and gentry in Ireland are mostly of English and Protestant extraction. Thus the Brownes, Earls of Kenmare, came over originally in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; and being Protestants obtained large grants of the O’Donoghue property in Kerry, forfeited by Roderick O’Donoghue, in the reign of Elizabeth, and by Geoffrey O’Donoghue, “dead in rebellion,” in the reign of her successor. The Earls of Kenmare are now, as is well known, at the head of the Irish Roman Catholic peerage, and so of the Dillons, Plunkets, Burkes, Nugents, Prestons, and other Irish Roman Catholic families of importance; they are all, with few exceptions, of English and Protestant descent, while we have seen that the descendants of the native Irish are almost all Protestants. The Scotch Thistle. Many different species have been dignified with the name of Scotch Thistle. It is probable, say some authorities, that a common species, such as Carduus lanceolatus, is most deserving the name. Some have fixed on doubtful native species, such as Silybum Marianum and Onopordum Acanthium. Neither of these is, however, reconcilable with history. S. Marianum is appropriated by the Roman Catholic Church, who say the white marking on the foliage is commemorative of the milk of the Virgin Mary. O. Acanthium is not only, like the last, a doubtful original species to Scotland, but, like C. lanceolatus, of much too great a height; for one historian says that, after the landing of Queen Scota, she reviewed her troops; and, being fatigued, retired; and, on sitting down, was pricked by a thistle; from which circumstance she adopted it as the arms of her new country, with the motto, Nemo me impune laccssit. Another says, on the eve of an attack by the Danes, one of the enemy having trod on a thistle, cried out with pain, which gave intimation to the Scots of their near presence; and hence the thistle became dignified as the arms of the country. With these two exceptions, we meet with no other reference to a matter of equal importance, in an historical point of view, with that of the legends in connexion with the Coronation Stone, which all historians have treated on with great minuteness. However, if any reliance may be placed on the authorities above given, it is quite clear that it must have been a low-growing species like Cnivus acaule; for, whether we take into consideration the accident to the Queen or the bare-footed Dane, or the configuration of the flower-head itself, it more closely resembles the representations we find on many of the sculptured stones than either of the others. Some have supposed it to be Carduus acanthoides; but this, as well as all the rest, is less formidably furnished with those strong spiny scales with which the receptacle of Silybum Marianum is so amply provided. This circumstance agrees with the sculptured representations found on the oldest parts of Stirling Castle, Linlithgow Palace, or Holyrood House, especially with one on the top of a garden doorway opposite the new fountain, in front of the entrance to the latter, which is more like the head of Cynara Scolymus, the globe artichoke, a native of the South of Europe, than any thistle in the world. Uncertain as the Scotch are regarding the species of their national emblem, or even of its being a native, they are no more so than the English are regarding the species of rose they have adopted. No double rose existed in Britain at the period it was introduced into the national escutcheon; therefore, it must have been borrowed from the French; who even, in their turn, cannot now tell what species of iris their fleur-de-lis is meant to represent. Nor are the Irish agreed as to whether their shamrock is derived from a series of Trifolium, or from Oxalis acetosella. The ancient Britons, as the Welsh call themselves, have adopted the leek, Allium porum, a native of Switzerland.—Scottish Farmer. King and Queen. It is curious to find Lord Buckhurst and Recorder Fleetwood engaged in a conversation on the excellency of the regal dignity of a King, as they rode from London to Windsor in the reign of Elizabeth, (1575,) in the company of the Earl of Leicester, who travelled according to his own pompous notions, with divers knights and noble gentlemen, and a princely cavalcade of attendants. Mr. Recorder, riding between my Lord of Leicester and Lord Buckhurst, as they passed “alonge by Saint James’s walles,” began the debate; when the great lawyer laid down:[4] “I doe read that this worde Kinge is a Saxon terme, and doe originallye comme and growe out of this ould Saxon word cynin?, which doth signefie a cuninge, a wyse, a virtuous, a polleticque, and a prudent person, fitt to governe as well in peace as in warres; and this word Queene, in the same tongue, is in effect of the same force, referringe the same to the female sex, and therefore it is to be noted that the crowne of England is not alwayes bound especiallye to be governed by the male; but yf there wante heyres males, then ought it to descend to the heyres females, as it appeareth by the judgmente given touchinge the dawghters of Zelophehad (xxvi. 33 Numbers), and as it did in the tyme of the Bryttons descend upon Queen Cordeila, who was queene of this realme before the Incarnation of Christ 805 years, even at that tyme that the good King Ozias did repayer the cittye of Jerusalem, which was in the yeare of the worlde 3358. This Cordeila was dawghter of Kinge Leire, who buylded the auntient cittye of Leicester; yea, and is it a most true and playne matter, that the crowne of England maye descend and come to the female dawghter, where there lacketh heyre male, as it did unto Mawde the Empresse, who was dawghter to Kinge Henrye the First, and by the meane that William, Mary, and Richard, the children of the same King Henry the First, were drowned in the seas by shipwracke, it soe fell out the said Mawde the Empresse became sole heyre, and notwithstandinge an ynterruption made by Kinge Stephen the intruder (for that is his proper addition in the antient chronicles), yett the judgmente fell out for her parte, and she and her posteritye, even to this daye, have justlye and most rightfullye enjoyed the crowne without any enterclayme of anye person that ever hath bine heard of.” To this Leicester replies: “I see that this is a greate and good proofe that the female hath had and enjoyed the crowne of England by just and lawfull tytle,” &c.—ArchÆologia, xxxvii. Title of Majesty, and the Royal “We.” It is a common error to suppose Charles V. to have been the originator of this sovereign title. Its earliest use is to denote the dignity of the Roman people. Thence the Emperors borrowed it as the representatives of the people, in accordance with the Lex Regia. They were called “Majestas Augusta,” and even “Regia Majestas.” In later times this title was applied to the Emperor Louis the Pious; and Charles the Bald assumes it in one of his charters. It is also found attributed to some of the Popes. Charles V. at most gave it fixity and continuance, instead of its being adopted and discontinued by turns. Francis I. of France, at the interview with Henry VIII. of England, on the Field of the Cloth of Gold, addressed the latter as “Your Majesty,” 1520. James I. coupled with this title the term, “Sacred,” and “Most Excellent Majesty.” The royal “We” represents, or was supposed originally to represent, the source of the national power, glory, and intellect, in the august power of the Sovereign. “Le Roi le veut”—the King will have it so—sounded as arrogantly as it was meant to sound in the royal Norman mouth. It is a mere form, now that royalty in England has been relieved of responsibility. In haughtiness of expression it was matched by the old French formula at the end of a decree: “For such is our good pleasure.” The royal subscription in Spain is “Yo, el Re,” I, the King. The first “King’s speech” ever delivered was by Henry I., in 1107. Exactly a century later, King John first assumed the royal “We:” it had never before been employed in England. The same monarch was the first English King who claimed for England the sovereignty of the seas. “Grace,” and “my Liege” were the ordinary titles by which our Henry VI. was addressed. “Excellent Grace” was given to Henry VI., who was not the one, nor yet had the other. Edward IV. was “Most High and Mighty Prince.” Henry VII. was the first English Highness. “Dieu et Mon Droit.” The earliest notice that has been found of the Sovereign’s present motto, “Dieu et mon Droit,” is in the 13th Henry VI., 1435, when a gown, embroidered with silver crowns, and with the motto “Dieu et mon Droit,” is mentioned in a roll at Carlton-ride.—Sir Harris Nicolas; ArchÆologia vol. xxxi. Plume and Motto of the Prince of Wales. Dr. Doran, F.S.A., has thus briefly told their history, profiting in his inquiry by the researches of Sir Harris Nicolas:—“Old Randall Holmes solved the difficulty in his summary way, by asserting that the ostrich feathers were the blazon on the war-banner of the ancient Britons. The only thing that in any way resembles the triple feathers in ancient British heraldry is to be found on the azure shield of arms of King Roderick Mawr, on which the tails of that monarch’s three lions are seen coming between their legs, and turning over their backs, with the gentle fall of the tips, like the graceful bend of the feathers in the Prince’s badge. The feathers themselves, however, do not appear in connexion with our Princes of Wales until after the battle in which the blind King of Bohemia lost his life. The crest of the Bohemian monarch was an eagle’s wing; as for the motto of Ich dien, it was assumed by the Prince to characterize his humility, in accordance with a fashion followed to a late period even by princesses—Elizabeth of York, for instance, took that of “Humble and Reverent.” Edward of Woodstock, therefore, did not adopt either the badge or the legend of the dead King of Bohemia; such is the conclusion at which nearly all persons who have examined into this difficult question have arrived. Nevertheless, John, Count of Luxemburg, was the original style and title of him who was elected King of Bohemia, and fell so bravely and unnecessarily at Cressy. Now, the ostrich feather was a distinction of Luxemburg; and it is from such origin that the Princes of Wales derive the graceful plumes, which are their distinguishing badge, but not their crest. This much is stated by Sir H. Nicolas, in the ArchÆologia (xxxi. 252); and Mr. D’Eyncourt (Gent. Mag. xxxvi. 621) suggests that the King of Bohemia’s crest looks more like ostrich feathers than a vulture’s wing. The question may be considered as having been set at rest by John de Ardern. He was a physician, contemporary with the Black Prince; and in a manuscript of his in the Sloane Collection (76 fo. 61), Ardern distinctly states that the Prince derived the feathers from the blind King. In the directions given in this will for the funeral procession, banners bearing the arms of France and England quarterly, and others with the ostrich-plume, are respectively described as those of war and peace. The ostrich symbolised Justice, its feathers being nearly all of equal length.” Victoria. The first time this name occurs in English history is as belonging to a “Mastres (Mistress) Victoria,” who was one of the attendants, “Gentylwomen,” upon Queen Katherine, when she accompanied her husband, Henry VIII., to the gorgeous meeting of the Field of the Cloth of Gold (June, 1520). Each gentylwoman was allowed “a woman, ij men servantes, and ijj horses.” And the Queen had 265 of all ranks, and they in turn had 999, making the total number 1260 persons. The King’s retinue amounted to 4544; Wolsey had above 400. English Crowns. The crowns worn in former times by the kings of England have varied much in form and material. The Saxon kings had a crown consisting of a simple fillet of gold. Egbert improved its appearance by placing on the fillet a row of points or rays; and after him, Edmond Ironside tipped these points with pearl; William the Conqueror had on his coronet points and leaves placed alternately, each point being tipped with three pearls, while the whole crown was surmounted with a cross. William Rufus discontinued the leaves. Henry I. had a row of fleur-de-lis; from this time to Edward III. the crown was variously ornamented with points and fleur-de-lis, placed alternately; but this monarch enriched his crown with fleur-de-lis and crosses alternately, as at present. Edward IV. was the first who wore a close crown, with two arches of gold, embellished with pearls; and the same form, with trifling variations, has been continued to the present day. The English crown, called the “St. Edward’s crown,” was made in imitation of the ancient crown said to be worn by that monarch, kept in Westminster Abbey till the beginning of the Civil Wars in England, when, with the rest of the regalia, it was seized and sold in 1642. A new crown was prepared for the coronation of Charles II.: it is set with pearls and precious stones, as diamonds, rubies, emeralds, sapphires; it has a mound of gold on the top, enriched with a fillet of the same metal, covered also with precious stones; the cap is of purple velvet, lined with white silk, and turned up with ermine. The Imperial State Crown. Professor Tennant, the well-known mineralogist, thus minutely describes the Imperial State Crown of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, which was made by Messrs. Rundell and Bridge in the year 1838, with jewels taken from old Crowns, and others furnished by command of her Majesty: The Crown consists of diamonds, pearls, rubies, sapphires, and emeralds, set in silver and gold; it has a crimson velvet cap with ermine border, and is lined with white silk. Its gross weight is 39 oz. 5 dwts. troy. The lower part of the band, above the ermine border, consists of a row of one hundred and twenty-nine pearls, and the upper part of the band a row of one hundred and twelve pearls, between which, in front of the Crown, is a large sapphire (partly drilled), purchased for the Crown by His Majesty King George the Fourth. At the back is a sapphire of smaller size, and six other sapphires (three on each side), between which are eight emeralds. Above and below the seven sapphires are fourteen diamonds, and around the eight emeralds one hundred and twenty-eight diamonds. Between the emeralds and sapphires are sixteen trefoil ornaments, containing one hundred and sixty diamonds. Above the band are eight sapphires surmounted by eight diamonds, between which are eight festoons consisting of one hundred and forty-eight diamonds. In front of the Crown, and in the centre of a diamond Maltese cross, is the famous ruby said to have been given to Edward Prince of Wales, son of Edward the Third, called the Black Prince, by Don Pedro, King of Castile, after the battle of Najera, near Vittoria, A.D. 1367. This ruby was worn in the helmet of Henry the Fifth at the battle of Agincourt, A.D. 1415. It is pierced quite through after the Eastern custom, the upper part of the piercing being filled up by a small ruby. Around this ruby, to form the cross, are seventy-five brilliant diamonds. Three other Maltese crosses, forming the two sides and back of the Crown, have emerald centres, and contain respectively one hundred and thirty-two, one hundred and twenty-four, and one hundred and thirty brilliant diamonds. Between the four Maltese crosses are four ornaments in the form of the French fleur-de-lis, with four rubies in the centres, and surrounded by rose diamonds, containing respectively eighty-five, eighty-six, and eighty-seven rose diamonds. From the Maltese crosses issue four imperial arches composed of oak-leaves and acorns; the leaves containing seven hundred and twenty-eight rose, table, and brilliant diamonds; thirty-two pearls forming the acorns, set in cups containing fifty-four rose diamonds and one table diamond. The total number of diamonds in the arches and acorns is one hundred and eight brilliants, one hundred and sixteen table, and five hundred and fifty-nine rose diamonds. From the upper part of the arches are suspended four large pendent pear-shaped pearls, with rose diamond caps, containing twelve rose diamonds, and stems containing twenty-four very small rose diamonds. Above the arch stands the mound, containing in the lower hemisphere three hundred and four brilliants, and in the upper two hundred and forty-four brilliants; the zone and arc being composed of thirty-three rose diamonds. The cross on the summit has a rose-cut sapphire in the centre, surrounded by four large brilliants, and one hundred and eight smaller brilliants. The following is the summary of jewels comprised in the Crown:— | 1 | Large ruby, irregularly polished. | | 1 | Large broad-spread sapphire. | | 16 | Sapphires. | | 11 | Emeralds. | | 4 | Rubies. | | 1363 | Brilliant diamonds. | | 1273 | Rose diamonds. | | 147 | Table diamonds. | | 4 | Drop-shaped pearls. | | 273 | Pearls. | It is difficult to declare what is the precise value of the jewels in the Queen’s crown; but it is confidently affirmed that, unlike most other princely crowns in Europe, whether of kings, emperors, or grand dukes, all the jewels in the British crown are really precious stones; whereas in other state crowns valuable stones have been replaced by coloured glass, and the consequence is that their estimated value is far beyond what such crown jewels are really worth. Queen’s Messengers. The Queen’s foreign-service Messengers are fifteen in number. The first three for service are obliged to be in attendance at the Foreign-office. Formerly there was no distinction between them and the home-service messengers; they were all under the Lord Chamberlain, and their connexion with his office is said to be the origin of the silver greyhound pendent from their badge. At a later period they were transferred to the Secretaries of State, and took journeys abroad indifferently in their turn, but in 1824 there was a separation into home and foreign service. Lord Malmesbury reduced the number of foreign-service messengers from eighteen to fifteen; and these are found quite sufficient, owing to the greater speed with which journeys are now performed, and the introduction of the electric telegraph rendering many journeys unnecessary. The Queen’s messengers formerly had very small salaries, only 60l. a year, but made large profits by mileage and other allowances when employed. The situation was worth 800l. or 900l. a year; it has been altered to a salary of 525l. and the travelling expenses. This was considered by the messengers too great a reduction of their income. Earl Russell has introduced a new plan, giving them salaries of 400l. a year and 1l. a day for their personal expenses while employed abroad, besides their travelling expenses. Queen’s messengers are treated with great kindness and consideration abroad; they are usually invited to the Minister’s table. They are examined on appointment by the Civil Service Commissioners: the qualifications required are an age between twenty-five and thirty-five, some knowledge of French, German, or Italian, and ability to ride on horseback. The home-service messengers occupy a very inferior position. Presents and Letters to the Queen. The resolution of the Royal Family to decline all presents was conveyed, in 1847, to a gentleman at Sheffield, in the following official letter from Sir Denis Le Marchant:—“Whitehall, Oct. 5, 1847: In the absence of Secretary Sir George Grey, I have to acknowledge the receipt of a small box, containing a gold bijou, sent by you to the Queen, as a present for his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales; but, in consequence of the very great number of presents of this nature which have been offered to her Majesty, it has been found absolutely necessary, to avoid the possibility of giving individual offence, that her Majesty should decline presents generally, and the box is therefore declined.” [This rule is not, however, invariably observed.] Again, it is contrary to established rule for the Lord Chamberlain to receive any letter addressed to Her Majesty, if the same be sealed. Sir C. B. Phipps explains in a letter the absence of her Majesty’s name from the subscription-list for the widow of the late Captain Harrison, of the Great Eastern. He states: “It is contrary to established rule for her Majesty the Queen, or the Prince Consort, to join a subscription for a private individual.” The Prince of Waterloo. It will be recollected that, in 1815, the Duke of Wellington received the grant of Prince of Waterloo, which was understood to have been given to his Grace and to his direct descendants. After the death of the Duke in 1852, the question of succession to the title was discussed in the Belgian House of Representatives, when, in reply to a request for information upon the subject, M. FrÈre-Oban stated that, upon inquiry, he had learned that the direct line of the Duke of Wellington was not extinct; for although the rights claimed by his son were contested, because at the time of his birth the system of registration was imperfect or irregular, yet it had subsequently been proved by other means, and particularly by an inscription in a family Bible, that the present Duke was the legitimate offspring of the first Prince of Waterloo, and as such was entitled to be recognised as one of the direct lineal descendants who were included in the original grant. The See of London. It may not be generally known that the See of London was archiepiscopal in the time of the ancient Britons, before the mission of Augustine. In the thousand years which intervened between his era and that of the Reformation, the See of London numbered no less than eighty prelates, the most distinguished of whom were St. Dunstan, Warham, Courtenay, and Bonner, the last of whom was deprived by King Edward VI., and again, after his temporary restoration under Queen Mary, by Elizabeth. The reformed list commences with Bishop Ridley, who was burnt at Oxford under Queen Mary; and from whom the present occupant of the See, Dr. Tait, is twenty-eighth in descent. Among those prelates occur the names of Grindal, Bancroft, Abbott, Laud, Juxon, and Sheldon, all of whom were eventually promoted to archbishoprics—Grindal to York, and the rest to Canterbury. One prelate before the Reformation, Bishop Tonstal, and one since that time, Bishop Montaigne, were translated from London to the wealthier See of Durham; but from Dr. Sheldon, who held the See after the Restoration, down to Dr. Howley, the immediate predecessor of Bishop Blomfield, not a single instance occurs either of a translation from the See of London, or of a direct appointment to the bishopric, except by translation from another see. The Diocese of London, until the last few years, comprised the counties of Essex and Middlesex. By a recent enactment, however, the former county has been transferred to the diocese of Rochester, in exchange for the parishes of Charlton, Woolwich, Deptford, Greenwich, and other suburban districts in the county of Kent. To these at the next avoidance of the See of Winchester will be added the whole of Southwark, Lambeth, Clapham, Wandsworth, Tooting, and Battersea, together with one or two adjoining districts in the county of Surrey. Expense of Baronetcy and Knighthood. The fees chargeable on a Baronetcy in the Heralds’-office are reported by Sir C. G. Young, Garter King-at-Arms, to amount to 21l. 2s. 3d. (payable to the Heralds’ College), besides which there is a sum of 15l. 2s. 4d., “incidental to the creation of a baronet,” and payable for the necessary certificate of his arms and pedigree registered in the college, so that the sum total payable to the Heralds’-office is 36l. 4s. 7d. The newly-created baronet, it would appear, is further mulcted by the Crown-office in the sum total of 257l. 9s. 1d., of which 120l. is for stamps, nearly 58l. for the royal household, and 21l. for the heralds. The Knight Bachelor is required to pay a fee of 9l. 8s. 3d. if the dignity is conferred by the Sovereign; 9l. 13s. 6d. if it is conferred by patent; and 18l. 15s. 2d. when the knighthood is conferred prior to the admission into the Order of the Bath as a G.C.B. This is in the Heralds’-office. In the Crown-office a sum of 155l. 12s. 10d. is exacted, of which 30l. is for stamps and 69l. 19s. 4d. for the royal household. As regards the Order of the Bath, there are no fees chargeable by the Heralds’ College, except on the preliminary grade of common Knighthood already described. The robes, collars, and badges for the Knights of the several Orders are also very costly. The sum of 4625l. 10s. 7d. was charged for items, including four silver boxes for the great seal of the Order of the Garter for the Sultan and the King of Sardinia, repairs of collars, ribands, stationery, &c. The complete robes, of the Order of the Garter for the King of Sardinia cost 346l., and the same for the Sultan (excepting the silver under-dress), 279l. Two mantles of the Garter and one of the Thistle cost 190l. The banner of the King of Sardinia in St. George’s Chapel is charged by the herald painter at 27l. 17s. 6d. The goldsmith charges 2378l. for 140 new military companions’ badges, at 16l. 9s. 9d. each; 195l. for fifteen new civil commanders’ badges, at 13l. each; 302l. for 130 new civil companions’ badges at 10l. 1s. 9½d. each; 157l. for nine new silver enamelled stars (G.C.B.), at 17l. 10s. each; 261l. for eighteen new military K.C.B. stars, at 14l. 10s.; and 295l. for re-enamelling and “making as new” twelve collars and eighty-eight badges, besides other items. These honours have, on some occasions, been made as profitable to the Sovereign as to his officers of State. James I. became the subject of much ridicule, not quite unmerited, for putting honours to sale. He created the order of baronet, which he disposed of for a sum of money; and it seems that he sold common knighthood as low as thirty pounds, at least it was so reported. In the old play of Eastward Hoe, one of the characters says: “I know the man well: he is one of my thirty-pound knights.” The Aristocracy. Mr. Lothair Bucher, in the Transactions of the Philological Society, Berlin, 1858, writes: “One may safely affirm beforehand that the word ARISTOCRACY has been part and parcel of the English language from a very early period. But the Attorney-General in Horne Tooke’s trial (1795) in enumerating the new opinions propagated by the friends of the accused, and the new terms in which they conveyed those opinions, says—‘To the rich was given the name Aristocracy;’ and in considering this application of the term as a new one, he is evidently quite correct.” “Now,” writes a critic in the Saturday Review, “Aristocracy is the name of a particular form of Government; it is an abuse of language to apply it to a class of people. Yet, when one says—‘the Government of Berne was an aristocracy,’ it is a very slight change to speak of ‘the aristocracy of Berne,’ meaning the patrician order, or its members. The word was doubtless brought into use in England because the class which it was intended to stigmatize as an ‘aristocracy’ was a class more extensive than the ‘nobility,’ in the English use of that word. Now the name has ceased to be a stigma. The words ‘aristocrat,’ ‘aristocratic,’ ‘aristocracy,’ are often used in a complimentary way. But, to our taste at least, there is always a smack of vulgarity about them.”
Precedence in Parliament. To the readers of the reports of parliamentary debates, in the newspapers, it may be useful to state, upon the authority of Mr. May, that “in the Commons no places are particularly allotted to members; but it is the custom for the front bench on the right hand of the (Speaker’s) chair to be appropriated for the members of the Administration, which is called the Treasury or Privy Councillors’ Bench. The front bench on the opposite side is usually reserved for the leading members of the Opposition who have served in high offices of State; but other members occasionally sit there, especially when they have any motion to offer to the House. And on the opening of a new Parliament, the members for the city of London claim the privilege of sitting on the Treasury or Privy Councillors’ Bench.”—May, on the Practice and Law of Parliament. Sale of Seats in Parliament. The smaller boroughs having been from the earliest period under the command of neighbouring peers and gentlemen, or sometimes of the Crown, were first observed to be attempted by rich capitalists in the general elections of 1747 and 1755: though the prevalence of bribery in a less degree is attested by the statute-book, and the journals of Parliament from the Revolution, it seemed not to have broken the flood-gates till the end of the reign of George II., or rather perhaps the first part of the next. The sale at least of seats in Parliament, like any other transferable property, is never mentioned in any book that the writer remembers to have seen of an earlier date than 1760. The country gentlemen had long endeavoured to protect their ascendancy by excluding the rest of the community from Parliament. This was the principle of the Bill, which, after being repeatedly attempted, passed into a law during the long administration of Anne, requiring every member of the Commons, except those for the Universities, to possess, as a qualification for his seat, a landed estate, above all incumbrance, of 300l. a-year. The law was, however, notoriously evaded; and was abolished in 1858, by the Act 21 Vict. cap. 26. Placemen in Parliament. In 1694 a bill passed both Houses “touching free and impartial proceedings in Parliament,” against the eligibility of Placemen. On its discussion Mr. Harley, afterwards Earl of Oxford, remarked, that “in the 1st of James I., the Chancellor, studious of the good of the kingdom, sent down to the House of Commons a list of the members in office, and they were turned out of the House, and new members chosen.” King William, however, refused his sanction to this Act. “A Dutchman (says Mr. Burgh) comes over to Britain on pretence of delivering us from slavery, and makes it one of his first works to plunge us into the very vice which has enslaved all the nations of the world that have ever lost their liberties. When the Parliament passed a bill for incapacitating certain persons who might be supposed obvious to Court influence, our glorious Deliverer refused the royal assent.” New Peers. Nothing is more plausible than to talk of strengthening an order by making it more popular in its constitution, &c.; but practically, we know that in early days in England nothing was so unpopular as a batch of bran-new potentates. The proofs are abundant. When James I. began scattering coronets (“crownets,” they called them in old times), a wag issued a pamphlet which professed to teach people “How to remember the names of the Nobility.”—Hannay. The Russells. Hereditary likeness is one of the commonest phenomena in the world, and is an index of the moral resemblance which makes character of a particular class run through a line, and thus, in free countries like ours, produces hereditary politics and affects the fortunes of the State, as was the case at Rome. “A Russell,” says Niebuhr, very justly, “could not be an absolutist; the thing would be monstrous.” This conviction is, no doubt, one excellent reason why Liberals glorify the race with such constancy.—Hannay. [Is not this the reason why Lord John Russell, when raised to the Peerage in 1861, preferred to the Earl of Ludlow the title of Earl Russell? He would not part with the glory.] Political Cunning. 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.” Now, Sir Robert Peel died in 1850, in which year a gentleman named Laurie obtained two royal licences to change his name; first to Northdale, and then to Nuthall, “in compliance with the will of the late Catherine Jack, spinster, of Sloane-street.” In 1851 a lady named Braham was permitted by royal licence to assume the name of Medows, on the plea that she was “the co-heiress expectant” of her aged grandmother, who was so called. In 1852 a gentleman named Rust was granted a royal licence to assume his wife’s maiden name, D’Eye, “out of respect to her memory.” In 1853 a Mr. Penny was allowed to assume the name of Harwood, “by wish of his mother, out of respect to his grandmother.” In 1854 Thomas Clugas, of Guernsey, was permitted by royal licence “to use his paternal name of Clucas.” In 1855 a Miss Galston was allowed to assume the name of Stepney, “out of respect to her maternal ancestors in general.” It is difficult to conceive more trifling grounds than these on which royal licences have been granted in the above-quoted instances. The authorities are, however, divided in their opinions. The Lord Chancellor (in 1863) refused to recognise officially a change of name, because the applicant had not obtained the royal licence to bear that name, and the arms connected with it; while, on the other hand, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has declared that such a licence is unnecessary, and that a name can be legally assumed without it. But the claim to the new name assumed can only be established “by usage of such a length of time as to give the change a permanent character,” a reservation which has clogged the undoubted right of every Englishman to assume any name he pleases, provided the assumption be made bon fide, and with reasonable publicity, while it has the effect of placing everybody at the mercy of any ill-conditioned official who may take pleasure in obstructing him and opposing him. Reference to the London Gazette proves that Royal licences have hitherto been constantly issued from capricious motives, and on no fixed principle whatever. Doubtless, in many cases, they have been granted in furtherance of testamentary conditions connected with property; but they have been quite as often granted merely to enable applicants to avoid names which were distasteful to them, and to assume others which were more agreeable to them. As the qualification which Sir George Grey and the Lord Chancellor appear desirous of affixing to the right to change name, without the assistance of a Royal licence, virtually cancels that right altogether in a vast number of cases, it becomes, in consequence, highly important that the rules by which those indulgences are obtainable, and the amount of the fees which must be paid for them, should be exactly made known. A Parliamentary Return states that since 1850 415 applications have been made for royal licence for a change of name, and 398 licences have been granted. There is a stamp duty of 50l. on every such licence if the change of name is made in compliance with the injunction of any will or settlement, and of 10l. if the application is voluntary. The fees payable are stated to be 10l. 2s. 6d. on a change of name only; 13l. 12s. 6d. on a change of name and arms; and 1l. 7s. 6d. for every additional name inserted in a licence; which fees are paid into the Exchequer. But the return is described as being made only “so far as relates to the Home Secretary’s office,” and therefore does not appear to include fees at the Heralds’ College. To conclude—it does not appear that the Queen either claims or exercises any special prerogative whatever connected with the subject of change of surname; or that a Royal licence is anything more than the recognition in the highest quarter of a voluntary act already accomplished. Its recipient is not even compelled to bear for a day the surname which it authorizes him to assume; nor are other people enjoined by it to recognise him by that name, if they are not inclined to do so. The case of the Right Hon. R. C. Dundas, who in 1836 obtained a Royal licence, in compliance with the conditions of a Will by which he inherited a considerable estate, to bear the name of Christopher only, and who, in spite of that licence and without either procuring its revocat on or obtaining the grant of a fresh one, has since sat in Parliament under the surname of Nisbet, and who now bears the surname of Hamilton, assumed proprio motu, completely establishes this point.
|
  |
