descended of the Ramsays of Wylicleuch in the Merss, who was Page

to King James VI. thereafter Earl of Holdernesse, got for addition

to his Paternal Bearing, "An Arm holding a naked Sword enfilé of

a Crown, with a Man's Heart on the point," because he rescued

King James VI. from the Conspiracy of the Earl of Gowrie and his

Confederates. The Paternal Coat was, "Argent, an Eagle displayed

Sable."[295] These are what the Scottish Heralds call "Arms of

Special Concession."[296]

[295] Nisbet, Cadencies, p. 196.

[296] See Nisbet's Armories.

AYTON,

of Kippo. This Family bears "A Baton Peri Or, couped;" which, Mr.

Nisbet says, is an uncommon Bearing for a younger legitimate Son, it

being a mark of Bastardy by its position; but he tells us, the Baton

of this description, and thus borne, was granted to Sir John Ayton

of Kippo, Knight, by King Charles II. as an Augmentation, because he

had been Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to that King. Upon the

Family Coat he therefore carried "A Baton Sable, charged on the top

with one of the Lions of England."

STIRLING,

of Glorat, carries "Argent, on a Bend engrailed Azure, Three

Buckles Or; a Chief Gules, charged with a Naked Arm issuing out

of a Cloud from the Sinister side, grasping a Sword in pale, and

therewith guarding an Imperial Crown; all within a double Tressure,

counterfleured of Thistles Vert." Which honourable Addition was

granted to this Family for special Services done to King Charles I.

and King Charles II. in their Troubles.

BINNING,

of Easter Binning, a Cadet of Binning of that Ilk, who carried

"Argent, a Bend engrailed Sable," added, for Difference, on the

Bend, a Waggon of the first, because he and his seven Sons went in

a Waggon covered with Hay, and surprised and took the Castle of

Linlithgow, then in the possession of the English, in the Reign of

David the Bruce[297].

[297] Nisbet, Cadencies, p. 195.

LOCKART.

This Name now bears a Man's Heart Proper, within a Padlock Sable, in

perpetuation, they tell you, that one of the Name accompanied the

good Sir James Douglas to Jerusalem, with the Heart of King Robert

the Bruce. Be that as it may, it is intended to play upon the Name;

and, to preserve the Story the more entire, some Branches of the

Family have strengthened it by the Motto, "Corda serata Pando" [some

have it, Fero]. These Devices are differently placed by different

Branches; but Mr. Nisbet insinuates[298] that this Bearing is an

assumption of a modern date; and that the old Arms were, till within

a century before he wrote [1702], "Three Boars' Heads erazed; the

Crest, a Dexter Hand holding a Boar's Head erazed, Proper; the

Motto, 'Feroci Fortior.'"

[298] Marks of Cadency, p. 199.

NORFOLK.

The Duke of Norfolk has an augmentation, _viz._ an _Escocheon Or_,

in the middle of the Bend, charged with a _Demi-Lion_ Rampant,

_pierced through the Mouth with an Arrow_, within a double Tressure

counterfleur'd Gules; which was granted by King Henry VIII. for his

services at the Battle of Flodden Field[299].

[299] Nisbet's Cadencies, pp. 91, 92.

* * * * *

Besides these and many other Bearings, not at this day easily,

if at all, to be accounted for, the Scots have, like ourselves,

several that are responsive to the Name. Of these I have selected

the few which follow, and have given their material Charge, without

attending to the Colours, or to the Blazonry of the whole. Thus

_Cockburn_ has a Charge of Three Cocks.

_Craw_ and _Craufurd_, Three Crows[300].

[300] This Bearing is of late introduction, as alluding to the

Name; for those of the Name anciently gave for Arms "Gules, a Fess

Ermine;" and another Branch gave "Argent, Three Stags' Heads erased

Gules." [Nisbet]. Crawfurd of Cloverhill has a still stronger

relation both to the Name and to his Seat; for to the original

Bearing he adds Three Crows; for Crest has a Garb (or Wheatsheaf);

and for Motto, "God feeds the Crows." Id. p. 57.--Like the Motto of

our Corbet, "Deus pascit Corvos."

_Fraser_, Three Frases or Cinquefoils.

_Falconer_, a Falcon.

_Forester_, Three Bugle Horns; and the Peer of that Name and Title

has for his Motto, "Blow, Hunter, thy Horn."

_Heart_, Three Men's Hearts.

_Hog_, Three Boars' Heads.

_Justice_, A Sword in Pale, supporting a Balance.

_Skene_, Three Daggers, in the Scottish Language called Skenes.

Mottoes.

The Motto of DALZIEL, Earl of CARNWARTH, now an attainted Title, is,

"I Dare;" the reason of which is given by Crawfurd, in his Peerage

of Scotland. The ancient armorial bearing of this Family was, A Man

hanging on a Gallows, though it is now only a Naked Man with his

Arms expanded. Some one of the Family having, perhaps, dropped the

Gallows and the Rope, as deeming it an ignominious Bearing.

But to proceed to the Motto. The Historian says, that a Favourite

of Kenneth II. having been hanged by the Picts, and the King being

much concerned that the Body should be exposed in so disgraceful

a situation, offered a large Reward to him who would rescue the

Body. Alpinus, the Father of Kenneth, with many of his Nobles, had

been inhumanly put to death; and the Head of the King (Alpinus),

placed upon a Pole, was exposed to the Populace. It was not for

the redemption of his Father's Body, that the new King, Kenneth,

offered the Reward; but for that of some young Favourite, perhaps

of equal age, who was thus ignominiously hanging as a public

spectacle, for the King appears to have been beheaded.[301] This

being an enterprize of great danger, no one was found bold enough

to undertake it, till a Gentleman came to the King and said, "Dal

Ziel," _i.e._ "I Dare," and accordingly performed the hazardous

exploit. In memory of this circumstance, the Family took the

above-mentioned Coat-Armour, and likewise the Name of _Dalziel_,

with the interpretation of it, "I Dare," as a Motto. The Maiden Name

(as I may call it) of this Family is not recorded, neither is the

original Coat Armour of the Gentleman mentioned. These circumstances

are related by Crawfurd, upon the authority of Mr. Nisbet, in his

Marks of Cadency, p. 41.

[301] Buchanan.

Occasional changes in Coats of Arms, it is very well known, have

always been common, owing to accidents and incidents, as well as

atchievements, several instances of which may be seen in Camden's

Remains.

Similar to the case of Dalziel, is the reason given for the Motto

of _Maclellan_, Lord Kircudbright, which is, "Think on." Crawfurd's

account is to this effect. A Company of Saracens, from Ireland,

in the Reign of King James II. infested the County of Galloway,

whereupon the King issued a Proclamation, declaring that "Whoever

should disperse them, and bring their Captain, dead or alive, should

have the Barony of Bombie for his reward." This was performed by the

Son of the Laird of Bombie, who brought the Head of the Captain, on

the Point of his Sword, to the King, who put him into the immediate

possession of the Barony; to perpetuate which action, the Baron took

for his Crest a Moor's Head, on the Point of a Sword, with the words

"Think on," for his Motto.

It may be difficult to ascertain the meaning of these words; and one

is at liberty either to suppose he addressed them to the King on the

occasion, as if he had said "Think on your Promise:"--or they may

apply to Posterity, advising them to Think on the gallant Action

whereby they became ennobled: but I more incline to the former

interpretation, because, in Yorkshire, which abounds with Scottish

idioms, words, and proverbs, they say, "I will do so and so when I

think on;" and "I would have done so and so, but I did not think

on," Our expression is, "Think of it."

MAXWELL, of Calderwood, has the same Motto, on a different idea.

The _Crest_ is "A Man's Head looking upright," to which the _Motto_

seems to give a religious interpretation, and to imply, "Think on"

_Eternity_[302].

[302] See Nisbet's Heraldry, p. 138.

A similar change appears to have been brought about, by religious

attachments, in the _Crest_ and _Motto_ of BANNERMAN, which seems to

extend to the rest of the Armorial Bearings. Sir Alexander Bannerman

of Elsick, the chief, bore, "Gules, a Banner displayed Argent, and

thereon a Canton Azure, charged with a St. Andrew's Cross. Crest, a

Demi-Man in Armour, holding in his Right Hand a Sword Proper. Motto,

_Pro Patriâ_." This Bearing is by Grant, 1692; but a younger Son

of this House bore (when Mr. Nisbet wrote) the Field and Banner as

above, "within a Bordure Argent, charged with Four Buckles Azure,

and as many Holly-Leaves Vert, alternately." Buckles, in certain

case we shall see hereafter, admit of a religious interpretation,

and the Holly-Leaves (quasi Holy-Leaves), seem to have a similar

import, especially when added to the new Crest, _viz_. "A Man

issuing out of the Wreath in a Priest's habit, and praying posture,"

with this Motto, "Hæc prestat Militia[303]." This change might

possibly take place about the enthusiastic time of the Union of the

two Kingdoms, when religious party spirit ran high in Scotland[304].

[303] Nisbet's Heraldry, p. 414, 415.

[304] See Memoirs of Ker of Kersland.

* * * * *

Ross, Lord Ross, has the same Motto as Dalziel Earl of Carnwath; but

on what pretensions does not appear.

* * * * *

I shall now proceed to another conjectural interpretation, as to the

Motto of Lord NAPIER; which is, "Ready, aye Ready." Sir Alexander

Napier was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field (1513), leaving

Issue Alexander, who married Margaret, the Daughter of Sir Duncan

Campbell of Glenorchy, ancestor of the Earls of Breadalbine. The

Motto, or rather, perhaps, Slug-Horn, of the Laird of Glenorchy,

was, "Follow me." On this marriage, therefore, I am led to believe

that Alexander Napier might take the responsive Slug-Horn of "Ready,

aye Ready," as if he had said, "always ready to follow you." This

may, perhaps, _primâ facie_, appear too hypothetical; but it is

grounded upon the authority of a Friend, a Native of Scotland, who

once told me that the Mottoes of the Lairds often had a reference to

that of their Chief.

Something like this appears in the Motto of FRASER, late Lord Lovat,

which is, "I am Ready." That Family is descended from a younger

Branch, the elder having ended in Daughters. They had for their

Ancestor, in the Female line, the Sister of King Robert I.; and the

Motto seems, if not responsive, at least expressive of Loyalty.

This sort of Motto seems to prevail in the Family of DOUGLAS. That

of the elder Branches is, "Forward;" to which the younger Branches

reply, "Jamais Arrière," which may, perhaps, be best translated by

the vulgar Scottish expression, "Hard at your Back."

The Motto of HAY, Earl of ERROL, which is, "Serva Jugum," deserves

our particular attention; and is founded on a well-attested

historical fact, related to this effect by Mr. Crawfurd. In the

Reign of Kenneth III. (anno 980), when the Danes invaded this

Island, and gave Battle to the Scots, whom they had routed at the

Village of Loncarty, near Perth, a certain Husbandman of the name

of Hay, who was tilling his Land, perceived his Countrymen flying

before the Enemy; when he and his two Sons, arming themselves with

their Plough-gear, the old Man having the Yoke of the Oxen for his

own Weapon, upbraided the Scots for their Cowardice, and, after much

difficulty, persuaded them to rally. They accordingly, under the

Command of this unexpected Leader and his Sons, armed with Yokes and

Plough-shares, renewed the Engagement; when the Danes, supposing

their Enemy had received a reinforcement, fled in their turn. The

King, in reward for this uncommon Service, advanced _Hay_ to the

Rank of Noblesse, and gave him as much Land as a Falcon, let loose

from the Fists, should compass at one flight. The lucky Bird, says

Dr. Abercrombie, seemed sensible of the merits of those that were to

enjoy it; for she made a circuit of seven or eight miles long, and

four or five broad; the limits of which are still extant. This Tract

of Ground, continues my Author, being called _Errol_, the Family

took from thence its designation, or title.

To these circumstances the Armorial Bearings of the Family have

very strong allusions; for the Supporters are Two Labourers with

each a Yoke on his Shoulder; the Crest is a Falcon; and the Motto

"Serva Jugum." The Coat Armour likewise is, Argent, Three Escocheons

Gules; or, to speak in the language of noble Blazonry, Pearl, Three

Escutcheons Ruby; to intimate that the Father and his Two Sons had

been the three fortunate Shields by which Scotland had been defended

and saved.

Another Branch of the Family (HAY, Earl of KINNOUL,) gives the same

Coat, with a Bordure for difference; the Supporters are likewise

Two Husbandmen, the one having a Plough-share, and the other a Pick,

or Spade, upon his Shoulder. The Yoke is preserved in the Crest,

upon the Shoulder of a Demi-Man, from the waist upwards; and the

Motto seems to refer to the rallying of the Scottish Army in these

words, "Renovate Animos."

Buchanan, further tells us, with regard to the modesty of these

unexpected Conquerors, that, when they were brought to the King,

rich and splendid Garments were offered to them, that they might

be distinguished in a Triumphal Entry which was to be made into

the Town of Perth; but the old Man rejected them with a decent

contempt; and, wiping the dust from his ordinary Clothes, joined

the Procession, with no other distinction than the Yoke upon his

shoulder, preceded and followed by the King's Train. More minute

circumstances of this extraordinary Victory, obtained, after a

palpable Defeat, at the instigation of one obscure Man, are related

by Buchanan, to whom I refer your Lordship; and you will find it

equal to any instance we have of Roman Virtue, and the _Amor

Patriæ_, so much boasted of among the Ancients.

Lloyd, in his Worthies, among his observations on the Life of James

Hay, Earl of Carlisle, tells us a chimerical story, but on what

authority I do not discover; after having mentioned slightly the

above fact, that James Hay, 600 years afterwards, "saved the King

of that Country from the Gowries at their House with a Cultre (or

Plough-share) in his hand;" and that he had as much Land assigned

him as he could ride round in two days. It does not appear from

the accounts we have of the Gowry conspiracy, that any person of

the name of Hay was concerned; but rather that this story has been

confounded with the other, because, according to Dr. Abercrombie's

account, the Land over which the Falcon flew in the first case, was

in a part of Scotland known by the name of Gowry.

* * * * *

CONYNGHAM, Earl of GLENCAIRN, has this very singular Motto, "Over

Fork Over," alluding to the principal Charge upon the Shield, which

is the rude and ancient Hay-Fork, called in Scotland a Shake-Fork,

and is in shape not unlike the Roman letter Y.

This Bearing, some of their Heralds tell us, was official, because,

they say, the Family had been Hereditary Masters of the King's

Horses and Stables, of which employment this instrument was

indicative. Such official Charges and Sur-charges were common in

Scotland: thus, CARNEGIE, Earls of Southesk, charge the Breast of

their Blue Eagle with a Cup of Gold, being Hereditary Cup-Bearers

to the Kings of Scotland. But this will not hold good as to the

CONYNGHAMS; though their Sur-charge of a Man on Horseback upon

the Shake-Fork may perhaps be such an official Bearing. Different

conjectures have been brought forward; and Mr. Camden and some

others have interpreted the Fork to have been an Archiepiscopal

Pall; for which surmise a very vague reason is given, viz. that an

Ancestor of the Family was concerned in the Murder of Thomas Becket,

Archbishop of Canterbury. Which Bearing, Mr. Nisbet observes,

would in such case operate rather as an abatement than a badge

of honour[305]. This conjecture, however, will not hold good on

heraldic principles; for a Pall, when used as a Charge, is very

differently represented, the three ends of it being square, and even

touching the borders of the Escocheon; whereas the device before

us is pointed at the ends, and does not come in contact with the

edges of the Shield. But what has the Pall to do with the Motto? We

must therefore advert to other circumstances for an interpretation

of both the reason of the Armorial Bearing and the Motto, which

generally assist to explain each other. The account which comes

nearest the point in the present question is given by Mr. Nisbet

from Frederick Van Bassen, a Norwegian, who, he says, was a good

Genealogist, and left in MS. an account of the rise of some Scottish

Families, and among the rest of this of Conyngham; from which MS.

Mr. Nisbet gives this account--"that Malcome, the Son of Friskine,

assisting Prince Malcom (afterwards surnamed Canmore) to escape from

Macbeth's tyranny, and being hotly pursued by the Usurper's Men, was

forced at a place to hide his Master by forking Straw or Hay above

him. And after, upon that Prince's happy accession to the Crown,

he, the King, rewarded his Preserver Malcome with the Thanedom of

Cunnigham, from which he and his Posterity have their Surname, and

took this Figure to represent the Shake-Fork with which he, Malcome,

forked Hay or Straw above the Prince, to perpetuate the happy

deliverance their Progenitor had the good fortune to give to their

Prince." Admitting this to be a fact, or even a legendary tale,

credited by the Family when this Bearing was granted or assumed,

there is an affinity between the Device and the Motto not to be

found among the other conjectures.

[305] Becket's Murderers were Four Barons, and Knights, no doubt,

of course; _viz._ Reginald Fitz-Urse, William de Tracy, Hugh de

Morville, and Richard Breto. [Consult Lord Lyttelton and his

Authorities.]

There is another Family where the true Armorial Ensigns are

illustrated by the Motto; _viz._ the Arms of BAILIE of Lanington,

which have often been blazoned as Nine Mullets or Spurrials (or 3,

3, 2, and 1); whereas it is evident they were Stars from the Motto,

which is, "Quid clarius Astris?"

I make no doubt there are many others of a like kind to be found,

arising from inattention or ignorance. It has been observed, that

the Shake-Fork is now much obscured by an Armed Man on Horseback

within an Inescocheon, which is supposed to allude to the Hereditary

Office of Master of the Horse; though whether this was the case,

or whether that Bearing came by alliance, may be doubtful; for Mr.

Crawfurd, in his Peerage, does not give it as a part of the Family

Coat of Conyngham in 1716; though the more modern Peerages have it.

The shape of the Fork is more discernible in the Arms of Conyngham,

Peers of Ireland, where it is not covered by a Sur-charge. The

meaning of the name is local, _Konyng-Ham; i.e._ The King's Village

or Habitation; which Etymon has been so long obscured by age, that

the Lion Office, on granting Supporters to the Family, have given

Two Rabbits, or Conies. The Irish Branch has different Supporters;

_viz._ a Horse and a Buck; though it preserves the Motto.

* * * * *

The Earl of TRAQUAIR has for his Motto "Judge noucht;" though there

is nothing in his Armorial Bearings to which it can allude. One

is therefore to look for some event interesting to the Family to

ground it upon, which probably was this: Sir John Stewart, first

created Baron, and afterwards Earl, of Traquair, by King Charles

I. was Lord High Treasurer of Scotland, anno 1635, and remained a

firm friend to the Royal Cause to the last. His adherence to it,

however, drew on him the resentment of the opposite party, insomuch

that he was, 1641, impeached of High Treason, and found guilty; but

the Parliament submitted his punishment to the King, who ordered

him a Pardon under the Great Seal, the Preamble to which sets forth

the King's high opinion of his abilities and his integrity in the

discharge of his duty. Upon this transaction, it seems more than

possible that the Earl, alluding to the rash and cruel treatment he

had received from the Parliament for his loyalty to the King, might

assume the Motto "Judge noucht;" the complement of which, we all

know, is, "That ye be not judged."

* * * * *

JOHNSTON, Marquis of ANNANDALE.--The modern _Motto_ is "Nunquam

non paratus;" but in the original _Motto_ there is History, which

connects with other parts of the Bearing. The _Crest_ is "A winged

Spur," and one of the _Supporters_ is "A Horse furnished." The

_Crest_ was taken, because the _Johnstons_ were often Wardens of the

West Borders, and active in suppressing Thieves and Plunderers, who

infested them during the Wars between England and Scotland; whence

was derived the original _Motto_, "Alight Thieves all;" commanding,

either by their authority or prowess, those Thieves to surrender.

The _Horse_ as a _Supporter_ alludes to the same circumstance, or

might be considered as a Bearing of Conquest, from a _Horse_ taken

from some famous Marauder[306].

[306] Peerage of Scotland, 1767, octavo.

The Johnstons of Westrow, or Westerhall, have a different principal

Bearing in their Arms; _viz._ "A Man's Heart, ensigned with an

Imperial Crown proper, in base," being part of the Arms of Douglas,

in memory of the apprehension of Douglas Earl of Ormond, when in

rebellion against James II.[307]

[307] Nisbet's Heraldry, p. 146.

* * * * *

HAMILTON, Duke of HAMILTON.--Motto, "Through." This Motto is older

than the Nobility of the Family, if my conjecture be true; as it

seems to have originated from a circumstance which happened in the

Reign of the Scottish King, Robert I. in England, at the Court of

our King Edward II. Battles, sieges, &c. had been maintained, with

various success, between the two Kings, for a long time. During

these animosities Sir Gilbert Hamilton, an Englishman, happening

to speak in praise of the intrepidity of Robert I. King of Scots,

one of the De Spencers (John, Mr. Crawfurd says,) who was of King

Edward's Bed-chamber, drew his falchion, and wounded him. Sir

Gilbert, more concerned at the contumely than at the wound, and

being prevented at the moment from resenting it; yet when he met

his antagonist the next day in the same place, ran him _through_

the body. On this he immediately fled for protection to the King of

Scots, who gave him lands and honours for this bold vindication of

his valour[308].

[308] Crawfurd's Peerage, in Duke of Hamilton. Buchanan, vol. I.

p. 332, 333. Dr. Abercrombie, however, gives us reasons to doubt

that this was the first introduction of the name of Hamilton into

Scotland: though that is not material, if it was the occasion which

introduced the _Motto_. This has no apparent connexion with the

Crest or Arms, and is therefore, more conclusive. Query as to the

Crest?

* * * * *

The Motto of MURRAY, now Duke of ATHOL, is, "Furth, Fortune,

and fill the Fetters;" but it was originally given to John

_Stewart, Earl_ of Athol, and came to the Family of Murray by

an intermarriage with the Heiress of Stewart. The first _Earl_

of Athol of the name of _Stewart_ was constituted Lieutenant to

King James III. (1457); and for his defeating, and bringing to

submission, Mac-Donald, Lord of the Isles, who had rebelled, he had

a special grant of several lands, and the above Motto added to his

Arms[309], which seems to mean, _Go forth, be successful, and fill

the Fetters with the Feet of all other rebellious Subjects_; for I

understand "_Fortune_" to be a verb, and chosen probably for the

sake of the alliteration. One appendage to the Arms of _Murray_,

probably received from Stewart, has an allusion to the Motto; for

the Supporter, on the Sinister side, is a Savage, with his Feet in

Fetters.

[309] Crawfurd's Peerage.

* * * * *

SETON, Earl of WINTON (attainted). The original Motto of _Lord_

Seton was "Invia Virtuti Via nulla;" but another was assumed by the

first _Earl_, alluding to an additional charge which he took, by

grant I presume, when he was created into that dignity with great

pomp (1601) at Holy-Rood House. To the original _Sword_ and Imperial

_Crown_ which he bore in an Inescocheon with a Tressure, was added

a Blazing Star of Twelve Points, with this new Motto, "Intaminatis

fulget honoribus[310]," expressive of the unshaken Loyalty of the

Family, which the last Peer unhappily forgot, and forfeited in the

Rebellion 1715.

[310] Nisbet's Cadencies, p. 192. See also Douglas's Peerage.

The Slughorn of the Family is _Set on_[311], which, by

amplification, I apprehend, means _Set upon your Enemy_, as an

incitement to ardour; and is rather analogous to the Motto _Think

on_, of the Lord _Kirkcudbright_, before-mentioned.

[311] Douglas's Peerage, in the Arms.

* * * * *

BRUCE, Earl of ELGIN. This, and other Branches of that ancient

and once Kingly Family, has, for its Motto, "_Fuimus_," alluding

strongly to their having been formerly in possession of the Crown of

Scotland. The Crest is likewise denotative of Royal pretensions,

_viz._ "A Hand holding a Sceptre." Something, however, is worth

observing in several of the subordinate Branches, more distant from

the original Stock, where one may discern the gradual dispirited

declension of the Family, in point of Regal claims. One private

House, indeed, bears the Lion Rampant in the Arms, and likewise the

Crest, and the Motto of the Peer. Another descendant drops the Lion

in the Arms, and only bears for Crest, "_A Hand holding a Sword_,"

with this modest Motto, "_Venture forward_." A third seems to give

up all for lost, by the Crest, _viz._ "_A Setting Sun_," with this

Motto, "_Irrevocable_;" while a fourth appears to relinquish a

Temporal for the hope of an Eternal Crown, by this Motto, "_Spes mea

supernè_."[312]

* * * * *

GORDON, Duke of GORDON. The primitive Bearing of this Family was,

"Azure, a Boar's Head couped, Or;" though at present it carries

"Azure, _Three_ Boars Heads couped, Or." The first is the more

honourable Charge, as the Unit is always accounted in Heraldry

preferable to Numbers, not only on account of its simplicity[313],

but in a religious sense (often couched in Armory), as it betokens

God the Father, while the Charge of Three has the like reference

to the Trinity. The traditional story, however, relating to the

particular Coat Armour before us, is told by Douglas, in his

Peerage of Scotland, to this effect; _viz._ that in the Reign of

King Malcolm Canmore, in the eleventh century, a valiant Knight,

of the name of _Gordon_, came into Scotland, but from whence is

not said, and was kindly received by that Prince. The Knight, not

long afterwards, killed a Wild _Boar_, which greatly infested the

Borders[314], when Malcolm gave him a grant of lands in the Shire

of Berwick. These lands, according to the custom of those times, the

Knight called _Gordon_, after his own name, and settled upon them,

taking a _Boar's_ Head for his Armorial Ensign, in memory of his

having killed "that monstrous animal[315]." This may seem a trivial

reason in itself, but we have another similar tradition in the Arms

of Forbes[316].

[312] Nisbet's Heraldry, vol. I. p. 145.

[313] Nisbet's Heraldry.

[314] In rude times, such as those were of which we have been

speaking, it was accounted an action of no small valour to kill so

fierce an animal as a _Wild Boar_; being attended with considerable

personal danger, for want of such weapons, offensive and defensive,

as we have at present. On this account I may be excused bringing

forward a parallel honour attending a circumstance of this sort,

though I fetch it from the Hottentots, a people to whose very

name we seem to have falsely annexed ideas, far from the truth,

of every thing below the dignity of human nature, and placed them

but one degree above the brute creation. On the contrary, they are

represented by Kolben, who had opportunities of personal intercourse

with them, and was well qualified to observe and reason upon what he

saw, as a people much wronged by our unfavourable opinions of them.

But to the point: their country appears to be, from its situation,

exceedingly exposed to the incursions of the fiercest of beasts,

lions and tigers; insomuch that a Hottentot who kills one of these

animals with his own hand is _deified_, and his person held sacred

ever after.

[315] Douglas's Peerage, p. 295.

[316] Nisbet's Heraldry, p. 327.

In process of time the Gordons, according to the practice in

Heraldry, increased the number of _Boars Heads_ to _three_, two and

one; and thus they continue to be borne at this day, with proper

differences; one of which, being particular, I shall mention,

_viz._ GORDON, _Earl_ of _Aboyne_. The reference contained in the

Motto of this Branch seems merely to be confined to the _Cheveron_

placed between the _Boars Heads_, in these words, "_Stant cætera

Tigno_," which last word is the acknowledged Latin word for the

_Cheveron_[317]. This is, perhaps, the greatest compliment ever paid

to the _Cheveron_, which is accounted one of the humblest Charges

known, in Heraldic language, by the name of Ordinaries.

[317] Gibbon's Introd. ad Latinam Blazoniam. See also Nisbet's

Heraldry, p. 316.

Thus much for the Arms of the _Duke of Gordon_, and for what has

been said both of the Arms and Motto of the Earl of Aboyne; but

the Motto of the Ducal Branch of the Family is yet unaccounted for,

which is "Bydand." This, I make no doubt, is a compound word, and

of no little antiquity; and I take the resolution of it to be, by

contraction, _Byde th' End_, with the letter D in the place of the

TH; for the Glossarist to some ancient Scottish Poems, published

from the MSS. of George Bannatyne, at Edinburgh, 1770, p. 247,

renders the word _Bidand, pendente Lite_. See also the Glossary, ad

calcem. As to its import, it may refer to Family transactions, in

two points of view; _viz._ either to loyal or religious attachments.

In support of the first, we find that Sir Adam Gordon was a

strenuous asserter of the claims of the Bruces, and peculiarly

active in the cause of King Robert I. (in that long contest), who

accordingly rewarded him with a large grant of land, sufficient to

secure his interest, and make him _byde the end_ of the contest as

a feudatory under that King. The Son and Grandson of Sir Adam were

both faithful to the interest of the Bruces, and had the above

grant confirmed by King David II.[318] If this is not satisfactory,

we have instances of acts of piety done by the early Branches of

this Family, sufficient to warrant the Motto on the interpretation

here given; for in the Reign of Malcolm IV. the Family had large

possessions, part of which they devoted to religious purposes, by

considerable endowments and benefactions given to the Abbey of

Kelso[319].

[318] Crawfurd's Peerage.

[319] Ibid.

I incline, however, more strongly to the military sense of the

Motto; and the more, as it is borne by other Families, manifestly

with that reference, though I cannot account for the connexion of

the two Houses. Thus, for instance, _Leith_, in one Branch, has for

the Motto, "_Semper Fidus_;" in another, "_Trusty to the End_;"

and in a third, "_Trusty and Bydand_;" in this last, I think the

contraction of the last word, as above suggested, is more clearly

established[320].

[320] Nisbet's Heraldry, p. 217.

In these Mottoes of _Leith_, it must be confessed there is more

appearance of a religious application than in that of the Duke

of _Gordon_, as the Armorial Bearings are partly compounded of

Cross-Croslets, and the Crest of the first is likewise a Turtle-dove.

* * * * *

ELPHINSTON, Lord ELPHINSTON; has for his Motto "_Caus Causit_[321],"

or, as written by Mr. Nisbet, "_Cause caused it_."[322]

[321] Crawfurd's Peerage.

[322] System of Heraldry, p. 154.

In Almon's Short Peerage of Scotland _Caus_ or _Cause_ is

interpreted _Chance_, which leads us to search for some casual

circumstance in the history of the Family, whereby it was elevated.

Alexander Elphinston was ennobled by King James IV. in the time of

our Henry VIII.; to whom a fatal incident happened, to which his

Descendants might have a retrospect when the Motto was assumed.

Some branches of the story are controverted; but enough is left by

tradition to found our conjecture, and for the Family to rest the

choice of their Motto upon. This Alexander, the first Peer, was

slain at the Battle of Flodden Field (1513), together with King

James IV.; and being, in his person and face, very like the King,

his body was carried by the English to Berwick, instead of that of

the King, and treated with some indignity. The controvertible part

of the circumstance is, that the King escaped by this means, and

lived to reward the Family who had thus lost their valiant Chief;

but strong proofs are to be found, that the King was actually

slain, though by some accounts not in the Battle, as his body was

identified by more than one of his confidential Servants, who

recognized it by certain private indelible marks[323].

[323] Drake's Hist. Ang. Scot.

Buchanan allows that the King escaped from the Battle; but adds,

that he was killed the same day by a party of his own Subjects,

whose interest it was to take him off, to avoid a punishment due to

themselves for cowardice in the preceding Battle[324].

[324] Buchanan's History, Book xiii. p. 26.

Holinshed tells us, that in order to deceive the Enemy, and

encourage his own Troops, the King caused several of his Nobles to

be armed and apparelled like himself[325]; and this practice, at

that time of day, seems not to have been uncommon; for Shakspeare

makes Richard say, during the Battle of Bosworth Field,

"I think, there be _Six_ Richmonds in the Field:

_Five_ have I slain to-day instead of him[326]."

[325] Holinshed's Chronicle.

[326] Act v. Sc. iv.

Let this pass for truth; yet was Lord Elphinston's case the most

remarkable, and most deserving of favour to his posterity, on

account of the insults offered to his body, under a supposition

that it was the body of the King. After the death of James IV. a

long Minority ensued, and consequently a Regency; but what reward

the Family of _Elphinston_ had, or what weight they bore in the

Reign of James V. or in that of Queen Mary, History is not minute

enough to inform us; though we find, that the Great Grandson of the

first Peer slain at Flodden-Field was of the Privy Council, and

High Treasurer to James VI. (anno 1599) before his accession to the

Crown of England. This King was too well read not to have known

what passed in the Reign of his Great Grandfather respecting the

first Lord _Elphinston_; and I am willing to suppose the Descendants

of that Peer were equally informed of the fact above related; and

that the Lord Treasurer _Elphinston_ modestly imputed his elevation

ultimately to that circumstance, and allusively took the Motto

before us.

Lest this surmise should not be satisfactory, I will offer another

on a very different ground, arising from the _Crest_, which is,

"A Lady from the middle richly attired, holding a _Castle_ in her

Right Hand, and in her Left a Branch of _Laurel_." This throws the

matter open to another conjecture; for the Bearing of the _Lady_,

with the _Castle_ in her Right Hand, may well be supposed to relate

to Alliances; several of the Ancestry of the Family, which came

originally from Germany in the time of Robert the Bruce (in the

Reign of our Edward II.) having married Heiresses[327], whereby

they obtained Lands, Castles, Power, and Nobility. These events

often repeated, which may be termed the effects of _chance_, give

us latitude to suppose the Motto may, on the other hand, relate to

those casual means, whereby the Family rose to the honour of the

Peerage.

[327] Nisbet's Heraldry, p. 154.

These are the only two conjectures I have to offer; and I do not at

present meet with any other historical matter to warrant a third.

* * * * *

LESLIE, Earl of ROTHES.--The Motto of this Family is "Grip (or

Gripe) Fast[328]," and seems to contain a double allusion; first

to the old Motto "Firmâ Spe," and afterwards to some parts of the

additional Armorial Appendages. I call it the old Motto, from the

account Mr. Nisbet gives of the original Bearing and its adjuncts;

_viz._ "Argent, on a Fess, between two Cross-Croslets Azure,

Three Buckles Or." Crest, "A Griphon's (or Griffin's) Head couped

Proper, charged with a Cross-Croslet fitched Argent." Motto, "Firmâ

Spe."[329] Herein the Cross-Croslets repeated, taken together with

the new Motto, admit of a religious allusion, as _holding fast_ the

Faith of Christ with _firm Hope_, expressed allegorically by the

Head of the Griffin. It may therefore be conceived, that the change

of the Motto might take place after the Family, on being ennobled,

chose Griffins for Supporters; thereby giving a loose and whimsical

translation, if I may call it so, of "Firmâ Spe," by the words

"Grip Fast." The ancient Bearings of the Cross-Croslets are now

discharged, nothing remaining on the Field but a _Bend_, instead of

a _Fess_, charged with Three Buckles; so that the meaning, couched

under the Cross-Croslets, the Griffin's Head, and the original words

of the Motto, is entirely lost: and at present nothing remains but

a quaint allusion to the group of those chimerical Animals. The

_Buckles_, borne first on the _Fess_, and afterwards on the _Bend_

(a Change not uncommon as a Difference, in token of Cadency or

Cadetship in Scotland), may likewise have regard to that strong

metaphorical description of Christian Defence against the Powers

of Darkness in the Sixth Chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians,

or to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians (Chap. v. 21). "Hold

fast that which is good;" _viz_. the Faith and Hope in the Cross

of Christ. In support of this idea, as being primarily religious,

it appears that one subordinate Branch of the Family (_Leslie_ of

Talloch) bears for a Crest, not a Griffin's, but "An Eagle's Neck,

with Two Heads erased Sable;" with the Motto "Hold Fast:" and

another has for its Motto "Keep Fast:"[330] so that _Grip_, or

_Gripe Fast_, may be considered as a mere canting Motto, arising

from old Heraldic wit. _Leslie_ of Burdsbank, carries the quartered

Coat of the Earl of Rothes, with Differences; with the _Crest_, "A

Buckle Or," and the Motto "Keep Fast."

[328] The traditional Family History of this Motto is, that a

Countess of Rothes (then Head of the House in her own right), riding

behind a servant through a dangerous ford, had nearly lost her seat

from fear; when the man, encouraging her by the words "_Gryp Fast_,"

the Countess took the advice, was rescued from imminent danger, and

her life preserved. This account of the origin of the Motto was

given by one of the Family to a Friend of mine; but how far it may

gain credit I do not determine.

[329] Nisbet's Heraldry, vol. i. p. 96.

[330] Nisbet's Heraldry, vol. I. ubi supra.

* * * * *

I close this attempt (for I call it nothing more) with a singular

Motto of a Private Family.

HAIG, or perhaps _Haigh_, of Bemerside, has for the Family Motto

"Tyde what may," founded on a Prophecy of Sir Thomas Lermont (well

known in Scotland by the name of "Thomas the Rhymer," because he

wrote his Prophecies in Rhyme), who was an Herald in the Reign of

Alexander III. He is said to have foretold the time of his own

death; and particularly, among other remarkable occurrences, the

Union of England and Scotland, which was not accomplished till the

Reign of James VI. some hundreds of years after this Gentleman died.

These Prophecies were never published in a perfect state; but the

Epitome of them is well known in Scotland, though Mr. Nisbet says

it is very erroneous. The original, he tells us, is a Folio MS.

which Mr. Nisbet seems to have seen; for he adds, "Many things are

missing in the small book which are to be met with in the original,

particularly these two lines, concerning his (Sir Thomas Lermont's)

neighbour, Haig of Bemerside:

'Tyde what may betide,

Haig shall be Laird of Bemerside.'

"And," continues Mr. Nisbet, "his Prophecy concerning that ancient

Family has hitherto been true; for since that time till this day

(1702) the Haigs have been Lairds of that place."[331]

[331] Nisbet's Cadencies, pp. 158, 159.

* * * * *

"Cave Adsum" is the Motto of JARDIN, of Applegirth, Bart. in

Scotland. The Ingredients (as they may be called) to which

it alludes, are very dispersed, and to be collected from the

Supporters, the Bearing, and Crest: the Arms having "Three Mullets

charged on the Chief;" the Supporters, "An Armed Man and a Horse;"

and the Crest, "A Mullet or Spur-Rowel." This might allude to Justs

and Tournaments[332].

[332] See Nisbet's Heraldry.

* * * * *

I shall conclude with one Irish Motto; that of FITZGERALD--"_Crom

a Boo_;" a Cri de Guerre, or Term of Defiance. _A Boo_ means _the

Cause_, or the _Party_, and _Crom_ was the ancient Castle of the

Fitz-Geralds. So _Butler_ a _Boo_ meant the Ormond Party, the Cri on

the other side; by which they insulted each other, and consequently

frays and skirmishes ensued[333].

[333] I owe this observation to my noble Friend, and kind

Correspondent, Lord Dacre.

* * * * *

Simon Fitz-Alan had a Son Robert, who, being of a fair complexion,

was called _Boyt_, or _Boyd_, from the Celtic or Gallic word

_Boidh_, which signifies fair or _yellow_[334], from which he

assumed his Sur-name, and from him all the Boyds in Scotland are

descended[335].

[334] So _Douglas_ means White Man. See "Armories."

[335] Douglas, p. 373.

_Canmore_ is a Sobriquet. So might _GoldBerry_, from the colour

of Boyd's hair. Sobriquets common in England and France; there

was scarce a French King without some addition, relative to their

persons, or to their good or bad qualities.

_Goldberry_ is a Slughorn, for the Motto is _Confido_, as applying

to the confidence the Chief had in the Vassals belonging to the

Clan; though by the modern Crest (a Thumb and two Fingers pointing

to Heaven) it seems to admit of a religious interpretation.

DISSERTATION

ON

Coaches.

Every thing has History belonging to it, though perhaps it is seldom

worth investigation; and what follows will, I suspect, be thought

not unlike Gratiano's reasons; _viz_. "As two grains of wheat hid

in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them,

and when you have them, they are not worth the search[336]." But,

as the History of Coaches in general, and particularly of Hackney

Coaches, has never been drawn together, I shall attempt to do it as

an historical detail of that species of luxury.

[336] Merchant of Venice.

The Nobleman, and the man of fortune, steps into his own carriage;

and the humbler orders of men into their occasional coach, even

with the gout upon them, when walking is out of the question;

without ever thinking with the smallest gratitude of those who

introduced or improved such a convenience; and all this because

these Vehicles are now too common to attract our notice further than

their immediate use suggests.

It is the business of Antiquaries to rescue subjects of this sort

from oblivion, as to their origin, their improvements, &c. to the

present hour; who of course must leave it to others of the same

class, to shew their decline; for it is not improbable that even the

present gay families, or their posterity, may be witnesses of such a

revolution.

* * * * *

The first Wheel-Carriages of the Coach kind were in use with us

in the Reign of King Richard II., and were called _Whirlicotes_;

though we cannot but suppose they were such as, but for the name of

riding, our ancestors might as well have walked on foot. Let us

hear the account given either by Master John Stowe, or some of his

Editors, on this matter, who tells us that "Coaches were not known

in this Island; but Chariots, or _Whirlicotes_, then so called, and

they only used of Princes, or men of great estates, such as had

their footmen about them. And for example to note, I read[337] that

Richard II. being threatened by the Rebels of Kent, rode from the

Tower of London to the Miles-End, and with him his Mother, because

she was sick and weak, in a Whirlicote.... But in the year next

following, the said Richard took to wife Anne, daughter to the King

of Bohemia, who first brought hither the riding upon side-saddles;

and so was the riding in those _Whirlicotes_ and Chariots forsaken,

except at Coronations, and such like spectacles. But now of late,"

continues he, "the use of Coaches brought out of Germany, is taken

up and made so common, as there is neither distinction of time, nor

difference of persons, observed; for the world runs on wheels with

many whose parents were glad to go on foot[338]."

[337] He cites Lib. S. Mariæ Aborum.

[338] Survey of London and Westminster, book i.

We may hence suppose that the _Whirlicote_ was not much more than a

Litter upon Wheels, and adapted both to state and invalidity, among

the higher orders of mankind; for we have seen that they gave place

even to riding on Horseback, among the Ladies, as soon as proper

Saddles were introduced.

The word _Coach_ is evidently French, from their word _Carrosse_,

and was formerly often written _Carroche_, as it appears in Stowe's

Chronicle, where the two words appear almost in the same sentence.

The French word, nevertheless, is not radically such, but formed

from the Italian _Carroccio_, or _Carrozza_, for they have both;

and that even the latter is a compound of _Carro Rozzo_, it being

a _red_ Carriage, whereon the Italians carried the Cross when they

took the field. So says Mr. Menage[339]; and if so, this Vehicle

passed from Italy to Germany, from thence to France, and at length

to us. According to Mr. De Caseneuve, the Italian _Carrocio_ had

four wheels; and he adds to what Mr. Menage has said, that they

carried their Standards upon it[340].

[339] Orig. Ital.

[340] Appendix to Menage, Orig. Fr.

The French _Charrette_, from whence our _Chariot_[341], had but two

wheels. But we may observe how our word is degraded, for it properly

signifies a _Cart_, though it had four wheels[342]. The French,

since Coaches came into use, have been ashamed of the term, and call

it a Carrosse Coupé, or Half-Coach.

[341] Chariot--v. Carruca in Du Cange. Used in France at the end of

the Reign of Francis I. and Henry II.

[342] Richelet.

By the above account the _Chariot_ seems to have been the elder

Vehicle, or rather the Coach in its infancy; which will lead us

towards the etymon of our word _Coach_, and to the original nature

of our _Chariot_, though both of them have the same common parent.

We may, however, collect enough from these accounts, to satisfy

ourselves that the introduction of Coaches took place in the Reign

of Queen Elizabeth; and Stowe's Continuator adds a very natural

consequence:--That, after the Royal example, "divers great ladies

made them Coaches, and rode in them up and down the countries, to

the great admiration of all the beholders." After this, he tells us,

they grew common among the Nobility and opulent Gentry; that within

twenty years Coach-making became a great trade, and that Coaches

grew into more general use soon after the accession of King James.

What sort of Carriages they originally were with us, in point of

elegance, is not easily said; but in Germany, about that period, we

are told they were--"ugly Vehicles made of four boards, which were

put together in a very clumsy manner[343]." Of these, however, my

Author adds, that John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, when he

went to Warsaw to do homage for the Dutchy of Prussia, A. D. 1618,

had in his train thirty-six of these Coaches, each drawn by six

horses.

[343] Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg, p. 222.

Either the Chariots of that time were usually more elegant, or the

Denmarkers had more taste than the Germans; for the same Author

tells us, that, when the King of Denmark passed through Berlin, in

the Reign of the Elector John George, who died 1598, the King made

his entry "in a black-velvet Chariot, laced with gold; drawn by

eight white coursers, with bits and caparisons all of silver[344]."

[344] Memoirs, p. 221.

The Chariot I take to have been a much more ancient Vehicle, and an

open Vehicle; for we read of them in the Reign of our Henry VII. and

even of our Richard II.

Queen Elizabeth, when she went to St. Paul's, 1588, after the

Spanish Armada, was in a _Chariot_ supported by four pillars, and

drawn by two white horses[345].

[345] Nichols's Preface to Queen Elizabeth's Progresses, p. xxiii.

It is generally agreed, by those Writers who have touched upon the

subject, that Coaches were introduced into this Kingdom in the Reign

of Queen Elizabeth; but they must have had an earlier appearance

amongst us than Anderson, in his History of Commerce, vol. I. p.

421, allows, who affirms, that the first of them was brought hither

by [Henry] Fitz-Alan, the last Earl of Arundel of that name, in the

year 1580; which cannot be the truth; for his Lordship died 1579.

This Earl, after having served Kings Henry VIII. and Edward VI. and

Queen Mary, became likewise high in the favour of Queen Elizabeth,

and was Lord Steward of her Household; but, finding himself

supplanted by the Earl of Leicester, he went abroad A. D. 1566[346].

It is to be supposed that he travelled to the sea-coast in the

accustomed manner on Horseback; but he is said to have returned in

his Coach, which, Mr. Granger says, was the first Equipage of the

kind ever seen in England[347]; but that Author has left us without

the date; so that we are yet to seek for that point.

[346] Camden's Elizabeth.

[347] Biographical History of England, I. 193, 8vo.

Another Writer robs his Lordship entirely of the honour of such

introduction; for Stowe's Continuator expressly says, that "In

the year 1564 (two years before the Earl of Arundel went abroad),

Guilliam Boonen, a Dutchman, became the Queen's Coachman, and was

the first that brought the use of Coaches into England[348]." This

very Coachman is said also to have driven the Queen's Coach, when

she visited Oxford, 1592. Which of these two stories be true, the

Relaters, Granger and Stowe, must answer for: but Anderson is

palpably wrong in his date.

[348] Chronicle, p. 867. This Coachman's Wife had also the honour of

introducing the Art of Starching Cambric and Lawn, and was the first

Starcher the Queen had. Idem in eod.

I can form no better an idea of our first Coaches than that they

were heavy and unwieldy, as they continued to be for nearly two

centuries afterwards; and I can at best but take the standard from

the present State Coaches of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the

Speaker of the House of Commons[349].

[349] I must here stop a moment to relate an Anecdote of the late

Right Honourable Arthur Onslow, when Speaker of the House of

Commons, whose ideas of travelling did not exceed the expedition of

a pair of horses tugging his own lumbering State Coach. King George

II. died on Saturday morning early, October 25, 1760. The Duke of

Devonshire (then at Chatsworth) was Lord Chamberlain; and the Duke

of Rutland (then at Belvoir Castle) was Lord Steward. Expresses

were dispatched to these great Officers, among others, immediately;

and the Duke of Devonshire arrived in Town on the Monday evening,

though the distance was 150 miles. Tuesday and Wednesday came, but

without the Lord Steward, to the utter astonishment of the Speaker,

who knew that his distance from the Metropolis was not so great

as that of the Duke of Devonshire, who had arrived on the Monday.

"But I am told," cried he, "that his Grace of Devonshire travels

at a prodigious rate; not less than _50 miles a day_!" Such was

the prejudice of ideas, confirmed by long habitude, in a man who

never extended his journeys further than his Seat in Surrey, a few

miles from London; and in Parliament time did little more than

oscillate between his Town House and the House of Commons.--It was

a misconception on the part of the Duke of Rutland, who understood

that the King of Prussia was dead, and not King George II. I mention

the circumstance, only to shew the ignorance of some parts of

mankind, when taken out of their routine.--The Duke of Devonshire at

that time usually ran to or from Chatsworth in about 18 or 20 hours.

It cannot be any matter of surprize, after so luxurious a conveyance

had found its way into the Royal Establishment, that it should be

adopted by others who could support the expence, when not curbed by

sumptuary laws; and we have accordingly seen, that Coaches prevailed

much, early in the Reign of King James; but Hackney Coaches, which

are professedly the Subject of this Memoir, waited till luxury had

made larger strides among us, and till private Coaches came to

market at second hand.

HACKNEY COACH.

There having always been an imitative luxury in mankind, whereby the

inferior orders might approximate the superior; so those that could

not maintain a Coach _de die in diem_ contrived a means of having

the use of one _de horâ in horam_. Hence arose our occasional

Vehicles called Hackney Coaches.

The French word _Haquenée_[350] implies a common horse for all

purposes of riding, whether for private use or for hire; generally

an ambler, as distinguished from the horses of superior orders,

such as the _palfrey_ and the _great horse_. The former of these

are often called _pad-nags_, and were likewise _amblers_; while

horses for draught were called _trotting-horses_[351]: so that the

_Haquenée_ was in fact, and in his use, distinct from all the rest,

and inferior in rank and quality. This term for an ambling-nag

occurs in Chaucer[352]. Thus we obtained our _Haquenée_ or _Hackney

Horses_ long before we had any Coaches to tack to them; and the

term had likewise, at the same time, made its way into metaphor, to

express any thing much and promiscuously used. Thus Shakspeare, who

never lived to ride in a _Hackney Coach_, applies the word _Hackney_

to a common woman of easy access[353]: and again, in the First Part

of Henry IV. (Act iii. Sc. 4), the King says to the Prince of Wales,

[350] See the French Lexicographers.

[351] Northumberland Household Book, p. 127.

[352] The Romaunt of the Rose.

[353] Love's Labour's Lost, Act ii. Sc. 2.

"Had I so lavish of my presence been,

So common-_hackneyed_ in the eyes of men,

So stale and cheap to vulgar company," &c.

Now Shakspeare died in the year 1616; whereas Hackney Coaches were

not known, in the Streets at least, till about the year 1625[354].

[354] Mortimer's Pocket Dictionary.

Though the term _Haquenée_ is French, it is not used in France

for Coaches of a like kind; yet, after we had adopted the word as

applied to horses of the common sort, it was easy to put them in

harness, for the service of drawing, and the convenience of the

Inhabitants of the Metropolis; whereby the word _Hackney_ became

transferred to the whole Equipage, then in want of a differential

name; whereof the Coach, being the more striking part, obtained the

name by pre-eminence.

Before I return to my subject, give me leave to add a word or

two on the French Coaches of a similar nature, which are called

_Fiacres_[355]. The term is thus accounted for, though I did not

suspect I should have found the meaning in a Martyrology. _Fiacre_

was the name of a Saint, whose Portrait, like those of many other

famous men of their times both in Church and State, had the honour

to adorn a Sign-Post; and the Inn in Paris, Rue St. Antoine,

from which these Coaches were first let out to hire on temporary

occasions, had the Sign of _St. Fiacre_, and from thence they took

their name. M. Richelet, in his Dictionary[356], tells us, that a

_Fiacre_ is "Carosse de loüage, auquel on a donné ce nom à cause

de l'Enseigne d'un logis de la Rue St. Antoine de Paris ou l'on

a premierement löué ces sortes de Carosse. Ce logis avoit pour

Enseigne un _Saint Fiacre_." As to the Saint himself, he was no less

a personage than the second Son, and at length Heir, of Eugenius

IV. King of Scots, who lived in the Seventh Century. He went into

France, took a religious habit, refusing the Crown of Scotland some

years afterwards, on his Brother's death; and, when he died, was

canonized. There is a Chapel dedicated to him at St. Omer's. His

death is commemorated on the 30th of August[357].

[355] About the same period that our Hackney Coaches became in use,

a sort of Carriage arose at Paris under the name of a _Fiacre_. I

mention them to account for the term, which in the common French

Dictionaries is simply rendered a Hackney Coach.

[356] Voc. _Fiacre_. See also Menage, Orig. de la Langue Françoise.

[357] English Martyrology. Moreri's Dictionary. Collyer. St. Fiacre

was the Patron Saint of persons afflicted with the _Piles_. "The

Troops of Henry V. are said to have pillaged the Chapel of the

Highland Saint; who, in revenge, assisted his Countrymen in the

French Service to defeat the English at Bauge; and afterwards

afflicted Henry with the _Piles_, of which he died. This Prince

complained, that he was not only plagued by the living Scots, but

even persecuted by those who were dead." Smollett's Travels, Letter

IV.

N. B. There was a Prelate of the name _Fiachre_ in Ireland, whose

death is remembered there on the 8th of February. He lived about the

same time. [British Piety, in the Supplement]. He was not a Saint.

As to the time when the French _Fiacres_ first came into use, we are

led pretty nearly to it by Mr. Menage, who, in his "Origines de la

Langue Françoise," published in Quarto, 1650, speaks of them as of a

late introduction. His words are, "On appelle ainsi [Fiacre] à Paris

_depuis quelques années_ un Carosse de loüage." He then gives the

same reason as we find in Richelet: but the words "_depuis quelques

Années_" shew, that those Coaches had not then been long in use, and

are to be dated either a little before or a little after our own;

insomuch that it is probable the one gave the example to the other,

allowing Mr. Menage credit for twenty-five years, comprehended in

his expression of _quelques Années_[358].

[358] It is a little singular, that neither Cotgrave himself, in his

Dictionary, first published in 1611, nor his Editor, James Howell,

either in his Edition of 1650, or in that of 1673, take any notice

of the word _Fiacre_ in the sense before us.

But to return to our Hackney Coaches, which took birth A. D. 1625

(the first year of King Charles I.); and either began to ply in

the Streets, or stood ready at Inns to be called for if wanted: and

at that time did not exceed _twenty_ in number[359]. But, as luxury

makes large shoots in any branch where it puts forth, so we find

that, in no more than ten years, this new-planted scyon had grown so

much as to require the pruning-knife; for that the Street Coaches

had become in reality a national nuisance in various particulars:

and accordingly a Proclamation issued A.D. 1635 in the following

words:

"That the great numbers of Hackney Coaches of late time seen

and kept in London, Westminster, and their Suburbs, and the

general and promiscuous use of Coaches there, were not only

_a great disturbance to his_ Majesty, his dearest Consort the

Queen, the Nobility, and others of place and degree, in their

passage through the Streets_; but the Streets themselves were

so pestered, and the pavements so broken up, that the common

passage is thereby hindered and made dangerous; and the prices

of hay and provender, and other provisions of stable, thereby

made exceeding dear: Wherefore we expressly command and forbid,

That, from the Feast of St. John the Baptist next coming,

no Hackney or Hired Coaches be used or suffered in London,

Westminster, or the Suburbs or Liberties thereof, except they be

to travel at least _three_ miles out of London or Westminster,

or the Suburbs thereof. And also, that no person shall go in a

Coach in the said Streets, except the owner of the Coach shall

constantly keep up _Four able Horses for our Service, when

required_[360]. Dated January 19, 1635-6."

[359] Anderson on Commerce, II. 20.

[360] Rymer, tom. XIX. p. 721.

This Proclamation, so long as it was observed, must have put a

considerable check to the use of these Carriages; nor can I think it

could operate much in the King's favour, as it would hardly be worth

a Coach-Master's while to be at so great a contingent charge as the

keeping of Four Horses to be furnished at a moment's warning for his

Majesty's occasional employment. We are to construe this, then, as

amounting to a prohibition, on account of the certain expence which

must follow an uncertain occupation. The nature of this penalty, as

I may call it, was founded on the Statute of Purveyance, not then

repealed.

But there was another co-operating cause that suspended the use

of Coaches for a short time, which was the introduction of the

_Hackney Chairs_, which took place a very little while before the

Proclamation. They arose from the incommodities stated in the Royal

Edict, and, no doubt, tended in some measure towards the suppression

of the Hackney-Coaches; till by degrees being found incompetent

to answer all their seemingly intended purposes, we shall see the

Coaches, in about _two_ years time, return into the streets, and

resume their functions. But to proceed with the History of the

_Chairs_. At the critical time, then, when Government was devising

measures to prevent the increase of _Coaches_ as much as possible,

for the reasons alleged in the Proclamation, there stepped in a

Knight, by name Sir Saunders Duncombe, a Gentleman-Pensioner, and a

travelled man, who proposed the introduction of _Chairs_, after the

model he had seen abroad[361]. This was in the year 1634; when Sir

Saunders obtained an exclusive Patent for the setting them forth

for hire, dated the first day of October, for the term of _fourteen_

years. The number is not specified, but left perhaps indefinite,

it being impossible to say what would be necessary in a new device

of this sort, tending to be beneficial to the introductor, as well

as convenient to the Publick. The tenor of the Grant, omitting the

words of course, runs thus:

"CHARLES, &c.

[361] He was knighted, together with fourteen other Gentlemen of

the Band, by King James, in Scotland, 1617; as appears from a

Catalogue of Knights, published by J. P. Esq. 1660.

"Whereas the several Streets and Passages within our Cities of

_London_ and _Westminster_, and the Suburbs of the same, are of

late time so much encumbered and pestered with the unnecessary

multitude of Coaches therein used, that many of our good and

loving Subjects are by that means oftentimes exposed to great

danger; and the necessary use of Carts and Carriages for the

necessary Provisions of the said Cities and Suburbs thereby

also much hindered. And whereas, our servant, _Sir Sanders

Duncombe_, Knight, hath lately preferred his humble Petition

unto us; thereby shewing, that in many parts beyond the Seas,

the people there are much carried in the Streets in Chairs that

are covered; by which means very few Coaches are used amongst

them: and thereof he hath humbly besought us to grant unto him

the sole using and putting forth to hire of certain covered

Chairs, which he will procure to be made at his own proper costs

and charges, for carrying such of our loving Subjects as shall

desire to use the same, in and about our said Cities of _London_

and _Westminster_, and the Suburbs thereof.

"Know ye, that we, of our princely care of the good and welfare

of all our loving Subjects, desiring to use all good and

lawful ways and means that may tend to the suppressing of the

excessive and unnecessary number of Coaches now of late used

in and about our said Cities, and the Suburbs thereof; and to

the intent the said _Sir Sanders Duncombe_ may reap some fruit

and benefit of his industry, and may recompense himself of the

costs, charges, and expences, which he shall be at in and about

the directing, making, procuring, and putting in use of the

said covered Chairs, of the purpose aforesaid; and for divers

other good causes and considerations, us hereunto moving, of

our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have

given and granted, and by these Presents, for Us, our Heirs

and Successors, do give and grant, unto the said _Sir Sanders

Duncombe_, his Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, and

to his and their, and every of their, Deputy and Deputies,

Servants, Workmen, Factors, and Agents, and to all and every

such person and persons as shall have power and authority

from him, them, or any of them, in that behalf, full and free

Licence, Privilege, Power, and Authority, that they only, and

none other, shall or may, from time to time, during the term of

fourteen years hereafter granted, use, put forth, and lett to

hire, within our said Cities of _London_ and _Westminster_, and

the Suburbs and Precincts thereof, or in any part of them, or

any of them, the said covered Chairs, to be carried and borne as

aforesaid.

"Witness Ourself at _Canbury_, the First day of October[362]."

[362] Rymer, tom. XIX. p. 572.

The place principally hinted at in the above Grant, or Patent, seems

to have been the City of _Sedan_ in Champagne; where, we are at

liberty to suppose, these covered Chairs being most in use, they

obtained with us the name of _Sedan Chairs_, like the local names of

_Berlin_ and _Landau_[363].

[363] Mr. Reed, the Editor of the Old Plays [2d Edit. 1780], from

the above account, must therefore certainly be in an error, when

he supposes that _Sedan Chairs_ were the introduction of the Duke

of Buckingham, about the year 1619. [See Note to vol. V. p. 475.]

_Sedan_--mentioned by the name only in the Life of Dr. Thomas

Fuller, 1661, 18mo. p. 57.

These new Vehicles, hitherto unseen in our orbit, had, doubtless,

patrons among the beaus and fine gentlemen of the age; though, in

their general utility, they manifestly could not be so commodious

as Coaches, were it for no other reason than that they could carry

but one person. They might prevail with persons of a certain rank

and description; but the opulent Merchant, and others in a similar

line of family life, still were in want of a conveyance of greater

capacity; a circumstance which would depress the _Chairs_, and

gradually hasten the re-introduction of the _Coaches_, and which,

as has been observed, took place accordingly in little more than

two years. The following special commission was therefore granted

by the King, A. D. 1637, wherein the number of the Coaches seems

rather to have enlarged, and the management of them was placed in

the department of the Master of the Horse. It runs essentially in

the following words:

"That we, finding it very requisite for our Nobility and Gentry,

as well as for Foreign Ambassadors, Strangers, and others,

that there should be a competent number of Hackney Coaches

allowed for such uses, have, by the advice of our Privy Council,

thought fit to allow _Fifty Hackney Coachmen_ in and about

London and Westminster; limiting them not to keep above Twelve

Horses a-piece. We therefore grant to you [the Marquis] during

your Life, the Power and Authority to license _Fifty_ Hackney

Coachmen, who shall keep no more than Twelve good Horses each,

for their, or any of their, Coach and Coaches respectively. You

also hereby have Power to license so many in other Cities and

Towns of England as in your wisdom shall be thought necessary;

with power to restrain and prohibit all others from keeping any

Hackney Coach to let to hire, either in London or elsewhere.

Also to prescribe _Rules_ and _Orders_ concerning the daily

_Prices_ of the said licensed Hackney Coachmen, to be by them,

or any of them, taken for _our own_ particular service, and in

their employment for our Subjects; provided such orders be first

allowed by us, under our Royal Hand."[364]

[364] Rymer, tom. XX. fol. 159.

We may observe that the article of Purveyance is here very gently

touched upon, and confined to a sign-manual. Mr. Anderson supposes

that there must have been many more than _fifty_ Coaches introduced

by the above allowance of _twelve_ horses; but it seems rather to

imply that no Coach-Master should engross more than six Coaches to

himself. This also might be a tacit mode of preserving a supply of

horses to be purveyed for the King when necessary.

One may collect from hence that private Coaches were sparingly kept,

by the mention of the Nobility and Gentry.

Hitherto we have found the Hackney Coaches under the regulation

of the Crown, or its immediate Officers; but we are now to look

for them at a time when the Monarchical Government was suspended,

during the Protectorate. Whether the Master of the Horse received

any emolument from granting the above Licences, is not apparent;

but under the Commonwealth we find that the Coaches became subject

to a tax towards the expence of their regulation; for by an Act

of Oliver's Parliament, A. D. 1654, the number of such Coaches,

within London and Westminster, was enlarged to _two hundred_[365].

The outlying distance was also augmented to _six_ miles _round

the late lines of communication_, as the Statute expresses it; by

which I conceive that the greatest distance was extended to _nine_

miles, including the _three_ prescribed, or rather enjoined, by the

regulating proclamation of King Charles I. in the year 1635. By this

Act of Oliver's Parliament, the government of the Hackney Coaches,

with respect to their _stands_, _rates_, &c. was placed in the

Court of Aldermen of London; and as, of course, this new business

would require Clerks, and other officers, to supervise it, the

Coach-Masters were made subject to the payment of _twenty shillings_

yearly for every such Coach.

[365] Anderson says _three hundred_, but that must be an error; for

the Docquet of the Act in Scobel says, that "the number of persons

keeping Hackney Coaches shall not at one time exceed _two hundred_."

This must apply to the number of Carriages; and so Sir William

Blackstone understood it. Commentaries, vol. I, 4to.

Here we have brought the Coaches under a Police similar to

that of our own time; but it did not long remain in the hands

of the Corporation; for in the year after the Restoration, the

establishment was new-modelled by an Act of the 13th and 14th of

King Charles II. 1661, wherein it is specified that no Coaches

were to be used without a Licence,--who may be entitled to such

Licences,--that the number shall not exceed 400,--what shall be the

rates,--with penalties for exacting more[366].

[366] See the Act in the Statute Book.

Each of these four hundred Coaches so licensed was obliged to

pay annually five pounds for the privilege, to be applied towards

the keeping in repair certain parts of the streets of London and

Westminster[367]; a very rational appropriation of such fund, for

who ought so much to contribute to the amendment of the streets, as

those who lived by their demolition?

"Nex Lex æquior ulla, quam," &c.

Within a few years after the Revolution (anno 5 Gul. et Mar. ch.

xxii.) the number of Coaches arose to seven hundred, each of which

paid to the Crown annually four pounds. This, primâ facie, one

would suppose was a relief to the Coach-Masters, and that the

reduction in the impost accrued from the number; but that was not

the case, for every Owner, for each Coach, was constrained to pay

down fifty pounds for his first Licence for twenty-one years, or

forego his employment; which seeming indulgence was, in fact, paying

five pounds _per annum_ for that term; whereas, probably, the

Coach-Master would rather have continued at the former five pounds,

and have run all risks, than have purchased an exclusive privilege,

in the gross, at so high a price.

[367] Anderson, II. 115. Journals of the House of Commons.

Blackstone.

The finances, and even the resources, of Government, must have been

very low at this moment, or Ministry could never have stooped to so

paltry and oppressive an expedient, to raise so small a sum as would

arise from these Licences. By the increase of the number of Coaches

from four hundred at five pounds _per annum_, to seven hundred

at four pounds _per annum_, the gain to the Treasury was £.800

annually:--and what did the licences at fifty pounds each Coach, for

the term of twenty-one years, yield to the State?--£.3,500! Whereas,

had such lease of the privilege of driving a Coach been kept at the

rack rent of five pounds _per annum_, it had produced in that period

£.14,700.

Thus, however the matter rested, till the ninth year of Queen Anne,

1710, when a Statute was made, which brought the business to its

present standard, with a few variations, which will be observed in

the order of time. By this Act every circumstance was new modelled;

for thereby the Crown was impowered to appoint five Commissioners

for regulating and licensing both Hackney Coaches and Chairs,

from the time the late Statute of the fifth of William and Mary

should expire, _viz._ at Midsummer A. D. 1715, authorizing such

Commissioners to grant licences to eight hundred Hackney Coaches

from that time for the term of thirty-two years, which should be

allowed to be driven in the Cities of London and Westminster, and

the Suburbs thereof, or any where within the Bills of Mortality;

each Coach paying for such privilege the sum of five shillings _per_

week[368]. It was at the same time enacted, that from the 24th of

June, 1711, all _horses_ to be used with an Hackney Coach shall be

fourteen hands high, according to the standard; and further, that

every _Coach_ and _Chair_ shall have a mark of distinction, "by

_figure_ or otherwise," as the Commissioners shall think fit; and

"the said _mark_ shall be placed on each side of every such Coach

and Chair respectively, in the most convenient place to be taken

notice of, to the end that they may be known if any complaints shall

be made of them[369]."

[368] By Monthly Payments.

[369] The Figures of the Chairs are too small and inconspicuous;

there should be one both on the outside and inside of each.

This was all that could then be done respecting the _Coaches_,

forasmuch as the old term of twenty-one years, granted in the

fifth year of William and Mary, 1694, was subsisting, whereby

seven hundred Coaches were allowed, and for which privilege the

Owners had paid fifty pounds each, on whom Government shewed some

tenderness. With regard, however, to regulation, &c. there was,

no doubt, room sufficient for the exercise of the powers given to

the Commissioners. There was, likewise, another object involved in

this Statute; _viz._ the _Chairs_, which were not comprehended in

the same agreement and contract with the Coaches, but were open

immediately to new laws. Therefore under the same commissions was

placed the management and licensing of the Hackney Chairs, to

commence from the 24th of June in the following year, 1711, for the

said term of thirty-two years; which were thereby limited to the

number of _two hundred_, each paying for such licence the annual

sum of ten shillings[370]. As the number of both Coaches and Chairs

was enlarged, whereby many new persons would come forward, perhaps

to the ousting of the old Coach-Masters and Chair-Masters, it is

required by this Act that the Commissioners shall give a preference

to such of the Lessees, as I may call them, whose terms had not then

expired, whether the right remained in themselves or their widows,

if they applied within a given time[371].

[370] By Quarterly Payments. Thus the Power of the Commissioners

over the Chairs arose before that over the Coaches.

[371] Some Lawsuits having arisen from this Clause, it was explained

by a short Act of the 12th year of the Queen (1713), subjecting such

_Widows_ to the same Rules, Penalties, &c. made, or to be made, as

any acting Chairman. And thus it continues to this day; for the

owner of a _Figure_, as it is called, is answerable for certain

faults of his or her assignee.

By this statute likewise the rates were limited to time and

distance, at ten shillings by the Day.--One shilling and six

pence for the first Hour, and one shilling for every succeeding

Hour.--One shilling for the distance of a mile and a half.--One

shilling and six pence for any distance more than a mile and a half,

and not exceeding two miles; and so on, in the proportion of six

pence for every succeeding half mile.

The Chairs are likewise at the same time rated at two-thirds of the

distance prescribed to the Coaches, so that they were allowed to

take one shilling for a mile, and six pence for every succeeding

half mile.

Though the time of waiting is not specified in the Act with regard

to the Chairs, yet it follows, by implication, to be intended the

same as the Coaches. These have been altered by a very late Statute,

1785. It is well known that it is left in the option of either

Coachmen or Chairmen, whether they will be paid by the distance or

the time, which is but a reasonable privilege; but there is another

circumstance, not generally known, of which the passengers are not

perhaps aware, _viz_. that if the room which a Coach will occupy

in turning about should exceed the distance allowed, the Coachman

is entitled to a larger fare, that is, as much as if he had gone

another half mile. The doctrine is the same respecting Chairs, and

the room allowed is eight yards in the case of a Coach, and four

yards in the case of a Chair. As the Statute gives all competent

allowances to the Coachmen and Chairmen, so it was requisite, on

the other hand, to make the contract obligatory, and that each of

them should be compellable to perform their parts; and therefore,

to do this, and at the same time to prevent extortion, it became

necessary to add a severe penal clause, _viz._ "that if any

Hackney-Coachman or Chairman shall refuse to go at, or shall exact

more for his hire than, the several rates hereby limited, he shall,

for every such offence, forfeit the sum of _forty shillings_." These

penalties were, by this Act, to have gone in the proportion of

_two_-thirds to the Queen, and _one_-third to the Plaintiff. [Since

made half to the Crown and half to the Complainant.] The Coachmen

and Chairmen are thereby likewise liable to be deprived of their

Licences for misbehaviour, or by giving abusive language[372]. On

the other hand, that the Coachmen and Chairmen might have a remedy

in case of refusal to pay them their just fare, any Justice of the

Peace is impowered, upon complaint, to issue a warrant to bring

before him the Recusant, and to award reasonable satisfaction to

the party aggrieved, or otherwise to bind him over to the next

Quarter-Session, where the Bench is empowered to levy the said

satisfaction by distress. The Act proceeds to other matters touching

the Commissioners themselves, &c.; and then states, that whereas by

a Statute of the 29th of Charles II. the use of all Hackney Coaches

and Chairs had been prohibited on Sundays, it gives full power both

to stand and to ply as on other days.[373]

[372] Turned afterwards into a mulct.

[373] Restrained by a subsequent Act.

This is the substance of the Act before us; but it may here be

observed, that in the 10th year of the Queen, 1711, _one hundred

more Chairs_ were added by Statute, subject to the same regulations

as the rest, being found not only convenient but necessary; as the

number of Coaches, consistently with Public Faith, could not be

enlarged till the year 1715, when the old term of twenty-one years

should have expired.

Before all the provisions in the Act of the year 1710, referred to

the future period of 1715, could take place, a demise of the Crown

intervened, A. D. 1714, by which all such clauses, which extended to

a future time, were of course become a nullity.

By Act 12 George I. chap. 12, the number of Chairs was raised to

400, on account of the increase of Buildings Westward.[374]

* * * * *

[374] The MS here ends abruptly.--On the subject of Chairs, however,

see Acts 3 Geo. I. chap. 7; 16 Geo. II. chap. 26; 20 Geo. II. chap.

10; 30 Geo. II. chap. 22; 33 Geo. II. chap. 25.

THE HAMMER CLOTH.

To shew how trifling, though necessary conveniences, arise to great

and expensive luxuries, let us remark the original insignificant

appendage of what we call the Hammer Cloth. It was requisite that

the Coachman should have a few implements in case of accidents, or a

sudden and little repair was wanting to the Coach; for which purpose

he carried a hammer with a few pins, nails, &c. with him, and placed

them under his seat, made hollow to hold them, and which from thence

was called the Coach Box; and, in a little time, in order to conceal

this unsightly appearance, a cloth was thrown over the box and its

contents, of which a hammer was the chief, and thence took the name

of the Hammer-Cloth. This is my idea of the etymon of these two

common terms. And here again it can but be observed that this little

appendage is now become the most striking and conspicuous ornament

of the equipage.

Articles of Dress.

GLOVES.

About the year 790, Charlemagne granted an unlimited right of

hunting to the Abbot and Monks of Sithin, for making their _Gloves_

and Girdles of the Skins of the Deer they killed, and Covers for

their Books. [Mabillon de Re Diplom. p. 611. Grose.]

Anciently richly adorned and decorated with precious Stones,--as

in the Rolls of Parliament, anno 53 Hen. III. A. D. 1267. "Et de 2

Paribus _Chirothecarum_ cum lapidibus." [Warton's History of Poetry,

vol. I. p. 182, note. Grose.]

Edward Vere, Earl of Oxford, according to Mr. Walpole's account, on

the authority of Stowe,--"having travelled into Italy, is recorded

to have been the first that brought into England _embroidered_

GLOVES and Perfumes; and presenting the Queen [Elizabeth] with a

Pair of the former, she was so pleased with them, as to be drawn

with them in one of her Portraits." [Royal and Noble Authors, vol.

i. p. 159. Note to Winter's Tale, edit. Johnson and Steevens, 1778,

p. 388.]

"Give _Gloves_ to the Reapers, a Largesse to cry."

[Tusser, _v._ Hist. of Hawsted. 190.]

The Monastery of Bury allowed its Servants two pence apiece for

_Glove-Silver_ in Autumn. [Hist. of Hawsted. 190.]

The rural Bridegroom, in Laneham's (or Langham's) Account of the

Entertainment of Queen Elizabeth at Kenelworth Castle, 1575, had--a

Payr of _Harvest Gloves_ on his Hands, as a sign of good Husbandry.

Id. in eod.

When Sir Thomas Pope, the Founder of Trinity College, Oxford,

visited it, 1556, "The Bursars offered him a present of embroidered

_Gloves_." [Warton's Life of Sir Thomas Pope, p. 119.]

When Sir Thomas Pope had founded the College, the University

complimented him with a Letter of Thanks, which was accompanied

with a Present of _rich Gloves_, 1556. [Warton's Life, p. 132,

note.] The Gloves were sent both to himself and Lady, and cost 6_s._

8_d._ [Id. in eod.]

After the death of Sir Thomas Pope, his Widow married Sir Hugh

Powlett; on which occasion the College presented her, as the Wife

of the Founder, with a Pair of very rich Gloves, the charge for

which runs--Pro _Pari Chirothecarum_ dat. Dom. Powlett et Domine

Fundatrici, xvi s. Idem, p. 185. See also p. 191, ubi sæpe; and p.

411. "Pro Chirothecis Magistri Pope, xxxii s.

An article charged in the Bursar's books of Trinity College, Oxford,

is "pro fumigatis _Chirothecis_." [Warton.] These were often given

to College-Tenants, and Guests of Distinction; but this fell into

disuse soon after the Reign of Charles I. Idem. [Grose.]

George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, received a _Glove_ from Queen

Elizabeth. The Queen had dropped it, when he taking it up to return

to her, she presented it to him as a mark of her esteem. He adorned

it with Jewels, and wore it in the front of his Hat on days of

Tournaments. It is expressed in a print of him by Robert White.

[Bray's Tour, p. 319.]

See for Gloves worn in Hats, Old Plays, vol. ii. p. 132, second

edition: King Lear, act iii. sc. 4. edit, 1778 by Johnson and

Steevens.

N. B. Such Tokens as these were called _Favours_[375], from whence

we derive the term for Ribbons given on Weddings. I presume they are

supposed to be given by the hand of the Bride.

[375] See Walpole's Royal and Noble Authors, vol. i. p. 131. So

Shakspeare, Richard II. act v. sc. 2.

Dr. Glisson, in his last visit to Queen Elizabeth, received from her

a Pair of rich Spanish leather _Gloves_, embossed on the backs and

tops with gold embroidery, and fringed round with gold plate. The

Queen, as he tells us, pulled them from her own Royal Hands, saying,

"Here, Glisson, wear them for my sake." Life of Corinna (or Mrs.

Eliz. Thomas), p. xxxi.

Perfumed Gloves[376]; v. supra.

[376] Mistress of the _Sweet_-Coffers, occurs in the Old

Establishments. The present Queen (Charlotte) has her Gloves kept in

a _perfumed_ box.

"These Gloves the Count sent me; they are an excellent _Perfume_."

Much Ado about Nothing, act ii. sc. 4.

Gloves given at Weddings. Old Plays, vol. v. p. 8.

A Glove hung up in a Church, as a public Challenge. Gilpin's Life of

Bernard Gilpin, by Mr. Gilpin, p. 179.

Swearing by Gloves, in jocular conversation, very common. "Aye, by

these Gloves!" is an expression I have somewhere seen.

Ladies' Sleeves, as well as Gloves, were worn as tokens of

Gallantry. Vide Troil. and Cress, act. v. sc. 2. edit. Johnson and

Steevens, 1778.

Gifts that admitted of it (especially to Women from Men) were

usually worn on the Sleeve.

"I knew her by this Jewel on her _Sleeve_."

Love's Labour Lost, act v. sc. 1.

Fairings, and such Tokens, were of this sort. Hence the Question and

Answer.

Q. What have you brought me? (from the Fair, &c.) A. A _new

nothing_, to pin on your _Sleeve_.

Hence also to _pin_ one's _Faith_ upon another's _Sleeve_.

"Wear my Heart upon my Sleeve."

Othello, act i. sc. 1.

* * * * *

F. GROSE, Esq. to S. PEGGE, F. S. A.

September 4, 1784.

Dear Sir,

I have had such a variety of interruptions (agreeable ones),

that I have made no hand of your _Gloves:_ all that has occurred

on that subject, I here send you.

Blood, who attempted to steal the Crown, presented Mr. Edwards,

Keeper of the Jewel Office, with _four_ Pair of White Gloves,

as from his Wife, in gratitude for his civility to her in

a pretended qualm or sickness. The whole transaction is in

Maitland's History of London.

To give one's Glove was considered as a challenge. See

Shakspeare, in Hen. V. It is still considered in that light by

the Highlanders, of which I once saw an instance in Flanders.

Dropping the Gauntlet, at the Coronation, is a kind of challenge.

When the Judge invites the Justices to dine with him at a County

Assize, a Glove is handed about by the Crier or Clerk of the

Court, who delivers the invitation; into this Glove every one

invited puts a shilling.

A Bribe is called a Pair of Gloves.

In a Play, I think called the Twin Rivals, an Alderman presents

his Glove, filled with Broad Pieces, to a Nobleman, as a Bribe

to procure a Commission for his Son.

Item, for three dozen Leder Gloves, 12s. Vide Account of Henry

VII. in Remembrancer's Office.

I set off next week for Christchurch, where I propose staying a

month, or six weeks at farthest. My best wishes attend you and

yours.

Adieu!

F. GROSE.

ERMINE

GENTLEWOMEN'S APPAREL.

What we call _Ermine_ is an erroneous conception, for we give the

name to White Fur tufted with Black, whereas it is the Black only

that is properly Ermine, of which numberless instances may be

produced, and this is one.

_Powderings on her Bonnet._--This may require an explanation to

those who are unacquainted with the language of that age. What we

call Ermine, is a compound, which will bear a little analysis, for

it is formed of the Fur of one animal, and the tip of the Tail of

another. The White Ground is, properly speaking, _Minever_, so

called from a Russian animal of that name. [v. Philips's Dictionary,

in voce.] The Ermine is the Armenian Mouse, the tip of whose Tail is

Black, which being placed as a falling tuft upon the Minever, forms

what we collectively call Ermine, the value of which is enhanced

the more, as one animal can afford but one tuft. [v. Bailey's Dict,

in voce.] Every one of these tufts is termed a _Powdering_.

The Heralds make a distinction between the singular _Ermine_, and

the Plural, _Ermines_; the latter, in their language, importing

Black powdered with White: and they go into still more minute

modifications, _Erminois_, &c.

APPAREL FOR THE HEADS OF GENTLEWOMEN.

First, none shall wear an Ermine, or Lettice-Bonnet, unless she be a

Gentlewoman born, having Arms.

Item, a _Gentleman_'s Wife, she being a Gentlewoman born, shall wear

an Ermine or Lettice Bonnet, having _one_ Powdering in the Top. And

if she be of honourable stock, to have _two_ Powderings, one before

another, in the Top.

Item, an _Esquire_'s Wife to have _two_ Powderings.

Item, an _Esquire_'s Wife _for the Body_ to wear _five_ Powderings;

and if she be of great Blood, _two_ before, which maketh seven.

Item, a _Knight_'s Wife to wear on her Bonnet, _seven_ Powderings,

or _eight_ at the most, because of higher Blood, as before.

Item, a _Banneret_'s Wife to wear _ten_ Powderings.

Item, a _Baron_'s Wife _thirteen_.

Item, a _Viscount_'s [Wife] to wear _eighteen_.

Item, a _Countess_ to wear _twenty-four_. And above that Estate the

number convenient, at their pleasures.

Ex Bibl. Harl. No. 1776. fol. 31. b.

MOURNING.

The French Queens, before the Reign of Charles VIII. wore _White_

upon the death of the King; and were called "_Reines Blanches_." It

was changed to _Black_ on the death of Charles VIII. 1498. [See P.

Dan. Hist. iv. 590.]

In a Wardrobe account for half a year, to Lady-day 1684 (a MS.

purchased by Mr. Brander at the sale of the Library of Geo. Scot,

Esq. of Woolston-Hall, 1781), are the following entries for the

King's Mourning.

"A Grey Coat lined with Murrey and White flowered Silk, with Gold

Loops, and four Crape Hat-bands."

Again, "A Sad-coloured Silk Coat, lined with Gold-striped

Lutestring, with Silver-and-Silk Buttons; and a Purple Crape

Hatband."

Again, "A Purple Coat."

The Emperor Leopold, who died 1705, never shaved his Beard during

the time of Mourning, which often lasted for a long time. [Bancks's

Hist. of Austria, p. 277.]

The Empress-Dowagers never lay aside their Mourning, and even their

Apartments are hung with Black till their deaths. [Bancks's Hist. of

Austria, p. 400. He says this from Baron Polnitz's Memoirs, vol. iv.

p. 46.]

The Bavarian Family never give a Black Livery, or line their

Coaches, in the deepest Mourning. [Polnitz, i. letter 22.]

The Pope's Nieces never wear Mourning, not even for their nearest

Relations; as the Romans reckon it so great a happiness for a

Family to have a Pope in it, that nothing ought to afflict his

Holiness's kindred. [Polnitz's Memoirs, ii. letter 33.]

Queen Anne, on the death of Prince George of Denmark, wore Black

and White, with a mixture of Purple in some part of her Dress. The

precedent was taken from that worn by Mary Queen of Scots for the

Earl of Darnley, which was exactly in point. [Secret History of

England, ii. 299.]

King Charles I. put the Court into Mourning for one Day on the death

of the Earl of Portland (Richard Weston), Lord High Treasurer.

[Stafford's Letters, i. 389.]

BEARD, &c.

CHARLES I.[377]--WILLIAM I.

[377] See "The Life of Corinna," or Mrs. Elizabeth Thomas, Jun.

Printed in 1731.

Mrs. Thomas's Great Grand-Father was Mr. Richard _Shute_, a

Turkey Merchant, one of the Members for the City of London,

and much favoured by King Charles I. who gave him the Name of

_Sattin_-Shute, by way of distinction from another Branch of the

same Name and Family, and from his usually wearing a _Sattin_

Doublet cut upon White Taffata.

"Without doubt," says Mrs. Thomas (for she was her own Biographer),

"he was very nice in the mode of that Age, his Valet being some

hours every morning in _starching_ his _Beard_, and _curling_ his

_Whiskers_; but," continues she, "during that time a Gentleman, whom

he maintained as a Companion, always read to him on some useful

subject." He lived in Leaden-Hall Street, the site on which stands

the India House, and had a Country-seat at Berking, in Essex. Here

he had a very fine Bowling-green, as he delighted much in that

exercise. The King, who was fond of the diversion, once told Mr.

Shute, he would dine with him some day, and try his skill on his

Bowling-green. The King went, and was so pleased with the place, it

being very retired, and likewise with Mr. Shute's skill in Bowling

(he being accounted one of the best Bowlers of his time), that he

frequently visited afterwards Berking-Hall, without any Guards, and

with three or four select Gentlemen, his attendants, when, as the

King expressed it, he had a mind to _drop State, and enjoy himself

as a private man_:--"_Ah, Shute_," said he one day, with a deep

sigh, "how much happier than I art thou, in this blessed retirement,

free from the cares of a Crown, a factious Ministry, and rebellious

Subjects!" They generally played high, and punctually paid their

losings; and though Mr. Shute often won, yet the King would, one

day, set higher than usual, and, having lost several games, gave

over; when Mr. Shute said,--"An please your Majesty, _One thousand

pounds rubber more, perhaps Luck may turn_:"--"_No, Shute_," replied

the King, laying his hand gently on his shoulder, "_Thou hast won

the day, and much good may it do thee, but I must remember I have a

Wife and Children_." P. xxi.

This place was afterwards dismantled by Mr. Shute's heir, and in a

few years became a ploughed field. The King gave Mr. Shute several

places; among which were the Deputy Lieutenancy of the Ordnance,

and the Mastership of St. Cross's Hospital, to the amount of four

thousand pounds _per annum_. P. xxv.

These he gave up when the Civil War broke out; and retired to

Hamburgh, where he died a few years after the death of the King. P.

xxvii.

William the Conqueror played _deep_; for, tradition says, that

Walter Fitzbourne, a Norman Knight, and great Favourite of the King,

playing at Chess on a Summer's evening, on the banks of the _Ouse_,

with the King, won all he played for. The King threw down the Board,

saying he had nothing more to play for. "Sir," said Sir Walter,

"here is land." "There is so," replied the King; "and if thou

beatest me this Game also, thine be all the Land on this side the

Bourne, or River, which thou canst see as thou sittest." He had the

good fortune to _win_; and the King, clapping him on the shoulder,

said, "Henceforth thou shalt no more be called _Fitzbourne_, but

_Ousebourne_."' Hence it is supposed came the name of _Osborne_.

Life of Corinna, p. xxviii.

WESTMINSTER.

Lord Coke, in his 3d Inst. (cap. 51.) speaking of the City of

Westminster, says, "It hath its name of 'the Monastery,' which

_Minster_ signifieth, and it is called _West_minster, in respect of

_East_minster, not far from the Tower of London. This Westminster,

Sebert, the first King of the East Saxons that was christened,

founded." It is added in a note in the margin, Segbert began his

Reign A. D. 603.

Lord Coke, however excellent a Lawyer, I fear was but a bad

Antiquary; for the reverse rather seems to be the case, as it

will appear that _East_minster was so called in respect of

_West_minster. For in Stowe's Survey of London (edit. 1633), p.

497, he gives the following account of the Foundation of the Church

of Westminster:--"This Monasterie was founded and builded in the

year 605, by Sebert, King of the East Saxons, upon the perswasion

of Ethelbert, King of Kent, who, having embraced Christianity, and

being baptized by Melitus, Bishop of London, immediately (to shew

himself a Christian indede) built a Church to the honor of God and

St. Peter, on the West side of the City of London, in a place, which

(because it was overgrown with thornes, and environed with water)

the Saxons called 'Thornez,' or 'Thorney;' ... whereupon, partly

from the situation to the _West_, and partly from the Monasterie or

_Minster_, it began to take the name of _Westminster_:" and then he

goes on with the history of that Church.

So far of Westminster. Of Eastminster Stowe gives the following

account, by which it will appear that the foundation of Eastminster

was subsequent to that of Westminster, by at least 700 years. "In

the year 1348," says he, "the 23d of Edward the Third, the first

great Pestilence in his time began, and increased so sore, that for

want of roome in Church-yards to bury the dead of the City and of

the Suburbs, one John Corey, Clerke, procured of Nicholas, Prior of

the Holy Trinity within Ealdgate, one toft of ground neere unto

East Smithfield, for the buriall of them that dyed; with condition,

that it might be called the Church-yard of the Holy Trinity: which

ground he caused, by the ayd of divers devout Citizens, to be

inclosed with a wall of stone; ... and the same was dedicated by

Ralfe Stratford, Bishop of London, where innumerable bodies of the

dead, were afterwards buried, and a Chapel built in the same place

to the honour of God; to the which King Edward setting his eye

(having before, in a tempest on the sea, and peril of drowning, made

a vow to build a Monastery to the honour of God, and _our Lady of

Grace_, if God would give him _grace_ to come safe to land), builded

there a Monasterie, causing it to be named _Eastminster_, placing an

Abbot and Monks of the Cistercian or White order." P. 117.

In Stowe, p. 751, is a list of all the "Patrones of all the

Benefices in London," in which this Foundation seems to be twice

mentioned, first as the "Abbey of White Monks," and then as "Mary de

Grace, an Abbey of Monkes, by the Towre of London."

MEMORANDA

RELATIVE TO THE

Society of the Temple,

LONDON;

_Written in or about the Year 1760._

The Societies of the Temple have no Charter; but the Fee was granted

by a Patent to the Professors and Students of the Law, to them and

their Successors for ever.

The King is Visitor of the Temples; and orders have been sent down

from him so lately as Charles the Second's time, for the Regulation

of them, which were brought in great form by the Lord Chancellor and

twelve Judges, and signed by them.

The _Discipline_ of these Societies was formerly, till within

these eighty years, very strict. The Students appeared, upon all

occasions, and in all places, in their proper habits; and for

neglecting to appear in such habit, or for want of decency in

it, they were punished by being put two years backward in their

standing. This habit was discontinued, because the Templars having

been guilty of riots in some parts of the town, being known by their

habits to be such, a reproach was thereby reflected on the Society,

for want of discipline.

_Commons._--Till there was a relaxation of discipline, the Commons

were continued in the Vacation as well as in the Terms; and the

Members obliged to attend, upon severe penalties for neglect of

it. The Barristers, though they were called to their degree, were

not admitted to practise, but by special leave from the Judges,

till three years after their call, during which their attendance to

Commons, both in Term and Vacation, was not to be compounded for, or

dispensed with.

The Law Societies were, at first, under one general regulation and

establishment, till they branched out, and divided, as it were,

into Colonies. The Societies of each Temple are very zealous in

contending for the Antiquity of their Society.

_The Society of the Middle Temple_ must now be very rich; and it

consists in money, they having no real estate. I have been assured,

that the certain yearly expences of it, exclusive of repairs,

amounts to a considerable sum.

The _Benchers_ are generally in number about twenty, though there

is no fixed number. They may be called to the Bench at eighteen or

twenty years standing. The Bench have power to call whom they think

proper of such standing to the Bench; which if they answer not, they

pay a Fine of Fifty Pounds.

The Benchers eat at their own expence in this Society, having

nothing allowed but their Commons; which few, I believe none, of the

Benchers of the other Houses do.

The _Readings_, which generally were upon some Statute, continued

about eight days, when there were Treats and Balls at the Reader's

expence; and there is an Order of the House, of no very old date, by

which the Reader was restrained from having above Eight Servants,

which shews, in some measure, the luxury and expence attending

them. They have now been discontinued upwards of seventy years

(the last Reader being Sir William Whitlocke, 1684); but there is

a Reader still appointed every year, and some small Treat, at the

expence of the Society, of Venison, &c.; and the Arms of the Reader

are put up in a Pannel in the Hall.

Mr. Bohun, the Writer of several excellent Books in different

branches of the Law, having, when he was Reader at New Inn, put up a

question tending to Blasphemy, (I think it was, whether the Person

of our Saviour was God,) was _excommoned_ by the Society; that is,

he was denied the privilege of coming into the Hall, and at the same

time obliged to pay for full Commons. They judged expulsion too mild

a punishment.

The _Old Hall_ stood on the South side of Pump Court, which, upon

building a new one, was converted into Sets of Chambers; and which,

by Order of Queen Elizabeth, were not to exceed eight in number.

This was soon after pulled down, and Chambers built in its stead.

_Library._--Left by Will to the Society, by Astley, a Bencher of

it. It contains about Nine Thousand Volumes. Besides this, he left

a Set of Chambers, value three hundred pounds, for the maintenance

of a Librarian, who at first was a Barrister; but, not being thought

worth their acceptance, it is now in the Butler.

_Present Hall._--Built by Plowden, who was seven years in perfecting

it. He was three years Treasurer successively; and after he quitted

the Treasurership, he still continued the direction of the Building.

_The Temple Organ_ was made by _Smith_. The Societies, being

resolved to have a good Organ, employed one _Smith_ and one

_Harris_ to make each of them an Organ, value five hundred pounds;

and promised that they would give seven hundred pounds for that

which proved the best. This was accordingly done, and Smith's was

preferred and purchased. The other, made by Harris, was sold to

Christ-Church in Dublin; but, being afterwards exchanged for another

made by Byfield for four hundred pounds difference, it was sold by

Byfield to the Church at Woolwich[378].

[378] Mr. Snetzler.

_Inns of Chancery_, like the Halls at Oxford.

_New-Inn_ belongs to the Middle Temple; and at the expiration of a

long lease, the Fee Simple will be vested in us.

Simnel.

"_Simnel.--Siminellus_ from the Latin _Simila_, which signifies

the Finest Part of the Flour. Panis similageneus, Simnel Bread. It

is mentioned in 'Assisa Panis;' and is still in use, especially in

Lent. Bread made into a Simnel shall weigh two shillings less than

Wastell Bread." Stat. 51 Henry III.

The Statute, intituled Assisa Panis et Cervisiæ, made Anno 51 Hen.

III. Stat. I.; and Anno Dom. 1266. Cotton MS. Claudius, D. 2.

... Panis verò de siminello ponderabit minus de Wastello de duobus

solidis, quia bis coctus est.

For the Ordinance for the Assise and Weight of Bread in the City of

London, see Stowe's Survey, p. 740, Edit. 1633.

It was sometime called _Simnellus_, as in the Annals of the Church

of Winchester, under the year 1042. "Rex Edwardus instituit,

et cartâ confirmavit, ut quoties ipse vel aliquis Successorum

suorum Regum Angliæ diadema portaret Wintoniæ vel Wigorniæ vel

Westmonasterii; Præcentor loci recipiet de fisco ipsâ die dimidiam

marcam, et conventus centum Sumnellos et unun modium vini." But,

indeed, the true reading is _Siminel_.

The English Simnel was the purest White Bread, as in the Book

of Battle Abbey. "Panem Regiæ Mensæ aptam, qui _Simenel_ vulgò

vocatur[379]."

[379] Cowell's Interpreter. See also Blount's Glossary, in voce.

_Simula._--A Manchet, a White Loaf. Among the Customs of the Abbey

of Glastonbury: "In diebus solemnibus, cum Fratres fuerunt in

cappis, Medonem habuerunt in Justis, et Simulas super mensam, et

vinum ad caritatem, et tria generalia." Chartular. Abbat. Glaston.

MS. fol. 10.

For the use of Saffron, now used for colouring the Crust of the

Simnel, see Shakespear's Winter's Tale; where the Clown (Act iv.)

says, "Then I must have Saffron to colour the Warden Pyes."

Origin of Thirteen Pence Halfpenny,

AS

HANGMAN'S WAGES;

_In a Letter to_ EDWARD KING, _Esq. President of the Society of

Antiquaries_.

The vulgar notion, though it will not appear to be a vulgar error,

is, that Thirteen Pence Halfpenny is the fee of the Executioner in

the common line of business at Tyburn[380], and therefore is called

Hangman's Wages. The sum is singular, and certainly there is a

reason for its having obtained so odious an appellation, though it

may not be very obvious.

[380] The Executions, on ordinary occasions, were removed from this

memorable place, and were performed in the street of the Old Bailey,

at the door of Newgate. This was first practised on the 9th of

December 1783. See the printed account. Every of these Executions, I

was told by Mr. Reed, 1785, is attended with an expence of upwards

of nine pounds. Twenty persons were hanged at once in February 1785.

We find that anciently this Office was, in some parts of the

Kingdom, annexed to other Posts; for the Porter of the City of

Canterbury was the Executioner for the County of Kent, temporibus

Hen. II. and Hen. III. for which he had an allowance from the

Sheriff, who was re-imbursed from the Exchequer, of Twenty Shillings

_per annum_[381].

[381] Madox's History of the Exchequer, ii. p. 373.

Though this is an Office in great and general disesteem, yet the

Sheriffs are much obliged to those who will undertake it, as

otherwise the unpleasant and painful duty must fall upon themselves.

They are the persons to whom the Law looks for its completion,

as they give a Receipt to the Gaoler for the Bodies of condemned

Criminals whom they are to punish, or cause to be punished,

according to their respective Sentences. The business is of such an

invidious nature, that, in the Country, Sheriffs have sometimes had

much difficulty to procure an Executioner, as, in the eyes of the

lower people, it carries with it a Stigma, apart from any shock that

it must give to Humanity and Compassion. I remember a very few years

ago, if the News-papers said true, the Sheriff of one of the Inland

Counties was very near being obliged to perform the unwelcome Office

himself.

So that in fact the Hangman is the Sheriff's immediate Deputy

in criminal matters, though there is always, at present, an

Under-Sheriff for civil purposes. But, before I bring you to the

point in question, it will not be amiss to lead you gradually to

it, by inquiring into the nature and dignity of the Office in some

particulars, and into the Rank of the Officer, for we have all heard

of _Squire Ketch_. These will be found to be supportable matters, as

well as the Fee of Office, which is our ground-work.

The Sheriff is, by being so styled in the King's Patent under the

Great Seal, an Esquire, which raises him to that Rank, unless he

has previously had the Title adventitiously. None were anciently

chosen to this Office, but such Gentlemen whose fortunes and

stations would warrant it; so, on the other hand, Merchants,

and other liberal branches of the lower order, were admitted

first into the rank of Gentlemen, by a grant of Arms, on proper

qualifications; from the Earl Marshal, and the Kings of Arms,

respectively, according to their Provinces. After a Negotiant has

become a Gentleman, courtesy will very soon advance that rank, and

give the party the title of Esquire; and so it has happened with

the worthy _Gentleman_ before us, for such I shall prove him once

with ceremony to have been created. This remarkable case happened

in the year 1616, and was as follows. Ralph Brooke, whose real name

was Brokesmouth, at that time York Herald, not content with being

mischievous, was the most turbulent and malicious man that ever wore

the King's Coat. After various malversations in Office, not to the

present purpose, he put a trick upon Sir William Segar, Garter King

of Arms, which had very nearly cost both of them their places. The

story is touched upon in Mr. Anstis's Register of the Order of the

Garter[382]; but is more fully and satisfactorily related in the

Life of Mr. Camden, prefixed to his "Britannia," to this effect.

Ralph Brooke employed a person to carry a Coat of Arms ready drawn

to Garter, and to pretend it belonged to one Gregory Brandon, a

Gentleman who had formerly lived in London, but then residing in

Spain, and to desire Garter to set his hand to it. To prevent

deliberation, the messenger was instructed to pretend that the

vessel, which was to carry this confirmation into Spain, when it had

received the Seal of the Office and Garter's Hand, was just ready to

sail[383]. This being done, and the Fees paid, Brooke carries it to

Thomas Earl of Arundel, then one of the Commissioners for executing

the Office of Earl Marshal; and, in order to vilify Garter, and to

represent him as a rapacious negligent Officer, assures his Lordship

that those were the Arms of Arragon, with a Canton for Brabant, and

that Gregory Brandon was a mean and inconsiderable person. This was

true enough; for he was the common Hangman for London and Middlesex.

Ralph Brooke afterwards confessed all these circumstances to the

Commissioners who represented the Earl Marshal; the consequence of

which was, that Garter was, by order of the King, when he heard

the case, committed to Prison for negligence, and the Herald for

treachery. Be this as we find it, yet was Gregory Brandon the

Hangman become a _Gentleman_, and, as the Bastard says in King John,

"could make any Joan a Gentlewoman."

[382] Vol. ii. p. 399.

[383] These Arms actually appear in Edmondson's Body of Heraldry,

annexed to the name of _Brandon_, _viz_. the Arms of Arragon with a

difference, and the Arms of Brabant in a Canton.

Thus was this Gregory Brandon advanced, perhaps from the state of a

Convict, to the rank of a Gentleman; and though it was a personal

honour to himself, notwithstanding it was surreptitiously obtained

by the Herald, of which _Gregory Brandon, Gentleman_, was perhaps

ignorant, yet did it operate so much on his successors in office,

that afterwards it became transferred from the Family to the Officer

for the time being; and from Mr. Brandon's popularity, though not

of the most desirable kind, the mobility soon improved his rank,

and, with a jocular complaisance, gave him the title of _Esquire_,

which remains to this day. I have said that Mr. Brandon was perhaps

a Convict; for I know that at York the Hangman has usually been a

pardoned Criminal, whose case was deemed venial, and for which the

performance of this painful duty to fellow-prisoners was thought a

sufficient infliction. It seems too as if this Office had once, like

many other important Offices of State, been hereditary; but whether

Mr. Brandon had it by descent I cannot say, yet Shakspeare has this

passage in Coriolanus[384]:

"_Menenius._--Marcius, in a cheap estimation, is worth all your

Predecessors, since Deucalion; though, peradventure, some of the

best of them were Hereditary Hangmen."

[384] Act ii. sc. 1.

This looks as if the Office of Executioner had run in some Family

for a generation or two, at the time when Shakspeare wrote; and that

it was a circumstance well understood, and would be well relished,

at least by the Galleries. This might indeed, with regard to time,

point at the ancestors of Mr. Brandon himself; for it was in the

Reign of King James I. that this person was, as we have seen,

brought within the pale of Gentility. Nay, more, we are told by Dr.

Grey, in his Notes on Shakspeare[385], that from this Gentleman, the

Hangmen, his Successors, bore for a considerable time his Christian

name of Gregory, though not his Arms, they being a personal honour,

till a greater man arose, _viz. Jack Ketch_, who entailed the

present official name on all who have hitherto followed him[386].

[385] Vol. ii. p. 163.

[386] The Hangman was known by the name of _Gregory_ in the year

1642, as we learn from the Mercurius Aulicus, p. 553.

Whether the name of _Ketch_ be not the provincial pronunciation of

_Catch_ among the Cockneys, I have my doubts, though I have printed

authority to confront me; for that learned and laborious Compiler,

B. E. Gent. the Editor of the Canting Dictionary, says that _Jack

Kitch_, for so he spells it, was the real name of a Hangman, which

has become that of all his successors. When this great man lived,

for such we must suppose him to have been, and renowned for his

popularity or dexterity, Biographical History is silent.

So much for this important Office itself; and we must now look

to the Emoluments which appertain to it, and assign a reason why

Thirteen Pence Halfpenny should be esteemed the standard Fee for

this definitive stroke of the law.

Hogarth has given a fine Picture of the _sang-froid_ of an

Executioner in his Print of the London Apprentice; where the Mr.

Ketch for the time being is lolling upon the Gallows, and smoaking

his Pipe; waiting, with the utmost indifference, for the arrival of

the Cart and the Mob that close the melancholy Procession. But Use

becomes Nature in things at which even Nature herself revolts.

Before we proceed to matters of a pecuniary nature, having said

so much upon the _Executioner_, permit me to step out of the way

for a moment, and add a word or two on the _Executioné_, which will

explain a Yorkshire saying. It was for the most unsuspected crime

imaginable, that the truly unfortunate man who gave rise to the

adage suffered the Sentence of the Law at York. He was a Saddler

at Bawtry, and occasioned this saying, often applied among the

lower people to a man who quits his friends too early, and will not

stay to finish his bottle; "That he will be hanged for leaving his

liquor, like the Saddler of Bawtry." The case was this: There was

formerly, and indeed it has not long been suppressed, an Ale-house,

to this day called "_The Gallows House_," situate between the City

of York and their Tyburne; at which House the Cart used always to

stop; and there the Convict and the other parties were refreshed

with liquors; but the rash and precipitate Saddler, under Sentence,

and on his road to the fatal Tree, refused this little regale, and

hastened on to the Place of Execution--when, very soon after he was

turned-off, a Reprieve arrived; insomuch that, had he stopped, as

was usual, at the Gallows House, the time consumed there would have

been the means of saving his life; so that he was hanged, as truly

as unhappily, for leaving his liquor.

The same compliment was anciently paid to Convicts, on their passage

to Tyburne, at St. Giles's Hospital; for we are told by Stowe[387],

that they were there presented with a Bowl of Ale, called "_St.

Giles's Bowl_;" "thereof to drink at their pleasure, as their last

refreshing in this life." This place (Tyburne) was the established

scene of Executions in common cases so long ago as the first year of

King Henry IV; Smithfield and St. Giles's Field being reserved for

persons of higher rank, and for crimes of uncommon magnitude; such

as treason and heresy: in the last of these, Sir John Oldcastle,

Lord Cobham, was burnt, or rather roasted, alive; having been

hanged up over the fire by a chain which went round his waist[388].

[387] History of London, vol. II. p. 74.

[388] Rapin. See also Bale's Life and Trial of Sir John Oldcastle.

St. Giles's was then an independent Village, and is still called

St. Giles's in the Fields, to distinguish it from St. Giles's,

Cripplegate; being both in the same Diocese.

The Execution of the Duke of Monmouth (in July 1685) was peculiarly

unsuccessful in the operation.

The Duke said to the Executioner, "Here are Six Guineas for you:

pray do your business well; do not serve me as you did my Lord

Russell: I have heard you struck him three or four times. Here" (to

his Servant); "take these remaining Guineas, and give them to him if

he does his work well."

_Executioner._--"I hope I shall."

_Monmouth._--"If you strike me twice, I cannot promise you not to

stir. Pr'ythee let me feel the Axe." He felt the edge, and said, "I

fear it is not sharp enough."

_Executioner._--"It is sharp enough, and heavy enough."

The Executioner proceeded to do his office; but the Note says, "it

was under such distraction of mind, that he fell into the very error

which the Duke had so earnestly cautioned him to avoid; wounding him

so slightly, that he lifted up his head, and looked him in the face,

as if to upbraid him for making his death painful; but said nothing.

He then prostrated himself again, and received two other ineffectual

blows; upon which the Executioner threw down his Axe in a fit of

horror; crying out, "_he could not finish his work_." but, on being

brought to himself by the threats of the Sheriffs, took up the fatal

weapon again, and at two other strokes made a shift to separate the

Head from the Body." [Lord Somers's Tracts, vol. I. pp. 219, 220;

the Note taken from the Review of the Reigns of Charles and James,

p. 885.]

As to the Fee itself, which has occasioned me to give you so

much trouble, I incline to think this seeming singular sum must

have been of Scottish extraction, though not used for the like

purpose; for, I presume, from the value of money there, a man

might formerly be hanged at a much cheaper rate, and that we have

it by transplantation. The Scottish Mark (not ideal or nominal

money, like our Mark) was a Silver Coin, in value Thirteen Pence

Halfpenny and Two Placks, or Two-Thirds of a Penny; which Plack is

likewise a Coin. This, their Mark, bears the same proportion to

their Pound, which is Twenty Pence, as our Mark does to our Pound,

or Twenty Shillings; being Two-Thirds of it. By these divisions

and sub-divisions of their Penny (for they have a still smaller

piece, called a Bodel or Half a Plack) they can reckon with the

greatest minuteness, and buy much less quantities of any article

than we can[389]. This Scottish Mark was, upon the Union of the

two Crowns in the person of King James I. made current in England

at the value of Thirteen Pence Half-penny (without regarding the

fraction), by Proclamation, in the first year of that King; where

it is said, that "the Coin of Silver, called the Mark Piece, shall

be from henceforth currant within the said Kingdom of England, at

the value of Thirteen Pence Halfpeny[390]." This, probably, was a

revolution in the current money in favour of the Officer of whom

we have been speaking, whose Fee before was perhaps no more than

a Shilling. There is, however, very good reason to conclude, from

the singularity of the sum, that the odious title of _Hangman's

Wages_ became at this time, or soon after, applicable to the sum of

_Thirteen Pence Halfpenny_. Though it was contingent, yet at that

time it was very considerable pay; when one Shilling _per diem_ was

a standing annual stipend to many respectable Officers of various

kinds.

[389] Mr. Ray, in his Itinerary, gives the Fractional Parts of the

Scottish Penny.

[390] The Proclamation may be seen in Strype's Annals, vol. IV.

p. 384; where the Mark-Piece is valued exactly at Thirteen Pence

Halfpenny.

After having discovered the pay of an Office, one naturally inquires

for Perquisites and other Emoluments; for all posts, from the High

Chancellor to the Hangman, carry some; and which, in many cases, as

well as this, often exceed the established pay itself. Nothing can

well vary more than the Perquisites of this Office; for it is well

known that Jack Ketch has a _Post-obit_ interest in the Convict,

being entitled to his Cloaths, or to a composition for them; though,

on the other hand, they must very frequently be such Garments that,

as Shakspeare says, "a Hangman would bury with those who wore

them[391]."

[391] Coriolanus, Act i. Sc. 8.

This emolument is of no modern date; and has an affinity to other

Droits on very dissimilar occasions, which will be mentioned

presently. The Executioner's perquisite is at least as old as Henry

VIII.; for Sir Thomas More, on the morning of his Execution, put

on his best Gown, which was of Silk Camlet, sent him as a present,

while he was in the Tower, by a Citizen of Lucca with whom he

had been in correspondence; but the Lieutenant of the Tower was

of opinion that a worse Gown would be good enough for the person

who was to have it, meaning the Executioner, and prevailed upon

Sir Thomas to change it, which he did for one made of frize[392].

Thus the antiquity of this obitual emolument, so well known in

Shakspeare's time, seems well established; and, as to its nature,

has a strong resemblance to a fee of a much longer standing, and

formerly received by Officers of very great respectability: for

anciently Garter King of Arms had specifically the Gown of the Party

on the creation of a Peer; and again, when Archbishops, Bishops,

Abbots, and Priors, did homage to the King, their upper garment was

the perquisite even of the Lord Chamberlain of the Household. The

fee in the latter case was always compounded for, though Garter's

was often formerly received in kind, inasmuch as the Statute which

gives this fee to the Lord Chamberlain, directs the composition,

because, as the words are, "it is more convenient that religious

men should fine for their upper garment, than to be stripped[393]."

The same delicate necessity does not operate in the Hangman's case;

and his fee extends much farther than either of them, he being

entitled to _all_ the sufferer's garments, having first rendered

them useless to the party. Besides this perquisite, there has always

been a pecuniary compliment, where it could possibly be afforded,

given by the Sufferer to the Executioner, to induce him to be speedy

and dexterous in the operation, which seems to be of still greater

antiquity; for Sir Thomas More tells us that St. Cyprian, Bishop of

Carthage, gave his Executioner thirty pieces of gold; and Sir Thomas

himself gave (according to his Historian, his Great Grandson), on

the like occasion, an angel of gold, being almost the last penny he

had left. These outward gifts may likewise be understood as tokens

of inward forgiveness.

[392] More's Life of Sir Thomas More, p. 271.

[393] Stat. 13 Edward I.

Upon the whole, Sir, I conceive that what I have offered above,

though with much enlargement, is the meaning of the ignominious

term affixed to the sum of Thirteen Pence Halfpenny; and cannot but

commiserate those for whom it is to be paid.

I am, Sir,

Your faithful humble Servant,

SAMUEL PEGGE.

CUSTOM

OBSERVED BY THE

LORD LIEUTENANTS OF IRELAND.

On the great road from London to West Chester, we find, at the

principal Inns, the Coats of Arms of several Lord Lieutenants of

Ireland, framed, and hung up in the best rooms. At the bottom of

these Armorial Pictures (as I may call them) is a full display of

all the Titles of the Party, together with the date of the year

when each Viceroyship commenced. I have often inquired the reason

of this custom, but never could procure a satisfactory answer.

I do not reprobate the idea of this relique of ancient dignity,

as these Heraldic Monuments were doubtless intended to operate

as public evidences of the passage of each Lord-Deputy to his

delegated Government. They now seem only to be preserved for the

gratification of the vanity of the capital Inn-keepers, by shewing

to Humble Travellers that such and such Lord-Lieutenants did them

the honour to stop at their houses; and yet I will not say, but that

for half-a-crown handsomely offered to his Excellency's Gentleman,

they might likewise become part of the furniture of every alehouse

in Dunstable.

After fruitless inquiry, accident furnished me with the ground of

this custom, which now only serves to excite a little transitory

curiosity. Having occasion to look into Sir Dudley Digge's "Complete

Ambassador," published in 1654, I was obliged to the Editor for

a solution, who, in the Preface (signed A. H.), speaking of the

reserve of the English Ambassadors, in not making public their

Negotiations, has this observation:--"We have hardly any notion of

them but by their _Arms_, which are hung up in _Inns_ where they

passed."

This paragraph at once accounts for the point before us, and

is sufficient, at the same time, to shew that the custom was

anciently, and even in the seventeenth century, common to every

Ambassador, though it now only survives with those who go in the

greater and more elevated line of Royal representation to Ireland.

SAMUEL PEGGE.

THE END.

_Of the Publishers of this Work may be had_

ANONYMIANA;

OR,

TEN CENTURIES OF OBSERVATIONS

ON VARIOUS AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS;

(Compiled by the late very Learned and Reverend

DR. PEGGE);

_With a copious Index.----8vo. Price 12s._

"Whether as an Antiquary, a classical, poetical, and historical

Critick, a Biographer, or Enquirer into the Beauties and

Niceties of Grammar and Languages, we find everywhere that

Dr. Pegge's remarks are not only striking and useful, but

original; and, in this last respect, we have little hesitation in

preferring the _Anonymiana_ to the greater part of the Works

of this description, which have been lately published, either at

home or abroad. There is scarcely a taste among the various

divisions of human liking, that will not find something appropriate

and gratifying. It would be impossible to withhold, in

these times of levity, just praise from a Work that so ably combines

'light reading' with 'serious thinking.'"

_Gent. Mag. 1809._

ANECDOTES

OF THE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE,

chiefly regarding the Local Dialect of London and it's Environs;

whence it will appear, that the Natives of the Metropolis, and

its Vicinities, have not corrupted the Language of their Ancestors.

By SAMUEL PEGGE, Esq. F.S.A.

Second Edition, enlarged and corrected.

To which is added, A SUPPLEMENT to the PROVINCIAL

GLOSSARY of FRANCIS GROSE, Esq.

8vo. Price 12s. boards.

*** The Provincial Glossary may be had separate, Price 3s.

Printed at the VOTES Printing Office, King Street, Westminster,

_By Nichols, Son, and Bentley_.

* * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note.

Irregularities and inconsistencies in the text have been retained as

printed.

The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up

paragraphs.

Mismatched quotes are not fixed if it's not sufficiently clear where

the missing quote should be placed.

The cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the

transcriber and is placed in the public domain.