Distinctions of Rank and Honour.
Any treatise on Heraldry, whatever its scope or its design, would
certainly be deemed defective if it did not embrace this subject. Heraldry
consists of two distinct parts, namely, _first_, the knowledge of titles
and dignities, the proper sphere of each, and the ceremonials connected
with them; and, _secondly_, the science of blazon, or the rules by which
armorial insignia are composed and borne. One treats of honours; the other
of the symbols of those honours. The first, though some will refuse to
concede it that distinction, is a science; the second partakes the nature
of both a science and an _art_. The immediate object of this humble volume
is armory or blazon, its history and its philosophy; yet I should scarcely
feel justified in passing over, in silence, the other branch of heraldry,
abounding as it does with 'Curiosities.' It is not, however, my intention
to write a dissertation on the orders of nobility, their origin, their
privileges, or their dignity; for the general reader, who happens to be
uninformed on these points, can readily consult numerous authorities
respecting them, while more profound students, should any such deign to
read my lucubrations, would scarcely deem what could be said in the
course of a short chapter sufficient. I must therefore refer the former
class to their peerages, or books of elementary heraldry, while the latter
will not require that I should point out the learned tomes of Segar,
Selden, Markham, and the various other 'workes of honour,' of which our
literature has been so remarkably prolific. To relieve the tedium
occasioned by the constant reference to or, and gules, and ermine; and
bend, and fesse, and cheveron; and lions rampant and eagles displayed,
which must necessarily occur in a book of heraldry, even in one which
professes to treat of its 'Curiosities,' I intend here, _currente calamo_,
to lay before the reader a few jottings which have occurred to me in the
course of my heraldric and antiquarian researches.
It has been observed that "among barbarous nations there are no family
names. Men are known by _titles_ of honour, by _titles_ of disgrace, or by
_titles_ given to them on account of some individual quality. A brave man
will be called the lion, a ferocious one the tiger. Others are named after
a signal act of their lives, or from some peculiarity of personal
appearance; such as the slayer-of-three-bears, the
taker-of-so-many-scalps, or straight-limbs, long-nose, and so on. Some of
these, especially such as express approbation or esteem, are worn as
proudly by their savage owners as that of duke or marquis is by European
nobles.[238] They confer a distinction which begets respect and deference
amongst the tribes, and individuals so distinguished obtain the places of
honour at feasts, and they are the leaders in battle. It is nearly the
same in modern civilized life; titled personages are much sought after and
feted by the tribes of untitled; and are, moreover, the leaders of
fashion. The only difference between the savage and civilized titles of
honour is, that in the former case they can only be obtained by deeds;
they must be earned; which is not always the case with modern
distinctions."
All titles of honour indubitably originated in official employments,
though, in the lapse of ages, they have become, as to the majority,
entirely honorary. This will appear on an etymological inquiry into the
meaning of the titles still enjoyed in our social system. Thus, DUKE is
equivalent with _dux_, a leader or commander, and such, in a military
sense, were those personages who primarily bore this distinction. MARQUIS,
according to the best authorities, signifies a military officer to whom
the sovereign intrusted the guardianship of the marches or borders of a
territory. An EARL or count was the lieutenant or viceroy of a county, and
the geographical term owes its origin to the office. A vicecomes, or
VISCOUNT, again, was the deputy of a count. The derivation of BARON is
more obscure; still there was a period when official duties were required
of the holders of the title. To descend to the lesser nobility, KNIGHT is
synonymous with servant, a servant in a threefold sense, first to
religion, next to his sovereign, and thirdly to his 'ladye;' while an
ESQUIRE was in antient times _ecuyer_ or _scutifer_, the knight's
shield-bearer. Among the Orientals official duties are still attached to
every title of honour; and it is worthy of remark that the highest of all
titles, that of king, has never, in any country, been merely honorary; the
responsible duties of government having always been connected with it.
In sovereigns, whom our old writers quaintly term 'fountains of honour,'
is vested the right of conferring dignities, and it is by a judicious use
of this prerogative that the balance of a limited monarchy is properly
preserved. Were there no difference of grade amongst the subjects of a
state, the monarch would be too far removed from his people, and mutual
disgust or indifference would be the consequence. A well-constituted
peerage serves as a connecting link between the sovereign and the great
body of his subjects, and may therefore be regarded, next to the loyal
affections of the people, the firmest prop of the throne.
I know that, in these utilitarian days, this position is frequently and
fiercely controverted, and that probably by many who have never read the
following eloquent passage of Burke--a passage which though _decies
repetita placebit_, and which I therefore introduce without apology:
"To be honoured and even privileged by the laws, opinions, and inveterate
usages of our country, growing out of the prejudice of ages, has nothing
to provoke horror and indignation in any man. Even to be too tenacious of
those privileges is not absolutely a crime. The strong struggle in every
individual to preserve possession of what he has found to belong to him,
and to distinguish him, is one of the securities against injustice and
despotism implanted in our nature. It operates as an instinct to secure
property, and to preserve communities in a settled state. What is there to
shock in this? Nobility is a graceful ornament to the civil order. It is
the Corinthian capital of polished society. _Omnes boni nobilitati semper
favemus_ was the saying of a wise and good man. It is, indeed, one sign of
a liberal and benevolent mind to incline to it with some sort of partial
propensity. He feels no ennobling principle in his own heart who wishes to
level all the artificial institutions which have been adopted for giving a
body to opinion and permanence to fugitive esteem. _It is a sour,
malignant, and envious disposition, without taste for the reality, or for
any image or representation of virtue, that sees with joy the unmerited
fall of what had long flourished in splendour and in honour._ I do not
like to see anything destroyed, any void produced in society, any ruin on
the face of the land."[239]
It is a fact not perhaps generally known that poverty formerly
disqualified a peer from holding his dignity. In the reign of Edward IV,
George Neville, duke of Bedford, was degraded on this account by Act of
Parliament. The reason for this measure is given in the preamble of the
Act: "Because it [poverty] causeth great extortion, &c. to the great
trouble of all such countries where the estate [of the impoverished lord]
happens to be."[240]
Happily for some of its members, no such prerogative is now exercised by
Parliament.
Dignities and titles, like other things, are of course estimated by their
rarity. "If all men were noble, where would be the noblesse of nobility?"
In no country has so much prudence been displayed in regard to the
multiplication of titles as in England. On the continent, as every one is
aware, there is such a profusion of titled persons that, excepting those
of the highest orders, they are very little respected on the score of
honour. Titles are so cheap that persons of very indifferent reputation
not unfrequently obtain them; and hence the Spanish proverb: "Formerly
rogues were hung on crosses, but now crosses are hung upon rogues!" A
German potentate once requested to be informed what station an English
esquire occupied in the ladder of precedence, and was answered, that he
stood somewhat higher than a French count, and somewhat lower than a
German prince! There was certainly more truth than courtesy in the reply.
Much has been written on the orders of precedence. I am neither disposed
nor qualified to handle so delicate a subject; but the following table,
showing how the various grades were formerly recognized by their _hawks_,
is so curious that I do not hesitate to introduce it:
"An _eagle_, a _bawter_ (vulture), a _melown_; these belong unto an
_emperor_.
A _gerfalcon_, a _tercell_ of gerfalcon are due to a _king_.
There is a _falcon_ gentle and a _tercell_ gentle; and these be for a
_prince_.
There is a _falcon_ of the _rock_; and that is for a _duke_.
There is a _falcon_ peregrine; and that is for an _earl_.
Also there is a _bastard_; and that hawk is for a _baron_.
There is a _sacre_ and a _sacret_; and these ben for a _knight_.
There is a _lanare_ and a _laurell_; and these belong to a _squire_.
There is a _merlyon_; and that hawk is for a _lady_.
There is an _hoby_; and that is for a _young man_.
There is a _goshawk_; and that hawk is for a _yeoman_.
There is a _tercell_; and that is for a _poor man_.
There is a _spave-hawk_; she is an hawk for a _priest_.
There is a _muskyte_; and he is for an _holy-water clerk_."
To this list the 'Jewel for Gentre' adds,
"A _kesterel_ for a _knave_ or _servant_."[241]
Occupying a kind of intermediate rank between the peerage and the commons
stands the order of Baronets. These, though really commoners, participate
with peers the honour of transmitting their title to their male
descendants. James I, the founder of this order, pledged himself to limit
its number to two hundred, but successive sovereigns, possessing the same
right to enlarge as he had to establish it, have more than quadrupled the
holders of this dignity.
Baronets are in reality nothing more than hereditary knights, and some
families who have been invested with the honour have gained little by it,
seeing that their ancestors regularly, in earlier times, acquired that of
knighthood. It is no unusual thing in tracing the annals of an antient
house, to find six or seven knights in the direct line, besides those in
the collateral branches. In the family of Calverley, there was, if I
mistake not, a _succession_ of SIXTEEN knights. This was a 'knightly race'
indeed.
Of knighthood Nares remarks, "Since it was superseded by the order of
Baronets, it has incurred a kind of contumely that is certainly injurious
to its proper character. It has been held cheaper by the public at large,
and I fear also by the sovereign himself. How often do we hear the remark
when a _Sir_ or _Lady_ is mentioned, 'He is _only_ a Knight,' or 'She is
_only_ a Knight's lady.'"
We have seen that knight is synonymous with servant. So also is theign or
thane, one of the oldest titles of Northern nobility. Bede translates it
by Minister Regis. Sometimes these thanes were servientes regis more
literally than would suit the ambition of modern courtiers, for in
Doomsday Book we find them holding such offices as Latinarius, Aurifaber,
Coquus, interpreter, goldsmith, cook. Lord Ponsonby bears three combs in
his arms, to commemorate his descent from the Conqueror's barber!
Sir John Ferne traces the origin of knighthood to Olybion, the grandson of
Noah; and Lydgate and Chaucer speak of the knights of Troy and Thebes. But
the honour is not older than the introduction of the feudal system. When
the whole country was parcelled out under that system, the possessor of
each _feu_ or _fee_ (a certain value in land) held it by knight's service,
that is, by attending the summons of the king, whenever he engaged in war,
properly equipped for the campaign, and leading on his vassals. Knighthood
was obligatory, as the possessor of every fee was bound to receive the
honour at the will of his sovereign or other feudal superior. Such knights
were, in reference to their dependants, styled lords. Greater estates,
consisting of several knights' fees, were denominated Baronies, and the
possessor of such an estate was called a Baron, or Banneret, on account of
his right to display a square banner in the field--an honour to which no
one of inferior rank could pretend.
Military aid was commonly all the rent which was required of a vassal.
Sometimes, however, sums of money which now appear ludicrously small, or
provisions for the lord's household, were also demanded; and not unusually
these payments were commuted for a broad arrow, a falcon, or a red rose.
From such rents numerous coats of arms doubtless originated.
Knights are addressed as _Sir_, derived from the French Sire or Sieur,
which was primarily applied to lords of a certain territory, as Le Sieur
de Bollebec. This title was not limited to knighthood, for the great
barons also used it. So also did ecclesiastics, even those holding very
small benefices. I have found no instances of priests being called Sir,
since the Reformation, except Shakspeare's Sir Hugh Evans, in the Merry
Wives of Windsor, and there the dramatist evidently alludes to the
practice of earlier times than his own. Two other applications of the
expression may be noticed--_Sire_ is a very respectful mode of address to
a king; but what shall we say of the Scots, who apply it in the plural to
women, and even to an individual of that sex--_Eh Sirs?_
To distinguish this, the most antient order of knights, from those of the
Garter, Bath, and others, they are called Knights-Bachelors. ("What," asks
Nares, "are the wives and children of a _bachelor_?") The etymology of
this word in all its senses, is extremely obscure; so much so that
scarcely any two authorities are agreed upon it. Menage, according to
Johnson, derives it from _bas chevalier_; an unfortunate hypothesis,
certainly, for it would make the compound word mean 'knight low-knight.'
Knighthood at the present day, so far from being restricted to the
profession of war, is often given, says Clark,[242] "to gownsmen,
physicians, burghers, and artists." Nares adds, "brewers, silversmiths,
attorneys, apothecaries, upholsterers, hosiers, and tailors;" and
continues, "I do by no means wish to see such persons placed out of the
reach of honours, or deprived of the smiles and favours even of royalty.
King Alfred undoubtedly showed his wisdom in honouring merchants." He
regards knighthood _inappropriate_, however, to the avocations named; but
surely he could not have reflected that the successive changes which have
come over the face of society have altered the import of nearly every
title amongst us. The title of duke (_dux, general_) is as inappropriate
when bestowed upon a civilian as that of knight--nay, more so; for in
knighthood the erroneous application dies with the person honoured, while
the dukedom (generalship) is hereditary.
The lowest titles borne in England are those of _Esquire_ and
_Gentleman_--titles which Coke (as Blackstone observes) has confounded
together. Nor is it easy to discriminate between them, as every esquire is
a gentleman, although every gentleman may not be an esquire. In the reign
of Henry VI this difference is observable, namely, that the heads of
families were commonly accounted esquires, while younger sons were styled
gentlemen.
Esquireship, like knighthood, is a military dignity; and its origin is
perfectly clear. In the earliest times, possibly in the days of Olybion
himself, every warrior of distinction was attended by his armour-bearer.
Hence in the romances of the middle ages we find the knight almost
invariably attended by a subordinate personage, half-friend, half-servant,
who carried his shield and other armour, and who thence acquired the
designation of ecuyer, esquire, or (Anglice) shield-bearer. In later
periods, knights selected one, or more frequently, several, of their
principal or most valiant retainers, to officiate as esquires during a
campaign. These, in the event of a successful issue of the war, they often
enriched with lands and goods, giving them, at the same time, the
privilege of bearing armorial ensigns, copied in part from their own, or
otherwise, according to circumstances.[243] After such a grant the person
honoured became an esquire in another sense, as the bearer of _his own
shield_; and in this sense all persons at the present day whose claim to
bear arms would be admitted by the proper functionaries, are virtually,
_scutifers_, _armigers_, or _esquiers_. But there is a more restricted use
of the term, bearing relation to the honour in a civil rather than a
military aspect, as we shall shortly see.
By the courtesies of common life, now-a-days, every person a little
removed from the _ignobile vulgus_ claims to be an esquire; and
comparatively few, even among the better informed classes, know in what
esquireship really consists. For the behoof of such as are confessedly
ignorant of this branch of heraldry, and are not too proud to learn, I
subjoin the following particulars, gathered from various respectable
authorities. REAL esquires, then, are of seven sorts:
1. Esquires of the king's body, whose number is limited to four.
2. The eldest sons of knights, and _their_ eldest sons born during their
lifetime. It would seem that, in the days of antient warfare, the knight
often took his eldest son into the wars for the purpose of giving him a
practical military education, employing him meanwhile as his esquire. Such
certainly was Chaucer's _squier_. With the knight
"ther was his son, a young SQUIER,
A lover, and a lusty bachelor...
And he hadde be somtime in chevachie,[244]
In Flaunders, in Artois, and Picardie."
3. The eldest sons of the younger sons of peers of the realm.
4. Such as the king invests with the collar of SS, including the kings of
arms, heralds, &c. The dignity of esquire was conferred by Henry IV and
his successors, by the investiture of the collar and the gift of a pair of
silver spurs. Gower the poet was such an esquire by creation. In the
ballad of the King (Edward IV) and the Tanner of Tamworth we find the
frolicsome monarch creating a dealer in cowhides a squire in this manner:
"A coller, a coller here, sayd the king,
A coller he loud gan crye;
Then would he[245] lever than twentye pound,
He had not beene so nighe.
A coller, a coller, the tanner he sayd,
I trowe it will breed sorrowe;
After a _coller_ commeth a _halter_,
I trow I shall be hang'd to-morrowe."
5. Esquires to the knights of the Bath, _for life_, and their eldest sons.
6. Sheriffs of counties _for life_, coroners and justices of the peace,
and gentlemen of the royal household, while they continue in their
respective offices.
7. Barristers-at-law, doctors of divinity, law, and medicine, mayors of
towns, and some others, are said to be of scutarial dignity, but not
actual esquires.
Supposing this enumeration to comprise all who are entitled to
esquireship, it will be evident that thousands of persons styled esquires
are not so in reality. It is a prevailing error that persons possessed of
L300 a year in land are esquires, but an estate of L50,000 would not
confer the dignity. Nothing but one or other of the conditions above
mentioned is sufficient; yet there are some who contend that the
representatives of families whose gentry is antient and unimpeachable, and
who possess large territorial estates, are genuine esquires. This,
however, does not seem to have been the opinion of such persons themselves
two or three centuries ago, for we find many gentlemen possessing both
these qualifications who, in documents of importance, such as wills and
transfers of property, content themselves with the modest and simple style
of _Yeoman_.
The mention of the word yeoman reminds us of the misappropriation of this
expression in modern times. The true definition of it, according to
Blackstone, is, one "that hath free land of forty shillings by the year;
who is thereby qualified to serve on juries, vote for knights of the
shire, and do any other act where the law requires one that is _probus et
legalis homo_." Now, however, it is applied almost exclusively to farmers
of the richer sort,[246] even though they do not possess a single foot of
land. The yeomen of the feudal ages were as much renowned for their
valorous deeds on the battle-field, as those of a later period were for
their wealth. In the sixteenth century it was said--
"=A knight of Cales, a squire of Wales,
And a laird of the North Countree,
A Yeoman of Kent, with his yearly rent,
Would buy them out all three.="
It is much to be regretted that this substantial class of men is almost
extinct. To how few are the words of Horace now applicable--
"Beatus ille, qui procul negotiis,
Ut prisca gens mortalium,
_Paterna rura_ bobus exercet suis."
"Happy the man whose wish and care
A few paternal acres bound;
Content to breathe his native air
_On his own ground_."
But I am violating the laws of precedence in noticing yeomen before
gentlemen. The term _gentleman_ is, perhaps, one of the most indefinite in
the English language. George IV prided himself in being the finest
gentleman in Europe; every peer of the realm is a _gentleman_; every
judge, member of parliament, and magistrate is a _gentleman_; every
clergyman, lawyer, and doctor is a _gentleman_; every merchant and
tradesman is a _gentleman_; every farmer and mechanic is a _gentleman_;
every draper's errand-boy and tailor's apprentice is a _gentleman_; and
every ostler who, "in the worst inn's worst room," treats the stable-boy
with a pot of ale is thereupon declared to be a _gentleman_. So say the
courtesies of society; but there is the legal and heraldric, as well as
the social, gentleman.
"As for GENTLEMEN (says Sir Thomas Smith[247]) they be made good cheape in
this kingdom: for whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth
in the universities, who professeth liberal sciences, and (to be short)
who can live idly and without manual labour, and will bear the port,
charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and
taken for a gentleman." This is the legal definition; but the heralds of
former days recognized several different classes of gentlemen; Sir John
Ferne, in his 'Blazon of Gentry,'[248] enumerates the following:
1. Gentlemen of ancestry, with blood and coat-armour perfect; namely,
those whose ancestors, on both sides, have, for five generations at least,
borne coat-armour.
2. Gentlemen of blood and coat-armour perfect, but not of ancestry; being
those descended in the fifth degree from him 'that slewe a Saracen or
Heathen Gentle-man;' from him that won the standard, guidon, or
coat-armour of a Christian gentleman, and so bare his arms; from him that
obtained arms by gift from his sovereign; or from him that purchased an
estate to which arms appertained. To this order likewise belong a yeoman
who has worthily obtained arms and knighthood; and a yeoman who has been
made a doctor of laws and has obtained a coat of arms.
3. Gentlemen of blood perfect, and coat armour imperfect; the 'yonger
blouds' of a house, of which the elder line has failed after a lineal
succession of five generations.
4. Gentlemen of blood and coat-armour imperfect; the _third_ in lineal
descent from him who slew a Saracen gentleman, &c. &c. &c., as under the
third description; also the natural son of a gentleman of blood and
coat-armour perfect, and the legitimate son of a yeoman, by a gentlewoman
of blood, &c., being an inheritrix.
5. Gentlemen of coat-armour imperfect: those who have slain an infidel
gentleman, &c., _ut supra_; also gentlemen of _paper and wax_.
6. Gentlemen, neither of blood nor coat-armour, are of three orders;
namely, 1, _Apocrafat_--Students of common law and grooms of the
sovereign's palace, having no coat-armour; 2, _Spiritual_--A churl's son
made a priest, canon, &c.; and 3, _Untriall_--He who being brought up in
the service of a bishop, abbot, or baron, enjoys the bare title of
gentleman; and he that having received any degree of the schools, or borne
any office in a city so as to be saluted _Master_.
As Saracen-killing has long ceased to be a favourite amusement,--as the
winning of standards is an undertaking as rare as it is perilous,--as few
in protestant England have the good fortune to serve abbots and
bishops,--and, as a grant of arms by the heralds is a somewhat expensive
affair,--how very few have now the chance of becoming _gentlemen_ in the
heraldrical sense of the term. Widely at variance with the courtesies of
every-day life are these antiquated laws of chivalry!
We have seen that nearly every man, from the throne to the stable, each in
his own sphere, is recognized as a gentleman; yet how few,
notwithstanding, like to be so described in a legal, formal manner.
Formerly, it was customary to add GENT., as an honourable distinction to
one's name, in the address of his letters, in his will, or upon his
tombstone; but in these days nothing short of ESQ. is deemed respectful.
This foible, however, is not a thing of yesterday; for so long ago as
1709, Mr. Isaac Bickerstaff, of the Tatler, says: "I have myself a couple
of clerks; one directs to Degory Goosequill, _Esquire_, to which the other
replies by a note to Nehemiah Dashwell, _Esquire_, with respect."
What courtesy at first concedes, the party honoured soon learns to exact.
The tenacity with which many persons of some pretensions to family, but
with very few of the other qualifications which are supposed to belong to
the character of a gentleman, adhere to the courtesy title of _Esq._ must
have been observed by every one. I have heard of persons of this
description, who, from the pressure of circumstances, have entered into
trade, being mortified by its omission; though their own good sense must
have suggested to them the absurdity of such an address as "Nicholas
Smith, Esq. Tailor," or "Geoffry Brownman, Esq. Butcher." Not long since a
_squireen_ of this order (in a southern county), who eked out the little
residuum of his patrimony by the occupation of a farm comprising a few
acres of hops, on receiving a letter from the local excise-officer
respecting the hop-duty with which he was charged, felt his dignity much
insulted at being styled in the address plain _Mr._ Full of rage at the
insolence of the official, he appealed to the collector, expecting,
probably, that he would reprimand the offender with great severity. The
collector, however, treated the matter as a joke, but ordered his clerk to
strike out _Mr._ from the beginning of the name, and to add ESQ. at the
end. This was not satisfactory to the insulted party, who determined to
appeal to a higher court. He accordingly paid a visit to the magistrates
in petty sessions assembled at H----, and a dialogue somewhat like the
following took place.
_Chairman._ What is your application?
_Squireen_ (with a low salaam). Sir, I come here to have my title
confirmed.
_Chairman_ (in surprise). To what title do you allude, Sir?
_Sq._ I have the honour to be an Esquire; and I have here a document to
show that I have not been treated with the respect due to my rank. I
demand a summons for the writer of this letter.
The letter was handed to the bench, and the chairman, looking doubtfully
at his colleagues, requested our squireen to withdraw while his
application was considered. He withdrew accordingly, and the magistrates
were not a little amused with the case. Fortunately, a gentleman who had
witnessed the scene before the collector happened to be present, and he
having related the particulars, the bench ordered the applicant to be
recalled. The cry of "N. M. _Esquire_! N. M. _Esquire_!" resounded along
the room and down the staircase. That gentleman responded to the call with
great alacrity, and approached the bench with another profound obeisance;
while the chairman, assuming all the gravity he could command, said--
Sir; the magistrates have considered your application, and although they
would not feel justified in issuing a summons against the offending party,
yet they have come to an unanimous decision that your claim to be
considered an Esquire is well founded. Sir, I have the satisfaction to
inform you that YOUR TITLE IS CONFIRMED!
A third inclination followed this highly satisfactory sentence, and our
Esquire left the court with as much dignity as if he had just been created
an earl, or rather with as much as Don Quixote exhibited in the
stable-yard, after the innkeeper had conferred upon him the honour of
knighthood.
The _Country Squires_ may be regarded as an extinct race; and though in
the present advanced state of society we can scarcely wish to see that
rude and stalwart order revived, yet there are many parts of their
character which certainly deserve the imitation of their more polished
descendants. The subjoined description of an antient worthy of this class,
Mr. Hastings, of Dorsetshire,[249] though familiar to many readers, I
venture to introduce.
"Mr. Hastings was low of stature, but strong and active, of a ruddy
complexion, with flaxen hair. His clothes were always of green cloth, his
house was of the old fashion, in the midst of a large park, well stocked
with deer, rabbits, and fishponds. He had a long narrow bowling-green in
it, and used to play with round sand bowls. Here, too, he had a
banquetting room built, like a stand, in a large tree! He kept all sorts
of hounds, that ran buck, fox, hare, otter, and badger; and had hawks of
all kinds, both long and short winged. His great hall was commonly strewed
with marrow-bones, and full of hawk-perches, hounds, spaniels, and
terriers. The upper end of it was hung with fox-skins of this and the last
year's killing. Here and there a polecat was intermixed, and hunters'
poles in great abundance. The parlour was a large room, completely
furnished in the same style. On a broad hearth, paved with brick, lay some
of the choicest terriers, hounds, and spaniels. One or two of the great
chairs had litters of cats in them, which were not to be disturbed. Of
these, three or four always attended him at dinner, and a little white
wand lay by his trencher to defend it, if they were too troublesome. In
the windows, which were very large, lay his arrows, crossbows, and other
accoutrements. The corners of the room were filled with his best hunting
and hawking poles. His oyster table stood at the lower end of the room,
which was in constant use twice a day, all the year round, for he never
failed to eat oysters both at dinner and supper, with which the
neighbouring town of Pool supplied him. At the upper end of the room stood
a small table with a double desk, one side of which held a Church Bible,
the other the Book of Martyrs. On different tables in the room lay
hawks-hoods, bells, old hats, with their crowns thrust in, full of
pheasants' eggs; tables, dice, cards, and store of tobacco-pipes. At one
end of this room was a door, which opened into a closet, where stood
bottles of strong beer, and wine, which never came out but in single
glasses, which was the rule of the house; for he never exceeded himself,
nor permitted others to exceed. Answering to this closet, was a door into
an old chapel, which had been long disused for devotion; but in the
pulpit, as the safest place, was always to be found a cold chine of beef,
a venison pasty, a gammon of bacon, or a great apple-pie, with thick
crust, well baked. His table cost him not much, though it was good to eat
at. His sports supplied all, but beef and mutton, except on Fridays, when
he had the best of fish. He never wanted a London pudding, and he always
sang it in with "My part lies therein-a." He drank a glass or two of wine
at meals; put syrup of gillyflowers into his sack; and had always a tun
glass of small beer standing by him, which he often stirred about with
rosemary. He lived to be an hundred, and never lost his eyesight, nor used
spectacles. He got on horseback without help, and rode to the death of
the stag at fourscore."[250]
In consequence of the cheapness of titles in foreign countries, our
esquires and gentry are frequently undervalued by strangers, who can form
no idea of an untitled aristocracy. We are accustomed to consider no
families noble except those possessing the degree of baron, or some
superior title; and the branches, even of a ducal house, after a certain
number of removes from the titled representative cease to be noble. On the
continent it is otherwise: all the descendants of a peer are noble. Our
antient gentry, possessed of the broad lands which have descended to them
through a long line of ancestors, are virtually more noble, in the
heraldric sense of the term, than dukes and marquises who are but of
yesterday. New nobility cannot compensate for the want of antient gentry.
The caviller will perhaps ask, concerning some of the rambling
observations contained in this chapter, and the subject which has called
them forth, _Cui bono?_ He may also mutter something about the nobility of
virtue, as the only one worth possessing. Well, well, let him enjoy his
opinion, and maintain it if he can; but until he has convinced me that
true integrity and exalted benevolence cannot reside beneath a coronet,
and that the nobility of station obliterates or neutralizes that of
virtue, I shall beg leave also to enjoy mine; admitting, meanwhile, the
correctness of a sentiment quaintly, though wisely, advanced by Sir John
Ferne: "That kind of gentry which is but a bare noblenes of bloud, not
clothed with vertues (the right colours of a gentleman's coat-armour) is
the _meanest_, yea, and the _most base_ of all the rest: for it respecteth
but onely the body, being derived from the loynes of the auncestors, not
from the minde, which is the habitation of vertue, the inne of reason, and
the resemblaunce of God; and, in true speach, this gentry of stock _only_
shal be said but a shadow, or rather a painture of nobility."[251]
"=Manners makyth man,
Quoth William of Wykeham.="
[Illustration]