Bitton, Aug. 1850.
* * * * *
_The Livery Collar of SS._--Though ARMIGER (Vol. ii., p. 194.) has not
adduced any facts on this subject that were previously unknown to me, he
has advanced some misstatements and advocated some erroneous notions,
which it may be desirable at once to oppose and contradict; inasmuch as
they are calculated to envelope in fresh obscurity certain particulars,
which it was the object of my former researches to set forth in their
true light. And first, I beg to say that with respect to the "four
inaccuracies" with which he charges me, I do not plead guilty to any of
them. 1st. When B. asked the question, "Is there any list of persons who
were honoured with that badge?" it was evident that he meant, Is there
any list of the names of such persons, as of the Knights of the Garter
or the Bath? and I correctly answered, No: for there still is no such
list. The description of the classes of persons who might use the collar
in the 2 Hen. IV. is not such a list as B. asked for. 2dly. Where I said
"That persons were not honoured with the badge, in the sense that
persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, or medals," I am again
unrefuted by the statute of 2 Hen. IV., and fully supported by many
historical facts. I repeat that the livery collar was not worn as a
badge of honour, but as a badge of feudal allegiance. It seems to have
been regarded as giving certain weight and authority to the wearer, and,
therefore, was only to be worn in the king's presence, or in coming to
and from the king's hostel, except by the higher ranks; and this
entirely confirms my view. Had it been a mere personal decoration, like
the collar of an order of knighthood, there would have been no reason
for such prohibition; but as it conveyed the impression that the wearer
was especially one of the king's immediate military or household
servants, and invested with certain power or influence on that ground,
therefore its assumption away from the neighbourhood of the court was
prohibited, except to individuals otherwise well known from their
personal rank and station. 3dly. When ARMIGER declares I am wrong in
saying "That the collar was _assumed_," I have every reason to believe I
am still right. I may admit that, if it was literally a livery, it would
be worn only by those to whom the king gave it; but my present
impression is, that it was termed the king's livery, as being of the
pattern which was originally distributed by the king, or by the Duke of
Lancaster his father, to his immediate adherents, but which was
afterwards _assumed_ by all who were anxious to assert their loyalty, or
distinguish their partizanship as true Lancastrians; so that the statute
of 2 Hen. IV. was rendered necessary to restrain its undue and
extravagant _assumption_, for sundry good political reasons, some notion
of which may be gathered by perusing the poem on the deposition of
Richard II. published by the Camden Society. And 4thly, Where ARMIGER
disputes my conclusion, that the assumers were, so far as can be
ascertained, those who were attached to the royal household or service,
it will be perceived, by what I have already stated, that I still adhere
to that conclusion. I do not, therefore, admit that the statute of 2
Henry IV. shows me to be incorrect in any one of those four particulars.
ARMIGER next proceeds to allude to Manlius Torquatus, who won and wore
the golden torc of a vanquished Gaul: but this story only goes to prove
that the collar of the Roman _torquati_ originated in a totally
different way from the Lancastrian collar of livery. ARMIGER goes on to
enumerate the several derivations of the Collar of Esses--from the
initial letter of _Soverayne_, from _St. Simplicius_, from _St. Crispin_
and _St. Crispinian_, the martyrs of Soissons, from the _Countess of
Salisbury_, from the word _Souvenez_, and lastly, from the office of
_Seneschalus_, or Steward of England, held by John of Ghent,--which is,
as he says, "Mr. Nichols's notion," but the whole of which he
stigmatises alike "as mere monkish or heraldic gossip;" and, finally, he
proceeds to unfold his own recondite discovery, "viz. that it comes from
the S-shaped lever upon the bit {250} of the bridle of the war
steed,"--a conjecture which will assuredly have fewer adherents than any
one of its predecessors. But now comes forth the disclosure of what
school of heraldry this ARMIGER is the champion. He is one who can tell
us of "many more rights and privileges than are dreamt of in the
philosophy either of the court of St. James's or the college of St.
Bennet's Hill!" In short, he is the mouthpiece of "the Baronets'
Committee for Privileges." And this is the law which he lays down:--
"The persons now privileged to wear the ancient golden collar of
SS. are the _equites aurati_, or knights (chevaliers) in the
British monarchy, a body which includes all the hereditary order
of baronets in England, Scotland, and Ireland, with such of
their eldest sons, being of age, as choose to claim inauguration
as knights."
Here we have a full confession of a large part of the faith of the
Baronets' Committee,--a committee of which the greater number of those
who lent their names to it are probably by this time heartily ashamed.
It is the doctrine held forth in several works on the Baronetage
compiled by a person calling himself "Sir Richard Broun," of whom we
read in Dodd's _Baronetage_, that "previous to succeeding his father, he
demanded inauguration as a knight, in the capacity of a baronet's eldest
son; but the Lord Chamberlain having refused to present him to the Queen
for that purpose, he assumed the title of 'Sir,' and the addition of
'Eques Auratus,' in June, 1842." So we see that ARMIGER and the Lord
Chamberlain are at variance as to part of the law above cited; and so,
it might be added, have been other legal authorities, to the privileges
asserted by the mouthpiece of the said committee. But that is a long
story, on which I do not intend here to enter. I had not forgotten that
in one of the publications of Sir Richard Broun the armorial coat of the
premier baronet of each division is represented encircled with a Collar
of Esses; but I should never have thought of alluding to this freak,
except as an amusing instance of fantastic assumption. I will now
confine myself to what has appeared in the pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES;"
and, more particularly, to the unfounded assertion of ARMIGER in p.
194., "that the golden Collar of SS. was the undoubted badge or mark of
a knight, _eques auratus_;" which he follows up by the dictum already
quoted, that "the persons now privileged to wear the ancient golden
Collar of SS. are the _equites aurati_." I believe it is generally
admitted that knights were _equites aurati_ because they wore golden or
gilt spurs; certainly it was not because they wore golden collars, as
ARMIGER seems to wish us to believe; and the best proof that the Collar
of Esses was not the badge of a knight, as such, at the time when such
collars were most worn, in the fifteenth century, is this--that the
monumental effigies and sepulchral brasses of many knights at that time
are still extant which have no Collar of Esses; whilst the Collar of
Esses appears only on the figures of a limited number, who were
undoubtedly such as wished to profess their especial adherence to the
royal House of Lancaster.