CHAPTER X.

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 fêted 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 (Anglicè) shield-bearer. In later periods, knights selected one, or more frequently, several, of their principal or most valiant retainers, to officiate as esquires during a campaign. These, in the event of a successful issue of the war, they often enriched with lands and goods, giving them, at the same time, the privilege of bearing armorial ensigns, copied in 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 £300 a year in land are esquires, but an estate of £50,000 would not confer the dignity. Nothing but one or other of the conditions above mentioned is sufficient; yet there are some who contend that the representatives of families whose gentry is antient and unimpeachable, and who possess large territorial estates, are genuine esquires. This, however, does not seem to have been the opinion of such persons themselves two or three centuries ago, for we find many gentlemen possessing both these qualifications who, in documents of importance, such as wills and transfers of property, content themselves with the modest and simple style 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]