Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/721

Rh INTRODUCTION.] HERALDRY 687 Harding and Sfc Loo in 1312, Warburton and Gorges in 1321, and Sytsylt and Fakenham in 1333, when Sir William Fakenham disputed the arms, &quot;le champ de dise barretz argent et azure, supportez de cinq escocheons sables, charge s ovesque tant de lyons primers rampant incense s gules.&quot; They were adjudged by a commission to Sytsylt. Hugh M-altby and Hamon Beckwith had a similar dispute in 1339. But by far the most celebrated dispute of this nature arose in 1384 between Sir Richard Scrope of Bolton and Sir Robert Grosvenor, for the right to bear the arms &quot;azure, a bend or.&quot; The greatest men in the country, including John of Gaunt, gave testimony on one side or the other, and it was shown that each family had used the coat beyond the memory of man. It was finally adjudged to Scrope, and Grosvenor was directed to bear &quot; les ditz armes ove une pleyne border d argent.&quot; Grosvenor, however, declined to accept the arms so differenced, and assumed &quot; azure, a garb or,&quot; retaining his colours and marking his connexion with the old earls of Chester. It was proved, incidentally, that an ancestor of Grosvenor s had granted his coat, with a difference, to William Coton of Colon. It is remarkable that both disputants are still represented in the male line, and continue the arms as then settled. Both families had previously had disputes with other parties, and the Scropss long afterwards had a quarrel with the Stanleys for the right to bear the arms of the Isle of Man. The matter was compromised by Edward IV. The Hastings and Grey de Ruthyn case, which rises to the rank of a tragedy, illustrates still more forcibly the value attached to a coat of arms. On the death, childless, in 1389, of John de Hastings, earl of Pembroke, a dispute arose for his heirship between Reginald Grey, his heir-general, and Edward Hastings, the heir male and of the name, but of the half- blood. A court military decided in favour of Grey. Pending the trial Hastings had ceased to difference his arms as a cadet, and assumed them unbroken. He was, however, ordered to bear them with a label, and for con tumacy was imprisoned for sixteen years. A suit for arms was decided as lately as 1720 in Blount versus Blount, in the earl marshal s court. The same necessity that made it important to prevent the use of similar bearings by different families in the same country made it also necessary to distinguish between the bearings of different members of the same family, all of whom had a right to the paternal coat. As this right was strongest in the eldest son he alone bore the paternal arms unaltered (in French heraldry &quot;sans brisure&quot;); and the other sons were obliged to introduce some sufficient change, called in heraldry a &quot;difference.&quot; This was at first managed by inverting the colours or substituting one ordinary or one inferior charge for another, as a bend for a fess, martlets for mullets, and the like ; and sometimes by the use of a coat compounded of the paternal bearing with that of an heiress. A multitude of these early differences occur in the rolls of Henry III. and Edward II., and in various early lists of arms. The family of Grey, always numerous, differenced their cadets in at least fourteen different ways, almost all preserving in some tangible form the paternal coat ; and this was also the case with the very numerous family of Basset. Generally no rule is followed, save that on the whole some reference is retained either to the charges upon, or the colours of, the paternal coat. Very frequently, even in the earliest times, the eldest son differenced his father s coat by a label. In the roll of Henry III. the label occurs fifteen times, though not always as a difference. Gradually, however, it came to be used almost entirely for that purpose, and finally a set of marks, called of cadency, were devised for each of the sons, the label being the mark of the eldest during his father s life. All these rules and alterations were, however, the growth of a later age, and came into use as the bold and simple heraldry of the 13th and 14th centuries began to be over laid with florid fancies. So long as heraldry represented a real want, its expressions were simple and intelligible, but as &quot; villainous saltpetre &quot; came into use and closed helmets were laid aside, and as skill and strategy rather than personal valour became the attribute of a leader, armorial bearings fell into disuse in war, and were no longer worn upon the person, or upon the horse trappings. But though armorial bearings ceased to be of actual use, they con tinued to be emblems of rank and family, and a mark of gentle blood. They became, however, exceedingly and often absurdly complex, partly because simplicity was no longer necessary, and partly because it was scarcely practicable, owing to the enormous increase in the number of the gentry, which produced a demand for new combinations. The glories of heraldry reached their zenith in the reign of Richard II., with &quot; youth at the prow and pleasure at the helm &quot; of the vessel of the state, but it was not till the reign of Richard III. that it was thought necessary to place under specific control the whole heraldry of the king dom ; and this, in close imitation of the example of France, was done by the incorporation of the heralds into a college placed under the presidency of the earl marshal. The office of the herald as the messenger of war or peace between sovereigns or between contending armies in the field is of far earlier date than the introduction of armorial bearings, but as these came into use they were gradually placed under his charge, and he took his specific name sometimes from that of the noble or leader who employed him, sometimes from one of his castles or titles of honour, and sometimes from one of his badges or cognizances, which the herald wore embroidered upon his dress and by which he was known. In the pages of Froissart and other chroniclers frequent mention is made of heralds-at-arms and their attendants the pursuivants, and we read of Somer set and York, Windsor, Chester, and Lancaster heralds, Clarencieux, Arundel, Fleur-de-Lys, and Leopard ; and of pursuivants, Antelope, Blanch Lion, Falcon, Portcullis,, and many more. At an early period the principal heralds, and especially those attached to sovereigns, were called kings-at-arms, and as early as Edward I. an officer, called from his jurisdiction, Norroy, was placed in charge of the heraldries north, of the Trent. It is probable that a herald was always attached to each order of chivalry, as Toison d or to the Fleece, and Garter to the chief English order. Garter, however, was only officially appointed by Henry V., when he seems to have been recognized as the principal king-at- arms &quot; Principalis rex armorum Anglicanorum.&quot; At the institution of the college, or soon afterwards, it was decided that its officers should be Garter, principal king-at-arms ; Norroy and Clarencieux, provincial kings north and south of Trent ; six heralds, Windsor, Chester, Lancaster, Richmond, Somerset, and York ; and four pursuivants, Rouge Croix, Blue Mantle, Rouge Dragon, and Portcullis ; who constitute the present establishment, though some special officers have since been appointed, as a king-at-arms to the revived order of the Bath, and some others, not members of the college. It became the duty of the new incorporation to take note of all existing arms, to allow none without authority, and to collect and combine the rules of blazoning into a system. To effect a supervision of the armorial bearings throughout the kingdom, it was necessary to visit the several counties Such a commission of visitation seems to have been issued by Henry IV. as early as 1412, but the first regular com mission acted upon was issued by Henry VIII., 1528-9, and the last early in the reign of James II. The visitations were taken about every thirty years, and for contemporary events are rnostvaluable records. The provincial king, either