Page:Notes and Queries - Series 8 - Volume 11.djvu/178

170 then informed by me of the authority on which it was based, which seemed, and still seems, to me at least, sufficient. That authority was the then Bishop of Chichester, who informed me that he had made an application to the Heralds' College with regard to the correct blazon of the arms of his see, and had in reply received from an officer of the College of Arms the blazon to which I have objected as incorrect, and which I think we had the right, though has denied it, to consider official and authoritative. I have noticed other instances in which, when ignorance or care- lessness has been imputed to the College of Arms, an attempt has been made to transfer the onus from the shoulders of the body corporate to those of some one or other of its members. And yet we are not unfrequently twitted with disrespect for this "authority," when it is perfectly well known that the College does not speak with a clear and authoritative voice, but that A and B, two of its members we will say, hold upon a particular subject views which are not only not reconcilable but are diametrically opposed to each other, yet A and B both are " officers of the College of Arms," and as such are entitled to speak upon heraldic matters with an authority which can never be acquired by ignorant and unofficial persons such as myself. It seems to me that is pecu- liarly unhappy in his choice of an instance, not only for the reason stated at first, but because this matter of the blazon of the arms of the see of Chichester is (as he knows quite as well as, or even better than, myself) an example in which there is full justification for what I have asserted in the pre- vious paragraph. I shall be glad to learn that, on this subject at least, differences in the College have been composed; that there is at length an authoritative blazon of the arms of the see ; and that the "officials" are regarding it "of one mind in a house." If I have contributed to this desir- able result I shall not mind official condemnation. , LL.D.

It may be worth while to mention, for the benefit of the unlearned, that there is an unsettled controversy as to the purport of the figure in the arms of the see of Chichester (see Parker's 'Glos- sary of Heraldry,' ed. 1894). Some new evidence in favour of contention was laid before our late venerated bishop not long before his death, but, with characteristic shrewdness, he pleaded his advanced age as his excuse for not investigating the question.

. M.A. Hastings.

(8th S. xi. 3, 62). To Scotsmen articles are amusing reading. Perhaps this is owing to our abnormal national sense of humour. His position is evidently the same as that of the ingenious. William Atwood, who, before the union of the Parliaments, published a book with the agreeable title 'The Superiority and Direct Dominion of the Imperial Crown and Kingdom of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland.' Of this Hill Burton says :- "Had Atwood formed his conclusions on indubitable historical evidence there was scarcely a Scotsman of the day who would not have deemed himself sunk in the deepest degradation had he believed a word he said. It was perhaps fortunate, however, that the enemy turned out to be a shallow prejudiced advocate, whose speedy confutation diffused through the nation the good humour generally attendant on an easy victory." Atwood, by the strangest chance, appealed to James Anderson, who was then arranging materials for the publication of the collection of ancient Scottish munimental facsimiles, for confirmation of his opinions. Anderson took up the challenge at once, and most effectually disposed of Atwood's fabrications.

Now the facts of the case as regards the use of "British" as descriptive of the people of the three islands are very simple. Prior to 1707, England and Scotland were separate kingdoms. Ireland had long been a state subject to England, but retained its Parliament, as the Isle of Man retains its House of Keys to the present day. The business of the Commissioners "appointed to treat for an union betwixt the kingdoms of Scotland and England" was with England and Scotland alone. Their fundamental proposition was "that the two kingdoms of England and Scotland be for ever united into one kingdom, by the name of Great Britain." The word "British" came into immediate use. For example, Lord Haversham, who strongly opposed the Union, speaking in the House of Lords of the limited number of Scottish peers who were to join that body, said :- "It is evident by the two-and-twentieth article, that above a hundred Scottish peers, and as many commoners, are excluded from sitting and voting in the British Parliament, who perhaps as little thought of being so, a year or so ago, as any of your lordships do now."- Debate, February, 1707. The subsequent union of the British and Irish Parliaments was a purely domestic matter, for Ireland was then under the British crown in the same way as until 1707 it was entirely under the English crown. From 1707 the use of "British," to describe the united peoples of the three islands and the empire, is usual in Acts of Parliament. For example, in the British North America Act (30 Vict. c. 3), 1867, the preamble is :- "Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom : "And Whereas such a Union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire," &c,