Visitation of Hereford, 1634, there is this note:John Philips, of Ledbury, to be disclaimed at our "next 'sizes, because he was not disclaimed at our being in the country, being respyted then for proofe, but cannot make any proofe." These proclamations are what are known as Disclaimers.

Letters written to Sir William Dugdale shew that, as Norroy King of Arms, he possessed a sway equal or almost superior to the authority of a secular sovereign; and we know from his diary how vigorously he defaced the false arms on monuments and pulled down the armorial standards and banners in some of the Lancashire and Cheshire churches, and how he commanded many of the gentry to attend the Earl Marshal's Court to answer their contempt of the King's commission.

Although suggestions have been made to the contrary, the heralds, as a rule, do not seem to have acted in a harsh or arbitrary manner in regard to the production of proofs in support of pedigrees; for, if requested, they would visit the houses of the gentry, to examine deeds and other family records, in cases where such evidences could not be conveniently produced at the time or place appointed by the summons."

Again, in the matter of armorial bearings, the old heralds were not too exacting. In 1668, Sir William Dugdale writes to Mr. William Horsley:"Therefore it will be requisite that he do look over "his own evidences for some seals of arms, for "perhaps it appears in them, and if so, and that "they have used it from the beginning of Q. Eliza

7 The warrant, already referred to, which is printed in Mr. H. S. Grazebrook's Visitation of Staffordshire, 1583, contains the following:"And these that may not comodiously bringe wth them such theire evidences "auncient writinges and monuments as would serve to prove the antiquitie of "their race and familye but shalbe desirous to have me home to their houses 66 upon the significatyon of such theire desires for the furtherance of Her "Maties service I will make my repayre unto them soe soone as conveniently "I maye."

"beth's reign, or about that time, I shall allow "thereof, for our directions are limiting us so to do, "and not a shorter prescription of usage."-(Introduction to Visitation of Salop, p. xxix.) So that, although no actual document granting or confirming the arms could be produced, Sir William was willing to admit a prescriptive right and to confirm and enter the arms if their use could be proved by seals from a date not later than about the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign. The document by which such arms were allowed was known as a Confirmation of Arms. In these days the English heralds have no such discretion, and if any given armorial bearings are not on record in the College of Arms as belonging to a particular family they cannot be allowed. In Ireland, however, the old rule as to prescription and confirmation still prevails; the reason being that the collections of arms on record in Ulster's office are known to be imperfect.

To return to the subject of this paper. Those persons who had disobeyed the summons of the heralds were publicly disclaimed if they persistently refused to shew their right to the arms used by them; and also all those who had attended the summons, and, having been unable to prove the arms wrongfully used by them, continued such use in defiance of lawful authority.

During Dugdale's Visitation of Yorkshire, taken in 1665-6, nearly one-third of the gentry who were summoned to appear before him neglected the summons. Two years after the conclusion of that Visitation, Sir William issued a precept to the High Sheriff of the County of York, appending the names of the persons who had treated the summons with contempt, and they were duly disclaimed at the York Assizes in 1668.

The Disclaimers were made "after sound of a "Trumpett" by proclamation at the market cross,

or some other convenient place, generally at the time of the Assizes, and a written proclamation was hung up charging the persons, whose names were written below, in the name of the Sovereign, "that "they nor any of them do from henceforth by any "ways or means use or take upon him or them the "names of Esquire or Gentleman, unless they be "thereunto authorised according to such order as "is prescribed and set forth by the Laws of Arms," and also commanding in the name of the Sovereign "all Sheriffs, Commissioners, Archdeacons, Officials, Scriveners, Clerks, Writers, or others whatsoever, not to call name or write in any Assize, Session, "Court, or other open place or places any one of "these persons by the addition of Esquire or Gen"tleman, who at this present by this proclamation "are reproved, controled, and made infamous of "that name and dignity, as they or any of them "will answer to the contrary at their peril" to the Earl Marshal of England. A proclamation of this kind will be found before the list of persons disclaimed at Chester in 1664, printed at the end of this paper.

8

It will be observed that the proclamation was directed against those who had assumed the title of esquire or gentleman contrary to the order prescribed by the laws of arms. In other words, the proclamation was against those who, by usurping arms to which they had no right, had assumed the rank and style of esquires and gentlemen, or had wrongfully assumed those titles, having no arms at all. This clearly appears in the heading to the list of persons disclaimed at the Visitation of Staffordshire, taken in the year 1583:-"The names of those "that in the time of this Visitacyon of Staffordshire

8 For a copy of this document and of the lists of disclaimers in Harl. MS. 2142, I am indebted to Mr. George Grazebrook, F.S.A., whose Introduction to the Visitations of Salop, printed by the Harleian Society, will well repay a careful perusal.

"have made noe proofe of their gentry, bearing

noe armes, and yet, before tyme, had called and "written themselves gentlemen, and were therefore disclaymed in the chiefe places of the Hundreds "wherein they dwell." For, by the Laws of Arms, gentlemen, strictly speaking, were those persons only who could shew a right to armorial bearings derived by direct male descent from a grantee of arms, or from one to whom arms had been allowed by the heralds; or those who were themselves grantees of arms. There were, however, others who, by virtue of their office or profession, were accounted gentlemen by reputation, though not entitled to bear arms, but their right so to describe themselves, like the right to a title of courtesy, did not descend to their posterity.

This is

The word "gentleman" was not employed as a legal addition until about the time of King Henry V. In its original and heraldic sense it has the same meaning as "noble "; hence the French proverb, "Je suis un gentilhomme comme le roi." well explained in Coke upon Littleton, vol. 2, p. 667:"As in ancient [Roman] times statues or images "of their ancestors were proofs of their nobility," he quotes Juvenal, Satire 8, and Cicero, "Nobiles "sunt qui imagines generis sui proferre possunt, so in "later times Coat armes came in lieu of those "statues or images, and are the most certaine proofes and evidence of nobility and gentry, so as "in these daies the rule is, Nobiles sunt qui insignia gentilicia generis sui proferre possunt." It thus follows that a man might be an esquire, or a knight, or even bear a title, and yet be ignobilis. Wharton, in his Law Lexicon, under "Nobilis" has "The gentry are those who are able to produce armorial bearings derived by descent from their own an"cestors"; and, under "Armorial Bearings," the same author says:-"A device depicted on the "shield of one of the nobility; of which the gentry

แ

"is the lowest degree. The criterion of nobility is "the bearing of armorial bearings received from ancestry."

These laws of arms have been referred to as belonging to the past, but they still prevail, although the constant inappropriate use of the word gentleman, out of mere complaisance, has gradually extended its popular application so widely, that it would be difficult to define its exact meaning, as generally used in the present day, indeed it may be said to have lost its significance as a definite word.

Among the persons who were disclaimed by the heralds were many who could have proved their right to armorial honours with little difficulty if they had cared to do so, and this is especially noticeable in the later visitations. Probably many of them were satisfied with the knowledge that they had in their possession proofs that the heralds had allowed arms to their immediate ancestors, or they were too indolent to trouble themselves to search in their muniment chests for the required proofs, or they occupied themselves with field-sports and took little or no interest in their arms and pedigrees, and, perhaps, objected to pay the small charges which would be incurred by appearing at the Visitation. Many of the Puritans regarded arms and pedigrees as "vanities," seeing in them only a vehicle for false pride and ostentation, a charge too frequently, and very wrongly, brought against them in later days. Some of the gentry seem to have

66

9 A writer in the Spectator, 21st April, 1881, in a very interesting article entitled "Pedigree-hunting," concludes with the following pertinent remarks: "We very much doubt whether the present love for pedigrees has anything to "do with that pride of birth which has been so conspicuous a feature in other ages. Rather we believe that it is to be explained by the fact that the "horizon of human interest has been widening everywhere, and that the love "for the study of ancestry has developed with the general love for knowledge "which is everywhere steadily growing. A man now sets out to discover who "his ancestors really were, not to establish a claim to Norman blood. The "old pedigree-hunting was a sign of pride and pretension; the modern is "simply dictated by the desire to know whatever can be known. The one "advanced itself by methods of immoral advocacy; the other proceeds by "those of scientific research."