CHARLESI. "fined £500, ordered to be degraded, and never more to write himself "gentleman. Another cause there was, between Pierpoint and Copley, "about precedence, who both at the hearing proved their pedigrees from "the Conquest; but Copley having spoken somewhat in defamation of Pierpoint's family, was fined £300. And it was usual there to censure "men for words, as a person was for saying, that one Brown was no gen"tleman, but descended from Brown the great pudding-eater in Kent; "and a citizen of London, for telling another that he was no gentleman, "for that he did not pay his debts." Several petitions came before Mr. Hyde, the chairman ofthe Committee; the House therefore resolved, 1. "That the Constables and Earl Marshal's court have no jurisdic"tion to hold plea of words.

2. "That the Earl Marshal can make no court without the Consta

"ble.

3.

"That the Earl Marshal's court is a grievance; and the House impowered the Committee to discover: 1. Who were guilty of this grievance. 2. To consider of the nature of the crime. 3. To prepare "a charge to be transmitted to the House of Lords, against those who "have, to the grievance of the subject, usurped this jurisdiction."

His Majesty, October 10, 1628, appointed, that the members of the College should receive these fees, at the advancement of any to titles of honor an Archbishop, at consecration, was to pay £13. 6s. 8d. ; a Bishop, £6. 13s. 4d.; a Banneret, or Baronet, the same sum; and the Pursuivants were to have for every Knight of the Bath, or Knight Batchelor, twenty shillings, to be divided amongst them: a very inconsiderable perquisite.

Charles used the Pursuivants for the most obnoxious employments, services alike odious and dangerous, to seize suspected and unpopular characters at court. Two of them, who attended parliament for this purpose, lay in waiting to seize Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Elliot, who were then speaking vehemently against the Duke of Buckingham; they were whispered out of the House, under pretence that a gentleman wanted to speak with them, and as they came out, were apprehended, and taken by them to the Tower. This was a very great infringement upon the rights of the subject, and must have been extremely distasteful to men of honor. Nor was it less disagreeable for them to be sent to take up such unhappy persons, whom the prejudice of the age loaded with the opprobrious name

of

of recusants and such were all the Roman Catholics in this reign deemed. CHARLES I. One of the pursuivants, in attempting to execute this office, was killed, in entering the house of Richard Hurst, a popish recusant, residing near Preston, in Lancashire, for which Hurst was executed, August 26, 1628; but it was supposed his servant girl gave the fatal blow.

Whitlock says, cc some constables, and other mean men, committed by the "Council, who bringing their habeas corpora, were removed from pursuivant to pursuivant, and could have no benefit of the law." These were real infringements upon the legal privileges of the subject; but the Parliament, who had promised redress to these complainants, never gave them any satisfaction, and their little finger was found heavier upon the subject, than the weight of Charles' hand, against whom they took up arms. The pursuivants felt the disagreeableness of this office of keeping obnoxious persons in custody in the following reign we see them employed in the same distasteful manner.

The mutual distrust of Charles and his Parliament, at length broke out into an open war. Every part of the empire was convulsed; no community, seldom any family, was united in their sentiments, upon the justice of either party. The College of Arms, S. M. Leake, Garter, acquaints us, was split in divisions: the three kings, three heralds, and one pursuivant, attended the fortune of their Sovereign; the others courted the service of the victorious side.

All successful rebellion is inconsistent; for no sooner are the revolters possessed of authority, than they immediately adopt the same, or a worse power, than they rose to oppose. Amongst many instances that might be given of this in the Parliamentarians, is their establishing the office of constable and marshal in that very committee, which had voted the latter arbitrary and illegal. The members of it held their courts accordingly. The Committee of Sequestration took possession of the College, and kept it, - until by an order of this court, passed August 13, 1646, they were direct, ed to remove. They were empowered by the Parliament, October 20 following, to supersede such of the officers who, from their loyalty, were disagreeable to them, and to nominate others to fill their places; a committee being named to regulate their fees.

It was a most extraordinary circumstance, that servants appointed to personally attend the Sovereign in peace and war, should so far forget their duty, as to disloyally take messages to their Royal Master from his factious

Gg 2

and

CHARLES I. and rebellious subjects; should, instead of registering in their College the military ensigns taken from the enemy, record the misfortunes of the Monarch, as triumphs. The Committee appointed, that the heralds should have the care of enrolling the ensigns and cornets taken at Naseby, the care of them was intrusted to one of its members.

Not content with revolting from the authority of the Sovereign, the Parliament was vehement against all who dared avow their loyalty. The persons of the heralds who continued true to the King were treated with the greatest persecution; deprived of their office, their emoluments, fined from their private fortune, and imprisoned, if seized upon, contrary to every law of arms, and the practice of all civilized nations.

They shewed indeed a wish to preserve all the rights of the heralds, when it did not interfere with their own power and principles; for in 1643, one of the three heralds was appointed to inspect whatever was printed in the science of arms.

But notwithstanding the protection the Parliament gave to the College, garbled as it was, yet individuals, taking advantage of the distractions of the times, ventured to do what the Earl Marshal's Court would not allow. Amongst several instances of this, I shall mention one which happened in 1648. Sir John St. John, a relation of Lord Grandison, was buried in a most magnificent manner, for which the heralds prosecuted Mr. Walter St. John, the executor, for acting so contrary to the usage of arms and the laws of heraldry. It appears by a MS. deposition, mentioned by Mr. Lyson, in the British Museum, Riley, one of the College, declares, that the funeral was solemnized so much beyond the rank of the deceased, that the escutcheons were more numerous, than those used at the interment of a duke, and the pennons were so out of all proportion, that he never saw so many used, but at the funeral of one of the Royal Family; a precedent this, destructive of all distinction, order, and degree of honor and nobility. We may presume, that no herald had attended, nor been employed; for if any of the College had been even consulted, such an error had not been made.

"Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft," it commences with duteous professions of loyalty: if successful, it ends in the murder of the Sovereign. When the discontented heralds first declared for the Parliament, they would have thought with horror of assisting in putting their Royal

Master

Master to an open and shameful death; yet so it happened: for though CHARLES I Edward Dendy*, Serjeant at Arms, did much of the vile work the Junto of the Parliament wanted, preparatory to the dreadful catastrophe, proclaiming the King's trial in London and Westminster, on horseback, with a mace upon his shoulder, attended with some officers bear-headed, six trumpets on horseback, likewise, with guards of horse and foot, yet an herald also assisted; and in this very act, unless Dendy has been mistaken for an herald, which, from what will be mentioned, does not appear probable. My authority for an herald being there, is a letter the Earl of Lothian, John Cheislie, and W. Glendonyng, dated from Çovent-Garden, January 9, 1648-9, addressed to the most honorable the Lords and Commissioners of "Shyres and Burroughes, assembled in the "Parliament of Scotland," in which, speaking of the intended tragedy of the King's death, he says, yesterday the General — "of that commission, met at the Painted Chamber, and sat up late. What they did we know not, then that this day we were in Westminster-hall, "there came into the hall some trumpeters and horsemen, with a herald, and "made a proclamation; the sum whereof was, that by virtue of an Act "of Parliament of the Commons of England, a commission was given for "tryall of Charles Stuart, King of England, and that the Commis"sioners were to meet for that purpose to-morrow, at one of cloke in the "afternoon, in the Painted Chamber."+

66

and others

That not only a herald was employed in this nefarious business, but from what follows it is evident, that several, if not all who remained in the Parliament service, were, as far as their situation would permit, authorizing the dreadful act by their public sanction; for when the pretended

High

* Charles I. had sixteen serjeants at arms, at the head of whom was Sir John Cotton, Knight. Edward Dendy, one of them, was deeply involved in the crime of assisting in Charles I.'s death, for which he was deservedly excepted out of the act of indemnity, which passed at the Restoration; fortunately for himself, effecting his escape, he went to Lausanne, to some regicides, with other obnoxious characters, who had fled thither. There he died, in universal contempt, Cromwell having made him an instrument of his severities.

↑ Whitlock says the Commissioners for trial of the King sat in the Painted Chamber at Westminster, January 8, and " ordered that to-morrow a herald should proclaim and invite "the people to bring in what matter of fact they had against Charles Stuart, King of Eng"land." But on the subsequent day, he only mentions Serjeant Dendy. Sir Philip Warwick mentions Dendy only:

CHARLES I. High Court of Justice, January 17, 1648-9, " ordered, that the Com"mittee for considering of the manner of bringing the King to trial, do "consider what habits the officers of this court shall have,"-" they were "directed to advise with some herald at arms therein, concerning the

Garter.

ordering of the said officers ;" and it was in consequence of this, that Colonel Hutchinson" reported from the Committee appointed to consider "of the habits of the officers, that three gowns be provided for three "ushers, and three cloaks for three messengers of this Court."

As I have never seen any mention made of the attendance of any of the disaffected heralds at the King's trial or execution, they were, I sup. pose, excused the disgrace and infamy of a public exposure of their persons upon those occasions. I believe no herald was at the funeral of the unhappy Monarch, it being ordered to be private.

GARTER, PRINCIPAL KING AT ARMS.

James 1.-Sir WILLIAM SEGAR, Knight.

The origin of Segar is said to have been Dutch. Garret Segar had Nicholas, who was father of another Nicholas Segar, who, by Eleanor Crakenthorp, had two sons. The eldest was Sir Francis Segar, gentleman of the bed-chamber to Maurice, Prince Landgrave of Hesse, as agent for whom he attended James I. He became so acceptable to this Monarch, that he presented him with a gold chain in the third year of his reign, and another in his tenth; to each of which was appendant a medal of the same metal. Dying in England, he was buried at Poplar, in Middlesex. William, the younger son of this Nicholas Segar, became Garter. He was bred a scrivener, and was in some employment under that able and elegant statesman, Sir Thomas Heneage, Vice-chamberlain to Elizabeth. Through his all-powerful interest he procured admission and promotion in the College. Whilst Portcullis, he attended the splendid festival of St. George, kept at Utrecht in 1586: his relation of it was given to, and published by Stow, in his Chronicle. In 1603, he was sent with the Garter to Christian IV., King of Denmark, having superseded Dethick in the office of Garter, by James I.'s command: yet the Ex-garter was sent to the court of Wirtemberg with the order. In 1604, he proclaimed peace between England and Spain, assisted by the Sheriffs of London, and eight

6

other