HERALDRY.

287

Therefore, from such records to which we have access*we state, that heraldry, according to its modern acceptation,is considered as the science of armouries and their blazons,as it first drew its origin from the honourable profession ofarms; so it comprehends the knowledge which relates to theseveral military marks of honour and dignity, borne uponshields, ensigns, crests, surcoats, &c. which have been as-sumed by sovereigns, appropriated to communities and highoffices, or according to the laws of arms have been eithertaken, and authorised to be retained, or originally grantedby potentates, or such as they have duly authorised for thatpurpose, as hereditary tokens, by which families and per-sons of ancient and worthy descent, are illustrated, distin-guished, and known from the ignoble, common, and base,who are not entitled to such honour and respect.

It is generally believed that the practice of armorial bear-ing was introduced into Europe at about the period of theCrusades , from the practice of wearing banners in the fieldof battle to distinguish persons, which were usually paintedupon the surcoat, whereby not only families were known,but also individuals were distinguished, and their gloriousexploits made visible to every eye, by such devices.

Few subjects have engaged so much attention, or led toa greater variety of opinion, as well respecting its origin,as also regarding the import of the intentional resemblancesof its figures. It has been handled by pens well qualifiedto treat of the subject, as will appear from those namesafter to be mentioned. It seems to have been the opinionof Camden, that arms were originally borne at the periodwe have mentioned, the time of the Crusades; and suchbearings as were then adopted, by little and little became here-ditary; when it was accounted an especial honour to poste-rity to retain those arms which had been displayed in theholy service against the professed enemies of Christianity ;,he concludes, that we received, at that time, the hereditaryuse of them; but that the same were not fully establisheduntil the reign of Henry III.; for that in the instances ofthe last Earls of Chester, the two Quincies, Earls of Win-chester, and the two Lacies, Earls of Lincoln, the arms ofthe father still varied from those of the son.

Although it should seem that Sir Henry Spelman is ofopinion, that they are of still more modern growth in thiskingdom; for speaking of the antiquity generally allowed tothe usage of arms in England, he observes, “ this nationbeing for some hundreds of years harassed with wars inthe storms of foreign assaults and civil commotions, there is