heir, William de Aldeburgh, was thirty years old at his father's death', and died issueless on the 20th August, 1391, without having ever received a Writ of Summons to Parliament. Elizabeth, who was then aged twenty-eight, the widow of Bryan Stapelton, ancestor of the claimant of the Barony of Beaumont, and who married, secondly, Edward Redman, and Sybilla, then aged twenty-five, and the wife of William de Rythre, were found to be his sisters and co-heirs.

AP ADAM. John ap Adam, Lord of Beverstone, in the county of Gloucester, and of Netherwere, in Somersetshire, was summoned to Parliament from 6th February, 27 Ed. I., 1299, to the 12th December, 3 Ed. II., 1309; and also to a great council, on the 26th January, 25 Ed. I. 1297. He was one of the Barons who were summoned to the Parliament at Lincoln, 29 Edw. I., 1301, and was a party to the letter from the Barons to the Pope, though his seal was not affixed to that document. He died anno 4 Ed. II., 1310-116, leaving a son, Thomas, then in minority, who became of age in 1324, and was living in 1330.

None of the descendants of this Baron were ever summoned to Parliament; nor, it is believed, has any accurate pedigree of them been compiled, even, which is very doubtful, if evidence for the purpose exists. It appears that John Baron ap Adam married Elizabeth the daughter and heiress of John, son of Anselm de Gournay, with whom he acquired the manors of Beverstone in Gloucestershire, and Barrow in Somersetshire; that Thomas, his son and heir, conveyed the latter to Thomas de Berkeley and Margaret his wife, in the 4th Edw. III., 1330; that in the 49 Edw. III. 1375, John, son of Thomas ap Adam, Knight, quit-claimed to Katherine Berkeley, John Berkeley, her son and heir, and Thomas Berkeley, Lord of Berkeley, all his rights in Beverstone 9; that a John ap Adam, who held one acre in Badwicke, in the hundred of Hembury, in Gloucestershire, died in the 18 Hen. VI., 1439-40, leaving John Huntley, son of his sister Elizabeth, his cousin and heir, and then forty years old and upwards 10

1 Esch. 11 Rich. II. No. 3.

2 Esch. 15 Rich. II. No. 2; whence it appears that the wife of this William was called Margaret. 3 Ibid.

4 MS. Collections for Dugdale's Baronage, by the late Francis Townsend, Esq. Windsor Herald.

5 Esch. 15 Rich. II. No. 2.

6 His name occurs in the printed Calendar of the "Inquisitiones Post Mortem," in the 6 Edw. II.

7 Fosbroke's Gloucestershire, vol. i. p. 410; and Collinson's Somerset, vol. ii. p. 309. 8 Patent, 4 Edw. III. m. 32.

9 Claus. 49 Edw. III.

10 Esch. 18 Hen. VI. No. 10. Mr. Fosbroke considers that the said John Huntley was the ancestor of the families of Huntley of Rye and Frocester, in Gloucestershire. Hist. of Glouc. vol. ii. pp. 4, 5; but this is rendered unlikely, if not impossible, by the fact, that John Huntley, the heir to Ap Adam, was above forty years of age in 1439. The following is a copy of a pedigree compiled by Cooke, Clarencieux, recorded

ARCEDEKNE. Thomas le Arcedekne of Shepestall in Cornwall', son and heir of Otho le Arcedekne, was summoned to Parliament from the 15th of May, 14 Edw. II., 1321, to the 13th September, 18 Edw. II., 1324, and died on the 26th January, 3 Edw. III, 1329', leaving by Elizabeth, daughter and coheiress of Thomas de la Roche, John le Arcedekne, his son and heir, then aged twenty-five, and the husband of Cecilia, daughter of Jordan de Haccomb 5. He received one Writ of Summons to Parliament, namely, on the 25th February, 16 Edw. III, 1342; but neither he nor his father are recorded to have attended. The date of his death has not been ascertained, but he is said to have been succeeded by his eldest son, Stephen, who died s. P. and whose brother and heir, Warine le Arcedekne, was seised of his father's lands in the 2nd Rich. II. The said Warine died s. P. M. in the 2 Hen. IV., 1400-1, leaving by Elizabeth, sister and coheiress of John Talbot, of Richard's Castle, whom he married in the 12th Rich. II.7; three daughters, Elizabeth or Eleanor, Philippa, and Margery, who were his heirs. Elizabeth married Walter de Lucy; Philippa became the wife of Hugh Courtenay; and Margaret married Thomas Arundel.

ARUNDEL. John Fitz-Alan, alias Arundel, second son of Richard Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel, was summoned to Parliament from the 4th August, 1st Ric. II. 1377, to the 20th October, 3rd Ric. II. 1379, as

in a MS. in the College of Arms, marked A. 20; but it is opposed by the escheat of the 18th Hen. VI., and is unsupported by any evidence.

3 Rot. Patent. 3 Edw. III. part i. m. 18, from a MS. note of the late Francis Townsend, Esq. Windsor Herald; but no such entry occurs in the book called a "Calendar to the Patent Rolls." The inquisition on his death was held in the 5th Edw. III.

4 Dugdale. If this statement be correct, he was twice married; for the inquisition on his death says his wife's name was Maud.

5 E-ch. 5 Edw. III. No. 33; but Dugdale calls her the daughter of Sir Jordan FitzStephen of Haccomb.

6 MS. note of the late Francis Townsend, Esq.

"John de Arundel," and was present in Parliament in the 50th Edward III. 1376, when he was one of the mainpernours of Lord Latimer', and again twice in the 2nd Ric. II. 1379, when he was appointed a trier of petitions; on both of which occasions he was styled "Marshal of England." He was the husband of Eleanor, the grand-daughter and heiress of John Lord Maltravers, in whose right he was probably summoned to Parliament, though the title of the Barony of Maltravers was never attributed to him. He died in 1379, leaving his grandson, John Fitz-Alan, or Arundel, son of his eldest son, John, who died in vita patris, his heir, and who was then fifteen years old 3. Though he lived until 1421, and, according to the decision in the 11th Hen. VI., became de jure Earl of Arundel, on the death of Thomas Earl of Arundel in 1416, he was never summoned to Parliament. He died on the 29th April, 9 Hen. V. 1421, and was succeeded by his son, John, who was then thirteen years of age, and who was summoned to Parliament as " John de Arundel, Chevalier," on the 12th of July, and 3rd August, 7 Hen. VI. 1429. In the 11 Hen. VI. 1432-3, he petitioned for a Writ to Parliament, as Earl of Arundel, which claim was allowed; but he was never summoned by any title after the 7 Hen. VI. and died on the 12th May, 13 Hen. VI., 1435, leaving Humphrey, his son and heir, who is styled "Earl of Arundel" in the inquisition on the death of his mother, Maud, in the 15 Hen. VI. 1436-7. She is called in that record " Maud, Countess of Arundel, wife of John, late Earl of Arundel." The said Humphrey was only seven years old at his mother's decease, and died in the 16 Hen. VI., 1437-8, when his uncle and heir, William de Arundel, who was then twenty years of age', succeeded to all his honours.

By statute 3 Car. I. the Barony of Maltravers, with those of FitzAlan, Clun and Oswaldestre, were specially annexed to the dignity of Earl of Arundel; hence if the Writ of the 7 Ric. II. created a Barony of Arundel, and was not merely a confirmation of that of Maltravers, it is now in abeyance between Lord Petre and Lord Stourton as the heirs general of John de Arundel who was summoned on that occasion".

Rot. Parl. vol. ii. p. 326.

3 Esch. 3 Ric. II.

55 Esch. 16 Hen. VI.

Ibid. vol. iii. pp. 34 and 56. 4 Esch. 9 Hen. V. No. 51.

As several other Baronies in fee are now vested in these noblemen, in consequence of their being the heirs general of the houses of Fitz-Alan and Howard, a brief notice of their descent from the William Earl of Arundel above mentioned is necessary. The male line of Fitz-Alan continued until the year 1579, when Henry Fitz-Alan, the last Earl, died s. P. M. leaving Philip Howard, his grandson, his heir, namely, son and heir of Mary Fitz-Alan, his only daughter that left issue, who married Thomas Duke of Norfolk. From the said Philip Howard, who became Earl of Arundel, descended Edward Howard Duke of Norfolk, his heir general and heir male, who died s. P. in 1777, and whose nieces became his heirs, namely, the daughters of his brother, Lord Philip Howard, and who consequently inherited all the honours of which he was seised in fee. "Winifred, the eldest of these coheirs, married William Lord Stourton, and is now represented by her grandson, William, the present Lord Stourton; and Ann, the youngest, became the wife of Robert, Lord Petre, and is now represented by her grandson, William Francis Henry, present Lord Petre. Between these noblemen, besides the Barony noticed above, those of Howard, Kerdeston, Mowbray, Braose of Gower, Segrave, Greystock, Ferrers of Wemme, Talbot, Strange of Blackmere, Furnival, Giffard of Brimmesfield, and Verdon, are in abeyance.

BADGES, CRESTS, AND SUPPORTERS.

“Might I but know thee by thy household badge.”

2d Part Henry VI. Act V. Seene I.

THE early compilers of works on Armorial Ensigns have confined their researches to the contents of the Shield, or, as it is generally styled," the Coat of Arms," without any reference to the Crests or Supporters which might have appertained to them. Nisbet and Collins appear to have been the first of our heraldic writers who noticed the ornaments which are exterior to the escutcheon; and little as is to be found in those works on Crests or Supporters, still less is said on the Badges or Cognizances which have at various times been used by the nobility and gentry of this country. During a long period, the latter were of considerable importance, and the legislature frequently interfered to prevent their being worn by any but the personal retainers and servants of eminent personages; but they have gradually fallen into desuetude, and are now, comparatively speaking, forgotten.

In the 13 Rich. II. 1389, the Commons complained that in consequence of the Lords having given their Badges or " Signes' to divers persons, those who wore them had committed great and unbearable extortions on the lower orders; when it was ordered that no one should wear the Badge of any nobleman, unless he was retained by such lord' for life, as well in peace as war, by indentures sealed under their seals without fraud; and that no valet or archer should wear such Badges in any part of the realm, unless he was his menial servant, living with him in his house for a whole year; and, by statute 8 Edw. IV. c. 2, noblemen were prohibited from giving any Livery or Badge [Signe], and from retaining any other person than his menial servant, officer, or man learned in the one law or the other," upon pain of forfeiting for every such Livery or Badge given c s.; and this law was confirmed, or rather repeated, by statute 19 Hen. VII. chap. xiv. These marks of servitude were worn on a conspicuous part of the dress.

66

To supply information on the Badges or Cognizances of our ancient nobility, and on their Supporters and Crests, is the object

"S'il ne soit demorez envers mesme le seigneur."

2 Rot. Parl. vol. iii. p. 265.

3 Authorised Edition of the Statutes.

of the following memoranda. The statements which will occur have been derived from authentic sources; and although a complete enumeration of all the devices which have been used is impossible, sufficient has, it is presumed, been recovered to render this and the other papers of the series acceptable to many of our readers. By adopting the arrangement of an Heraldic Ordinary, and adding an index of names and charges, reference may easily be made to either.

A few words will, perhaps, be expected on the hereditary right which may exist to use the Badges of families that are now extinct in the male line; and also on the question, whether the male descendants of such families as undoubtedly bore them, the Howards, Talbots, Clintons, Wyndhams, &c., have a right to bear them. This, however, is a subject which we believe the Herald's College has never been called upon to determine; and which it is impossible to illustrate by precedents, for none appear to be recorded. We are inclined to consider that Badges were wholly independent of the laws or officers of arms; and that they were no more deemed to form part of the armorial ensigns, than a merchant's, or a swan-mark, though in some modern instance, the Kings of Arms have authorised noblemen to use the Badges of families which they represented, by a formal grant. But this circumstance has no influence on our view of the question; and if mere conjecture can be allowed, when nothing positive is known, we would say, that the representation of a family conveyed the right to use its Badges; and that there is no Law of Arms, we speak not of the power to enforce it provided such existed, which would prevent any nobleman or gentleman adopting to-morrow whatever Badge his taste might suggest, much less to interfere with his continuing those of a house which he represents.

That so beautiful an appendage of rank to fortune should not be more general would be surprising, were it not the ridiculous fashion of the day to allow butlers, valets, and other menials, to dress precisely like their masters; and thus the aristocracy of this country set an example in their own establishments of that levelling system of which, with indescribable inconsistency, they affect to disapprove. Let noblemen affix to the coat of their "gentlemen," as, in utter prostitution of the word, they are called, a conspicuous badge of servitude, and those pampered spaniels will speedily leave off their airs and their vices, and remember that they are servants. Another effect would be produced, which is by no means unimportant: the general adoption of embroidered badges, by families of distinction, would give employment to a much greater number of industrious people than might at first be imagined; and hence, at the same time that