in the technical acceptation of the word, means generally that quality or dignity which raises a man above the rank of a commoner. Among the Romans, the nobiles or "known" men, were so called by way of distinction from the ignobiles, or vulgar, who were "not known." Originally the Roman patricians were the nobles, but B.C. 336 the plebeians obtained the right to rise to high offices in the state, and subsequently the descendants of plebeians who had filled curule magistracies inherited the jus imaginum, or right of holding the images of their ancestors—a sort of coat of arms; and were accordingly ranked with the nobles, and bore the dignity of nobilitas. He that had only his own image was a novus homo, and he that had neither his ancestors' nor his own was an ignobilis.

"The distinction of rank and honours," says Blackstone, "is necessary in every well-governed state, in order to reward such as are eminent for their services to the public, in a manner the most desirable to individuals, and yet without burden to the community; exciting thereby an ambitious yet laudable ardour, and generous emulation in others. And emulation, or virtuous ambition, is a spring of action which, however dangerous or invidious in a mere republic or under a despotic sway, will certainly be attended with good effects under a free monarchy, where, without destroying its existence, its excesses may be continually restrained by that superior power from which all honour is derived. Such a spirit, when nationally diffused, gives life and vigour to the community; it sets all the wheels of government in motion, which, under a wise regulator, may be directed to any beneficial purpose; and thereby every individual may be made subservient to the public good, while he principally means to promote his own particular views. A body of nobility is also more peculiarly necessary in our mixed and compounded constitution, in order to support the rights of both the crown and the people, by forming a barrier to withstand the encroachments of both. It creates and preserves that gradual scale of dignity which proceeds from the peasant to the prince; rising like a pyramid from a broad foundation, and diminishing to a point Nobility, as it rises. It is this ascending and contracting proportion that adds stability to any government; for when the departure is sudden from one extreme to another, we may pronounce that state to be precarious.

The origin of nobility is a subject involved in obscurity. In the infancy of almost every nation we meet with a hereditary nobility of some sort. It originally had a reference doubtless to superior merit; and in early times is found most frequently attaching to the warrior or the priest. An interesting passage bearing on the origin of hereditary nobility occurs in the *Francæ Gallia* of Francis Hotman, written in 1574. He says, "We must not omit making mention of the cunning device made use of by Hugh Capet for establishing himself in his new dominions (as king of France A.D. 987). For whereas all the magistracies and honours of the kingdom, such as dukedoms, earldoms, &c., had been hitherto, from ancient times, conferred upon select and deserving persons in the general conventions of the people, and were held only during good behaviour, whereof (as lawyers express it) they were but beneficiaries, Hugh Capet, in order to secure to himself the affections of the great men, was the first that made those honours perpetual, which were formerly but temporary, and ordained that such as obtained them should have an hereditary right in them, and might leave them to their children. Of this see Franciscus Conanus the civilian, Comment. i., ch. 9." (Burke's Peerage).

Sir James Lawrence, who, in his *Nobility of the British Gentry*, maintains that gentility is superior to nobility (*cf. nobilis, nascitur generosus*), holds that a coat of arms is the criterion of nobility. (See Heraldry.) He says (p. 3), "Any individual who distinguishes himself may be said to ennoble himself. A prince, judging an individual worthy of notice, gave him letters patent of nobility. In these letters were blazoned the arms that were to distinguish the shield. By this shield he was to be known, or nobilitis. A plebeian had no blazonry on his shield, because he was ignobilis, or unworthy of notice. In an age when a warrior was cased in armour from head to foot, he could only be known by his shield. The plebeian who had no pretensions to be known was *clypeo ignobilis albo*. Hence arms are the criterion of nobility. Every nobleman must have a shield of arms. Whoever has a shield of arms is a nobleman. In every country in Europe, without exception, a grant of arms or letters of nobility is conferred on all the descendants. In the northern countries—Germany, Hungary, Russia, Sweden, Denmark—the titles also of baron or count descend to all the male posterity, and to all the unmarried females of the family; but in the southern countries—France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain—the titles of duke, marquess, count, viscount, or baron, descend only according to the rules of primogeniture."

In Great Britain nobility extends to the five ranks of duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron. (See under each.) The right of peerage seems to have been originally territorial; that is, annexed to lands, honours, castles, manors, and the like, the proprietors and possessors of which were, in right of those estates, allowed to be peers of the realm, and were summoned to Parliament to do suit and service to their sovereign; and, when the land was alienated, the dignity passed along with it as an appendage. Thus in England the bishops still sit in the House of Lords, in right of succession to certain ancient baronies annexed, or supposed to be annexed, to their episcopal lands; and thus (11 Henry VI.) the possession of the castle of Arundel was adjudged to confer an earldom on its possessor. But afterwards, when alienations became frequent, the dignity of the peerage was confined to the lineage of the party ennobled, and, instead of territorial, became personal. Actual proof of a tenure by barony became no longer necessary to constitute a lord of parliament; but the record of the writ of summons to him or his ancestors was admitted as a sufficient evidence of the tenure. Peers of Great Britain are now created either by writ or by patent; for those who claim by prescription must suppose either a writ or patent to have been issued or granted to their ancestors, though by length of time it has been lost. The first of these summonses on record was made in the forty-ninth year of Henry III.; and the first instance of barons made by letters patent dates from the reign of Richard II. The creation by writ or the king's letter is a summons to attend the House of Peers, by the style and title of that barony which the king is pleased to confer; that by patent is a royal grant to a subject of any dignity and degree of peerage. The creation by writ is the more ancient way; but a man is not ennobled thereby unless he actually take his seat in the House of Lords; and some are of opinion that there must be at least two writs of summons, and a sitting in two distinct Parliaments, to establish a hereditary barony; and therefore the most usual, because the surest way is to grant the dignity by patent, which endures to a man and his heirs according to the limitation thereof, although he himself should never make use of it. Yet it is customary to call up the eldest son of a peer to the House of Lords by writ of summons, in the name of his father's barony, because in that case there is no danger of his children losing the nobility in the event of his never taking his seat, seeing they will succeed to their grandfather. Creation by writ has also one advantage over that by patent. A person created by writ holds the dignity to himself and his heirs, without any words to that purport in the writ; but in letters patent there must be words to direct the inheritance, otherwise the dignity endures only to the grantee for life.

The nobility of England are, as elsewhere, a privileged order. In criminal cases a nobleman must be tried by his peers—a privilege, indeed, secured to all by Magna Charta (c. 29). It is said that the privileges of nobility do not extend to bishops, who, though they are lords of Parliament, and sit there by virtue of the baronies which they hold *jure ecclesiasticum*, yet are not ennobled in blood, and consequently not peers with the nobility. As to peeresses, no provision was made for their trial when accused of treason or felony till after Eleanor, Duchess of Gloucester, wife to the Lord Protector, had been accused of treason, and found guilty of witchcraft, in an ecclesiastical synod, through the intrigues of Cardinal Beaufort. This very extraordinary trial gave occasion to a special statute (20 Hen. II., c. 9) which enacted that peeresses, either in their own right or by marriage, should be tried before the same judicator as peers of the realm. If a woman, noble in her own right, marries a commoner, she still remains noble, and must be tried by her peers; but if she be only noble by marriage, then by a second marriage with a commoner she loses her dignity; for as by marriage it is gained, so by marriage it is also lost. Yet if a duchess-dowager marries a baron, she continues a duchess still; for all the nobility are *pares*, and therefore it is no degradation. A peer, or peeress, either in her own right or by marriage, cannot be arrested in civil cases; and they have likewise many peculiar privileges annexed to their peerage in the course of judicial proceedings. A peer sitting in judgment gives not his verdict upon oath, like an ordinary jurymen, but upon his honour; he answers also to bills in chancery upon his honour, and not upon his oath; but when he is examined as a witness either in civil or criminal cases, he must be sworn; for the respect which the law shows to the honour of a peer does not extend so far as to overturn a settled maxim, that *in judicio non creditur nisi juratis*. The honour of peers is, however, so highly tendered by the law, that it is much more penal to spread false reports concerning them, and certain other great officers of the realm, than concerning other men; scandal against them being called by the peculiar name of *scandalum magnum*.