Edited from Encyclopaedia Heraldica by William Berry
This word properly signifies grandeur of soul, and the possession of superior virtues, which distinguish him so adorned from the rest of mankind. It is more usually understood to designate that class of the community who, by a selection supposed to be founded on this distinction, are elevated above the rest by titles, rank and other privileges. The word is formed from the Latin nobilis, which was the distinction of those who had held any of the highest offices in the Roman state, and was transmitted by them to all their descendants, and secured from oblivion by the imaginum. The division of the people into patrician and plebeian was prior to this, and that which more nearly corresponded with modern classification into noble and ignoble. During the aristocratic period of the Roman republic, when only patricians were eligible to the highest offices, the title of nobilis only implied an additional dignity in certain members of an already elevated order; but when these offices were thrown open to plebeians also, it became more strongly opposed to its contrary, ignobilis, and this division took place, in public estimation, of that of patrician and plebeian, and the more speedily as the intermarriage of those two orders soon rendered imperceptible or uncertain the boundary line between the two.
The nobility of modem Europe had its origin in that system which the Goths, and other northern nations, established everywhere, with little variation. By the right of conquest, they possessed themselves of the greater part of the invaded country, and, reserving to the most worthy or most fortunate among themselves all offices of honour, respect and power. To the remainder, and to the original inhabitants, they left all menial and laborious employments, together with the badge of slavery, or insurmountable inferiority; and care was taken to perpetuate this state of things by rendering both conditions necessarily hereditary. The injustice of a nobility founded on this principle is apparent. All the arguments which have been urged against nobility of every kind, apply with all their force to such a one as this. Unless the gifts of providence, talents, und integrity are supposed to belong to some favoured few, such a system must deprive a nation of the benefits of a large portion of its ability and virtue, and frequently leave in unworthy hands the conduct of the most important and difficult affairs. Wherever this system was persevered in, or only partially corrected, the evil effects have been felt in a greater or less degree, sometimes by cramping the energies of a people, and sometimes, when the opportunity has offered, by the leve11ing of all distinctions and privileges whatever. This, however, is but running to the opposite extreme, and is founded on a principle equa1ly untrue, namely, the equality of all men in wisdom and virtue, for in no other case can an equality of rank be preserved. If some men are superior to others, that superiority ought to be encouraged and rewarded,—-and no better rewards can be devised than such as constitute nobility of some kind. It may be said that this argument does not justify but rather condemns the transmission of such rewards from generation to generation, without regard to personal merit; but that also is sufficiently defended if it can be shown to be in itself no trifling part of the original reward, for a hereditary nobility ought not and need not to be approved upon any other ground than that of drawing out and sufficiently rewarding as much virtue and talent as possible. But it cannot be denied that a hereditary nobility possesses, from the antiquity of its descent and its stability, more dignity than could be enjoyed by any temporary, and constantly shifting, body of men. The meritorious individual himself also frequently derives more satisfaction in the contemplation of his descendants enjoying the honours he has won than in his own possession of them ; and there certainly are cases of merit from which no degree of reward, that can in justice be granted should be withheld. The universal existence of some kind of nobility, in every state of society, even the most barbarous, evinces how much it accords with the nature of man, and the most perfect kind may be said to be that to which virtue and talents are the passports, and from which none are, of necessity, excluded.
The feudal interpretation of the word noble has been too closely adhered to in most countries and, instead of being the reward, has been considered the evidence of superior virtue and a necessary qualification for all honourable employments. The inconvenience of such an exclusive system was in some degree remedied by the power of the sovereign to ennoble whomsoever he chose; but this power was necessarily limited, and, consequently, all merit without this stamp of authority remained unprofitable to the possessor and to his country.
This order of things existed in France down to the period of the revolution; the gentry or nobility was the creation of the monarch; and though the ancient families looked down upon their new associates, these were happy to have escaped from a rank of which the ignominy could be removed only by the royal patent. This nobility was guarded on the same principles as those on which it was founded, and might be lost by engaging in those employments which a warlike community had condemned as degrading; an ennobled person sacrificed his rank for ever if he engaged in commerce. The King of France, in 1669, limited this penalty to those who traded in retail; and in Brittany even this offence only occasioned the nobility to be suspended, which was recovered when the objectionable occupation was abandoned.
In England, the more early diffusion of liberal principles removed the disabilities of birth, and talent, education, and character, when possessed of adequate means, being left to seek their own level in society, have formed a class of gentry, unknown in most other countries in which antiquity of descent is a valued ornament but neither an essential nor a primary qualification, and the absence of which does not require to be compensated for by an arbitrary decree.
The word nobility having thus happily lost its feudal signification, it has been appropriated by us as a general term to the collected body of peers. The source of this honour is the King, who now always confers it by letters patent: it was originally territorial, but ceased to be so when the alienation of lands became frequent. Another method of ennobling formerly employed was by writ, when any person, not before entitled, was summoned to attend among the lords of Parliament; this method is still sometimes emp1oyed, but only in the case of au heir-apparent to a peerage. The direct heirs of a person thus summoned succeeded, of right, to his rank as peer; whereas a title conferred by patent in not, necessarily, hereditary, but must be declared so in the patent, and the method of its descent specified.
When nobility is once conferred it cannot be recalled except by attainder; although it has been contended that if a baron wastes his estate the King may degrade him; but better authorities maintain that this can be done only by Act of Parliament. The only instance on record of the exercise of this power at all is that of George Nevile, Duke of Bedford, who, in the reign of Edward IV, was degraded by Act of Parliament, as being too poor to support his dignity.
If a woman, noble in her own right, marries a commoner, she remains noble, but if her nobility came by marriage, she loses it when she marries a second time out of the peerage; but if her second husband is a peer, though of a higher rank than her first, she loses nothing of her title by marrying him.
Bishops, although Lords of Parliament, do not acquire any personal nobility, and, therefore, it is said, are not entitled to be tried, in case of accusation, by the peerage of the realm.
