80
NOTES AND QUERIES. [12 s. iv. MABCH. uis.
out by MB. GANDY (vi. 316), who refers me
to Highmore's 'Excise Laws' (1899),
vol. ii. p. 139, that Act only substituted a
" licence " to use them for the old system
of an ' ; assessed tax," which had been
imposed upon them in 1798 by 58 Geo. III.
c. 54. In 1853 a revised scale of specific
du ties was imposed, which remained in force
until the present Act of 1869.
So that what we have to do now if we wish to use " armorial bearings " is to take out an annual licence in respect of them in the same way (and in the same category !) as we should do for a male servant or a dog ! And, apparently, no distinction is drawn between a scion of the most ancient armi- gerous lineage or of the most exalted rank and an ' ' ignobilis." So low has the dignity of heraldic science fallen in the democratic eyes of the Government of our country.
The effect of the principal section (sec. 4, sub -sec. 3) affecting this point is that every person who wears or uses armorial bearings is required to take out a licence annually, the rate of duty upon which depends upon whether the bearings are worn or used on a carriage or are otherwise worn or used. The licence must be taken out whatever the character of the armorial bearings, and whether they are registered in the College of Arms or not. See Lord Halsbury's ' Laws of England ' (1912), vol. xxiv. p. 688.
So the tax or licence for the user of arms is now charged according to the manner of that use if borne on a carriage, two guineas ; if otherwise worn or used, one guinea. Also, it should be said, the higher duty covers any other form of wearing or user.
As to the definition of " armorial bearings " see sec. 19 :
" Armorial bearings mean and include any bearing, crest, or ensign, by whatever name the same shall be called, and whether such armorial bearing, crest, or ensign shall be registered in the College of Arms or not."
See also that excellent publication, ' The Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England ' (2nd ed., 1906,) vol. i. p. 507:
" This licence is not considered by the laws of heraldry as conferring any legitimate right to bear arms, and any kind of emblem is included in the term ' armorial bearings.' "
But I assume that that " emblem " must necessarily be of an armorial " character," so that no mere monogram, for instance, or any combination of initials, would come under the Act.
From the foregoing it is quite evident that Parliament intended to "rope in "the very numerous bearers of so-called " arms "
to which they had no legal or legitimate
right. Possibly it was the widespread and r
according to the laws of heraldry, wrongful
use by these persons which led to its
exploiting such a source of revenue. But
one has much sympathy with the rightful
bearers of armorial insignia if it is because
of this that they are forced to contribute
to what, so far as they themselves are
concerned, can only be a very inappreciable
addition to the general revenue.
The decisions of the law courts on these points are, so far as I can ascertain them, but scanty, though there appears to be some uniformity of practice (deduced from those decisions) followed by the licensing authorities. In the case of the London County Council v. Kirk (81 L.J. K.B. 278) it was held that a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was not entitled to use on his business notepaper the armorial bearings of the College, he not having taken out a licence, though the College had done so.
On the other hand, the following exemp- tions would seem to be allowed, as stated in Lord Halsbury's ' Laws of England,' vol. xxiv. p. 688 :
" It is not the practice to require the individual members of a club to take out a licence to use any armorial bearings for the use of which the club is licensed ; nor to require the other members of a family to pay licence duty for using the armorial bearings on paper, plate, or the like, where the head of the family holds a licence."
A similar exemption is mentioned in. ' The Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England ' (vol. i. p. 502) :
" Officers or membe_rs of a club or society using thereat, or on its business, any armorial bearings- if the club or society has taken out a licence."
Bearing these authorities in mind, and the principles to be deduced from them, it is easier to deal with the questions raised by your correspondents ; and in an endeavour to do so may I repeat here what I said at 10 S. iii. 392 in answer to ZETA'S question ?
" It would seem, therefore, the above licence to use or wear armorial bearings being one personal to the wearer or user of those armorial bearings, that in the case put by your correspondent of any child, living with his father, who is an armorial taxpayer, choosing to wear a crest on a ring which he himself wears, he must take out. a licence for it.* But he may, of course, ride in his father's carriage, although bedizened with armorial insignia, without any such liability, as the licence there is only to be taken out by the person who keeps the carriage.
- I think this is a distinguishing case from that
cited in Lord HaLsbury's book (p. 688) intluttthe thing here used is the wearer's own.
