Of Charles I it has been truly said, that he was not more arbitrary in his government than several of his predecessors had been. His mistake was, that he did not march with the times, but wished, amid the increased enlightenment of the 17th century, to exercise the monarchical prerogatives of the middle ages. Most of the acts which led to his downfall were not greater violations of the fundamental principles of the constitution than had been committed by earlier monarchs; but the time was now come when they could no longer be tolerated by a free and generous nation. In relation to heraldic usages Charles only copied the acts of former sovereigns; yet they added not a little to his unpopularity. One of his commissions directed to the provincial kings of arms, authorized them to visit all churches, mansions, public halls, and other places, to inspect any arms, cognizances, or crests, set up therein; and, if found faulty in regard of proof, to pull down and deface the same. It further empowered them to reprove, control, and _make infamous, by proclamation at courts of assize_, all persons who had without sufficient warrant assumed the title of esquire or gentleman; to forbid the use of velvet palls at the funerals of persons of insufficient rank; and to prevent any painter, glazier, engraver, or mason, from representing any armorial ensigns, except under their sanction and direction. All delinquents were to be cited into the earl-marshal's Court of Chivalry, an institution almost as arbitrary and unconstitutional as the court of Star-Chamber itself. Nothing perhaps, as Noble observes, injured the Heralds' College more than this shameful tribunal, which proceeded to fine and imprisonment for mere words spoken against the gentility of the plaintiff. "Had it only decided upon what usually ends in duels it would have been a most praiseworthy institution." But it went further, and its severity became deservedly odious to the nation. Mr. Hyde (afterwards Lord Clarendon) deprecated its insolence and said, "the youngest man remembered the beginning of it, and he hoped the oldest might see the end of it."--"A citizen of good quality," said he, "a merchant, was by that court ruined in his estate and his body imprisoned, _for calling a swan a goose_!" It is needless to say that the Court of Chivalry was swept away along with other grievances of a like nature in the revolution which succeeded. It was revived, however, at the restoration of Charles II, and continued, though rather feebly, to execute its functions until the year 1732. Some of its proceedings, as recited by Dallaway, are very curious. I give an abstract of a case or two.