tiquaries of Scotland. Upton's words are as
follows:--

"Rex etiam scocie dare solebat pro signo vel titulo suo, unum collarium
de gormettis fremalibus equorum de auro vel argento."

This passage neither indicates that a King of Scotland is referred to, nor
does it establish that the collar was given as a livery sign or title. It
merely conveys something to this purport, that the king was accustomed to
give to his companions, as a sign or title, a collar of gold or silver
shaped like the bit of a horse's bridle.

MR. NICHOLS takes exception to Favine as an heraldic authority. Could that
erudite author arise from his grave, I wonder how he would designate MR.
NICHOLS'S lucubrations on livery collars, &c. But hear Matthew Paris: that
learned writer says Equites Aurati were known in his day "by a gold ring on
their thumbs, by a chain of gold about their necks, and gilt spurs." Let us
look to Scotland: Nesbit says, vol. ii. p. 87.:

"Our knights were no less anciently known by belts than by their gilt
spurs, swords, &c. In the last place is the collar, an ensign of
knightly dignity among the Germans, Gauls, Britains, Danes, Goths, &c.
In latter times it was the peculiar fashion of knights amongst us to
wear golden collars composed of SS."

Brydson, too, in his _Summary View of Heraldry in reference to the Usages
of Chivalry, and the General Economy of the Feudal System_, (a work of
uncommon ingenuity, deserving to be called the Philosophy of Heraldry),
observes, p. 186, ch. v., that knights were distinguished by an investiture
which implied superior merit and address in arms--by the attendance of one
or more esquires--by the title SIR--by wearing a crest--a helmet of
peculiar form--apparel peculiarly splendid--polished armour of a particular
construction--gilded spurs--and a GOLDEN COLLAR.

He states, ch. iv., p. 132.:

"In the fifth dissertation of Du Cange it is shown that the splendid
habits which the royal household anciently received at the great
festivals, were called 'LIVERIES,' being delivered or presented from
the king."

But he nowhere countenances for a moment any of the errors entertained by
MR. JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS, which these remarks are intended to explode.

MR. NICHOLS has not yet answered B.'s query. Nor can he answer it until he
previously admits that he is wrong upon the four points enumerated in my
opening article (Vol. ii., p. 194.).

ARMIGER.