ve got a date for the use of the collar by the _chief_ judges,
_earlier_ than that assigned by MR. FOSS, and it is somewhat
confirmatory of what he tells us, that it was not worn by any of the
_puisne_ order.

H.T. ELLACOMBE.

Bitton, Aug. 1850.

* * * * *

_The Livery Collar of SS._--Though ARMIGER (Vol. ii., p. 194.) has not
adduced any facts on this subject that were previously unknown to me, he
has advanced some misstatements and advocated some erroneous notions,
which it may be desirable at once to oppose and contradict; inasmuch as
they are calculated to envelope in fresh obscurity certain particulars,
which it was the object of my former researches to set forth in their
true light. And first, I beg to say that with respect to the "four
inaccuracies" with which he charges me, I do not plead guilty to any of
them. 1st. When B. asked the question, "Is there any list of persons who
were honoured with that badge?" it was evident that he meant, Is there
any list of the names of such persons, as of the Knights of the Garter
or the Bath? and I correctly answered, No: for there still is no such
list. The description of the classes of persons who might use the collar
in the 2 Hen. IV. is not such a list as B. asked for. 2dly. Where I said
"That persons were not honoured with the badge, in the sense that
persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, or medals," I am again
unrefuted by the statute of 2 Hen. IV., and fully supported by many
historical facts. I repeat that the livery collar was not worn as a
badge of honour, but as a badge of feudal allegiance. It seems to have
been regarded as giving certain weight and authority to the wearer, and,
therefore, was only to be worn in the king's presence, or in coming to
and from the king's hostel, except by the higher ranks; and this
entirely confirms my view. Had it been a mere personal decoration, like
the collar of an order of knighthood, there would have been no reason
for such prohibition; but as it conveyed the impression that the wearer
was especially one of the king's immediate military or household
servants, and invested with certain power or influence on that ground,
therefore its assumption away from the neighbourhood of the court was
prohibited, except to individuals otherwise well known from their
personal rank and station. 3dly. When ARMIGER declares I am wrong in
saying "That the collar was _assumed_," I have every reason to be