Page:A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 4).djvu/71

 and valuation is an entry of "Curazier Armour Sanguin'd & parcell'd gilt, consisting of Back Breast & Taces, Pack^t Gorg^t Head^{pce} Chin^{pce} for y^e mouth & Sleeves of Maile £100." Perhaps this is the Sir John Smithe suit, which by some oversight was not mentioned in the previous inventory; for the parts described tally in number, save that the extra pair of tassets, the chanfron, and the saddle steels are not mentioned. The suit is here described as being "sanguin'd." This we can only surmise had reference to the dark ground of the gilded and etched band with which the surface is enriched. Mention of the suit and of its valuation occurs also in the 1691 and the 1693 inventories.

No. 19 in the Jacobe MS.

Now two of these entries, those of 1611 and of 1629, contain two pieces of information of the greatest interest. The first is that these particular parts of the Sir John Smithe armour, enumerated in the inventories from which we have quoted, were given by its owner to King James I, and, secondly, that he retained a complete field harness (Fig. 1119) of exactly the same pattern, which is the Class II, No. 84 suit in the Tower. True this suit comprised no pistols, no stirrups, no shield, and only the front saddle steel. Now the inference to be drawn is that when late in the XVIIth century a certain quantity of armour was despatched from the Tower to Windsor Castle this particular panoply was selected to be sent for the express reason that it was known to have been presented by Sir John Smithe to the King's ancestor, and was consequently the personal property of the sovereign. This knowledge of the provenance of the suit in question was probably traditional; for, as we have shown, there is no direct record of the suit subsequent to the inventory of 1629. That one saddle steel should have been left behind at the Tower is not surprising. As for the shield, the pair of stirrups, and the pistols, it will be noted that they seem to have disappeared at the time of the removal of the panoply from Greenwich to the Tower; for they are not enumerated in the 1660 inventory. Doubtless they were all stolen. It was the author who, when the shield was sold with the collection of the Duc