Page:A record of European armour and arms through seven centuries (Volume 5).djvu/69

 the century. The workmanship is, however, excellent, and the suit is eminently serviceable, its main plates, exclusive of the reinforcing breastplate, probably being proof against the firearms of the time. Great elaboration of effect is lent to it by its having the edges of the various laminated plates pierced with fleur-de-lis-like ornaments. It is also chased with groups of double lines, and is further enriched, especially on the arm defences, with a multitude of rivets which have their heads shaped as fleur-de-lis. These are gilt, while the field of the armour is black. The head-piece is a form of open burgonet with an adjustable nasal guard. The compositions of laurel foliage on the skull-piece of the helmet are really well embossed. Indeed, it must be admitted that the construction and make of the suit are wholly admirable. It is the finest example of late XVIIth century armour with which we are acquainted; but its contour and general form show an entire disregard of beauty of line. On the reinforcing breastplate of this suit are two bulletproof marks, made certainly after the suit was finished.

As we may well imagine, the penetrative power of the musket ball had increased in the first years of the XVIIth century, and with it the weight of the "proofed" armour. In later records we find that pistol proof is of more frequent occurrence, and from this it may be gathered that the weight of metal was a serious hindrance to the soldier, and that the risk of a bullet was preferred. In 1628-9 it appears from the State Papers, Domestic, lxxxix, 23, that one Whetstone had a project for making light armour as good as proof; but there are no details of his method. It is quite probable, in most cases, that when one piece of the armour was proved the rest were made of similar material and tempered in the same way, and that actual proof was not expected or given. An interesting extract from the "Memorials of the Verney Family" (iv, 30), gives us some information as regards the proof of armour:

"1667, Feb. Richard Hals is choosing some armour for his cousin in London: he has tested it with as much powder as will cover the bullet in the palme of his hand." This rough-and-ready method of estimating the charge is borne out in Gaya's Traité des Armes. The Verney extract goes on to say that Verney wished to have the armour tested again; but the armourer refused, for by this time it was finished, and he said that "it is not the custom of workmen to try their armour after it is faced and filed." A note to the effect that this suit cost £14 2s. 8d., and when it was delivered Verney was by no means pleased, as it did not fit, is interesting to armour lovers. A clear proof that the armour was mostly tested before it was finished is to be found on the