Page:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 3.djvu/476

 392

NOTES AND QUERIES. [io s. HI. MAY 20,

In Lewis's ' Topographical Dictionary ' (edition 1848), s.v. 'Foremark,' is the fol- lowing mention of it: "In the parish is a singular rocky bank, the centre of which, presenting the appearance of an edifice in ruins, tradition asserts to have been the residence of an anchorite, whence it has obtained the name of Anchor Church." There is an engraving of it in Bigsby's ' History of Repton,' and a fine one engraved by Vivares after T. Smith, of Derby.

An old friend of mine sent me some months ago an account of a visit to the South Tyrol which is very illustrative : " I saw a curious place. In a long ravine, on an iso- lated rock, five chapels, one above the other, below quarried out of the rock, above built on, with a priest's chambers, and a verandah." JOHN PICKFORD, M.A.

Newbourne Rectory, Woodbridge.

LAUREL CROWNS AT OLYMPIA (10 th S. iii. 87). The victors' crowns at the Olympian games were made of wild olive, as is proved by various statements that occur in the classical writers. The following from Aris- toph. ' PI.' 585-6 is very much to the point :

TOVS

crre OV 6 O"T-

ALEX. LEEPER. Trinity College, University of Melbourne.

ARMORIAL BEARINGS (10 th S. ii. 328). In 1869 the idea first occurred to the Govern- ment of the day to tax, for the purposes of general revenue, armorial bearings, and by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of that year (32 & 33 Vic., c. 14, s. 18) it was enacted that there should in future be levied a duty upon (inter alia) armorial bearings. This was to be effected by means of an annual licence of two guineas if such armorial bearings be painted or affixed to any carriage, and of one guinea if they shall be " other- wise worn or used."

Such licence is to be taken out by the person who shall keep the carnage, or who shall wear or use the armorial bearings. It would therefore seem to be clearly in- tended that the licence should be a personal one, and should be taken out by every person who " wears or uses " any armorial bearings.

And as a Government which is seeking for additional revenue by taxation always takes care to spread its net wide enough, so here by an express definition the term "armorial bearings" is not restricted to what may be termed armorial bearings proper, namely, those which have the imprimatur of the College of Arms for their use by their being registered there, but includes "any armorial bearing, crest, or ensign, by whatever name the same shall be called."* It is obvious that no amount of Government licences can confer any right to the armorial bearings for which the taxpayer takes out his licence, which he had not before.

It would seem, therefore, the above licence to wear or use armorial bearings being one personal to the wearer or user of those armorial bearings, that in the case put by your correspondent of any child, living with his father, who is an armorial taxpayer, choosing to wear a crest on a ring which he himself wears, he must take out a licence for it. But he may, of course, ride in his father's carriage, although bedizened with armorial insignia, without any such liability, as the licence there is only to be taken out by the person who keeps the carriage.

It is possible that no exception could be taken to the occasional use by the son of his father's signet ring, or of his crested silver spoons and forks at mealtimes. And I believe that it has been held that a member of a college at a university, for instance, or of a club, can freely use the armorially stamped notepaper, the right to the use of which is conferred by his membership, without any risk of being prosecuted for so doing.

Nor does the mere possession of armorial bearings attach any liability, otherwise on every occasion of the purchase of any old plate the armorial evidence (if any) of prior ownership must be removed.

Further, I take it that the wearer of an armorial signet ring, disgusted at such socialistic and anti-hei'aldic legislation, is equally at liberty to put it in his pocket and decline any longer to wear it on his finger. He would no longer wear or use it.

Whether a better or more satisfactory more satisfactory, at least, to the legitimate

definition, being unconnected with coat armour.
 * I believe " monograms " do not come within this