192
NOTES AND QUERIES. 112 s.iv. JULY, ww.
and therefore a monogram on some lady's
note-paper must belong to the same class.
The Italian " impresa " would, of course, be
armorial in this sense, but how about
" Masonic heraldry and badges " ? Why
are trade-marks even when, very appro-
priately, they consist of family coats of
arms exempt from the tax ? A young
friend of mine named Hyacinth has her
name-flower as a badge upon her note-
paper ; ought she not to pay the tax ?
I really see no very great difference between
this hyacinth and any other vegetable used
in heraldry, except in its being represented
in a perfectly natural form.
MB. UDAL'S distinction between possession and display of armorials is a nice point in the discussion. A man may hardly con- ceal his belongings from the tax-collector if it is justifiable that they should be taxed. He may, of course, renounce all possession in family coats of arms, as, for instance, my legal friend referred to above is doing ; but I am afraid the theory that the gentle- man with a signet ring " is equally at liberty to put it in his pocket," and pre- sumably keep it for private use and display, is very much outside the meaning of this modern law. The use of armorial book- plates is another nice point. No one who takes up a book with a display of heraldry on the inside of its front cover can but imagine that the owner of the book has paid his licence tax for this as much as for his spoons and forks. But then comes in the question of book-plates in old or second- hand volumes. The whole subject involves many side-issues as to books with engraved dedications under coats of arms, covers with armorial tooling, &c.
I have observed in the accurate photo - advertisements of modern silversmiths in the picture papers that the salvers, cups trays, &c., for which they get high prices as antiques, are almost invariably repre sented with the coats of arms cleaned off I therefore think MB. UDAL'S contention that the presence of coats of arms on plat conveys great additional value in the eye of collectors is not borne out by facts in the case of plate, and most certainly not in the case of books, for how many of th readers of ' N. & Q.' must possess books mutilated by the tearing-out of their book plates, or at least by their defacement !
However, to pursue the matter woul take up too much space in ' N- & Q.' Th conclusion I have come to is that this ta has had, and always will have, a verj disastrous influence on the preservation o
istorical and family heraldic memorials-
)ld families have an unfortunate tendency
owards poverty, and the poor are not
astified in paying taxes on superfluities
rhich are amongst the privileges of the
onveau riche. The object of heraldry
3ems defeated and repressed by this tax*
MB. GBTOTDY-NEWMAN, who answers my uery as to the date of the tax, also opens up another branch of the subject : if the oyal arms are exempt, do the Dukes of Buccleuch, St. Albans, and others, and the nnumerable persons who claim the right to uarter the Plantagenet lions on their hields, possess an equal exemption ? But
think the law implies that only the actual iloyal Family, and the Government officials using the arms in the course of their official luties, can possibly be privileged.
It would be interesting to know to what xtent the tax is really levied. Are the oats of arms of City Livery Companies, of jommercial corporations, &c., liable, or are /hese armorials regarded as trade-marks ?
The only coat of arms which I personally display is a very fine and correctly em- jlazoned shield over the front entrance door of my house. It is : on a field az. a lion rampant or ; but I am sorry to add that it represents nothing more than the ompensation offered me by a fire insurance lompany. I trust that the said company jays its armorial tax with as much regu- arity as I pay my fees, but I suppose it is really exempt as a trading society.
G. J., F.S.A.
An interesting case bearing on this subject the Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Brantingham was heard in the Vice- Chancellor's Court at Oxford on Nov. 12, 1875. Mr. F. E. Brantingham, an under- graduate member of Christ Church, and an American, was summoned for using armorial bearings without having first taken out a licence, and was sued for the recovery of a penalty. In the previous May he had written a letter to the Inland Revenue Office stamped with the cardinal's hat the badge of Christ Church. The evidence showed that Christ Church had in preceding years taken out a licence to use armorial bearings, but in 1875 had omitted to do so. The College had in fact paid their guinea for a licence early in 1875, but afterwards applied to the Inland Revenue Office for a return of that sum on the ground that as a corporation they were not liable to pay for a licence ; and the guinea was accordingly refunded.
