12 S. IV. MARCH, 1918.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
79
doorway. It would, I think, be impossible
to photograph the actual Holy Sepulchre,
seeing that its area is only 6 ft. by 7 ft.
See Murray's ' Handbook for Syria and
Palestine.' The Chapel of the Angel is
taken to be a part of the Holy Sepulchre.
Apart entirely from MB. BUXTON'S in-
quiry, there is a passage in the article
mentioned above which, though written
with due solemnity, is nevertheless amus-
ing:
" It is curious how history repeats itself. There is a new suggestion that Jerusalem should be the place at which the time should be registered for all the civilised world, in order to avoid that most irritating arrangement to railway passengers namely, the change of time when they cross the various frontiers. This plan would re-exalt the Holy City to its mediaeval position as the centre of the world."
Through the obstinacy of the sun, when it is noon at Jerusalem it is 9.39 A.M. at Greenwich, and 9.18 P.M. at Auckland, New Zealand. ROBERT PIERPOINT.
I have a picture-card that shows the interior of the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre as it now appears to visitors, with the actual sepulchre hidden under modern marble, drapery, &c. But what is far more to the purpose than such a picture is an exact imitation of the Holy Sepulchre in the crypt under the high choir of the " Jerusalem Church " at Bruges, made in the fifteenth century by a burgomaster of that city who went twice to Jerusalem in order to ensure a perfect resemblance. When I saw it in 1912 the grave contained a full-length figure of our Lord in grave-clothes and crowned, seen through a grate. Over it hung three or four bunches of white wax ex-votos ; several candles were burning around, and two or three poor women were praying in the crypt. In the short nave is a fine tomb of the founder and his wife, with bronze effigies of both ; he is repre- sented in armour. He died 1483, she 1463.
J. T. F.
Winterton, Lines.
The London Society for Promoting Chris- tianity among the Jews announces the following little book, which may meet the requirements of MB. BUXTON :
" Price 4<Z., post free 5d. Just out. With illustrations. The Tomb of our Lord and what happened there. By the Rev. C. C. Dobson, Vicar of St. Peter's, Paddington." It can be obtained from the Publication Department, 16 Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C.2.
E. P. BIED.
53 Millais Road, Bush Hill Park, Enfield.
THE TAXATION OF
ARMORIAL BEARINGS.
(12 S. iv. 12.)
G. J.'s inquiry as to the incidence of the law imposing a tax on armorial bearings opens up a very interesting question : first as to the restriction placed upon the individual use of them ; and, secondly, as to the effect such a tax may have upon kindred antiquarian objects of value and interest.
I may say that this is not the first time that this subject at all events as to the first category has been discussed in ' N. & Q.' I suppose there are few subjects of heraldic interest that have not been discussed in its columns during the nearly seventy years of its existence. In 1904 ( 10 S. ii. 328) a cognate question was asked by ZETA as to the right of individual members of a family to wear or use the family heraldic insignia (in this particular case the wearing of a crest upon a signet ling) whilst still remaining an integral part of the family, and not paying any additional tax to that of their head. In the following volume (iii. 392*) I ventured to answer this question, at the same time somewhat extending the scope of the inquiry. To that article I would now refer your corre- spondent.
But whilst doing so may I call attention, so far as I can, to the particular laws bearing upon the subject ?
In earlier times, as we all know, there was no tax or licence required in order to use " armorial bearings." If any individual chose to adopt armorial insignia that were not his own according to heraldic usage (i.e., by descent from a grantee of those arms through the College of Arms), certain unpleasant consequences might happen to him at the instance of the Earl Marshal and the Court of Chivalry, or possibly at the suit of the rightful owner of those arms, they being his property, and constituting what is known by the common law as an " incorporeal hereditament." No tax or licence for their user has been imposed until comparatively recent times.
I was wrong, I find, in stating that the idea first occurred to the Government of the day to tax armorial bearings for purposes of general revenue by the Act now in force of 1869 (32 and 33 Vic. c. 14). As pointed
And see 10 S. vi. 316.
