646 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 218. 



certain rule or uniform practice observed herein, unless 

 in the situation of the helmet, wherein both the Ger- 

 mans and French account it more noble to bear an 

 open helmet than a close one ; but these are novel dis- 

 tinctions. Anciently, the helmets were all turned to 

 the right, and close ; and it is but some years since, 

 says Menestrier (^Abrege melhodique, 1672, p. 28.), 

 that they began to observe the number of grilles or 

 barrs, to distinguish the different degrees. But how- 

 ever ingenious these inventions are, it is certain that 

 they are useless (as gold and silver helmets would be) 

 because every rank of nobility is distinguished by the 

 coronet proper to his degree. Whatever honour may 

 be attributed to the helmet, the use of it with the arms 

 is but modern ; and upon the coins of kings and 

 sovereign princes, where they are chiefly to be met 

 with, the helmets are barred, and either full or in pro- 

 file, as best suited the occasion ; and upon the Garter 

 plates of Christian Duke of Brunswick (1625), Gus- 

 tavus Adolphus King of Sweden (1628), and Charles 

 Count Palatine of the Rhine (1633 and 1680), they 

 are full fronted with seven barrs. 



" In Great Britain we have but four kinds of hel- 

 mets, according to the four different degrees in the 

 state — the king, the nobility, knights, and gentry. 

 The sovereign helmet full fronted, having seven barrs 

 or guards, visure without any bever ; the nobilities the 

 same, but half turned to the right, and usually siiowing 

 four barrs ; the knight's helmet full fronted, with the 

 bever turned up ; and the gentleman's in profile, the 

 bever or visor close ; using steel helmets for all as 

 tlie only proper metal for a helmet common to all. 

 Foreigners condemn us for attributing that helmet to 

 a knight, which they give to a king; and more proper, 

 says Mackensie, for a king without guard-visure than for 

 a knight {Science of Heraldry, p. 87.), because knights 

 are in danger, and have less need to command. But 

 it must be observed, the knight's helmet has a visor, 

 and no barrs ; the sovereign's barrs, because no visor. 

 And this kind of helmet, with barrs instead of a visor, 

 seems to have been contrived for princes and great 

 commanders, who would have been incommoded by 

 the visor, and too much exposed without anything, 

 therefore had barrs : whereas knights being, according 

 to Mackensie, in more danger, and having less need to 

 command, had their helmet for action; and are repre- 

 sented with the bever up, ready to receive the king or 

 general's command. As to the resemblance of the one 

 to the other, both being In full front, the connexion 

 was not anciently so remote as seems at this day. 

 Knighthood is the first and most ancient military 

 honour, and therefore at this day sovereign princes and 

 knights are the only two honours imiversalty acknow- 

 ledged. Knighthood is the source of all honours, and 

 of all military glory, and an honour esteemed by and 

 conferred upon kings ; without which they were here- 

 tofore thought incomplete, and could not confer that 

 honour on others, no more than ordination could be 

 conferred by one unordained : so that there was a verj' 

 near connexion between sovereignty and knighthood. 

 And besides, the propriety of the open helmet with a 

 visor for a knight, and the helmet guard-visure for a 

 kinjj, the latter is more ornamental, especially If, ac- 

 cording to the modern practice, the barrs are gold. As i 



the king's helmet is without a visor, and barred, so is 

 that of the nobility in imitation of it, but turned to 

 the right as a proper distinction : as, in like manner, 

 that of the gentry differs from the knights. As there 

 are in fact but two orders of men, nobility of which the 

 king is the first degree, and gentry of which knights 

 are the first, so they are by this means sufficiently dis- 

 tinguished according to their respective orders and 

 degrees : the first order distinguished by the barred 

 helmet, the gentry by the visored helmet with proper 

 differences of the second degrees of each class from the 

 first ; and all other distinctions more than this are 

 unnecessary and useless. 



" The helmet does not seem to have been formerly 

 used but in a military way, and affairs of chivalry. I 

 do not find any helmets upon the monuments of our 

 Kings of England, nor upon other ancient monuments, 

 nor upon any of the Great Seals, coins, or medals. 

 Upon the plates of the Knights of the Garter at Windsor, 

 all degrees used the old profile close helmet till about 

 1588, some few excepted ; and soon after, the hel- 

 met with barrs came into fashion, and was used for 

 all degrees of nobility, and it has continued ever since ; 

 and the same has been used for all degrees of nobility 

 upon the plates of the Knights of the Bath, those that 

 are knights only using a knight's helmet. And the 

 same may be observed in Sir Edward Walker's Books 

 of the Nobility from the Restoration to the Revolution, 

 wherein all degrees have the helmet turned towards 

 the right, showing four barrs ; the sovereign's being 

 flill with seven barrs." 



G. 



HAMPDEN S DEATH. 



(Vol. viii., p. 495.) 



" On the 21 st of July, 1828, the corpse of John 

 Hampden was disinterred by the late Lord Nugent 

 for the purpose of settling the disputed point of his- 

 tory as to the manner in which the patriot received 

 his death-wound. The examination seems to have 

 been conducted after a somewhat bungling fashion for 

 a scientific object, and the facts disclosed were these : 

 ' On lifting up the right arm we found that it was dis- 

 possessed of its hand. We might therefore naturally 

 conjecture that it had been amputated, as the bone 

 presented a perfectly flat appearance, as if sawn off by 

 some sharp instrument. On searching under the 

 cloths, to our no small astonishm'jnt we found the 

 hand, or rather a number of small bones, inclosed in a 

 separate cloth. For about sis inches up the arm the 

 flesh had wasted away, being evidently smaller than 

 the lower part of the left arm, to which the hand was 

 very firmly united, and which presented no symptoms 

 of decay further than the two bones of the forefinger 

 loose. Even the nails remained entire, of which we 

 saw no appearance in the cloth containing the remains 

 of the right hand. . . . The clavicle of the right 

 shoulder was firmly united to the scapula, nor did there 

 appear any contusion or indentation that evinced 

 symptoms of any wound ever having been inflicted. 

 The left shoulder, on the contrary, was smaller and 

 sunken in, as if the clavicle had been displaced. To 



