40 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



In the queries raised upon this Act in the Goldsmiths' Records for 

 1729-30 (p. 27-"). they make three points:— 



1. Whether any plate wrought before the new Act that has not paid the 

 duty can be sold, or exposed for sale, by public cant, at a higher price than 

 its bullion value, without paying the duty ? 



2. Whether bhe word "trading" does not include auctioneers, usurers, 

 and all people that sell plate above the bullion value? 



3. Whether any plate, new or "Id. standing in a goldsmith's shop shall 

 deemed "exposed for sale.'' -.. as t" incur the penalties of the Act, though 



it dues not pay duty till the customer offers, and, generally, what is meant 

 by exposing for sale in the Ad .' 



This Act imposing tin' new (J/ihmiid) stamp having been enacted to last 

 twenty-one year- it occurred to me — it seems not to have occurred to the 

 experts — bo find oul what steps had been taken to continue that Act. 

 The Hibernia appears on Dublin plate all through the century, and, there- 

 fore, it- use must have been re-enacted. 



As M' Weetropp noted (p. 553 of Jackson's book), £121 of plate passed 

 the assay-office in the quarter before the coming into force of the Act, and 



not think that tin- older maker's initi.-ils were interfered with, as they are uol 

 DOH •■•!. Inileeil, they are BO many anil so difficult to distinguish that 



they teem only to have been intended t.. identify the makers for the assay master at the 

 time of issue. For example, there are several J. Ii. —John Loughlin, John Letabloro, 

 John Looker; several J. W. — loscph Walker, John Williamson, .lohn Wilne, John 

 Whitthome (whose mirk Mr. Weatropp [op. 'it., p. 564) cannot distinguish from 

 the others). There wen or grandsons with the same initials as the lirst of tho 



name, and keeping np an unchanged mark. 1 take the silversmiths to have cared very 



little about any oonfuaion between them in after years, except in the case of a peculiar 

 ■ >r splendid work "f art. Thus the magnificent -_r i 1 1 alms-dish in the College Chapel 

 \ 2 is marked /.•'.. not J. I... with a little CTOWn over it, which was tho ordinary 

 mark of John Letablere. \ few makers had n peculiar monogram ; a few signed in 

 italics, not Rom m capitals ; a few had some Little crown or rosette added to their initials. 

 This is specially forbidden in an order of the Goldsmiths' Corporation, dated 

 ibet 30th, 1731 [as it might be mistaken by unwary buyers for the hall-mark) ; but 

 the order, like many others of the corporation, was systematically violated. In the 

 re can guess what happened. The first design for the new punch probably 

 contained a crown, on the analog}* of the crowned harp already used. Had this been 

 adopted, and the maker's mark with the crown also used, the buyer might well be in 

 doubt as to the value of these marks, and two might be accepted as sufficient. So 

 - ime clever person bethought him of a solution, and produced the Ribernia, 

 with a ban head, sitting with her harp beside her. Winn this was adopted, the 

 difficulties of remaking many already well-known private punches would be such 

 that the resolution of October 30th, 1731, was allowed to go asleep. But the 

 majority had no such distinctive marks. The careful list of those identified by 

 Mr. Westropp does not pretend to be complete. There are masters of the Goldsmiths' 

 Corporation whose initials cannot be identified on any extent plate. Any dating, there- 

 tie, by these initials is most precarious, and can only be accepted as provisional. 



