46 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



1800 (I omit more modern gifts), in all 158 pieces, great or small. Of these 

 thirty- two 1 are fully marked, with the date-letter agreeing, or at most within 

 a year or two, with the date of gift. But we also have 126 with hall-marks 

 (especially the Hibt rn ia ) not agreeing with the date of gift, but long posterior. 

 Not one of these h t-letter upon it. I know that most silversmiths believe 



that this date-letter is so often absent from pieces of old plate as to show that 

 the silversmiths and assayers were very eareless about it, and that the strange 

 fact I have discovered may be a mere accident — at all events, in the present 

 case, a very Btrange accident. I undertook, therefore, to examine the non- 

 inscribed pieces we possess. Of these four have no hall-marks at all, and may 

 therefore be discounted. There remain 230; of these, thirty have no date-letter. 5 

 Hut ill'- remaining 200 have it. This Burely proves to any fair mind that it 



tin- rule to put on the date-letter, and that the omission nt' it in the vasl 

 majority of inscribed pieces can be no mere accident. How, then, are we to 

 explain tin- fact.-' If my view be correct, in this very simple way. When the 



of 1751—2 made it expedient for all owners of old unmarked plate to have 

 it a- ad marked with the li the men who undertook this task 



wished it to be plainly known that thej had not re-made or new-made the 

 ■ ■Id plate, but on! d it. They therefore very properly declined to put 



on a date-lettei which gave the lie to the date of gift. 



This applies also t«, the new pieces, made as we know from old plate 



it 17-'!0. probably just before the passing of the Act of thai year. But in 

 the long dinner- - and plates, made as I believe from old 



plate also, in which it would \«- impo.-sil.le t.. separate and specify 

 the donors' names, on this long aervit _ ol seventy-nine articles, 



which was made in 17:::'. by Matthew Alanson, tin- year-lettei (Gothic) n is 

 plainly marked. This was the thought 80 old-fashioned by the ' ollege 



in 1774. that a resolution which I have already read was passed by the 

 Board, that it should be united down, and re-made into a service more 

 _ mt or dignified for the improved taste of the age. Luckily this fell 

 purp -ever carried out. 



[cam nclude without again ex] Mr. Westropp 



for his admirable patience in - ing our collection. It was only when I 



beg. ly it myself, by the light of his pioneer work, that I was fully 



able to appreciate the inestimable value of his labours. 



'There are also an old alma-dish and ■ paten, with donors' names, dated 1GC5 and 



vhich have only the maker's punch. 

 v There may be good rea is, -^ may ippear on further study. 



