_The Livery Collar of SS._--Though ARMIGER (Vol. ii., p. 194.) has not adduced any facts on this subject that were previously unknown to me, he has advanced some misstatements and advocated some erroneous notions, which it may be desirable at once to oppose and contradict; inasmuch as they are calculated to envelope in fresh obscurity certain particulars, which it was the object of my former researches to set forth in their true light. And first, I beg to say that with respect to the "four inaccuracies" with which he charges me, I do not plead guilty to any of them. 1st. When B. asked the question, "Is there any list of persons who were honoured with that badge?" it was evident that he meant, Is there any list of the names of such persons, as of the Knights of the Garter or the Bath? and I correctly answered, No: for there still is no such list. The description of the classes of persons who might use the collar in the 2 Hen. IV. is not such a list as B. asked for. 2dly. Where I said "That persons were not honoured with the badge, in the sense that persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, or medals," I am again unrefuted by the statute of 2 Hen. IV., and fully supported by many historical facts. I repeat that the livery collar was not worn as a badge of honour, but as a badge of feudal allegiance. It seems to have been regarded as giving certain weight and authority to the wearer, and, therefore, was only to be worn in the king's presence, or in coming to and from the king's hostel, except by the higher ranks; and this entirely confirms my view. Had it been a mere personal decoration, like the collar of an order of knighthood, there would have been no reason for such prohibition; but as it conveyed the impression that the wearer was especially one of the king's immediate military or household servants, and invested with certain power or influence on that ground, therefore its assumption away from the neighbourhood of the court was prohibited, except to individuals otherwise well known from their personal rank and station. 3dly. When ARMIGER declares I am wrong in saying "That the collar was _assumed_," I have every reason to believe I am still right. I may admit that, if it was literally a livery, it would be worn only by those to whom the king gave it; but my present impression is, that it was termed the king's livery, as being of the pattern which was originally distributed by the king, or by the Duke of Lancaster his father, to his immediate adherents, but which was afterwards _assumed_ by all who were anxious to assert their loyalty, or distinguish their partizanship as true Lancastrians; so that the statute of 2 Hen. IV. was rendered necessary to restrain its undue and extravagant _assumption_, for sundry good political reasons, some notion of which may be gathered by perusing the poem on the deposition of Richard II. published by the Camden Society. And 4thly, Where ARMIGER