[We have submitted the above to J. Y., who states that "neither of the tracts mentioned by P. B. is the one noticed in his Query. It commences with the following words: 'He [_i.e._ the True Churchman] is one who is not only called a Christian, but is in truth and reality such.' Prefixed is a short letter from the author to his friend in the country; and the edition of 1711 appears to have been the first. It makes sixteen pages of octavo, and consists of short sententious paragraphs, more practical and devotional than controversial. J. Y. discovered it in the British Museum bound up with Dr. Hickes' _Seasonable and Modest Apology_, and other tracts."] WEARING GLOVES IN PRESENCE OF ROYALTY. (Vol. i., p. 366.; Vol. ii., pp. 165. 467.; Vol. v., p. 102.). MR. SINGER'S explanation (Vol. ii., p. 165.) is simple, and, I believe, correct. The covered hands might be considered as discourteous as a covered head: but why should uncovering either be a mark of respect? The solution of this question seems to me of some curiosity, and may perhaps be to many of your readers of some novelty. These and most other modern forms of salutation and civility are derived from chivalry, or at least from war, and they all betoken some deference, as from a conquered person to the conqueror; just as in private life we still continue to sign ourselves the "very humble servants" of our correspondent. The _uncovered_ head was simply the head _unarmed_; the helmet being removed, the party was at mercy. So the hand _ungloved_ was the hand _ungauntleted_, and to this day it is an incivility to shake hands with gloves on. Shaking hands itself was but a token of truce, in which the parties took hold each of the other's _weapon-hand_, to make sure against treachery. So also a gentleman's _bow_ is but an offer of the neck to the stroke of the adversary: so the lady's _curtsey_ is but the form of going _on her knees_ for mercy. This general principle is marked, as it ought naturally to be, still more strongly in the case of military salutes. Why is a discharge of guns a _salute_? Because it leaves the guns empty, and at the mercy of the opponent. And this is so true, that the saluting with blank cartridge is a modern invention. Formerly salutes were fired by discharging the cannonballs, and there have been instances in which the compliment has been nearly fatal to the visitor whom it meant to honour. When the _officer_ salutes, he points his drawn sword to the ground; and the salute of the troops is, even at this day, called "_presenting arms_,"--that is, presenting them to be taken. There are several other details both of social and military salutation of all countries which might be produced; but I have said enough to indicate the principle. C. GOSPEL OAKS. (Vol. ii., p. 407.)