“As a direct answer to B.’s question, ’Is there any list of persons who were honoured with that badge, (viz., the Collar of SS.?)’, I may reply, No.  Persons were not, in fact, ’honoured with the badge,’ in the sense that persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, or medals; but the livery collar was assumed by parties holding a certain position.  So far as can be ascertained, these were either knights attached to the royal household or service, who wore gold or gilt collars, or esquires in the like position who wore silver collars.”

From the statute for the regulation of apparel, passed in the 2nd year of the reign of Henry iv., it is ordained that—­

“All the sons of the king, dukes, earls, barons, and baronettes, might use the livery of our Lord the King of his collar as well in his absence as in his presence; and that all other knights and esquires should use it only in the presence of the king and not in his absence.”

The royal assent to this bill was accompanied with further regulations, among which were: 

“That the dukes, earls, barons, and baronettes of the realm might use the said livery in their counties and elsewhere; and that knights and esquires might use the said livery in going from the hostel of the king and returning, to it, always provided that they did not use it in the counties and countries in which they resided or sojourned.”

That the golden Collar of SS. was the undoubted badge or mark of a knight (chevalier, eques auratus seu ordo equestris, for these words respectively indicate the same grade or dignity of knighthood) all our ancient heraldic writers allow.  But, were it otherwise, the extract from the statute above given shows that MR. NICHOLS is incorrect in stating, 1st.  That there is no list of persons who were honoured with the collar of SS.; 2nd.  That persons were not honoured with the badge, in the sense that persons are now decorated with stars, crosses, &c.; 3rd.  That the collar was assumed; and, 4th.  That the assumers were, “so far as can be ascertained, knights holding a certain position,—­such as being attached to the royal household or service.”

It is important to point out these four inaccuracies of MR. NICHOLS’ reply to B., because it is desirable that his forthcoming volume should not be a heterogeneous collection of notices relating to the Collar of SS., mixed up with observations that will only serve the purpose of darkening knowledge upon the subject of which he treats.

The Collar of SS. is found in great variety of {195} shapes, and at what precise time it became an ensign of equestrian nobility no one can tell.  Collars were worn at least so far back as the days of Livy (i.e. the commencement of the Christian era); for he recounts that Manlius having pulled off the collar of a Gaul, took the name of Torquatus, and afterwards always wore the collar.  Such being the case, there is no room for doubting that this ensign formed one of the ornaments of knighthood from the period of that dignity’s earliest introduction into England.