_Inscription on a Claymore_ (Vol. iv., p. 59.).--Is your correspondent "T. M. W., Liverpool," who inquires the translation of an "inscription on a claymore," certain that his quotation is correct? To me it appears that it should run thus:
[x] GOTT BEWAR DE [x] _G_ERECHTE SCHOTTEN.
or, "God preserve the righteous (or just) Scots;" referring, no doubt, to the undertaking in which they were then engaged.
I believe that formerly, and probably at the present time, many of the finest sword blades were made abroad, and sent to England to be mounted, or even entirely finished on the Continent. I have in my possession a heavy trooper's sword, bearing the name of a celebrated German maker, although the ornaments and devices are unquestionably English. Another way of accounting for the inscription is, that it belonged to some of those foreign adventurers who are known to have joined Charles Edward.
_Burton Family_ (Vol. iv., p. 22.).--In Hunter's _History of Hallamshire_, p. 236., is a pedigree of Burton of Royds Mill, near Sheffield, in which are the following remarks:--
"Richard Burton of Tutbury, Staffordshire, died May 9th, 8 Henry V. Married Maud, sister of Robert Gibson of Tutbury; and had a son, Sir William Burton of Falde and Tutbury, Knight; slain at Towtonfield, 1461, from whom descended the Burtons of Lindley."
"Thomas Burton of Fanshawgate, who died in 1643, left three sons; Michael, Thomas, and Francis. Michael was of Mosborough, and had a numerous issue; the names of his children appear on his monumental brass in the chancel of the church at Eckington. Thomas, the second son, was of London and Putney, married, and had issue. Francis, the youngest, was lord of the Manor of Dronfield, and served the office of High Sheriff of Derby in 1669. Was buried at Dronfield in 1687."
I find no account of any Roger Burton; but if your correspondent E. H. A. is not in possession of the above pedigree, and should wish for a copy, I shall be glad to send him it.
_Notation by Coalwhippers_ (Vol. iv., p. 21.).--The notation used by coalwhippers, &c., mentioned by I. J. C., is, after all, I expect, but a part of a system which was probably the origin of the Roman notation. The first four strokes or units were cut diagonally by the fifth, and taking the first and last of these strokes we readily obtain V, or the Roman five; but as the natural systems of arithmetic are decimal, from the number of fingers, it is most probable that the _tens_ were thus marked off, or by a stroke drawn across the last unit thus X, whence we obtain the Roman ten: these tens were repeated up to a hundred, or the second class of tens, which were probably connected by two parallel lines top and bottom [C], which would be the sign of the second class of tens, or hundreds; this became afterwards rounded into C: the third class of tens, or thousands, was represented by four strokes M, and these symbols served by abbreviation for some intermediate numbers; thus X divided became V, or 5, the half of 10; then L, half of [C], represented 50, half of 100; and M becoming rounded thus (M) was frequently expressed in this manner CI*C; and this became abbreviated into D, 500, half of CI*C; or 1000: and thus, by variously combining these six symbols (though all derived from the one straight stroke), numbers to a very high amount could be expressed.
