Page:Notes and Queries - Series 9 - Volume 12.djvu/398

 390

NOTES AND QUERIES.

. XIL NOV. u, iocs.

and singularly prophetic in the case of the borrower himself ("Bartholomew Bouverie," alias W. E. Gladstone). Was it Peel ? And, if so, where can it be found ?

J. B. McGovERN. St. Stephen's Rectory, C.-on-M., Manchester.

THE UNITED STATES AND ST. MAR- GARET'S, WESTMINSTER. (9 th S. xii. 1, 63, 123, 164, 289.) I BEG % to thank DR. BRUSHFIELD for his remarks at the last reference, for in them there is much food for reflection, as indeed there always is in all that proceeds from his pen upon the subject of Sir Walter Ralegh. I would state that my authority for the statement to which he takes exception, that the inscription on the memorial is "the ancient one from the oaken tablet of 1618," was found in some manuscript notes of the late Mr. Henry Poole, who was for many years the master mason of Westminster Abbey, and who was during his lifetime very frequently consulted upon matters connected with both the Abbey and St. Margaret's Church, about which buildings he was re- ported to know most that was worth know- ing ; and his reputation in that respect stil' lives in this locality. Into his notes I have frequently dipped for, I hope, the edification of the readers of ' N. & Q.' I do not know his authority for the statement in question as he has not recorded the source from which it was obtained, and I must say, with your correspondent, that upon consideration I feel it is open to much doubt if "an in scription or memorial, recording the deatl and interment of that great Elizabethar worthy, was to be found in that church unti after the Stuart dynasty had passed away or," as he continues, "before the commence ment or middle of the next century." Upon this point I do not feel sufficiently sure to be able to give a positive opinion, especially m the presence of so undoubted an authorit' as DR. BRUSHFIELD, but it may, I think , pretty safely assumed that it would have been deemed a somewhat hazardous pro- ceeding for any one of the butchered worthy's friends or partisans to have put up a memorial of any kind in the year of his death ; therefore the idea that Mr Poole got somewhat and somehow astray forces itself upon one, although it is still difficult to torm an opinion as to how it came to be so, for his knowledge on these matters was more than superficial, and always ac-

epted, through a long series of years, as rustworthy.

With regard to the " early Christian symbol X#vs " on the tablet to the memory of young tyril Farrar, alluded to by MR. T. WILSON,

would only observe that I gave my autho- ity at the time for the description of the monument as a paragraph in the St. Mar- garets Parish Magazine, then edited by the lev. W. E. Sims, now vicar of Aigburth, Liverpool, but at that time our senior curate, further, the late Dean Farrar was then the rector of the parish, and supervised all the work connected with the memorial to his son, and prepared the inscription. I therefore cannot think that anything would have been Dassed and in this I must include the description as published which I quoted }hat might be deemed out of order. It may De, as MR. WILSON suggests, that at first it stood " as a symbol of baptism." It is a very interesting matter, and one worth careful thought and consideration at the hands of those versed in the question of Christian symbolism ; but I think if a query had been raised under a distinct heading of its own it would have been better, as under the one chosen by me for my note it would hardly be looked for. W. E. HARLAND-OXLEY.

Westminster.

ARMS OF MARRIED WOMEN (9 th S. ix. 28, 113, 195; x. 194, 256, 290, 472; xi. 114, 197, 313, 477). The extract from the State Papers at the Record Office referring to the rules made at a " chapitre " held by the College of Arms in the fourth year of Elizabeth (1561), as to the way in which an inheritrix, "eyther mayde, wife, or widdow," should bear her arms, given by MRS. STOPES at 9 th S. xi. 197, is very interesting, arid seems the only authority yet cited bearing on my question, What is the rule when the lady marries an ignobilis ?

But is not the rule laid down at the end of the extract, that "if she mary one who is noe gentleman, then she is to be clearly exempted from the former conclusion," rather ambiguous? What is the "former conclu- sion " from which she is to be exempted 1 There are, apparently, only two " former conclusions " come to the first as to the manner of bearing her arms when unmarried, the second during her widowhood. There is no conclusion come to as to what is the proper course during coverture ; probably because it was unnecessary, the rule being too clear. The " former conclusion " can scarcely refer to the mariner of bearing her arms when she is unmarried. It must apply, therefore, to the rule obtaining during widowhood, which