iv. JULY i,i905.] NOTES AND QUERIES. Col. John Wall married as his second wife Molly Graves Price, widow of Gryffydd Price, barrister-at-law, of Lincoln's Inn, and Penllergare, Glamorgan. Col. Wall died in 1808, and his widow lived at the Pheasantry in Bushey Park. EDWIN S. CRANE. Thringatone Vicarage, Leicester. [See ante, p. 8.] MASONS' MARKS (10th S. iii. 228, 29C, 332, 354).—In the correspondence that lias taken place on this subject there seems to have been a confusion as to the true meaning of the word "mason" in this connexion. It does not refer to the quarryman, nor to the man who fits the stone into the building, but to the stonecutter, as he is called in America and in some parts of England, that is, the man who shapes the stone with mallet and chise_l according to the size and design given to him, so that it shall exactly fit into the place for which it is intended. Each mason, or stonecutter, had his own mark, which he was obliged to put on every stone he shaped for the building, so that when it came from the stoneyard to be built in, if it did not fit it would at once be seen whose fault it was. It seems not to be generally known that the same custom holds good at the present time in the building trade; that is, of course (as it tdways has been), only where freestone or •other stone is used which requires working by the stonecutter. An old mason (or stone- •cutter, as he calls himself) lately showed me his own mark, which he used all his working life, both here and in America, where, he tells me, the custom is rigidly observed. The only difference between masons' marks in old buildings and in buildings of our own time ia that in old days no one was ashamed of letting them be sefin or of seeing them ; but in these days, when neatness and uniformity are worshipped, they are bedded out of sight; but they are there all the same. There is a modern church at Ealing—St. Peter's, I think —where these marks are shown quite plainly, almost obtrusively, especially on the stones that form the doorways of the church. Pro- bably there are many other modern instances of quite recent years ; but they are a revival. I have collected specimens of masons' marks from all parts of the country, and have some hundreds of examples. The study of these marks is full of interest. For instance, one can see bow two—sometimes more—master jna*»ns worked the stones that form the i:-'.-Lnv, always a difficult piece of work. At Deat Church there were two that so worked together, and one can see, by the marks upon the stones, how the work was divided all through the arches in the nave. And I have come across similar instances elsewhere. When the work was finished, and the lodge or band of masons were about to leave (for some other work, let us hope), they seem— sometimes, at any rate—to have made a group of the marks of all the members on some part of the building for which they had been working. Such a group is to be seen inside one of the towers on the outer wall at Kenil- worth Castle, and, if my memory serves me right, on the west wall of the south aisle of Gresford Church. In Arcfueologia are to be found examples from several of the most ancient buildings in Rome, and from Punic buildings in North Africa. Specimens of these marks are also given from cathedrals on the Continent. A great number came to light on the walls of Westminster Hall when the old Law Courts within the Hall were taken down, and these are minutely described and figured in Archceologia. I cannot give references, as I am at present away from my books and notes. It is likely that no mason was allowed to have a "mark" until he had passed his apprenticeship; and members of "the craft" will still recognize the term as implying advanced rank. The subject is one that is full of interest, and, as the corre- spondence shows, it is one that is not gene- rally understood. By a careful study of these marks on buildings of the same date, we might find out whether the same lodge of masons still held together, going from one work to another, using the same group of marks. Unfortunately, the modern love of trimness has led to the old face of church walls being mercilessly scraped at their restoration (f), and thus many thousands of these marks must have been hopelessly destroyed. But enough are left, both inside and outside old buildings, to prove of great interest; and much may be learnt from a careful study of them to throw light on the labits of the men by whom our ancient
- hurches and castles were built.
ERNEST B. SAVAGE, F.S.A. St. Thomas', Douglas. PARKER FAMILY (10th S. iii. 470).—If G. P. will refer to Foster's' Pedigrees of the Forsters and Fosters,' a copy of which is in the Cam- bridge University Library, he will find a record of the marriage of an Elizabeth Parker, of Warwick, to John Heath, of Kepyer. Elizabeth died 20 October, 1612. Reference s made to a monument in the parish church of St. Giles— ? if jurta, Shrewsbury. Also an Edmund Parker witnesses the will of John Heath, of Walsall, dated 21 July, 1624, prob. Lichfiekl. These dates fall within the required period, although the localities are somewhat
