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
