9s. vm. OCT. s, i9oi.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
289
had pleasing episodes, which I might a
reasonably place to its credit.
Richmond, Surrey.
W. CURZON YEO.
" BULL AND LAST" (9 th S. vii. 128, 254, 331
411 ; viii. 54). If ' N. & Q.' is not avowedly
a comic journal, it has occasional flashes
of humour that are very amusing. Severa
instances are afforded in the wild guesses al
the meaning of public house signs. It is
evident from the letters of MR. HOLDEN MAC
MICHAEL, at the second and last references
that the sign of the "Bull and Last" is
formed from the union of two single signs
viz., "The Bull" and "The Last," both of
which existed separately, though that of the
" Mouth " is rare. When a landlord removed
from one house bearing a sign to another
one and formerly all places of business bore
a sign he carried his old sign with him.
Thus in this district we read :
" Whereas Anthony Wilton, who lived at the Green Cross public-house near the new Turnpike on New Cross Hill, has been removed for two years past to the new boarded house, now the sign of the Green Cross and Kross Keys [sic], on the same hill." Weekly Journal, 22 November, 1718.
" Benjamin Ingram, Mercer, Is removed from the George, unto the next House, at the sign of the Naked Boy and George in Ludgate-Street ; where he continues selling all Sorts of Mercery Goods at reasonable prices." Daily Post, 26 January, 1723.
The first example is from Hotten. This is a more plausible explanation of the " Queen's Head and Artichoke" (9 th S. vii. 331) than the one offered, and explains many curious mixtures, like the " Bear and Key " at Whit- stable. There is only one point to be settled, and that is, What authority had George Steevens, " the Puck of commentators," for his " Bullogne Gate " ? " The title-page of an old play " is too vague. Has any one else ever seen "Bullogne Gate" on a title-page? Till I receive further evidence I shall doubt its existence. . AYEAHR.
New Cross, S.E.
SHAKESPEARIAN RELIC (9 th S. viii. 161). In the Shakespeare Society's papers, 1844, vol. i. p. Ill, there is a short note Iby Robert Bigsby, LL.D., on the signature of John Shakespeare and William Shakespeare's papers. In the course of the note the author states that he was acquainted with Col. Gardiner, of Thurgarton Priory, Nottinghamshire, who was descended from Lady Barnard. This officer stated that "he had frequently been applied to, by literary men of eminence connected with the Shakespeare inquiries, for information as to his possession of any MSS., or other remains of Shakespeare; but that his reply had uniformly been, that his family
papers were so confusedly mixed up with the
documents relating to his estates and other
miscellaneous writings, that he had never been able
to make an entire and satisfactory search Such
inquiry, however, I have reason to believe, was never effected. He died, and his ancient family seat fell into the hands of strangers. His personal effects were sold by auction in the neighbourhood, and I should conceive that the bulk of his papers went into the hands of his executors, although it is not unlikely that, as he left no family represen- tatives, and the estate passed to mortgagees, the old and useless muniments might be given up, with little examination, to the party possessing the Priory where they were deposited."
I dp not possess a set of the Shakespeare Society's publications, so I cannot say if this matter has been looked into. Information on a subject of such profound interest would be acceptable. W. E. WILSON.
Hawick.
BISHOP'S ORNAMENTS (9 th S. viii. 206). From the examination of a large number of the portraits of Anglican bishops since the Reformation, I do not think that any have worn the pectoral cross, official ring, or purple cassock, except within the last forty years. Up to 1850 I cannot find that any bishop of the Church of England deviated at all from the recognized episcopal dress as worn to-day by the Archbishop of Canter- bury, and indeed the majority of the Anglican bishops. For one hundred and fifty years, say from 1700 till 1850, the only change I can find is in the wig and the white bands, though these last are still worn by a few bishops. None of the archbishops' portraits at Lam- beth depicts them as wearing any of these ornaments. If such had been the recognized dress of the Anglican bishops, one would lave surely found Archbishop Warham 1503-1532) thus habited ; but such is not }he case, though Holbein represents him with a richly jewelled mitre and crosier beside rim. None of the other archbishops, however, las these ornaments, not even Laud, who is labited in the simple black-arid-whitecostume of the rest of the bishops. Nor, again, do I ind these ornaments in the portraits of the Id High Church bishops, such as Ken and
- he other Nonjurors.
Bishop Seabury, of the American Church, s said to have worn a black velvet mitre, jut no other ornaments, as far as one can udge by his portrait. I think it is safe to ay that certainly from the year 1533, when ranmer was consecrated at Westminster, up till 1850 no Anglican bishop used these ' ornaments," or indeed any others which can >e described under such a term. I do not hiuk a mitre was worn by any Anglican )ishop, with the possible exception of Seabury,
