SHEEN PRIORY. · - In the latest edition of the Monasticon, under this head it is stated (vol. vi. p. 30), that a representation of it, in its ancient state, is comprised in one of the views of Richmond Palace, drawn in the time of Philip and Mary, by Anthony van Wyngaarde, the publication of which is speedily intended by Messrs. Harding and Lepard. Vol. vi. is dated 1830. I wish to know if this intended publication ever took place; if not, where Van Wyngraade's drawings now are. I have reason to think they are in the Bodleian Library, but am not certain. Richmond. W. C. REV. SAMUEL SLIPPER, CHAPLAIN TO THE DUKE OF NORFOLK IN 1681.-A friend has informed me that he has found stated in some journals that the above was the descendant of a Spanish family who came over to this country about the time of Charles II., and translated their name into its English equivalent. Can any one inform me where this statement is to be found, and what is its authority? ЧАРАТА. UPPER AND LOWER EMPIRE.-Authors seem to differ respecting the application of the terms Upper and Lower Empire to the two divisions of the Roman world after the death of Theodosius; for instance, Sir Walter Scott, in the last chapter of Count Robert of Paris, speaking of the Eastern Empire, remarks, "and at length was terminated the reign and life of Alexius Comnenus, a prince who, with all the faults which may be reputed to him, still possesses a real right, from the purity of his general intentions, to be accounted one of the best sovereigns of the Lower Empire; while Mr. Humphreys, in the Coin Collector's Manual, chap. xxv., says, "But as the Byzantine coins are of a distinct class from those of the kingdoms of modern Europe, and closely allied to those of the Lower Roman Empire of the West," &c. When and by what historian were the terms Upper and Lower Empire first used, and does the application of such expressions to two provinces depend upon geographical position, or upon territorial extent and preponderance of population? H. C. Queries with Answers. MRS. MARY DEVERELL, who resided in or near Bristol, published Sermons, Bristol, 8vo, 1774; London, 8vo, 1777 (third edition); Miscellanies in Prose and Verse, London, 2 vols. 8vo, 1781; Theodore and Didymus, an heroic poem, 8vo, 1786; and Mary Queen of Scots, an historical tragedy, 8vo, 1792. Was she the Mrs. Deverell, relict of John Deverell, Esq., who died at Clifton, August 26, 1806; or Mrs. Deverell, wife of Richard Blake Deverell, Esq., who died there June 29, 1810? The Biographia Dramatica terms [Mrs. Mary Deverell was the daughter of a clothier, residing near Minchin Hampton, in Gloucestershire. It is stated in the European Magazine (ii. 199) that "this lady (in 1782) is unmarried, and is between forty and fifty years of age."] CHARADE.-I should feel obliged to any of your readers if they could communicate the answer of the following Charade, which has been published in Verses and Translations by C. S. C. [Calverley]: "Evening threw soberer hue Over the blue sky, and the few What shall I do, Lady, for you?' I talk not mere banter- say not that I can't, or Christ Church, Oxford. W. F. S. [We are indebted to a friend for the following response in verse:— "From Sir Hugo de Wynkle' I'll borrow a wrinkle : When, for courtship inclined, Perhaps reading Tupper Half an hour before supper, In an easy arm-chair by the fireside reclined, Squeeze her fingers, and -pop!"] SUTTON COLDFIELD: "HENRY IV., PART I.,” Act IV. Sc. 2.-In several editions of Shakspeare I find this town called "Sutton-Cop-Hill." Will any reader inform me on what authority? In the charter, granted the town in the 20th Henry VIII., it is styled "Sutton Coldefeld, in our county of Warwick, otherwise called Sutton Colvyle, otherwise Sutton Coldefyld, otherwise Middlesbro'-on-Tees. [The town is called Sutton-Cop-hill on the authority of all early copies of Shakspeare. The more recent editors (Mr. Knight and Mr. Dyce excepted) alter the name to Sutton-Colfield.] ST. ANDREW'S, HOLBORN.-Is there any account of the monuments in the old church, many of which were probably destroyed when it was pulled down? A monument was erected in it, about 1720, to a relative of mine. I can now find no traces of it. R. C. H. H. [Some notices of the monuments in the old church of St. Andrew, Holborn, may be found in Strype's Stow, book iii. p. 248; Malcolm's Londinium Redivivum, ii. 225; and the New View of London, 1708, i. 115. The new church was erected by Wren in the year 1686.] DR. TRAPP'S TRANSLATION OF MILTON.-I have just received a translation of the Paradise Lost, by Trapp, published MDCCXLI. I wish to know whether there are any other translations by the same author. I think he published a version of the Regained, and Samson Agonistes also. Any information will greatly oblige E. C. [A chronological list of Dr. Joseph Trapp's numerous works, drawn up with great care, is given in Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary, xxx. 13, where the only poem by Milton translated by him is the Paradisus Amissus, 2 vols. 4to, 1740-4.1 [The first monogram is that of Lucca Penni, born at Florence about 1500. After painting some pictures for the churches at Lucca and Genoa, he visited England in the reign of Henry VIII., and painted several pieces for the king and others. The second is that of Lucas Cornelisz, called "the Cook," an old Dutch painter, born at Leyden in 1493. He visited England in the reign of Henry VIII., and was made his majesty's painter. His chief performances extant in England are at Penshurst. For other notices of these artists, consult Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting, and Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers.] Replies. THE NEWTON STONE. (3rd S. y. 110, 245.) As the Newton stone is of importance in an ethnological point of view, allow me to defend myself from the REV. B. H. COWPER's severe attack. He strangely states that I suppose a medley of five languages on the Newton stone. No such thing; I distinctly say that the character is Arian, and the language Hebraic, with Chaldaic admixture one word being in the ancient Sanscrit character, which also appears with Arian on coins and inscriptions found in Afghanistan—the ancient Ariana. As well say an English inscription in Roman letters, with one word in German text, represented English, Latin, Greek, Phonician, and German, because the letters may be traced into such connections. His remarks are unfair. It is absurdly trifling to assert that I change the order of the letters on the stone, simply because I write their equivalents from right to left, as modern Hebrews do. Surely MR. COWPER can scarcely mean to say that Hebraic words always were, and must be, written from right to left. MR. COWPER should have ascertained the number of letters actually in the inscription before he objected to my exceeding that number in their Hebrew equivalents. He does not know that, of the forty-three letters in the more correct copy of the inscription, six are double; thus accounting for the forty-nine in modern Hebrew letters. Had MR. COWPER been disposed to think without prejudice, he would have seen that theory could not have influenced me in a plain matter of fact as to the character and value of the letters on this stone. In giving their equivalents in Hebrew letters, I did what scholars generally do. And I could not do better, since I saw the inscription was in an oriental and a Semitic character. would see, I did not mean to represent the proIn giving the English letters, as any Hebraist nunciation of the Hebrew words, but only what appeared to me the value of the vowel marks in the inscription. Had I desired to make good Bible Hebrew of my transliteration, it could easily have been done; and that it was not done ought spoken in many dialects before the Bible was to weigh as evidence in my favour. Hebrew was written; but those who from education and habit interpret all Hebrew words in a theological and conventional manner, are apt not to see without their own coloured spectacles. MR. COWPER thinks my first word is not Hebrew; and then he proceeds to show that a word of similar consonants does mean a hill, mound, or tumulus; and that another, from the same root, means a vault. He ought, therefore, to have given me credit for an equal amount of knowledge when I suggested tumulus, mound, or vault, as the meaning of the word. There is a doubt about the a at the end. The Arabic root is gábá (N), gather together. 1 is Chaldee for hill of any kind; and this, with the , reads begabeba. is mound, in Job xiii. 12, though translated| body. The reference is to the memorial of the persons mentioned. MR. COWPER knows that "to liken," or "to destroy," are secondary meanings of 7, and that "to be silent and at rest" is the primary meaning. Vasto translates '', no doubt, just because it means "I produce silence and cessation of activity." I do not warrant the grammar of the Newton stone. Every one who has heard of Beth-el, is aware the beth means "a house, a home." Hebraists also know that the yod, in ɲ', is not sounded in the construct state; and that the word, in the plural at least, is written without the yod. Zuth is the contraction of a word which I did not invent-I discovered it. I give MR. COWPER the benefit of my discovery. I translated by N, and it reads very well; but proper names of this class are so common, that there is no absurdity in supposing this may be one. "Father of a people" is not more awkward than Ab-ram, "father of height"; or Abraham, "father of a great multitude." Father as honorary appellation of priest or prophet, is nothing new. MR. COWPER is perverse on the word nyy. The does not appear in my transliteration, because I did not see it in Dr. Wilson's engraving of the stone; but I knew the word was incomplete without it, and, therefore, I looked for it in a more perfect copy of the inscription, and found it. MR. COWPER will find the word as I render it (Is. xix. 14). and, fully written, make min; and I may inform MR. COWPER that the n is only indicated on the inscription by a mark on the i; but I was bound to present the word in full, though I knew, as indeed the Arian letters showed, that the n was silent. MR. COWPER is right to read pi, as he was taught; but it does not follow that sculptors, more than two thousand years ago, were equally well taught. In Arian writing, the p and ph are often interchanged in like case. Pi certainly signifies, mouth of; but that would mean little, if it did not also signify that which proceeded from the mouth-as word, command, doctrine, &c.-according to the occasion implied. My critic grants that Nesher is Hebrew. Well, this Hebrew word is unmistakably found in ancient Sanscrit letters on the Newton stone; and my critic had better account for that, before he cavils at the idea that it may be a proper name fit for a Buddhist priest. In the inscription the word man (NP) is so written as to distinguish it from any other word having the same letters. MR. COWPER should not trust to Gesenius alone. He ought to know the word means a sacred vessel that could be desecrated by Belshazzar as a wine-cup. (Dan. v. 2, iii. 23.) Then the word yo, signifying abundance, may agree with it. I complain that he has separated the words, gratuitously, to make nonsense for me. He finds yo, in Deut. xxxiii. 9, where it means abundance. Let him read DWIND, "vessel of abundance," if he pleases: what is that in plain English but what I render the words "overflowing vessel"? MR. COWPER complains that he gets, in the last line, eleven Hebrew letters for nine in the inscription. How does he know? I can tell him that there are two double letters, and so we get the eleven. He says joati means "counsellors." Not in this form, which expresses the infinite or abstract idea of being_apt to counsel; properly indicated by the word I employ in brief to represent it-wisdom. He also says, that 71,"glory," applies only to personal appearance. How then does it apply to God Himself! The word is in Daniel x. 8; and there is most untowardly translated "comeliness," though standing in contrast with moral defilement. My critic seems puzzled by my use of h to represent ayin-a letter not in our alphabet. I have done what more learned men have done in this case. He thinks all the words except one are Chaldaic or Hebraic, but not exactly as he would have written them. The words graven on the Newton stone were not intended for him, and all scholarship does not lie in his line; but I value his evidence. He asserts that the inscription is Celtic. If so, it is surprising that Celtic scholars cannot read it. I am charged with having a theory. Why not? But what has theory to do with reading this inscription? The question is, What are the characters and what their powers? Three copies of the inscription lie before me, but in the forms of four letters they do not quite agree. I, therefore, wait for a photograph of the stone; on the receipt of which, I expect to be able to demonstrate to any unprejudiced inquirer the value of every letter and every word, and to prove that the stone is a Buddhist memorial. I was not aware, when I hastily sent my remarks to "N. & Q.," that there were tumuli in the neighbourhood of the stone; but the fact that there are so far sustains my notion that the inscription is an epitaph. Vapid it may be, but no more so than such things in general. It is a recorded fact, that many thousands of Buddhists were in the west, cir. 500 B.C.; and, therefore, it is not impossible that many were in Scotland at an early period. Buddhistic superstitions and symbols have prevailed there from pre-historic times. The Newton stone must have been erected amidst people who could read the inscription on it; and I engage to prove, in due time, that the characters on it were familiar in north-western India 500 B.C. Alas! MR. COWPER was not able to appreciate my poor book as some scholars have done: so with perturbed spirit he flings it in my face, and warns the readers of "N. & Q." that I am not an Edipus. I am thankful to be respected, but sorry to be distrusted by MR. COWPER. Not being personally known to him, it is especially kind in him to repeat that I am amiable. Does he mean thereby to confirm his decision, that I am also a fool? Such a mode of argument would be unnatural in a clergyman, and unbecoming in a scholar and a gentleman. It may console him to know that on first reading his remarks, however foolish, a strong sense of indignation at the wanton subtilty of their spirit made me feel anything but amiable. If, as he suggests, I wished to glorify myself, I certainly have adopted very unwise means to accomplish that end. As to my experience, it has been long and large enough to teach me that some ripe scholars are very crude reasoners; and that many pass for learned, as poor rogues sometimes pass for rich-by showing a handful of flash notes. Though I think MR. CowPER has been too hasty in inflicting correction on me, I yet really thank him for the useful lesson he has so cheaply given me; and I hope, ere long, to offer more work for his kindly craft. G. MOORE. Hastings. MESCHINES. (3rd S. v. 310.) MR. CAREY has come upon a place in English genealogy, which, having now been mentioned in "N. & Q.," may, I hope, have some more light thrown upon it. This is the pedigree of Todeni. By the statement in Banks (Dormant and Extinct Baronage, vol. i. p. 182), it appears that Robert de Todeni received the lordship of Belvoir from William the Conqueror. "For what reason," says Banks, "William his successor assumed a surname different from his father, does not appear." He mentions, however, the conjecture, that the new surname arose from William de Todeni's great devotion to St. Alban; and says that "This seems more probable, because he is often written William de Albany as well as William de Albini, with the addition of Brito, as a contradistinction to another great baron William de Albini, called Pincerna." He then mentions that this William had issue a son and successor, who, besides Brito, was also called Meschines. MR. CAREY has pointed out that this surname of Meschines "does not imply any relationship with the Earl of Chester." My inquiry is, what are the arms of the family known as De Todeni, De Belvoir, De Albini? Dr. Wright, in his edition of Heylyn, says (p. 548), that he had inspected "a fine copy of Dugdale's Baronage which is in the library of Caius College, Cambridge, in which the arms are accurately delineated in their proper colours;" and by this he corrects his list of the arms of the English barons. In his corrected list (p. 549), he gives to Todeni, gu. an eagle displayed within a bordure argent. Albini, or, two chevronels within a bordure gu., and other Albini coats which are not to my purpose. Banks gives to Todeni gu. an eagle displayed within a bordure argent. Guillim (ed. 1660, first issue), in the shield of Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (p. 435), gives, topaz, two chevrons, and a border ruby to Trusbut; having given the quarter immediately preceding, "saphire, a Catherne wheele topaz," without assigning any name. My copy of Guillim has, in an old hand, the name Belvoir added to this "Catherne wheele" coat; and Gibbon, in his Introductio ad Latinam Blasoniam (1682) also gives this coat to Belvoir, (p. 135). Notitia Anglicana (1724), among the quarterings of the Duke of Rutland, gives the Catherine wheel coat, and assigns it to Belvoir. It also assigns the two chev rons and a bordure to Trusbut. All the authorities which I have cited, even Guillim, are at best second-hand, and merely show an opinion. It might be hoped that at Haddon, for instance, all might be cleared up. Robert de Roos, great-grandson of Everard de Roos and Rose Trusbut, died in 1285. He had married Isabel de Albini de Belvoir, heiress of her house. In the reign of Edward IV., Sir Robert Manners married Eleanor de Roos: and Sir John Manners, second son of Thomas, first Earl of Rutland, married Dorothy Vernon of Haddon, who died in 1584. They, Sir John Manners and Dorothy Vernon, were grandfather and grandmother to John, the eighth Earl, in whose line the peerage continued. She was heiress of Haddon, and brought it into the family of Rutland. In the great gallery at Haddon, the first window on the right as you enter from the staircase shows, in glass, a large shield surrounded by renaissance scrolling. Below the shield is the date 1589. It is per pale, baron and femme. The baron side has sixteen coats, 4, 4, 4, 4: 1. Manners; 2. De Roos; 3. Espec, gu. three Catherine wheels arThen gent; 4. Azure, a Catherine wheel or. follow the rest till we come to-15. Gu., an eagle displayed within a bordure argent, which is the coat given to Todeni; 16. Argent, two chevrons, and a bordure gu., which is given to Albini and to Trusbut. The femme is Vernon, with quarterings. The same Manners' quarterings are repeated in the centre window of the gallery. They do not seem to me to answer my inquiry. Duplicate coats can scarcely be called uncommon. Hussey had two, given quarterly, as an example, by Guillim; Molyns had two; Botreaux had two. None of them being, as far as I know, what are now called coats of augmentation. It is possible and probable that the family which was De Todeni originally, De Albini by devotion, De Belvoir by territorial title, used two. But whence comes the confusion, if it is a confusion, between De Albini and Trusbut? According to the modern theory of marshalling, Trusbut certainly ought to stand where the single Catherine wheel does stand in the windows at Haddon. But why do the coats assigned to De Todeni and De Albini stand 15 and 16 after other coats which came in before them? I have long thought that the exact arrangement of quarterings, which has been practised for more than two hundred years, is not always to be found in quartered shields of an earlier date. Guillim indeed gives examples of coats marshalled quarterly. But it will be seen by anyone who consults him for rules of marshalling coats of successive matches by the heirs, that he gives very little guidance, and leaves the manner of arrangement almost untouched. Having given his own paternal coat, impaling as femme Hatheway, he says, "the heir of these two inheritors shall bear these two hereditary coats of his father and mother to himself and his heirs quarterly;" and gives a second shield with Guillim first and fourth, Hatheway second and third. But he says nothing against any arbitrary arrangement of quarterings. I hope that some of the able genealogists and heralds who read " N. & Q." will not think it lost time to give their attention to the inquiry which I have brought to their notice. Stuarts Lodge, Malvern Wells. D. P. WOLFE, GARDENER TO HENRY VIII. (3rd S. v. 194.) I regret that I cannot afford S. Y. R. any information respecting Wolfe, gardener to Henry VIII., beyond what is contained in the following passage of Hackluyt (Collection of Voyages, &c.), vol. ii. p. 165, ed. 1599, which, however, answers one of his queries: "And in time of memory things haue bene brought in that were not here before, as the Damaske rose by Doctour Linaker, King Henry the Seuenth and King Henrie the Eight's Physician; the Turky cocks and hennes about fifty yeres past; the Artichowe in time of King Henry the Eight; and of later time was procured out of Italy the Muske rose plant; the plumme called the Perdigwena, and two kindes more by the Lord Cromwell after his trauell; and the Abricot by a French Priest, one Wolfe, Gardener to King Henry the Eight." AIKEN IRVINE. Fivemiletown, co. Tyrone, MISS LIVERMORE (3rd S. v. 35.)—I met Miss Livermore in July, 1862, when on her way from Jerusalem to the United States, where she is still residing, or was a few months ago. This aged lady certainly went to Jerusalem on four different occasions; and remained, including all her visits, for several years. Whether Miss Livermore was successful in converting the Jews, the only object of her mission, I am indeed unable to say; but LELIUS could very possibly obtain this information by communicating with the bishop of the Protestant church in Jerusalem, who always assisted this venerable lady in the hours of her trial when living in that city—a kindness she has frequently mentioned. Miss Livermore is descended from an old and highly respectable family in Massachusetts; but whether her grandfather held the high position, or obtained the distinguished honours mentioned by your correspondent, I cannot certainly answer, though I think it is true. A BOSTONIAN. 66 THOMAS SHAKSPEARE (3rd S. v. 339.) - The Shakspeare Bond here given is certainly curious in all probability, a relative of the poet; but your and interesting as connected with one who was, contributor is not correct in believing, as he does, this Thomas Shakspeare, of Lutterworth, to be 'a Shakspeare who has hitherto escaped the inAs far dustry of Shakspearian investigators. MSS. of this borough, a letter addressed, in the back as the year 1851 I discovered, amongst the summer of 1611, by certain leading inhabitants of ing the plague, which was then very prevalent Lutterworth, to the mayor of Leicester, respecthere. The letter (which, amongst other things, records the fact of a Leicester man having been the plague,) bears the signatures of five of the turned out of his lodgings to die in the fields of leading inhabitants of Lutterworth, "Thomas Shakespeare" standing at the head, and it is countermarked by the two constables of the town. The discovery was mentioned in the same year in a paper on the "Ancient Records of Leicester," which I read before our local Literary and Philosophical Society; and which was printed in the volume of the Society's Transactions in 1855. The fact was also communicated to Mr. Halliwell at the time. This Thomas Shakspeare is noticed in a volume of Shakspeariana which I have in the press, and which was announced in your advertising columns of last week. WILLIAM Kelly. Leicester. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL (3rd S. v. 267, 364.) I believe MR. DE MORGAN has |