collar; but I must confess that I am at a loss to understand how such a distinction would be worn in a field of battle so as to be in any way conspicuous, and rather imagine that the "livery" suited for such a purpose must have displayed some distinguishing colours. Any explanation that may occur, Mr. Urban, to your readers will be acceptable to, Yours, &c. J. G. NICHOLS. MR. URBAN, IN Miss Halsted's recently published "Life of Richard III." reviewed in your last number, we find the following passage relating to Prince Edward, the only son of that King, who was created Earl of Salisbury by his uncle Edward IV. "As relates to the immediate biography of the young Earl of Salisbury, a most interesting and curious document preserved in the same MS. library gives the only brief memorials that have been transmitted to posterity relative to this young prince in his childhood. These are contained in a fragment connected with the household expenditure and the administration and economy of the Duke of Gloucester at Middleham during this and the following year, in which the details are SO minute that even the colour of the young prince's dress is inserted, as also the price of a feather to be worn in his cap. One item commemorates the sudden death and burial of Lord Richard Bernall, his governor, who, it would seem, expired and was interred at Pomfret recently after a journey from Middleham, a specified sum being inserted for ye Lord Richard's costs from Middleham to Ponctfret,' and another expenditure for the Lord Richard's burial.' Various entries connected with this nobleman show the entire association of the young prince with his tutor, and it also proves that Middleham was their fixed abode during Gloucester's active military career." Vol. I. p. 367. What is here meant by MS. library is the Register of Letters, &c. under the Privy Seal, in the reigns of Edward V. and Richard III. (Harl. MS. No. 433,) of which Mr. Sharon Turner has made admirable use in his History of those reigns; and the "interesting and curious document preserved in the same" is a mandate or warrant from King Richard to Geoffrey Franke, his receiver at Middleham, dated GENT. MAG. VOL. XXII. September 25th, 1483, authorising the payment of certain expenses incurred during a few months previous to its date, on account of the royal household at Middleham Castle. Numerous extracts from this document are given by Mr. Turner in illustration of his memoir of Richard III. and the young Prince Edward his son, and it unfortunately happens that the mistake of a single word (probably made by Mr. Turner's copyist in transcribing the warrant from the original MS.) has occasioned that eminent historian, when adverting to a letter written by King Richard from Pomfret Castle on the 22nd of September, 1483, to state that "the prince was at that time under the care of Lord Richard Bernall." (Hist. of England, 4to. ed. vol. III. p. 482.) This error is Miss Halsted's sole authority for the account she gives in the passage above quoted, of the entire association of the young prince with his tutor," and the sudden death and burial of the latter at Pontefract. Now, in point of fact, there is no such name as "Lord Richard Bernall" among the historical personages of this period, nor does the warrant to Geoffrey Franke, nor any other document yet brought to light, afford the slightest ground for alleging that the prince had a governor bearing the name of Bernall, or indeed that he had a governor or tutor at all. In the copy of the warrant printed in the Appendix to Miss Halsted's book, "Bernall" does not occur; the words mistaken by Mr. Turner's transcriber for "Lord Richard Bernall," are there correctly printed "Lord Richard's Burial." But, supposing Lord Richard Bernall to be a real personage, according to Mr. Turner the prince was under his care on the 22nd of September, whilst Miss Halsted, on the authority of the warrant to Franke, proves him to have been dead and buried prior to the 21st of the same month, which is the date she (incorrectly) assigns to that document. It is, however, quite clear that "the Lord Richard," so frequently named in the warrant, was a person of importance, and intimately connected with the young prince; and, upon a more careful examination of this, which may be truly called a 3 C lord prince" is meant Prince Edward, the son of the Duke of Gloucester; and it seems almost equally obvious that "the lord Richard" denotes "the Lord Richard Grey, son unto our sovereign lady the Queen," (as he is styled in a grant of Edward IV.) who was beheaded with his uncle the Earl of Ryvers at Pontefract on the 25th or 26th of June, 1483. The Croyland historian and Sir Thomas More, when relating the circumstances attending the arrest of Ryvers, Grey, and Vaughan at Stony Stratford on the 30th of April, by the order of the Duke of Gloucester, agree in stating that they were conveyed from thence to different places in Yorkshire. It is now a well ascertained fact that the Earl of Ryvers, until his removal to Pontefract to be executed, was a prisoner in the castle of Sheriff Hutton; but the place of confinement to which his nephew Lord Richard Grey was conducted has not been the subject of inquiry, historians having taken for granted that Pontefract was the scene of his imprisonment as well as of his death. But it seems extremely probable that Gloucester, having sent the uncle to one of his own castles in Yorkshire, should select another, From these items the following in which was also his favourite residence, ferences are deducible: 1. That the Lord Richard was an inmate of Middleham Castle, from the 3rd of May, (St. Olymmesse, the invention of the Holy Cross,) to the 24th of June, (Midsummer day,) and not longer, his name being omitted from the two next items. 2. That he was conducted from Middleham to Pontefract. 3. That very soon after his arrival at Pontefract he was buried-indicating a sudden or violent death. 4. That certain expenses of the Lord Richard were subsequently "laid out" by Sir Thomas Gower. 5. That all the expenses, not only of the Lord Richard himself and his servants and horses whilst at Middleham, and on their journey thence to Pontefract, but also of his burial, to gether with other disbursements on his account, were afterwards repaid by the command of the Duke of Gloucester when he had ascended the throne. There can be no doubt that by "my as the place of honourable imprisonment for the nephew, who, from bis youth and close consanguinity to the reigning monarch, was entitled to more than ordinary consideration. A journey from Stony Stratford to Middleham would occupy two or three days, and would bring the arrival there of the Lord Richard Grey to the 3rd of May. On the 24th of June, when, according to the warrant, his stay at Middleham terminated, his uncle Lord Ryvers was conducted from Sheriff Hutton to Pontefract; and it is plain, as Dr. Lingard observes, (Hist. of Engl. vol. V. p. 243,) that the "affecting and significant" postscript to the last will of Lord Ryvers, "my will is now to be buried before an image of our blessed Lady Mary with my Lord Richard in Pomfret," was added after he had arrived at Pontefract, and received notice of his approaching execution. He then discovered that he and his nephew were brought there to share the same disa trous fate, and with his own hand he recorded his dying wish that their bodies should repose in the same tomb. Sir Thomas Gower, knight, was one of the witnesses to the will of Lord Ryvers, which he signed at Sheriff Hutton on the 23rd of June, (Excerpta Hist. p. 248;) and as Stittenham, "the Gowers' auntient manor place,' is the adjoining township to Sheriff Hutton, it is probable that Ryvers possessed in this worthy knight a faithful friend, who, having assisted him in the performance of his latest worldly duty, afforded him the consolation of his presence and sympathy during his last moments at Pontefract, and there extended even beyond the grave his kindness and services to the beloved nephew of the accomplished and unfortunate Earl. Yours, &c. MR. URBAN, Δ. Winchester, I AM not aware that any notice has appeared in your Magazine of the Hospital of St. Mary Magdalen, which formerly stood on the hill bearing that name, about a mile east of this city; but, as some account of it may probably afford interest to some of your readers, I send you the best I can collect from the scanty history existing of it. It is somewhat remarkable that this establishment has escaped the notice of Dugdale, Tanner, and every other antiquary; nor is even the name of the founder positively ascertained. Milner has, however, brought together so many circumstances in his investigation of this point as prove satisfactorily, in my opinion, that to Richard Toclyve must be assigned the merit. He governed this see in the reign of Hen. I., from the year 1173 to 1189, with the character of an exemplary prelate; and we learn that his charity led him first to the augmentation of St. Cross, but that afterwards it was diverted into another channel. We are acquainted with the works of his predecessors, and those who immediately succeeded him, and as the style of architecture of the chapel, that of *See plates i. ii. in 3d vol. Vetusta Monumenta. the ornamented Norman with the first rudiments of the Gothic, corresponds with the period, the appropriation to him appears warranted by every sense of reason and justice. That it must have been established soon after the Conquest is confirmed by the Register of John de Pontissara, wherein is an agreement made in 1283 between the Bishop and the Prior and Convent of St. Swithin, in which the latter acknowledge that the Bishops of Winchester had been for a long time (per multa tempora) patrons of the preferments mentioned, amongst which is the house of St. Mary Magdalen. The foundation, which was distinguished by having the munificent Waynflete, afterwards Bishop of the see, for its master, consisted of a master and nine persons, either male or female, eight being resident, with an ample provision in money and commons, and one out-pensioner; and there is strong reason to believe that the sick and leprous were occasionally admitted, as in the will of John Fromond, Steward of Winchester College, dated Nov. 14, 1420, is the clause, "Item lego ad distribuend. inter leprosos B. M. Magdalene Winton. vis. viiid." Many other legacies are mentioned in the bishops' registers as left for the benefit of this community, which continued to prosper until the reign of Henry VIII. when it shared the fate of so many others, that of spoliation, but was not suppressed. In the war between Charles 1. and his Parliament, it suffered greatly from the royal troops under Lord Hopton, who in vain endeavoured to restrain them. But it was in 1665 that the ruin was completed. By the command of Charles II. and Lord Arlington, the master was compelled to remove with the almsfolk, that Dutch prisoners of war might be admitted. These burned all the timber they could find, greatly injured the master's and the other houses, carried away the pulpit, seats, bell and lead of the chapel, and, indeed, rendered the buildings unfit for habitation. On this occasion an humble petition was presented to his majesty, setting forth the damage sustained, which was estimated at 6501. A grant of 100l. was made, but the society not possessing means, nor find ing friends to assist them, were never afterwards enabled to return. In 1788 a commission was obtained by the master for pulling the buildings down, which was soon after accomplished, leaving only the naked pillars and arches. These have long since disappeared, and nothing now remains to mark the spot on which this charitable asylum stood; the only part, indeed, existing, to be recognised elsewhere, is the bold and well designed Saxon portal forming the entrance to the Roman Catholic chapel in St. Peter's Street. This was the western doorway of the venerable chapel, and removed piecemeal on its destruction in 1792. The buildings originally consisted of a good residence for the master, and a separate house for each of the inmates. The chapel stood on the south of these, 77 feet long and 36 feet wide, with three aisles, the roof supported by five columns on each side. Here Dr. Ebden, a former master and benefactor, was buried in 1614, aged 98, and a brass plate fixed in the south wall of the chancel, with the following inscription to his memory: Obiit 16 "Corpus Johannis Ebden, sacræ Theologiæ Professoris pii, ecclesiæ cathedralis Winton. prebendarii docti, hujus Hospitii Magistri reverendi : qui inter alia dona in alios charitatis usus collata £200 in augmentationem stipendiorum ibidem libere dedit; hoc tegitur tumulo. Novembris 1614, ætatis suæ 98." Several acres of land, principally in gardens, were attached, and with a burial ground, surrounded by a wall. Without the wall were 16 acres more land, and pasturage for 126 sheep. The present state of this once flourishing society is, the Bishop of Winchester appoints the master, usually the incumbent of one of the churches of the city, who nominates eight poor persons to share with him the small remaining funds. B. MR. URBAN, SCULPTURED SHRINE FOUND AT YORK. (With a Plate.) York, Aug. 26. THE sculptured stones which have given Mr. Robert Stothard the subjects of the sketches in the accompanying Plate are two in number. From one of them the female figure is taken, and the two smaller drawings from the other. They are portions of the shafts of oval clustered pillars, measuring 12 inches in the longer, and 6 inches in the shorter, diameter. On each of the narrower faces of the pillar is a niche containing a statue, ten inches high, standing under a canopy, with the feet resting on a bracket or pedestal. The canopy consists of an ogee arch terminating in corbeille heads, with pediment and finial, all richly decorated, and most elaborately and delicately carved. The back of the niche and the soffit of the canopy show traces of a reddish colour, and the hair of the female statue appears to have been gilded; and I believe that the drapery, and other parts of the figures, when they were first discovered, presented some remains of colour, of which they now retain but little. All the four niches have been alike in form and decoration. The female figure, which is the most perfect of the statues, apparently represents Saint Margaret standing on the dragon; but her crosier, with her left hand and the head of the monster, are broken. The canopy above her head, except the corbeilles, is also entirely gone. The statue in the niche on the opposite side of the same stone is not included in Mr. Stothard's plate. It is headless, and otherwise much damaged; but the right hand, which grasps two arrows, is uninjured. From this symbol it is probable that the saint represented was Saint Edmund the King. The canopies, and other decorations of the niches on the second stone, are entire, and in good preservation, though the statues are mutilated. That is the least damaged which represents St. Cuthbert holding in his hand the head of King Oswald. The other is too imperfect to allow me to offer any conjecture as to its meaning. Accompanying these two stones is |