John Stafford, LL.D. was made Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1425, and translated to Canterbury in 1443, and died in 1452. Cassan, in his Lives of the Bishops of Bath and Wells, p. 212, says that he was the 9th son of Humphrey de Stafford, 6th Earl of Stafford, who was created Duke of Buckingham 14 Sept. 1444. This is impossible; for Duke Humphrey was only one year old at the death of his father, Edmund, the 5th Earl, who was killed at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, and did not prove his age and obtain livery of his lands till the 2 Hen. 6, 1423 or 4. Duke Humphrey's youngest son's name was John, but he was created Earl of Wiltshire 5 Jan. 1470, and was K.G. Neither could the Archbishop be brother to the Duke, unless we suppose him to have been made Bishop of Bath and Wells at the age of 20 or 21, which is very improbable; and besides this, the Peerages give no account of any other son of the 5th Earl, except Humphrey, the 1st Duke. Can any of your Correspondents inform me what was the exact relationship of the Archbishop to the noble family of Stafford ? D.A.Y.

A. H. S. in answer to T.'s "Query for Heralds" (May Mag. p. 450), sends the following extract from Berry's Encyclopedia of Heraldry (article Quartering), although he doubts whether that work can be considered a legitimate authority: "Where a lady becomes an heiress, or coheiress, to her mother (which cannot be unless the mother was herself an heiress, or coheiress,) and not to her father, which sometimes happens, by the father marry ing a second wife, and having male issue to represent him, she is entitled to her mother's inheritance, and bears a maternal coat, with the arms of her father on a canton, taking all the quarterings which her mother, by descent, was entitled to; and when married, her husband bears the whole on an escotcheon of pretence, and the issue of such marriage, after her death, take them as quarterings; for it should be particularly noted, that neither men marrying heiresses, or coheiresses, expectant, nor the issue of such, can bear arms in this manner." T. has searched with much attention the works of Gwillim, Nisbet, and Edmondson for corroboration and confirmation of the foregoing rule, but is unable to find any notice taken of

this particular case. They appear to be the words of some old author.

W. L. W. in answer to the same query, is "inclined to think that the arms of the daughter and heiress of the first wife are to be impaled with those of her husband, not borne on an escutcheon of pretence; inasmuch as though the daughter be the heiress of her mother, (who was also an heiress,) and consequently is entitled to quarter her mother's arms with those of her father, yet not being the heiress of her father, her husband has no right, I think, to bear her arms on an escutcheon of pretence. If this opinion be correct, then her arms are to be thus blazoned with her husband's: Quarterly, 1st and 4th the father's arms, and the 2nd and 3rd the mother's."-In our opinion, this answer is the more correct, at least in modern practice; but the due course in these matters is to apply to the Officers of Arms, who have a sort of prerogative to arrange the matter of quarterings at their will, under sanction of licenses from the Crown, procured in accordance with their arrangements.

CIVIS CORCAGIENSIS, in looking over Darley's Treatise on Homer, finds an assertion that Ulysses and Diomedes were the only persons mentioned in the Iliad as having ridden on horseback. The expression alluded to in support of this opinion is ἵππων ἐπεβήσατο (Iliad, Κ. 514.) Now, I think this can hardly be

understood to mean that Diomedes rode on horseback ; for, 1st, ἵππων ἐπεβήσατο and ἵππων αποβάντες are often used to signify the act of mounting or dismounting from a chariot: for instance, F, 265; 2ndly, the word wv, being plural, would cause us to infer that Diomedes rode the two horses; 3rdly, Ulysses is represented as beating the horses with his bow, and again, in verse 527, it is said that Οδυσεὺς μὲν ἔρύξε . . . ὠκέας ἵππους. What was Diomedes such an infant as not to be able to beat or restrain his horse when he wished? In line 529 the words ἵππων ἐπεβήσατo again occur, and in the next line Μαστίξεν δ' ἵππους, which cerbeat the tainly mean that Diomedes horses; but Barnes says, that in one MS. he found Μάστιξεν δ' Οδυσεύς, which reading Clarke in a note approves of, although he gives the former in his text, as he says that the repetition of immovs is inelegant.