When I was essaying to collect the scattered relics of the ancient Use of Lincoln in the form of a short paper which appeared in No. 1 of the Lincoln Diocesan Gazette in May 1886, I felt it to be a special matter of regret that I was unable to point to any surviving kalendar belonging to that see. The only thing approaching a Lincoln kalendar which I had seen was a Book of Hours which Mr. Bradshaw once put into my hands, pointing out that it had been in use in the diocese of Lincoln. It was not his own property, and unfortunately I returned it to him without taking note of the name of the present owner, but I have noted its peculiarities (as “Line”) where they occur in the Index Festivitatum appended to the Sanctorale of the Sarum Breviary.

In all times, from the first dawn of the historic period down to modern days, the inhabitants of Rome appear to have been a thoroughly inartistic race; but for many centuries, throughout the whole classic period, they certainly possessed an unrivalled knowledge of the best methods of construction, and were pre-eminently skilful in their use of various materials of all kinds—stone, wood, concrete, and metal. For this reason a careful examination of the many different modes of construction employed in ancient Rome is not only of interest to the student of archaeology, but may also supply many valuable lessons to the architect and engineer of modern days.

A short time ago our Fellow the Rev. W. Sparrow Simpson, D.D. communicated to the Society two most valuable inventories of the cathedral church of St. Paul, London. Though the contents of a parish church, and of a house of friars, cannot be expected to compete in richness with a wealthy foundation like St. Paul's, the two inventories forming the subject of this paper are by no means without interest, although they were respectively drawn up for such strangely opposite purposes—the one for conservation, the other for spoliation.

“Savaric is a person whose career if it could be explored would be very interesting.” So wrote Dr. Stubbs in 1865. The history of Savaric is yet to be written.

Some knowledge of his episcopate is necessary for the consideration of the question whether any part of the fabric of the church was his work.

Considering how characteristic of this century are the development of invention and the application of discoveries in pure science to every-day uses, the history of invention, and the comparison of recent advances with those in the past, ought to be interesting and instructive. For the materials for such a narrative and such a comparison the historian has to depend on what remains of the practical works of former times, on allusions to their uses by contemporary writers, on early descriptions of the arts, on collections of technical receipts, and especially on the labours of previous historians, who—perhaps under great disadvantages—have already laboriously brought together some of the needed material and have begun the record. Among the most distinguished pioneers of such historical inquiry stands Polydore Vergil.

For the purpose of my paper, it will be necessary to sketch briefly the history of the kingdom and earldom of Northumbria. In 547, according to Symeon of Durham, king Ida founded the kingdom of Northumbria, at whose death it was divided into the kingdoms of Bernicia and Deira. It was governed as either one or two kingdoms, by entirely independent kings, down to the time of Egbert, king of the West Saxons, who, having brought all England south of the Humber under his rule, sent an army in 829 to Northumbria, and made Eanred, the king there, subject to him. In 867 the kingdom came under Danish rule, but king Alfred, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, received recognition of his overlordship from king Guthred the Dane in 894. This claim of overlordship by the West-Saxon kings of England was of a very precarious nature, and seems only to have been maintained by continual expeditions into the Northumbrian kingdom. In 924, Athelstan and Sihtric, king of the Northumbrians, met at Tamworth, when Athelstan gave his sister in marriage to Sihtric. Some arrangement was probably come to at this meeting as to the succession to the crown of Northumbria, for on the death of Sihtric two years later Athelstan assumed the kingdom of Northumbria. Guthred, son of Sihtric, seems to have laid some claim to the kingdom, but he does not appear to have met with much support. It must be noted here that Athelstan did not succeed Sihtric as a conqueror, but was, in all probability, elected by the Northumbrian witan.

Preserved amongst the English State Papers is a mass of material illustrative of the history of tobacco-growing in this country from the time of its introduction to the time when Government finally succeeded in suppressing its growth—a task which was not accomplished till nearly sixty years had been spent in vigorous legislation on the subject, so strong was the feeling of the British farmer in favour of retaining it as an object of cultivation. The outlines of the history of English tobacco-growing have been already sketched on many occasions, especially since the question has lately been before the public—the antipathy of James I. to the use of the “noxious weed,” his contribution to literature against it, and the successive Proclamations and Acts of Parliament forbidding its culture; all these are matters that have been recently noticed, and need not, therefore, be enlarged upon in the present Paper, the object of which is to bring to the front existing evidence as to the extent of tobacco-cultivation in this country, its success, and the feelings with which its suppression was regarded.

The Letter from Sir Henry Lee, Master of the Armoury to Elizabeth, addressed to Lord Burghley, which forms the subject of this paper, has not before been printed. It is calendared among the State Papers, in the Public Record Office, and is holograph bearing the date 12 Oct. 1590.

The accompanying notes are made for the purpose of introducing to the Society the beautiful copies of ancient frescoes from the churches of Athens which have been lent for exhibition by the Marquis of Bute. His lordship had these copies made during his stay at Athens in 1885. He has given a full account of them in an essay on “Some Christian Monuments of Athens,” published in the Scottish Review (July 1885), and the descriptions of the pictures given in this paper are quoted from his lordship's essay. These paintings and the monuments containing them are of course subject to decay, but they are, it appears, in greater danger of wilful destruction from speculative excavations to unearth monuments more ancient, or from attempts to make use of the materials of such monuments for new buildings. It is from no wanton vandalism that such destruction arises, but it is evidently the result of the uncultivated condition of the present race of Athenians. In the article in the Scottish Review the writer thus comments on this unsatisfactory state of things:—

A decree of Otho L, dated May 20, 1836, placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Public Worship every ruined church in Greece, however important historically or however precious artistically, as a mine for the building of new places of public worship, the new University of Athens, &c. This decree is conceived as if no such things as History or Art existed. The results have been terrible, and Finlay, as an eye-witness, speaks of “the destruction of numerous mediæval churches which formed a valuable link in the records of Athens, and an interesting feature in Athenian topography, while they illustrated the history of art by their curious and sometimes precious paintings.”

Nicholas Ferrar, the designer of the works now under consideration, was born in the year 1592, in London, being the third son of Nicholas Ferrar, a merchant adventurer, who traded extensively both to the East and West Indies, and was on terms of great friendship with persons of eminence in the city. His mother was the daughter of Mr. Wodenoth, one of the ancient family of that name, of Savington Hall, in Cheshire. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ferrar were well known for their hospitality and generosity, and for their zealous support of the Church, as well as for the careful and religious ordering of their household.

The troubles in the Low Countries in the second half of the sixteenth century, occasioned by the progress of the reformation of religion, caused a large emigration to this country of Protestants, who settled, by special permission of the crown, in London, Norwich, and other places. Among these was a printer named Anthony de Solen, Solempne, de la Solemme or Solemne, who came to England in 1567 from Brabant, with his wife and two sons.

Considering the almost countless portraits of Queen Elizabeth that are known to exist, it is remarkable how very few actual repetitions there are among them. With other portraits of distinguished and popular characters the case is quite different, as they may be classified into so many groups in each of which the pictures are exactly alike.

The portrait which I have the honour of describing this evening, by favour of the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Walter Scott, has the peculiarity of not standing alone. It possesses a very interesting counterpart at Westminster, in the Dean's library, where it is inserted in a panel over the fireplace. Being a fixture, there is unfortunately no possibility of its being brought hither for examination. Before, however, entering into a comparison of the two pictures, it may be well to consider some of the characteristics of the portrait before us.

The volume from which the following lists of arms and armour are taken is a neatly written MS. of 469 folios, presented to the Society in 1775 by Grustavus Brander, Esq. F.S.A.

The volume is complete in itself, but is in fact the larger portion of an inventory of the property of Henry VIII. taken in the first year of Edward VI. 1547. The remainder of the inventory is in the Harleian collection of MSS., and is contained in MSS. 1419 A and B. Of these two latter parts A contains the guardrobes and household stuff in the Tower of London, and at Greenwich, Westminster, Hampton Court, Otelands, Nonsuch, Windsor, and other palaces and houses of the late king. Part B enumerates various deliveries of stuff to different persons during the first four years of Edward VI. and is consequently a partial repetition of part A.