Courtenay, impaling the See; third, Arundel, Courtenay's successor, impaling the See; lastly, Christchurch, Canterbury. The circumstance that the arms of Arundel, Courtenay's successor, occur on the canopy, at once proves that the monument could not be Courtenay's, but that the two archbishops stand in nearly equal relation, as patrons of him whose tomb their arms decorate. The brass portrait, according to Bering's drawing, was that of a simple priest, having at his head on one side, the arms of Courtenay; on the other, the same arms impaling the See of Canterbury. I have not been able to discover that Wotton had any coat or was entitled to bear arms, which circumstance may account for his using the arms of his patrons.
   It may be interesting in a future volume to give the wills of Courtenay and Wotton more at large, as they contain many curious illustrative details. 
   Lastly, the Ashford Brass, to a Countess of Athol, has hitherto proved of rather an enigmatical character. Weaver calls this monument the chief glory of Ashford for antiquity. It is now in a more ruinous condition than it was in the days of Bering; the greater part of the figure, the Arms of Athol, and nearly all the inscription, are gone; also the shield with the cross impaling the chevronels. Notwithstanding the acknowledged evidence of the inscription, confirmed as it is by Bering's statement that the brass was in memory of Elizabeth, Countess of Athol, and daughter of Lord Ferrers,, who died October 22nd, 1375, much misrepresentation has existed. The chief pedigraic authorities have hitherto assumed that Elizabeth was an error, and that Catherine, her mother-in-law, was the person buried at Ashford, seemingly for no better reason than that 1375 was assigned as the date of her death as well as that of her daughter-in-law. After much investigation by Mr. King among the records of the Heralds' College, a pedigree by