2.  What is the authority for the familiar story of a bill being brought into parliament for the suppression of all vernacular translations in Richard II.’s reign, and of its being stoutly opposed by John of Gaunt?  “What, are we the dregs of the earth not to hear the Scriptures in our own tongue?” Usher mentions the circumstance (Historia Dogmatica, &c.), and it is borrowed from him by Fox.  But I am so ignorant as not to know the original and cotemporary authority.

3.  Your learned correspondent, DR. MAITLAND, in his Dark Ages, snubs D’Aubigne most unmercifully for repeating an old story about Luther’s stumbling upon a Bible, and pooh-pooh’s D’Aubigne’s authority, Mathesius, as no better than a goose.  May I ask whether it is possible to discover the probable foundation of such a story, and whether Luther has left us in his writings any account of his early familiarity with Scripture, that would bear upon the alleged incident, and show how much of it may be true?

C.F.S.

* * * * *

MINOR QUERIES

The Lost Tribes.—­A list of all the theories and publications respecting the ten tribes commonly called the Lost tribes, or any communication concerning them, will much oblige.

JARLTZBERG.

Partrige Family.—­Can any of your readers inform me where I can see the grant mentioned in the following note taken from Strype’s Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. iii. p. 542:  “I find a grant to the Lady Jane Partrige for life, of the manor of Kenne in Devon, of the yearly value of 57l. 12s. 0-3/4d., but this not before April, 1553.”  Can any of your readers tell me how to obtain access to a private act 1st Mary, Sessio secunda. cap. 9., anno 1553, intituled, “An Act for the Restitution in Blood of the Heirs of Sir Miles Partrige, Knight”?  Strype calls it an act for the restitution of the daughters of Sir Miles Partrige, and I think he must be right, as I have prima facie proof that Sir Miles left no son.  Were the debates on the acts of parliament recorded in those days, and if so, how can they be seen?

J. PARTRIGE.

Birmingham.

Commoner marrying a Peeress.—­Formerly, when a commoner married a peeress in her own right, he assumed her title and dignity.  The right was, I believe, disputed during the reign of Henry VIII., in the case of the claimant of the barony of Talbois, when it was decided that no man could take his wife’s titles unless he had issue male by her, but, if there were such issue, he became, as in cases of landed property, “tenant by curtesy” of her dignities.  Can any of your correspondents inform me whether any subsequent decision has deprived of this right a commoner marrying a peeress and having issue male by her?

L.R.N.

The Character “&."—­What is the correct name of the character “&?” I have heard it called ample-se-and, ampuzzand, empuzad, ampassy, and apples-and,—­all evident corruptions of one and the same word.  What is that word?