Sir Richard Newton was Chief Justice of the Common Pleas from 1438 to 1444, and died Dec. 13th, 1444, and was buried in a chapel of Bristol Cathedral. (Collins's _Baronage_, vol. iii. p. 145.) He assumed the name of Newton, instead of Caradoc, from Newton in Powysland. (Collinson's _Somersetshire_, East Harptrie); and, as Camden, p. 60., says, the Newtons "freely own themselves to be of Welsh extraction, and not long ago to have been called Caradocks." These Caradocs were descended from the ancient kings of Wales. Sir Richard Newton was twice married: 1. to a daughter of Newton, of Crossland; and 2. to Emmett, daughter of John Harvey, of London, according to a MS. in the British Museum; but, according to Somersetshire and Gloucestershire Visitations, to Emma, daughter of Sir Thomas Perrott, of Islington. He had issue by both marriages, and from the second descended Sir John Newton, who was created a baronet 12 Car. II., and died in 1661. The baronetcy was limited in remainder, at its creation, to John Newton, of Hather, in Lincolnshire, and he became the second baronet. There are several pedigrees tracing the descent from Sir Richard to the first baronet; but I have not yet seen the descent to the second baronet, though there can be no doubt that he was also descended from Sir Richard, otherwise the baronetcy could not have been limited to him; and probably he was the next male heir of the first baronet, as that is the usual mode of limiting titles. In the Heralds' College there is a pedigree of Sir Isaac Newton, signed by himself, in which he traces his descent to the brother of the ancestor of the second baronet. It should seem, therefore, that Sir Isaac was himself descended from the Chief Justice. It would confer a great obligation on the writer if any of your readers could afford any assistance to clear up the pedigree of the second baronet. As to the representatives of Sir Richard, I doubt whether his heir is discoverable, although there are many descendants now living who trace their descent through females. C. S. G. * * * * * {601} THE MARRIAGE RING. (Vol. vii., p. 332.) I cannot agree with the answer given, under the above reference, to the question of J. P.: "How did the use of the ring, in the marriage ceremony, originate?" The answer given is taken from Wheatly's _Rational Illustration_, &c., and is in substance this:--The ring anciently was a _seal_, and the delivery of this seal was a sign of confidence; and as a ceremony in marriage, its signification is, that the wife is admitted to the husband's counsels. From this argument, and the supposed proofs of it, I beg to dissent; and I conceive that Wheatly has not thrown any light upon the origin of this beautiful ceremony. To bear out his view, it would be necessary to prove that a signet ring had originally been used for the wedding ring--a matter of no slight difficulty, not to say impossibility.