_Lady Percy, Wife of Hotspur (Daughter of Edmumd Mortimer, Earl of March)_ (Vol. viii., p. 104.).--On reference to the volume and page of Miss Strickland's _Lives of the Queens of England_, cited by your correspondent G., I find that not only does this lady, by her sweeping assertion, bastardise the second E. of Northumberland, but, in her zeal to outsay all that "ancient heralds" ever can have said, she annihilates, or at least reduces to a myth, the mother of Thomas, eighth Lord Clifford. This infelicitous statement may have been corrected in the second edition of the _Lives_, for in "N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 42., there is a detailed pedigree tracing the descent of Jane Seymour through Margaret Wentworth, her mother, by an intermarriage with a Wentworth, and a _granddaughter_ of Hotspur, Lord Percy, (not _daughter_, as Miss Strickland writes) from the blood-royal of England. My object, however, in writing this is not farther to point attention to Miss Strickland's mistake, but to invite discussion to the point where this pedigree may be possibly faulty. I will not say "all ancient heralds," but some heralds, at least, of acknowledged reputation, viz. Nicolas, Collins, and Dugdale[6], have stated that the wife of Sir Philip Wentworth was a daughter of Roger fifth Lord Clifford. If this be so, in truth there is an end at once of the Seymour's claim to royal lineage; for it is an undoubted fact that it was the grandson of Roger fifth Lord, namely, John, seventh Lord Clifford, K.G., who married Hotspur's only daughter. C. V. [Footnote 6: Nicolas, _Scrope and Grosvenor Roll_, ii. 471.; Collins, _Peerage_, 5th ed., vi. 358.; Dugdale, _Baronage_, i. 341.] "_Up, guards, and at them!_" (Vol. v., p. 426.; Vol. viii., p. 111.).--Some years ago, about the time that the Wellington statue on the arch at Hyde Park Corner was erected, I was dining at a table where Wyatt the artist was present. The conversation turned much upon the statue, and the exact period at which the great Duke is represented. Wyatt said that he was represented at that moment when he is supposed to have used the words: "Up, guards, and at them!" It having been questioned whether he ever uttered the words, I asked the artist whether, when he was taking the Duke's portrait, the Duke himself acknowledged using them? To which he replied, that the Duke said that he did not recollect having uttered those words and, in fact, that he could not say what expression he did use on that occasion. The company at dinner seemed much satisfied with Wyatt's authority on this point. J. D. GARDNER.