Scotland: the men of Estates & education every where are mostly Episcopal. A regard to the Church of England Liturgy does daily encrease, so that tho' before the Revolution very few had the Common Prayers and none received y° Sacrament of the Lord's Supper kneeling; yet now there be many thousands of ye Episcopalians that use ye former, and almost all of them do ye latter. An account of them in the several shires is as follows.

In the S. Western shires, Galloway, Ayre, Renfrew, Lanark and Dumfreis, they are the most bigotted to Presbytery & ye Covenant, from which were ye Insurrections at Pentland hills, and Bothwel Bridge; yet there be some well disposed to the Church and Liturgy, who take opportunities to communicate therewith when they come to Edinburgh, or can send for Episcopal Ministers to their Houses.

In Dumbartonshire are Cowgratins ffamily, Chappeltons, & Kilmarnocks, to which are great Resorts of Clergy and Laity; as also to ye Meeting House at Dumbarton. In Stirlingshire is a Chaplain in Vist Kilsyths ffamily; & a great congregation in the Church of England Meeting House at Stirling, and also at yo Earl of Linlithgows in Callender House.

In Perthshire there be Meeting Houses at Down, Minthill, Perth, Mugle(?), Innerman, the Carse of Gowry, &c., besides Chaplains at ye Lord Stormonts & Nairne, & Lairds of Loggys, Kerrys, Blagowros & Grandully.

In ffifeshire are English Meeting Houses at Cowper, Crail, ffalkland, St Andrews and many other places, besides Chaplains at the Earls of Murrays & Kellys.

In Angus are Meeting Houses at Montross & Dundee, & Chaplains at ye Earls of Strathnarn, Southesk & Panmure's; besides many Episcopal Ministers yet in their Churches; there are about a hundred of them in the north of Scotland, who according to the 23 Act of Parliamt 1693, confirmed by y 27 of 1695, and other subsequent Acts, if they took the oath of allegiance, and were then in possession of their Churches & Benefices, they continue. In Mernishire [Kincardinshire?] are Meeting Houses at Stonehive & Fettercrosse.

In Aberdeenshire are several Meeting Houses for ye English service with two in......* and several Episcopal Ministers yet in their Churches.

In Murrayshire are English Meeting Houses at Elgin, Duffus,.....Torras, Aberlour, &c., with many Episcopals yet in their Churches.

In Ross-shire is an English Meeting House at Canonry, besides many Episcopal. In this last shire, and those of Inverness, Cromarty, Kincardin & Caithness are more Episcopals than Presbyterian Min' in their Churches, & yo people so generally disposed to y fformer, that few or none will hear the Presbyterian Preachers.

In Orkney there is a great Meeting House for y English Service at Kirkwal, and the Gentry generally thereto disposed thro' all that country.

In West-Lothian or Linlithgow are many ffamilys that resort to the English Service.

In Mid-Lothian are 14 or 15 Meeting Houses in Edinburgh, & so general a Disposition therein for ye English Liturgy that they want nothing but liberty & encouragemt to gain them wholly to it. There are also Meeting Houses at Leith, Dalkeith, & Musselburgh. In East-Lothian are Meeting Houses at Trenant & Haddington where is an Episcopal Minister in his Church, as also at Dunbar, & a Chaplain at y° Countess of Roxburghs.

In Berwickshire is a Meeting-House at Coldingham, and an Episcopal Minister at the Earl of Humes. In Teviotdale is a Meeting-House at Kelso. In Tweedale, are many Episcopal Ministers yet in their Churches, &

*Here and in several other places the original is deaced.

much people well dispos'd & yet notwithstanding the numbers and quality of the Episcopalians the Presbyterian Ministers do violently press. Thirdly the Persecution of the Episcopal Ministers. It is too true yt many of the Episcopalians have not given Testimony of their affection to the present Governmt. But if any Difference be made in their furious Persecution of ye Episcopals, as to that respect, it is rather more fierce against those that swear to, or pray for Her Majties Person & Government, and this raises or continues their prejudices against the Governmt. when they suffer so much and so long under it.

Mr. Greenshields is a known case, since his Imprisont were these persecutions.

Mr. James Lyon for reading the Liturgy at Kirkwal in Orkney, from the Presbytery was before y Lords Justiciary prosecuted with violence, but the Prosecution drop't this summer session thro' ye Informality of the process.

Mr Ross of Cowper & Mr Hunnyman of Crail in Fife, were prosecuted by the Presbytories for using the English Service Book, and should have been pursued by the Criminal Court, or Magistrates, but yt they wait y issue of Mr Greenshields case before the House of Lords.

The Chaplains to the Lords Stormont & laird of Blagowre & Mr Wm Smith were pursued by y° Presbyterian Church Judicatories for reading the Common Prayers, but at present......stops, tho' yet depending.

......of Glasgow, was in July last threatned with the utmost severity, by the......magistrates if he did not withdraw his Episcopal Meeting from y City: upon......to retire into the Country......Magistrates of Elgin were prosecuted by that Presbytery and from ye circuit......before ye justiciary in ffebruary last, [but they wisely drop't it] for not [keeping the fast against Innovations in the Presbyterian Worship, enjoyned only by y Commission of the Assembly, upon that act of theirs against Mr Greenshields. Yet that Judiciary is not establish'd or authorized upon any act of Parliament, nor is there any statute yt without wresting, can subject the Episcopal Clergy to any Presbyterian Judicature, nor favour their prosecutions, except y' act about Irregular Marriages and Baptism's, 12th Act of Parl: 1695: and Mr Hay of Aberlour in Murray, was in October last pursued by the Lord Minto in the Circuit Court, for reading the English Liturgy in a Meeting House of great resort, and when the Jury gave up a verdict for acquitting him, he forced them with threats to return, and gave him in guilty, and not having law otherwise to punish him, having baptized children, he thereupon sentenced him to perpetual Imprisont or Banishment from his Country, to which last he was forced to submit; and now resides at London, and all this severity against him, that was otherwise inoffensive, and always pray'd for the Queen, and had converted many papists. Mr Skinner Minister of Brichen by many unjust and irregular proceedings was deposed from his Church by that Presbytery, and imprisoned in Edinburgh Tolbooth by the Justiciary, until he should go into Banishment, or give security never to exercise any part of his Ministerial ffunction within Scotland. Mr Downes of Petty near Inverness, was somewhat like case. Mr Sheen & Mr Sutherland's Meeting House for y⚫ English Service in Nidderies Wynd was shut up by y Magistrates of Edinburgh, in y summer 1709, and being open'd again by these Ministers in October 1710, it is now threat'ned to be again shut up, & y Ministers punish'd, after the determination of Mr Greenshield's case. All these foregoing ffacts being within something more than one year, it may be considered what usage the Episcopals have met with in the course of 22 years, & will hereafter, if y Presbyterian Cruelty be not allay'd.

difficulty and interest in baronial history. For example, the details of Eudo Dapifer's career, hitherto imperfectly known, can be picked out from the series of royal grants of his acquisitions subsequent to Domesday. The charter of Henry I., by which Eudo was reinstated in all his estates as he held them on the day that William II. died, is dated "on the first day of the week after the Purification of the B. Virgin, after the concord made between me and my brother Robert apud Wesbian,"* viz., February, 1102; whilst the grant of the city of Colchester, with the tower there and the castle and all firmitates, "to hold as freely as my father King William and I myself held them," is dated at Westminster on the first Christmas after the same concord with Robert Curthose. This chartulary also contains positive proof of an error which I have long suspected, for it is asserted in Dugdale and all the Baronages that Eudo Dapifer left a daughter Margaret, who married William de Magnaville, and was the mother of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, who played so prominent a part in the reign of King Stephen. I must reserve for another occasion how this error arose, when it was patent that the Magnavilles, whether in or out of favour at court, never inherited Eudo's Honour or estates. It is sufficient to say now that the chartulary contains both negative and positive evidence that Eudo Dapifer and his wife Rohese never had any children. This appears negatively from the silence of the movent clauses in their benefactions to St. John's. For example :

"I Rohais, widow of Eudo Dapifer, grant to the monks of St. John's the manor of Hallingbury and the lands which my brother Gilbert gave me, for the souls of King William and Queen Matilda, and of my father and mother, and of my husband Eudo Dapifer, and of my brother Gilbert, and of all my kindred, and for my own salvation." Witnesses, Turstin, Archbishop of York, and Roger his

brother.

This is only one of many charters which imply that they left no child, but positive proof of the fact is contained in the solemn instrument by which the church of St. Mary West Cheap in London, then called New Church, was confirmed to Abbot Gilbert by Henry I. :—

"Recognitum fuit coram Rege Henrico in curia sua apud Westmonasterium, that on the day that King William II. was alive and dead, the church called New Church London was included in the fee of Eudo Dapifer. This was certified by the testimony of Hamo de St. Claro, Ralph de Ambli, Robert de Caron, Esmelin de Argentine, Amfrid, formerly Eudo Dapifer's chaplain, and others of his barons. Then the court resolved 'ista debere remanere sicut erat quum rex suscepit coronam regni, quum non existente herede aliquo res Eudonis venit in regis arbitrio et jure, ita rex reddidit Abbati Colecest. Gilberto ecclesiam,' &c."

dale supplied by this chartulary, for it contains materials for better pedigrees of the baronial families of Lanvallei, Martel, Magnaville, Sackville, St. Claro, and others; but this note is already too long. EDMOND CHESTER WATERS.

TOMBSTONE BLUNDERS.

The

That implicit reliance is not to be placed on tombstone inscriptions is maxim accepted by all careful genealogists. How or when the numerous blunders-examples of which may be found in every antiquary's collections-were originally perpetrated it is generally impossible to determine, but it is probable that they may be all attributed to one of two causes, ignorance or sheer carelessness. As a rule, however, so far as my experience goes, they were not in the original inscriptions, but occurred in recutting. In some instances the fictitious dates thus engraved have been accepted and perpetuated as historical. case of the Princess Mary is one in point. on her monument in Westminster Abbey it is stated that she died on December 16, 1607, while it is certain that she died on September 16 in that year, but it is the former date which always appears in the pedigrees of the royal family. A more flagrant blunder of this sort was made at the Abbey within the last few years, when, on a stone placed over the grave of Ambrose Fisher, the "Blind Scholar," the year of his burial was given as 1630, although the Abbey register records it on November 24, 1617 (see "N. & Q.," 4th S. vi. 177, 203). A few other examples of such inaccuracies may be found interesting.

In the south ambulatory of the Abbey Church of Romsey, Hants, is an elaborate monument, a portion of the inscription on which I quote (the church by Charles Spence, published in 1851) :— whole may be found in the little history of the

"Here lyeth interred ye body of John Storke,
Who was twice Mayor of this Corporation,
Who died the XIXth of December MDCCXI, aged LXXI:
Also Mercy his wife, who died XXIII of May MDCCXI:
And John Storke, their eldest son,
Who died the III of July, MDCCXXIII, aged LVI;
Also Mary his wife,

Who died the xxxth of November, MDCCXXIV
aged XXXII."

and his brother.

married the next year, and his second wife, Martha, survived him. The second error is curious, for the dates and ages are correct in themselves, although

wrongly applied. It was the second John Storke who died November 30, 1724, aged fifty-six, his wife Mary having died July 3, 1723, aged_thirtytwo, as is abundantly proved by the Romsey registers, a small stone over the actual grave, and the will of this John Storke. These blunders, therefore, could have occurred only through unpardonable carelessness.

In the chancel of the church of Little Compton, Warwickshire, is a flat stone over the remains of Sir William Juxon, Bart. The inscription states that his mother was "Elizabeth, a daughter of Sir John Walter, of Sarsden, in the county of Oxford, Bart.," while nothing is more certain than that she was a daughter of Sir William Walter. Another inscription in the same chancel states that Elizabeth Pory (née Juxon) died in 1652-3, in her thirtieth year, hence born in 1623. In the affidavit on which her marriage licence was issued, dated September 21, 1640, her age was sworn to be then twenty-eight, hence really born in 1612, and therefore in her forty-first year at her death.

In the south chapel of East Horndon Church, Essex, is a splendid monument of the Tyrell family. It records that Sir John Tyrell died April 5, 1676, aged eighty-two, and that Dame Martha his wife, daughter of Sir Lawrence Washington, of Stonage, Wilts, Knt., died "December ye 17, 1679, in the 90th year of her age." If correct, she would have been born in or about the year 1590, which is impossible, as her father, if even an eldest child, could not at that date have been more than eleven years old, his parents having been married in the year 1578; and on his own monument at Garsden, Wilts, it is stated that he died May 14, 1643, in his sixty-fourth year, which, if accurate, fixes his birth in 1579. Lady Tyrell's only sister was not born until 1622, and her only brother was born in 1623. I have reason to believe that she was their senior, and born in or about 1620, and hence in her sixtieth year at her death. Although the monument in question presents no appearance of restoration since its erection two centuries ago, yet it is inconceivable that her age could then have been given as ninety, and the probability is that the inscription has since been recut, and that the first figure, having become indistinct, was mistaken for nine, the advanced age of her husband also affording some reason for assimilating her age to his. At all events, it is absolutely certain that she was some thirty years younger than the age assigned her on the monument.

A strange, though not vitally important, blunder on the monument of one of my own ancestors-the Rev. John Rogers, "the famous Parson of Dedham," in Essex-was for many years a crux to me, and to all to whom I submitted it. His bust was put up in the chancel of the church shortly after his death in 1636, and there is no indication that the inscription has ever been renewed. For the last

There was no difficulty in understanding that George Dunn, Chirurgeon, erected the monument, but what was the meaning of the mysterious word "Bonis"? I sought in vain for a satisfactory solution from antiquaries and Latin scholars. The late Mr. Thomas Watts, of the British Museum, made perhaps the most ingenious shot when he suggested that George Dunn erected the monument "of his goods," i.e. paid for it out of his own pocket; but it is due to his memory to say that he was not more than half serious on this occasion. Subsequently, however, I chanced to discover a copy of the inscription, made in 1639, three years only after my ancestor's death, in which this perplexing word reads, not "Bonis," but "Londis," the ordinary contraction of "Londinensis," which of course set the matter right and at rest. Clearly the inscription has been recut at some period, and as clearly the recutter misread the word.

I might multiply these examples indefinitely, but enough have been given to show that they are confined to no particular periods or localities.

JOSEPH LEMUEL CHESTER.

THE MALDEN ELECTION OF 1699. Your readers will doubtless remember that some years ago two prominent members of the House of Lords raised the question whether peers had not a legal right to vote at Parliamentary elections. There was a prevalent impression in the public mind that the members of the Upper House could put forward no claim to take part in elections for the return of members, and it was known that a resolution to that effect had been repeated in every House of Commons for the better part of two hundred years. But on the other hand it was obvious that such a resolution, taken by itself, could not possibly have the force of an Act of Parliament; and Lords Salisbury and Beauchamp were laudably anxious to have the existing state of the law distinctly ascertained by seeking to have their names put upon the register of voters, and instructing counsel to defend their claim before the Court of Common Pleas. When the case came on for hearing, however, their lordships' counsel threw up their briefs, declaring that they had not been able to find the vestige of a precedent in favour of the supposed right which it would otherwise have been their duty to advocate, and judgment was accordingly given that such right had no existence in law.

One precedent, and one alone, was referred to as having any bearing upon the question, and that was the Malden election of 1699, which it was