Chapter 8 No.8

Duval Family (Vol. viii., pp. 318. 423.).-A grant was made by the crown in Ireland on the 4th July, 1 James II., to Garret Wall, alias Duvall, sen., Esq.; Garret Wall, alias Duvall, jun.; Jas. Wall, alias Duvall; and Michael Wall of the manor, town, and lands of Culenemucky, co. Waterford.

J. F. Ferguson.

Member of Parliament electing Himself (Vol. viii., p. 536.).-In the article forwarded by H. M. are many gross errors. William M'Leod Bannatyne, Esq., was Sheriff of Buteshire from Dec. 22, 1775, till May 28, 1799; during which period there were only two county elections in Buteshire, viz. April 22, 1784, and June 27, 1796 (the counties of Bute and Caithness being represented only in alternate parliaments), and on neither of those occasions was he the sole freeholder present. The statement in question can therefore only refer to the election on Nov. 13, 1806, when, owing to some accidental circumstances, he was the only freeholder present. In 1799 he was raised to the Bench of the Court of Session by the title of Lord Bannatyne; and consequently he neither did nor could act as sheriff seven years after he ceased to hold that office. It is true that, as a technical formality, he nominated himself chairman of the meeting to enable him to sign the minute of the election in that capacity; but it is not true that he either administered the oaths to himself, or signed the return of the election as sheriff. I was then a lad, and was present as a spectator on that occasion, when I saw Mr. Blain the sheriff-substitute administer the oaths to Lord Bannatyne; and, of course, Mr. Blain also made the election return, certifying that "the Honorable James Stuart Wortley Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, &c. (a relation of the family of Bute) had been duly elected." Thus you see that the title of the article is quite erroneous, and is not even borne out by the original account, as the freeholder did not elect himself, but another person; and he did not act in any other capacity than that of a freeholder: the case being extraordinary enough of only one freeholder attending at a county election, without the addition of those marvellous circumstances.

J. M'K.

Gresebrok, in Yorkshire (Vol. viii., p. 389.).-To assist your correspondent ?ραλδικο?, I may tell him that the family he inquires about now resides at Horton Castle and Audenham in Staffordshire. Many years ago, when I took some interest in genealogy, I had the pleasure of being a guest of this family; and I then heard it said, that they could trace a very ancient and brilliant line from one Osbert, who married a great heiress at the Conquest, and that they were direct descendants of the ancient kings of England. Some of Mr. Burke's publications I think would assist ?ραλδικο?; not having them by me, I cannot give the exact reference; but some months ago I saw, either in the Landed Gentry, or in the Visitations, a note of the family.[6] But I think, if your correspondent could by any means see Mr. Grazebrook's papers (as above noted), he would obtain all the particulars he may require.

Hospes.

Charlotte Street, London.

Footnote 6:(return) Ferdinando Smith, Esq., of Halesowen, born March 26, 1779, a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant, and Lieut.-Colonel of the Worcester Militia, married first, in July, 1802, Eloisa Knudson, who died s. p. Sept. 14, 1805; and, secondly, Oct. 5, 1830, Elizabeth, fourth daughter of Michael Grazebrook, Esq., of Audnam, co. Stafford, by whom he left two surviving sons, Ferdinando Dudley Lea, now of Halesowen, and William Lea, born Feb. 27, 1836. Colonel Smith died July 20, 1841.-Burke's Landed Gentry, p. 1248.-Ed.

Sir Anthony Fitzherbert not Chief Justice (Vol. viii., pp. 576. 631.).-The accompanying extract will resolve the difficulty which M. W. R. proposes:

"But here our author objects against himself: That once upon a time the archbishop called a synod by his own authority, without the king's licence; and was thereupon prohibited by Fitzherbert, Lord Chief Justice; but the archbishop regarded not his prohibition. What this is to his purpose I cannot tell, nor do I see wherefore he brought it in, unless it were to blame Rolle for quoting Speed for it. And therefore, in behalf of both, I shall take the liberty to say thus much. That I know not what harm it is for a man in his own private collections-for such Rolle's Abridgment was, though afterwards thought worthy of a public view-to note a memorable passage of history, and make a remark of his own upon it, out of one of the most faithful and judicious of all our modern historians.

"I have before taken notice of this passage, and that not from Speed, but from Roger Hoveden; from whom I suppose Speed may also have taken the relation. I shall therefore only beg to set this gentleman, to whom all our historians are I doubt equally unknown, right in two particulars; by telling him, that neither was Fitzherbert the man who prohibited the archbishop, neither was he Chief Justice when he did it. His name was Geoffrey Fitz-Peter. He was Earl of Essex, and a very eminent man in those days; and his place was much greater than this author represents it; even Lord Justice of England, which he was first made by King Richard, anno 1198; and held in the King's absence to his death, anno 1213; in which year King John, going over into France, constituted Peter, Bishop of Winchester, Lord Justice in his place."-Wake's Authority of Christian Princes asserted, pp. 284-6.

Wm. Fraser, B.C.L.

Tor-Mohun.

The Privileges of the See of Canterbury (Vol. viii., p. 56.).-As no one has yet volunteered to solve Mr. Fraser's question, How the letter of Pope Boniface ordaining that, however human circumstances might be changed, the city of Canterbury should ever thereafter be esteemed the metropolitan see, can be reconciled with the creation of the archiepiscopal see of Westminster,-I may suggest as a solution this maxim:

"Nihil tam conveniens est naturali ?quitati, unumquodque dissolvi eo ligamine quo ligatum est."

It is possible, too, that Pope Pius IX. may have considered that a case had arisen for applying this principle,-

"Necessitas publica major est quam privata."

But be this as it may (and you will excuse me in observing, by the way, that I do not concur in the correctness of this hypothetical view if taken by his holiness), I hope we shall hear from Mr. Fraser whether the former of the above maxims has been effectual to remove his difficulties, which, as I presume from their insertion in "N. & Q.," are not of a purely theological nature.

Respondens.

Chauncy or Chancy (Vol. ix., p. 126.).-Your correspondent J. Y. will find an account of Charles Chauncey, B.D., and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, born in 1589, and died in 1671, in vol. iii. p. 451. of Brook's Lives of the Puritans. See also Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary.

?λιε??

Dublin.

"Three cats," &c. (Vol. ix., P. 173.).-Miss Bockett wishes for the remainder of the "old ballad" beginning with "Three cats;" and I beg to inform her, that there never was any more than what she mentions. The object of the singer was, to cause fun by an elaborately modulated cadenza on the word coal-dust, and then to call on the company to join in chorus. He next continued with some significant word, as "notwithstanding;" and, after a pause of some bars rest, he went on with "Three cats," as before, ad infinitum, changing the initial word each time. It required some tact to give it effect; but, if sung by a clever humorist, was sure to keep the room in a roar of laughter. But its day is gone by.

Grimalkin.

Halliwell, in his Collection of Nursery Rhymes, does not mention "Three cats by the fire-side," &c.; but I have in my possession several not named by him, and "Three cats," &c. amongst the number, which I have much pleasure in transcribing for the benefit of Julia R. Bockett's ancient friend:

"Three cats sat by the fire-side,

In a basket full of coal-dust,

One cat said to the other

In fun, pell mell, 'Queen Anne's dead.'

'Is she,' said Grimalkin, 'then I'll reign queen in her stead,'

Then up, up, up, they flew up the chimney."

Anon.

Probably this is the song of "The Turnspits:"

"Two little dogs sat by the fire-side,

In a basket full of coal-dust;

Says one little dog to the other little dog,

'If you don't go in, I must.'"

N.B.-Into the wheel.

Smokejack.

Officers of Charles I. (Vol. ix., p. 74.).-Sir T. Metcalfe mentions, as among the "curious stray sheets" in his possession, "a list of all the gentlemen and officers who fell in the cause of Charles I." As I have long wished to see a list of King Charles's officers, but have never, as yet, met with anything like a complete catalogue of those who fell, or of those who survived, it would be interesting to me, as I doubt not it would be interesting to many of your readers, to see this "curious stray sheet" transferred to the pages of "N. & Q."

Can you refer me to any published, or otherwise accessible, list of the officers who fought against Charles I., whether by sea or land?

Is there any printed list of officers at the time of the Restoration?

* *

D. O. M. (Vol. iii., p. 173.; Vol. ix., p. 137.).-Would R. W. D. state his reasons for rendering these letters "Datur omnibus mori?" Such an inscription would of course be à propos in the case of a tombstone; but the ordinary interpretation, "Deo Optimo Maximo," would likewise be fitting, and it is not probable that the same initials should have two distinct meanings.

W. M. N.

Whitewashing in Churches (Vol. ix., p. 148.).-Mr. Hudson Turner informs us (Domestic Architecture in England, vol. i. p. 246.) that as early as the thirteenth century the practice of the whitewashing buildings was universal; and that "the process, so vehemently denounced by modern antiquaries, was liberally applied also to ecclesiastical edifices."

William Kelly.

Leicester.

Mr. Hudson Turner says:

"We are not to consider the practice of whitewashing stonework as a vice peculiar to modern times. Our ancestors had as great an objection to the natural surface of stone, whether in churches or other buildings, as any church wardens or bricklayers of the nineteenth century. Several writs of Henry III. are extant, directing the Norman Chapel in the Tower to be whitewashed. Westminster Hall was whitewashed for the coronation of Edward I.; and many other ancient examples might be cited. In fact it seems to have been the rule to plaster ordinary stonework."-Domestic Architecture in England, p. xxvi.

A far earlier instance of the practice appears in Deuteronomy xxvii. 2.

K's question, however, is scarcely answered by the above, as it cannot be supposed that delicate sculpture was clogged with whitewash until it became obnoxious on religious grounds.