It is stated in all the pedigrees of this family which I have seen, that Thomas Lovett, Esq., of Astwell in Northamptonshire, who died in 1542, married for his first wife Elizabeth, daughter (Burke calls her "heir," Extinct Baronetage, p. 110.) of John Boteler, Esq., of Woodhall Watton, in Hertfordshire. The pedigree of the Botelers in Clutterbuck's Hertfordshire (vol. ii. p. 476.) does not notice this marriage, nor is there any distinct allusion to it in the wills of either family. Thomas Lovett's will, dated 20th November, 1542, and proved on the following 19th January, does not contain the name of Boteler. (Testamenta Vetusta, vol. ii. p. 697.) His father Thomas Lovett, indeed, in his will dated 29th October, 7 Henry VII., and proved 28th January, 1492 (Test. Vetust., vol. ii. p. 410.), bequeaths to Isabel Lovett and Margaret, his daughters, "Cl. which John Boteler oweth me," but he refers to no relationship between the families. Again, "John Butteler, Esquier," by his will, dated 7th September, 1513, and proved at Lambeth 11th July, 1515, appoints "his most gracious Maister, Maister Thomas Louett," to be supervisor of his will, and bequeaths to him "a Sauterbook as a poore remembraunce;" but he alludes to no marriage, nor does he mention a daughter Elizabeth. This John Boteler is said by Clutterbuck to have married three wives: 1. Katherine, daughter of Thomas Acton; 2. Margaret, daughter of Henry Belknap, who died 18th August, 1513; 3. Dorothy, daughter of William Tyrrell, Esq., of Gipping in Suffolk: the last-mentioned was the mother of his heir, Sir Philip Boteler, Kt.; but I can nowhere find who was the mother of the son Richard, and the daughters Mary and Joyce mentioned in his will, or of Thomas Lovett's wife. I cannot help fancying that Elizabeth Lovett was his only child by one of his wives, and was perhaps heir to her mother. Can one of your contributors bring forward any authority to confirm or disprove this conjecture? Whilst I am speaking of the Lovett pedigree, I would also advert to two other contradictions in the popular accounts of it. That most inaccurate of books, Betham's Baronetage, vol. v. p. 517., says, Giles Pulton, Esq., of Desborough, married Anne, daughter of Thomas Lovett, Esq., of Astwell: the same author, vol. i. p. 299., calls her Catherine; which is correct? Neither Anne nor Catherine is mentioned in Thomas Lovett the Elder's will (Test. Vetust., vol. ii. p. 410). Again, Betham, Burke, and Bridges (History of Northamptonshire, "Astwell") have rolled out Thomas Lovett into two persons, and in fact have made him appear the son of his second wife Joan Billinge, who was not the ancestress of the Lovetts of Astwell at all. Nor was it possible she could be; for Thomas Lovett, in his will, dated 1492, speaks of her as "Joan, my wife, late the wife of John Hawys, one of the Justices of the Common Pleas." Now this John Hawys was living in 1487, and Lovett's son and heir, Thomas, was seventeen years old in 1492. The abstract of Lovett's will in the Test. Vetust., calling Thomas Lovett the Younger "my son and heir by the said Joan my wife," must therefore be manifestly incorrect. I will not apologise for the minuteness of this account, as I believe the correction of detail in published pedigrees to be one of the most valuable features of "N. & Q.;" but I am almost ashamed of the length of my communication, which I hope some of your readers may throw light upon.

Tewars.

OATHS.

The very remarkable distinction between the manner in which English and Welsh witnesses take the book at the time when they are sworn, has often struck me. An English witness always takes the book with his fingers under, and his thumb at the top of the book. A Welsh witness, on the contrary, takes it with his fingers at the top, and his thumb under the book. How has this singular difference arisen? I am inclined to suggest that originally the oath was taken by merely laying the hand on the top of the book, without kissing it. Lord Coke (3 Inst. 165.) says, "It is called a corporal oath, because he toucheth with his hand some part of the Holy Scripture." And Jacob (L.D., "Oath"), says it is so called "because the witness, when he swears, lays his right hand upon, and toucheth the Holy Evangelists." And Lord Hale (2 H.P.C. 279.) says, "The regular oath, as is allowed by the laws of England, is 'Tactis sacrosanctis Dei Evangeliis'," and in case of a Jew, "Tacto libro legis MosaicÆ:" and, if I rightly remember, the oath as administered in the Latin form at Oxford concludes: "Ita te Deus adjuvet, tactis sacrosanctis Christi Evangeliis." In none of these instances does kissing the book appear to be essential. Whereas the present form used in the Courts is, "So help you God, kiss the book;" but still the witness is always required to touch the book with his hand, and he is never permitted to hold the book with his hand in a glove. When then did the practice of kissing the book originate? And how happens it that the Welsh and English take the book in the hand in the different manners I have described?

C. S. G.

THE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

Powerful as this extraordinary agent has become, and incalculably useful as its operation is now found to be, it would appear that the principle of the electric telegraph and its modus operandi, almost identically as at present, were known and described upwards of a century ago. On the occasion of a late visit to Robert Baird, Esq., of Auchmeddan, at his residence, Cadder House, near Glasgow, my attention was called by that gentleman to a letter initialed C.M., dated Renfrew, Feb. 15, 1753, and published that year in the Scots Magazine, vol. xv. p. 73., where the writer not only suggests electricity as a medium for conveying messages and signals, but details with singular minuteness the method of opening and maintaining lingual communication between remote points, a method which, with only few improvements, has now been so eminently successful. It is usual to attribute this wonderful discovery to the united labours of Mr. W.F. Cooke and Professor Wheatstone, but has any one acknowledged the contribution of C.M., and can any of the learned correspondents of "N. & Q." inform me who he was?

Inquirendo.

Glasgow.