(Vol. iii., p. 8.)

Your correspondent may be interested to know, that Sir Anthony Chester, Bart., of Chichley, co. Bucks, married, May 21, 1657, Mary, dau. of Samuel Cranmer, Esq., alderman of London, and sister to Sir CÆsar Cranmer, Kt., of Ashwell, Bucks. This Samuel Cranmer was traditionally the last male heir of the eldest of Cranmer's sons; his descent is, I believe, stated in general terms in the epitaphs of Lady Chester, at Chichley, and Sir CÆsar Cranmer, at Ashwell. He was a great London brewer by trade, and married his cousin Mary (sister of Thomas Wood, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and Sir Henry Wood, Bart., of the Board of Green Cloth), dau. of Thomas Wood, Esq., of Hackney, by his wife —— Cranmer. They had only two children, and it would appear from Harleian MS. No. 1476. fo. 419., which omits all mention of Sir CÆsar, that he died in his father's lifetime, and that Lady Chester was sole heiress to this branch of the Cranmers.

There are two brief pedigrees I have seen of these Cranmers, one in Harl. MS. 1476. above mentioned, the other in Philipot's Catalogue of Knights; but neither of them goes so far as to connect them with the archbishop, or even with the Nottinghamshire family; for they both begin with Samuel Cranmer's grandfather, who is described of Alcester, co. Warwick. Now the connexion is certain: could one of your readers supply me with the wanting links? Is it possible that they omit all mention of the archbishop on account of the prejudice mentioned by your correspondent; being able to supply the three generations necessary to gentility without him?

I am obliged to write without any books of reference, or I would have consulted the epitaphs in question again.

R. E. W.

I am afraid that my quotations from memory, in my letter of Saturday, were not exactly correct; for on examining Lipscomb's Buckinghamshire to-day, I find that it is stated (vol. iv. pp. 4-7.) on the monument of Samuel Cranmer at Astwood Bury, that he was "descended in a direct line from Richard Cranmer, elder brother to Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury;" and that it was found, on an inquisition held on April 7, 1640, that his son and heir CÆsar Cranmer (called on the monument "Sir CÆsar Wood At^e Cranmer, Kt.") was his heir at six years of age. This CÆsar was knighted by Charles II., and died unmarried; so that his sister, Lady Chester, was evidently the representative of this branch of the Cranmer family.

Now, with regard to this statement on the monument, in the first place it is discrepant with Lady Chester's epitaph at Chichley, which (Lipscomb's Bucks, vol. iv. p. 97.) expressly declares that she derived her descent from the archbishop. In the next place it appears from Thoroton's Notts, that the archbishop had no elder brother named Richard. His elder brother's name was John; who by Joan, dau. of John Frechevill, Esq., had two sons, Thomas and Richard. Could this be the Richard alluded to? In the third place, in neither of the pedigrees alluded to is there given any connexion with the family of Cranmer of Aslacton. And, lastly, it is opposed to the uniform tradition of the family. Now, if any of your readers can clear up this difficulty, or will refer me to any other pedigree of the Cranmers, I shall feel extremely obliged to him.

With the exception of the points now noticed, my former letter was perfectly correct, and may be relied on in every respect.

I may mention that these Cranmers were from Warwickshire. The monument states that Samuel Cranmer was born at "Aulcester" in that county, "about the year 1575."

R. E. W.

DUTCH POPULAR SONG-BOOK.

(Vol. iii., p. 22.)

The second edition of the song-book mentioned by the Hermit of Holyport must have been published between 1781 and 1810, as the many popular works printed for S. and W. Koene may testify. In 1798 they lived on the Linde gracht, but shifted afterwards their dwelling-place to the Boomstraat. For the above information—about a trifle, interesting enough to call a hermit from his memento-mori cogitations—I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. J.J. Nieuwenhuyzen.

But, alas! what can I, the man with a borrowed name and borrowed learning, say in reply to the first Query of the busy anchorite? He will believe me, when I tell his reverence that I am not Janus Dousa. What's in the name, that I could choose it? Must I confess? A token of grateful remembrance; the only means of making myself known to a British friend of my youth, but for whom I would perhaps never have enjoyed Mr. Hermit's valuable contributions—the medium, in short, of being recognised incognito. Will this do? Or must I say, copying a generous correspondent of "Notes and Queries,"—Spare my blushes, I am

J. H. van Lennep.

BARONS OF HUGH LUPUS.

(Vol. iii., p. 87.)

Your correspondent P. asks for information respecting the families and descendants of William Malbank and Bigod de Loges, two of the Barons of Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester, whose signatures are affixed to the charter of foundation of St. Werburgh's Abbey at Chester.

Of the descendants of William Malbank I can learn nothing; but it appears from the MS. catalogue of the Norman nobility before the Conquest, that Roger and Robert de Loges possessed lordships in the district of Coutances in Normandy. One at least, Roger, must have accompanied the Conqueror to England (and his name appears in the roll of Battle Abbey as given by Fox), for we find that he held lands in Horley and Burstowe in Surrey. His widow, Gunuld de Loges, held the manor of Guiting in Gloucestershire of King William; and in the year 1090 she gave two hides of land to the monastery of Gloucester to pray for the soul of her husband. Roger had two sons, Roger and Bigod, or, as he is sometimes called, Robert. The former inherited the lands in Surrey. One of his descendants (probably his great-grandson) was high sheriff of Surrey and Sussex in the years 1267, 1268, and 1269. His son Roger de Loges owned lands and tenements in Horley, called La Bokland, which he sold to the Abbot of Chertsea. His successor, John de Logge of Burstowe, witnessed in the tenth year of Edward II. a deed relating to the transfer of land in Hadresham, Surrey. The name became gradually corrupted to Lodge.

To return to the subject of inquiry, Bigod de Loges—

"held five tenements in Sow of the Earl of Chester, by the service of conducting the said earl towards the king's court through the midst of the forest of Cannock, meeting him at Rotford bridge upon his coming, and at Hopwas bridge on his return. In which forest the earl might, if he pleased, kill a deer at his coming, and another at his going back: giving unto Loges each time he should so attend him a barbed arrow. Hugo de Loges granted to William Bagot all his lands in Sow, to hold of him the said Hugo and his heirs, by the payment of a pair of white gloves at the feast of St. Michael yearly."—Dugdale.

Bigod de Loges had two sons, Hugo and Odardus:

"Odardus de Loges was infeoffed by Ranulphus de Meschines, Earl of Chester, in the baronies of Stanyton, Wigton, Doudryt, Waverton, Blencoyd, and Kirkbride, in the county of Cumberland; and the said Odardus built Wigton church and endowed it. He lived until King John's time. Henry I. confirmed the grant of the barony to him, by which it is probable that he lived a hundred years. He had issue Adam. Adam had issue Odard, the lord, whose son and heir, Adam the Second, died without issue, and Odard the Fourth likewise," &c.—Denton's MS.

Of the branch settled in Staffordshire and Warwickshire—

"Hugo de Loges married, tempo Richard I., Margerie, daughter and heiress of Robert de Brok. By this marriage Hugo became possessed of the manor of Casterton in Warwickshire. He was forester of Cannock chace. He had issue Hugo de Loges, of Chesterton, whose son and heir, Sir Richard de Loges, died 21st of Edward I. Sir Richard had issue two sons, Richard and Hugo. The eldest, Richard of Chesterton, left issue an only daughter, Elizabeth, married to Nicholas de Warwick. The issue of this marriage was John de Warwick, whose daughter and heiress, Eleonora, married Sir John de Peto, and brought the manor of Chesterton into that family."—Dugdale.

M. J. T.

SHAKSPEARE'S "ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA."

(Vol. iii., p. 139.)

The scene in Antony and Cleopatra contains two expressions which are in Henry VIII.—

The first of these passages is in a scene in Henry VIII., which Mr. Hickson gives to Fletcher (and of which, by-the-bye, it may be observed, that, like the scene in Antony and Cleopatra, it has nothing to do with the business of the play). The other is in a scene which he gives to Shakspeare.

But, perhaps, there may be doubts whether rightly. I am exceedingly ignorant in Fletcher; but here is a form of expression which occurs twice in the scene, which, I believe, is more conformable to the practice of Fletcher:—

There is very great stiffness in the versification: one instance is quite extraordinary:

There is great stiffness and tameness in the matter in many places.

Lastly, what Mr. Hickson hopes he has taken off Shakspeare's shoulders, the compliments to the Queen and the King, is brought in here most forcedly:—

But there is also the general question, whether, either upon À priori probability, or inferences derived from particular passages, we are bound to suppose that the two authors wrote scene by scene. Shakspeare might surely be allowed to touch up scenes, of which the mass might be written by Fletcher.

As to the dates, Mr. Collier is persuaded that Henry VIII. was written in the winter of 1603-4. The accession of James was in March, 1603. Mr. Collier thinks that the compliments to Queen Elizabeth were not written in her lifetime. He thinks that, even in the last year of her long reign, no one would have ventured to call her an "aged princess," though merely as a way of saying that she would have a long reign; and he says, there is not the slightest evidence that the compliment to King James was an interpolation. But surely it is strong evidence that if there is no interpolation, this passage—

afterwards—

and then, after disposing of the King—

would be ridiculous. All that can be said is, that either way it is partly ridiculous to make it a matter of prophecy and lamentation that a human being must, sometime or other, die.

But it is very difficult to conceive that the compliments to Elizabeth should have been written after her death.

Fletcher, born in 1579, did not, in Mr. Dyce's opinion, bring out anything singly or jointly with Beaumont till 1606 or 1607.

The irrelevant scenes, like that of Ventidius, are introduced with two objects—one to gain time, the other for the sake of naturalness: of the latter of which there are two instances in Macbeth; one where the King talks of the swallows' nests: the other, relating to the English king touching for the evil, seems remarkably suited to the mind of Shakspeare.

C. B.

"SUN, STAND THOU STILL UPON GIBEON!"

(JOSH. x. 12.)

(Vol. iii., p. 137.)

The observations of I. K. upon this passage have obviously proceeded from a praiseworthy wish to remove what has appeared to some minds to be inconsistent with that perfect truth which they expect to be the result of divine inspiration. I.K. doubtless believes that God put it into the heart of Joshua to utter a command for the miraculous continuance of daylight. But why should he expect the inspiration to extend so far as to instruct Joshua respecting the manner in which that continuance was to be brought about? Joshua was not to be the worker of the miracle. It was to be wrought by Him who can as easily stop any part of the stupendous machinery of His universe, as we can stop the wheels of a watch. Joshua was left to speak, as he naturally would, in terms well fitted to make those around him understand, and tell others, that the sun and moon, whom the defeated people notoriously worshipped, were so far from being able to protect their worshippers, that they were made to promote their destruction at the bidding of Joshua, whom God had commissioned to be the scourge of idolaters. And when the inspired recorder of the miracle wrote that "the sun stood still," he told what the eyes saw, with the same truth as I might say that the sun rose before seven this morning. Inspiration was not bestowed to make men wise in astronomy, but wise unto salvation.

Those who think that the inspired penman should have said "the earth stood still," in order to give a perfectly true account of the miracle, have need to be told, or would do well to remember, that the stopping of the diurnal revolution of the earth, in order to keep the sun and moon's apparent places the same, would not involve a cessation of its motion in its orbit, still less a cessation of that great movement of the whole solar system, by which it is now more than conjectured that the sun, the moon, and the earth are all carried on together at the rate of above 3700 miles in an hour; so that to say "the earth stood still" would be liable to the same objection, viz., that of not being astronomically true. I.K. carries his notion of the "inseparable connexion" of the sun "with all planetary motion" too far, when he supposes that a stoppage of the sun's motion round its own axis would have any effect on our planet. The note he quotes from Kitto's Pictorial Bible is anything but satisfactory; and that from Mant is childishly common-place. Good old Scott adverts with propriety to the Creator's power to keep all things in their places, when the earth's revolution was stopped; but when he endeavoured to illustrate it by the little effect of a ship's casting anchor when under full sail, he should have consulted his friend Newton, who would have stopped such an imagination. Another commentator, Holden, has argued, in spite of the Hebrew, that "in the midst of heaven" cannot mean mid-day, having made up his mind that the moon can never be seen at that hour!

Such helpers do but make that difficult which, if received in its simplicity, need neither perplex a child nor a philosopher.

H. W.