588 William I. justly styled Conqueror. cient memoir exhibits the Bissets as Barons of Kidderminster, and remarks that the son was living 31 Ed. I. The former were not Barons of that denomination, but of Combe-Bisset in Wiltshire; and the latter was dead 28 Ed. I. according to the inquisition. There is a memorandum, "Q'odam memorial," relating to Wich-Malbanc, where the name is Wotton. In Fines, 17, 18 Ric. II. by Walter Romesey, in Madox's Bar. Angl. the father and son are called Wotton; Ella Bisset is also described as the third daughter. By the inquisition on the death of her nother, Harl. MSS. 2038, p. 149, 1967, p. 121, and Dug. Bar. I. 632, she was the second daughter. It is evident, however, that the surname was neither Wooton or Wotton, for no person of either denomination appears on record contemporary with John de Watton first mentioned, who could by any possibility have been the husband of Ella Bisset. The assimilation of these surnames was not unusual, for the village of Watton in Hertfordshire had four divisions, according to Domesday Book. In the fourth, the name is written differently from the rest, viz. Wodtone, which being famous for its timber, was called Wood Town. Salmon's Herts, p. 216. But the etymology of words, 15, "Levis et fallax et plerumque ridicula, for, sæpenumero ubi proprietas verborum attenditur, sensus veritatis amittitur." In a licence to enfeoff lands at Kidderminster, 27 Ed. I. the son is called Wotton, and in the Inquisition on his death, 28 Ed. I. it is the same; but the definition of the son makes nothing against the father, and the respect to the judgment of your impartial and intelligent readers, decidedly to establish my antecedent communications on the subject of this descent. It should be observed, however, that in allusion to the elder branch of the family of De Dunstanville, detailed in page 417, their arms are variously expressed, but the greater probability is that they were-Argent, a fret Gules, on a canton of the second a lion of England, and that the bordure ingrailed Sable was assumed for distinction sake by January, a collateral descendant of John de Dunstanville, a younger sou of Walter, the second Baron of Castlecombe. The same arms appear to have been quartered by Thomas the fourth Earl of Southampton (the representative of that younger branch), who died about the year 1667, without issue male. The family of Helligan of Devon, who carried, Or, three Torteaux, a chief Azure, derived their lineage from the heiress of William de Dunstanville, the descendant of another junior branch; and Basset, who married the heiress of Helligan, at one time quartered the same bearings. .... In conclusion, permit me to add that in Harl. MS. 5801, p. 59, are noticed the marriages of the two sisters of Sir John Whatton of Leicester-Town, afterwards of East Sheen in Surrey, who is mentioned in Part i. p. 305. The eldest sister, Catharine, married Thomas Hackett, Bishop of Down and Connor; the youngest, Sence, Sir Thomas Ogle, Governor of Chelsea Hospital. HENRY W. WHATTON. Mr. URBAN, Norfolk, Dec. 14. VILL permit a remark or two versity is immaterial, for every Anti-Won your correspondent J. D.'s quary knows the frequency of change of surname in olden time. There is an inquisition of 16 Ed. I. which mentions only two daughters of Basset, though the fact of there being three is indisputable; for Alice, one of the daughters, married Bisset, 5 Hen. III. (Ormerod, III. 218), a glaring blunder in a record of that description, to which much confidence is usually assigned. Upon the whole, the contiguity of residence, the identity of the family connection, the circumstance of Watton, Wooton, and Wotton, being here one and the same person, videlicet, the identical John de Watton first named, appear to me, Mr. Urban, with all due two seemingly decisive arguments to prove that William the Bastard has no right to the title of Conqueror, England not having been conquered by him (see Gent. Mag. Aug. 1825). The first is grounded on William having granted the demands of the Primate for "the preservation of their liberties." And the second, on the arms of part of Kent being a rampant white horse, with the motto "Invicta *," * Kent was conquered 53 years before the Christian æra by the Romans under Julius Cæsar, and put under the direction of the Governor of Britannia Prima. It was again conquered by the Saxons, and Hengist became its King. Baldred, the seventeenth PART II.] Heirs of the Princess Mary Tudor. which latter J. D. deems quite sufficient proof of part of Kent remaining unconquered. And upon these two he has founded the following syllogism: "For England to be subdued, the whole must be conquered: part of England was unsubdued; therefore England was not conquered." The gallant but unfortunate King of England, it will be remembered, fought the whole day of the memorable battle of Hastings at the head of his Kentish men; he was killed, and they were defeated with the whole of the English forces; and William had passed the Thames at Wallingford, when Stigand in the name of the Clergy made submissions to him; and when he arrived within sight of London, all the chief nobility came into his camp, and declared an intention of yielding to his authority. With these facts before us, and admitting J. D.'s conclusions, I will venture to challenge the most ingenious of your readers to point out any conquest of either nation or colony made during the last or any other war, excepting -where no quarter has been given, and no terms agreed to with the vanquished. In proof of the impossibility of their doing so, I beg leave to submit the following apparently decisive syllogisms, commencing with France in 1814. For France to be subdued, the whole must be conquered: part of France (Provence for instance) was unsubdued, therefore France was not conquered. For the French and Spanish fleet of Cape Trafalgar to have been conquered, every ship must have struck her colours: every ship did not strike her colours; therefore the combined, fleets were not conquered off Capé Trafalgar. For the French army to have been conquered at Waterloo, every man must have been killed or taken the whole of the men were not killed or taken; therefore the French army was not conquered at Waterloo. Again,-In every instance, except as before excepted, "the pre in descent from Hengist, and the last King of Kent, was conquered by Egbert the Great, when Kent with the other petty States were united into one Monarchy, and became subject to the Saxon and Danish Kings of England till the Norman invasion. Thus we see the County whose motto is "Invicta," was repeatedly subdued before the Norman conquest. 589 servation of their liberties" have invariably been granted to every nation or colony; and the surrender made without the victorious army visiting every province; therefore any not so visited can no more be said to have been conquered, than Kent was by William. But, Mr. Urban, notwithstanding all this, I contend that England was to all intents and purposes conquered by William and his Norman adventurers, of which his having totally defeated the English army, and taken possession of the kingdom, is a full and sufficient proof. That France was conquered in 1814, and again at Waterloo; and that whatever nation, fleet, or colony, has surrendered to a victorious army or navy, every province, town, ship, or village, belonging to such nation, fleet, or colony, has been conquered; consequently the title of Conqueror to the commander of the victorious forces is just and proper. SELIM. I to AM not aware that the following List of the heirs and representatives the Princess Mary Tudor (that is, who by the laws and customs of England have a right to quarter the arms as representatives) contains any omissions. I am sure it makes no false pretensions. 1. By her eldest daughter Frances, wife of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk. 1. Anne-Eliza, Duchess of Buckingham, dau. and sole heir of James Brydges, last Duke of Chandos, as heir of Win. Seymour, Duke of Somerset, great grandson of Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, by Catherine Grey. 2. The Duke of Northumberland, as heir of Francis Lord Seymour of Troubridge, brother of Duke William. 3. Lord Prudhoe. 4. Lord Beverley. II. By her youngest daughter Eleanor, wife of Henry Clifford, Earl of Cumberland, whose heir Margaret married Henry Stanley, Earl of Derby. This cannot be better illustrated than by the speech of Earl Warrenne, who, when questioned in a subsequent reign concerning his right to the lands which he possessed, drew his sword. "This," said he, "is my title; William the Bastard did not conquer England himself; the Barons, and my ancestors among the rest, were joint adventurers in the enterprize." 590 The Founder of the Norrisian Lectures. FIRST, By Ferdinando, E. of Derby, which divided into THREE, Lady Anne, Lady Frances, and Lady Elizabeth, married to Grey Lord Chandos, the Earl of Bridgwater, and the Earl of Huntingdon. 1st. From Lady Chandos. 1. Lady Willoughby of Eresby. 2. Marchioness Cholmondeley. 3. Marquis of Exeter. 4. Marchioness of Bute. 5. Earl of Guilford and Norths. 6. Earl Brownlow. 2d. From Eliz. Countess of Bridgwater. 7. Earl of Jersey. 8. Marquis of Stafford. 9. Earl of Bridgwater. 10. Mrs. Ariana Egerton. 12. Wm. Master. 13. Mons. Saladin de Crans. 3d. From Lady Huntingdon. 21. Marquis of Hastings. 22. Lady George Wm. Russell. SECOND, By W. Stanley, E. of Derby. 23. Duke of Athol. 24. Earl of Dunmore. The following is a List of the principal of the descendants who are NOT representatives, as far as at present occurs to me: for such a List cannot in its nature be perfect: 1. By Lady Frances Grey. 4. Marquis of Aylesbury. II. By Lady Margaret Clifford. 4. Earl of Shannon. 5. Earl of Carrick. 6. Duke of Gordon. 7. Earl of Aberdeen. 8. Issue of the Marquis of Anglesea by his first wife. 9. Issue of Lady Anne Lambton. 10. Issue of the first wife of the late Marquis of Stafford. 11. Issue of Eliz. sister of the late Samuel Egerton, who died 1780. 12. Issue of Charlotte Hammond and Jemima Brydges. 13. The issue of John Marquis of Athol by Lady Ameliana Sophia Stanley. S. EGERTON BRYDGES. THE Norrisian Lectures in the University of Cambridge are deemed of such importance in support of Christianity, and the Professor's Chair has been so ably filled ever since its foundation, that when I was lately at Cambridge I was very naturally led to make enquiry into the family and character of the Founder of such a useful and pious Professorship. I was not a little surprised, nay even disappointed, at not being able to learn any thing concerning the Founder, except that he was a gentleman of conmale representative of the ancient fasiderable fortune in Norfolk, the last mily of Norris, and that he died in ter, since married to the eldest son of 1777, leaving only one child, a daughLord Wodehouse. It would, doubtless, give much satisfaction, as well to the Members of the University, as to myself and all well-disposed Christians, if through the channel of your widely-circulating Magazine, something more could be known of the family, conduct, and disposition of a man to whose piety the University in general, and such students as are destined for the Church in particular, are so greatly indebted. Some of your numerous Correspondents may also be able to say whether there exists any portrait of Mr. Norris, and in whose keeping it may be, as the University of Cambridge would probably be desirous of placing a copy of it among the portraits of the Benefactors to the University; in which case, engravings of it would be highly acceptable to the well-thinking part of the community, and more especially to those Clergymen who attended the Lectures, and have profited by doing CLERICUS OXON. Mr. PART 11.] Works of the Rev. J. and Dr. Balguy discriminated, Mr. URBAN, Kellington, Aug. 22. 591 These, I believe, are all the publish productions of Dr. Thomas Balguy. They all of them shew the closest reasoning, and the most acute discrimination; and they are not unfrequently also distinguished by poetic flights, with the most pure prose compositions. such, however, as are not inconsistent ACCURACY in reasoning, accu-ed to correct their mutual mistakes and In my communication respecting Mr. John and Dr. Thomas Balguy, the father and son (vól. XCIV. ii. 597), I find there is a small immaterial mis take, notwithstanding the article is correct upon the whole. Dr. Thomas Balguy was most undoubtedly the author of "Divine Benevolence asserted; and vindicated from the objections of ancient and modern Sceptics," not the Rev. John Balguy, his father, Vicar of North-Allerton, and Prebendary of Sarum. I fancied I saw in his early Latin production, which you have done me the honour to present to your readers, the nascent sperms of that genius which was so happily afterwards expanded in his future works on the Divine Benevolence. The published works of Dr. T. Balguy, though few in number, are by no means wanting either in accuracy of reasoning, or the importance of the subjects upon which that accuracy of reasoning is employed. He sent into the world nine Discourses, mostly preached upon important occasions, and all admirably calculated to answer the ends for which they were intended. As Archdeacon of Winchester, he delivered seven Charges to the Clergy of his Diocese. First, "On the Conduct and Character of a Minister of the Gospel," delivered at his Primary Visitation in the year 1760. Second, "On the Nature and End of the Christian Revelation," in the year 1763. Third, "On Religious Liberty," 1766. Fourth, "On the distinct Provinces of Reason and Faith," 1769. Fifth, "On Subscription to Articles of Religion," 1772. Sixth, "On the true value of Faith and Morals," 1778. Seventh, "On the Sacraments," 1781.-In the same volume is added, "Concio habita in Templo Beatæ Mariæ, in anno 1758." Matt. vii. 16. «Απο των καρπών αὐτων ἐπιγνώσεσθε αύτες. The Rev. John Balguy, as I observed much distinguished, in his time, as an in my former communication, was able Controversionalist. He took a very active part in the Bangorian Conof Bp. Hoadly. The disputed point, troversy, and warmly espoused the part in that Controversy, as all your read ers must necessarily know, turned chiefly upon Religious Sincerity. The religious and moral principles of which party, in this memorable disagreement, trines and rules of conduct prescribed were most consonant to the pure docin the Gospel dispensation, I pretend not to say. I confess I feel rather astonished to find Dr. Sherlock amongst the number of the opposers of Hoadly and Balguy. The published works of the Rev. J. lection of Practical Discourses," to Thus far I am certain I am correct, having all the publications laying be fore me. As 592 Dr. Balguy.-Rev. W. Wright.-West Indian Slavery. As I hope these particulars will sufficiently satisfy any doubts raised by your Correspondent "I. E." at page 28; I must now hasten to acknowledge my own incorrectness. A Bishopric was certainly offered to Dr. T. Balguy, and which he as certainly refused. The circumstances of that refusal were, however, not as I stated them. I find, upon more minute enquiry, that he communicated his refusal to the Rev. Mr. Wright, the late worthy Rector of Birkin, his intimate friend. He wrote immediately to him, and most probably informed him that the offered Ecclesiastical dignity was declined, perhaps, upon the same terms that "I. E." believed it was. It was also the Bishopric of Gloucester which he declined, not that of St. Asaph, as I before erroneously stated. Mr. Wright, Rector of Birkin, was not only a distinguished literary character himself, but he was also the in timate and confidential friend of most of the well-known scholars who adorned the middle and close of the last century,-of Hurd, of Gray, of Mason, of Whitehead, of Warburton. The Series of Letters, which your Correspondent "I.E." mentioned, as having seen with Dr. Drake, as from Warburton to Balguy, I have every reason to believe were communicated to him through the medium of the Rev. G. Alderson, the present worthy Rector of Birkin, who was well-acquainted with all the above-named celebrated characters, having frequently met them at the house of his late benefactor. About the beginning of the last century there was scarce a novel to be found in the Kingdom. Romances, indeed, at that time abounded. The pictures which these drew were not exact resemblances, but still they were flattering. By exhibiting patterns of perfection, they stimulated the young mind to aim at it. It has often been remarked, that books are more read in youth, than in more advanced periods of life. What is read in youth is, generally, most impressed upon the mind. The books, which then ought to be put into the hands of young persons are such as are entertaining, or they will not be attended to; they should be such as are not too deep and profound, or they will not be understood. The works of Cervantes, of Richardson, of Field [xcv. ing, and of Smollett, are such as may generally be entrusted to the reading of juvenile minds. Though these may be safe, I would by no means recommend an indiscriminate perusal of works of this description. Mr. J. Balguy lost two of the most precious years of his life in reading works of fancy. His friend Mr. Wright followed the same course, perhaps, to a greater extent. The minds of these two eminent personages suffered not from such vague and desultory reading in their younger days, yet it is by no means a system which ought to be recommended to persons, though perhaps of equally brilliant parts, yet not endowed by nature with the same solid powers and stability of reason. Yours, &c. OMICRON. ON WEST INDIAN SLAVERY. MANtion of the Slave Trade and Slave-holding, after waiting in vain for the "gradual" measures suggested by the late Mr. Dundas, about 30 years since, when the House of Cominons entertained the subject under the most able discussions by the most enlightened Orators and Statesmen in the Legislature of this Kingdom, are now relaxing from their expectation, and are very near yielding up their cause to the relentless arms of delay on one side, and vigilant opposition, with the bias of profit, on the other! The disgusting details of personal cruelty and oppression which have not been denied or controverted, but on the contrary rather justified, in the face of all principles of fair dealing and the just claims of mankind on one another, have been heard, and have been the means as yet of little more than raising the indignation of the Abolitionists, without a Legislative interference sufficient to reach and ameliorate the wretched condition of the natives of Africa, their middle passage, or their worse and hopeless oppression in the Colonies of Great Britain! Notwithstanding the Laws which vested great power in our gallant Navy for the suppression of Slave Dealing and Carriage, and notwithstanding the regulations for the Landing and Slave Market, and the plausibility of some of the Colonial Laws which seem to be wholly insufficient for |