sister of Thomas present Viscount Northland, and nephew to Colonel Ford, who signalized himself with Lord Clive at Plassey, father of Sarah, married to Matthew Cassan of Sheffield, Queen's County, esq.-Sir Robert's issue is, Isabella-Elizabeth, Selina, and Anne; of which IsabellaElizabeth married, June 26, 1794, Gerald Fitz-Gerald, esq. only son of Colonel Richard Fitz-Gerald of Mount Ophaley in Kildare, by his second wife, Miss Mercer, daughter and coheiress of Mercer, esq. and sister of Alice, married circiter 1730, Stephen Cassan, esq. of Sheffield, Queen's County, by whom she had Matthew, who succeeded to the estate: Stephen, a barrister at law, married Sarah, only daughter of Charles Mears, esq. (formerly of Coleraine, son of Rev. John Mears, by Miss Jane Stuart of the Royal House of Stuart) and deceased at Bengal 1794, leaving Stephen Hyde. Colonel FitzGerald, father of Gerald, son-in-law of Sir Robert Staples, bart. married firstly, the Honourable Margaret King, sole heiress of James last Lord Kingston, by whom he had an only daughter Caroline, who December 5, 1769, married her cousin, Robert late Earl of Kingston, by whom she had -George present and third Earl, and Robert, created Viscount Lorton.

Sir Percy Gethin of Sligo (creation 1665) is son of Sir Richard by the Hon. Mary St. Lawrance, only daughter of William 26th Lord Howth (by Lucy daughter of General Georges) and sister of the first Earl, father of William present Earl, married Lady Mary Birmingham, daughter of Thomas Earl of Louth.

Sir Lawrence Parsons (creation 1677) is descended from Sir Lawrence the first Baronet, father of Richard the second Baronet, father of Sir Lawrence the third, who by his first wife was father of William, who succeeded, and was father of Lawrence the present and fifth. Sir Lawrence the third, by his second wife Ann Harman, grand-daughter of Sir Thomas Harman, had Lawrence created in 1792 Baron of Oxmantown, with remainder to Sir Lawrence Parsons, bart. which Barony had been conferred by Charles II. on an elder branch of the family, but became extinct; his Lordship was farther advanced to the dignity of Viscount

Oxmantown 1795, and in 1800 to the Earldom of Rosse. Having no male issue by his wife Jane daughter of Edward King first Earl of Kingston, the Barony of Oxmantown devolves to Sir Lawrence Parsons. The Earl's daughter, Lady Jane, is married to Robert King Viscount Lorton, brother of George present Earl of Kingston and son of Robert second Earl, by Caroline, daughter of Richard Fitz-Gerald, esq.; which Caroline is the present Countess Dowager' of Kingston.

་

Sir Edward O'Brien (1686) descended from the illustrious Earls of Thomond, formerly Kings of Thomond, was born circiter 1726, and has issue several sons and daughters, whereof Anne married, 1758, Richard uncle to the present Viscount Cremorne, and brother of Thomas first Viscount; and of Frances, married Wyndham Quin, esq. of Adare, by whom she had the present Lord Adare. This Richard was son of Richard Dawson, esq. by Elizabeth daughter of John Vesey Archbishop of Tuam, descended from William de Vesey, by Isabel daughter of William Earl of Salisbury, son of Henry II. by Rosamond daughter of Walford Lo Clifford. Richard, son-in law of Sir Edward O'Brien, was assassinated in 1782, leaving, 1. Richard, on whom the Barony of Cremorne is entailed. 2. Edward a colonel in the army. 3. Thomas-Vesey, in holy orders. 4. Lucius, in the Royal Navy. 5. Mary, married Wyndham Quin, esq. brother of Richard first and present Lord Adare.

Sir William Vigors Burdett (1723). The family of Burdett has been of long standing in the Midland counties of England, and three branches of which have had the honour of Baronetage conferred on them; the representatives of which are, Sir Francis Burdett of Foremark, Derbyshire, creation, 1619. Sir Charles Wyndham Burdett of Accomb, Yorkshire, creation, 1665; and the one of whom we are now treating, styled of Dunmore, co. Carlow, Ireland, married, 1769, Lady Henrietta O'Loghlin, widow of Terrence O'Loghlin, esq. and daughter of William O'Brien, third Earl of Inchiquin, sister of Henrietta, married Robert Sandford, esq. of Castlereagh, ancestor of Lord Mount Sandford, and sister to Mary

wife of the nineteenth Earl of Kil

dare.

Sir Nicholas Conway Coulthurst of Ardrum, Cork (1744), is the son of Sir John, by Lady Charlotte FitzMaurice, daughter of Thomas twenty-first Lord Kerry and first Earl, by Anne, only daughter of Sir William Petty, by Elizabeth Baroness of Shelburne, and sister of Henry first Earl of Shelburne.

Sir Marcus Somerville of Somerville, co. Meath (1748), is the eldest of the two sons of Sir James Somerville, bart. by Catherine, daughter of Sir Marcus Crofton, bart. so created 1759, formerly Marcus Lowther, esq. but changed his name to Crofton on his marriage with Elizabeth, daughter and sole heiress of Sir Edward fifth Baronet of the Croftons. The late Lady Somerville, formerly Catherine Crofton, was born 1754, and was sister of Sir Edward, who married Anne, created Baroness Crofton of Mote in Roscommon, the present Baroness.

Sir William Evans Ryves Morres of Kilcreen, Kerry (1758), is descended from the same ancestry with Viscount Mount Morres and Lord Frankfort. Sir John Morres of Knockagh, Tipperary, was father of Hervey, Hervey was father of Francis; Francis was father of Hervey and William. Hervey was the first Viscount Mount Morres, and William (also named Evans) was created a Baronet 1758, and was father of Sir Haydocke by his first wife, and by his second was father of the present Baronet, who succeeded his half-brother, he having died without male issue.

Sir James May of Mayfield, co. Waterford (1763), is married, and has issue a son, whose daughter married Aug. 8, 1795, George Augustus Chichester present Marquis of Donegall, by whom she has George Earl of Belfast, born 1797, and Edward, born 1799.

Sir John Blunden of Castle Blun, den, Kilkenny (1766), is the son of Sir John Blunden, bart. by Miss Lucy Susannah Cuffe, daughter of John Cuffe, esq. by the daughter of James Hamilton, esq. of Downshire. Lady Blunden was sister to the first Earl of Dysart, and aunt to the present Earl, a minor, being born Feb. 1788.

GENT. MAG. February, 1809.

Sir John was married, but his lady died at Bath, 1807.

Sir John Parnell of Rathleague, near Maryborough, Queen's County, and of Avondale, Wicklow (1776), under a commission of insanity, succeeded his father, Sir John the first Baronet, in titic, but not in estate; which latter devolved to Henry Parnell, esq. M. P. married to Lady Ca roline Dawson, sister of John Earl of Portarlington, and daughter of the late Earl by Lady Caroline Stuart, fifth daughter of Johu third Earl of Bute, and sister to the Archbishop of Armagh, the Countess Dowager of Lonsdale, the Countess Macartney, and the late Duchess of Northumberland. The late Baronet was a privy-counsellor of Ireland; his only daughter is married to Evans, esq.

Sir John Freke of Castle Freke, Cork (1768), succeeded Sir Ralph the late Baronet, who married Elizabeth daughter of Sir John Meade, bart. grandfather of the first Earl of Clanwilliam, who by Theodosia, sole daughter and heir of Robert Hawkins M'Gill, esq. (descended from the Viscount Oxenford of Scotland) had the present Earl of Clanwilliam. This Elizabeth Lady Freke married secondly James fourth Lord Kingston, and had issue, Margaret, heiress to the Kingston estates, who married Ri chard Fitz-Gerald, esq. of Mount Offaly in Kildare (descended from the antient Earls of Kildare), and had Caroline, married to Robert second Earl of Kingston, and was mother of the present Earl. The present Sir John Freke married, Jan. 25, 1798, Lady Catherine Charlotte Gere, sis ter of the Marchioness of Abercorn, and daughter of Arthur Saunders Gore Earl of Arran.

Sir Michael Cromie of Staamine, co. Kildare (1776), married Lady Gertrude Lambert, daughter of the fifth Earl of Cavan, who dying 1772, was succeeded by Richard son of the Hon. Henry Lambert, son of the third Earl, who married, firstly, his first cousin Sophia, heiress of the Hon. Oliver Lambert, by Frances natural daughter of John fourth Earl of Mulgrave, and first Duke of Buck inghamshire, whose title became extinct 1736, in the last Duke; Joseph Sheffield, esq. having previously de

ceased,

Sir Thomas's sister married the abovementioned Rev. Mr. Howse's brother, son of the before-named Howse, esq. who married secondly, Mrs. Dixou widow of Dean Dixon, and mother by him of the late Dr. Dixon Bishop of Down, and of Margaret married to Captain Holmes cousin of the late Lord Holmes, of the Isle of Wight, whose titles became extinct at his death.

Yours, &c. BIOGRAPHICUS A.

Mr. URBAN,

YOU

Feb. 6. OUR Correspondent, Mr. James Hall, in your last number, p. 14, deserves great credit as a Metaphysician. As a Grammarian, he cannot, I fear, be totally acquitted of the charge of a want of candour and of accuracy.

He ought to be reminded that the Eton Grammar professes to give rules to young beginners, not to reasoners and men of learning. The elements of grammar must be adapted to the capacities of children, whose faculties will not comprehend systems of generalization. On this ground, the Eton Grammar, which is really an abridgment of Lily's, has been framed with a view to facilitate that most important of all exercises, parsing.

When I was at school, with the text of the Eton, I was frequently referred to Dr. Valpy's Grammar, where the rule respecting impersonals is thus explained, p. 80:" Every nominative must have a verb, and every verb a nominative, expressed or understood, &c. Hence no im personal is without a nominative. In the sentence, Non cuivis homini con- ́ tingit adire Corinthum, Hor. adire Corinthum is the nominative to contingit, &c.

This is mentioned to prove that Mr. Hall's general accusation is susceptible of qualification.

Of his inaccuracy an instance or two may be produced. It will be difficult for him to refer to the original of his quotation, juvat miki ire sub umbras, In good Latinity juvat is followed by an accusative. We find, in the fourth Æneid, sic, sic juvat ire sub umbras; i, e. nos. He is more correct in the phrase, licet mihi exire; but he would have been more accurate in saying that exire is the nominative to licet mihi, than exire mihi to licet.

These small inaccuracies, however, do not detract from the merit of Mr. Hall's 'observations on the rationale of Grammar. But I must repeat, that an elementary book cannot be expected to contain these metaphysical distinctions.

Mr. URBAN,

W. H.

Strand, Feb. 3,

MR. John Sidney Hawkins, in the

animadversions he has made in your last number, p. 5, on the seventh edition of Walton's Complete Angier, which I have lately published, has stated some circumstances so incorrectly, and drawn such unfair conclusions from them, that I feel myself under the necessity of troubling you with a few remarks on his letter.

I. The manner in which Mr. H. speaks of his name being inserted in the frontispiece, and the observations by which the mention of this circumstance is followed, are calculated to convey to the reader a wrong idea of the intention with which it was introduced; which was merely to acknowledge his politeness in lending the print, and by no means to msinuate that he took any part in the conduct of the publication. This will be evident to any candid reader, from the words I have used, which are as follow: "The autograph [see p. 68] is in the possession of J. S. Hawkins, esq. who obligingly allowed it to be copied." If I had entertained any design to avail myself of Mr. Hawkins's civility as a sanction to the publication, I should certainly have done it in a distinct and obvious manner; especially as, when i waited on Mr. H. to obtain Mr. Cotton's autograph, he lent me the print with Walton's autograph for the express purpose of its being copied on the frontispiece; and that without intimating any dissa tisfaction at my intention. of re-publishing the work. Indeed I did not imagine the use of his name in such a way would be of any advantage; as in the sixth edition, he informs his readers, that the subject is one with which he is "wholly unacquainted.”II. As to the remark of iny Editor respecting the note on Antony and Cleopatra, my having canceled the leaf on which it was contained, in compliance with Mr. Ilawkins's wish, might have precluded any observations on that head. What merit is due to Mr. H.'s distinction between

the