April 3. 1852.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



S^ 



■will only include family, that is, hereditary sur- 

 names. Merely personal sobriquets which died 

 with their first possessors (and which are found in 

 large numbers in ancient records) will be passed 

 hy,^ unless they should illustrate some appellative 

 which has descended to our times. 



In conclusion, this work is by no means intended 

 to supersede my English Surnames, which con- 

 tains much matter unsuited to dictionary arrange- 

 ment, and is intended to convey information on a 

 neglected subject in a popular form. The illus- 

 trations in the Dictionary will for the most part 

 be new, with references to the English Surnames 

 for others. 



The foregoing announcement was intended to 

 be sent to " N. & Q." some weeks since. I am 

 now induced to forward it without further delay, 

 because I see the subject of surnames introduced 

 in to-day's number by two different correspon- 

 dents. CowGiLL, the first of these, could, if so 

 disposed, render me efiicient help. As to the re- 

 marks of J. H. on the works of " Lower and 

 others" (what others?), they clearly show that he 

 has never read what he so summarily condemns, 

 or he would not now have to ask for the supposed 

 number of surnames in England, which is given 

 in my third edition, vol. i., preface, p. xiii. Though 

 I am, perhaps, more fully aware than any other 

 person of the defects and demerits of my English 

 Surnames, I think the literary public will hardly 

 deny me the credit of " some study and research," 

 praise which has been awarded me by better 

 critics than J. H. It is not ray practice to notice 

 the censures of anonymous writers, but I cannot 

 forbear adverting to two points in J. H.'s short 

 communication. In the first place his desire for a 

 Avork giving all the names used in England, and 

 *' showing when they were first adopted or brought 

 into this country," shows his entire want of ac- 

 quaintance with the existing state of the nomen- 

 clature of English families. A glance at a few 

 pages of so common a book as the London Direc- 

 tory, will convince any competent observer that 

 there are hundreds upon hundreds of surnames 

 that would baffle the most imaginative etymolo- 

 gist. _ Secondly, J. H. proposes that an author 

 treating on the subject of family names, should 

 begin "with the Britons." Does he really sup- 

 pose that the Celtic possessors of our island bore 

 family names according to the modern practice ? 

 If so, " Lower and (many) others " can assure 

 him that his antiquarian and historical knowledge 

 must be of a somewhat limited kind. 



Mark Antony Lower. 

 Lewes. 



EEV. JOHN PAGET. 



(Vol. iv., p. 133. ; VoL v., pp. 66. 280.) 



Since the Notes, kindly transmitted from Hol- 

 land in answer to my Query respecting the family 

 of the Rev. John Paget, appeared in " N, & Q.,'* 

 I have discovered that the Pagets to whom my 

 Query related, as well as the others alluded to by 

 your correspondents, were all of the family of 

 Paget of Rothley, Leicestershire, of whom a (par- 

 tially incomplete) pedigree is given in Nichols's 

 Leicestershire, vol. iv. p. 481. I was led to this 

 conclusion by finding that Robert Paget (the 

 writer of a prefixce before alluded to " from Dort, 

 1641") mentions in his will Roadley (Rothley) in 

 Leicestershire as his birthplace, and speaks of his 

 brother George as residing in his " patrimoniall 

 house" there: he is probably the Robert, son of 

 Michael Paget, and great-grandson of the Rev. 

 Harold Paget, vicar of Rothley in 1564, who is 

 mentioned in the pedigree as born at Rothley in 

 1611 : he died at Dordt in 1684. The pedigree 

 gives him an uncle named Thomas, born in 1589 

 (two indeed of that name, and both born the same 

 year !) ; this will do very well for the Rev. 

 Thomas Paget, incumbent of Blackley, and rector 

 of Stockport ; and another named John, who died, 

 aged seven, in 1582 : still I cannot help believing 

 that John Paget, the writer, was this Robert's 

 uncle, and feel mightily disposed to metamorphose 

 one of the two Thomases into John. The Rev. 

 Thomas Paget died in October, 1660, leaving his 

 property to his two sons, Nathan M. D., and 

 Thomas a clergyman. What relation was he to 

 that Mr. Paget to whom Dee, the astrologer (see 

 his Diary, p. 55. Camden Society, 1842), sold a 

 house in Manchester in 1595 ? His son. Dr. 

 Nathan, in a Thesis on the Plague, printed at 

 Leyden in 1639, describes himself on the title-page 

 as Mancestr-Anglus. According to Mr. Paget's 

 will, dated May 23, 1660, he was then minister at 

 Stockport, Cheshire ; and I am inclined to think 

 him identical with Thomas Paget, rector of St. 

 Chads, Shrewsbury, from 1646 to 1659, although 

 Owen and Blake way (History of Shrewsbury, 

 2 vols. 4to. 1825) consider the latter to be son of 

 John (James ?) Paget, Baron of the Exchequer, 

 temp. Car. I. : this descent is, I am confident, er- 

 roneous. Thomas Paget appears to have gone to 

 Amsterdam in 1639 on the death of the Rev. John 

 Paget, and to have returned to England in 1646, 

 in which year his son John (who must have been 

 much younger than his two other sons, and is, 

 moreover, not mentioned in his will dated 1660) 

 was baptized at Shrewsbury. Dr. Nathan Paget 

 was an intimate friend of Milton, and cousin to 

 the poet's fourth wife, Elizabeth Minshull, of 

 whose family descent (which appears to be rather 

 obscure) I may, at another time, communicate 

 some particulars. 



