2>>« S. N« 93., Oct. 10. '67.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



293 



sermon on Epiies. iv. 24. is stated in the title-page 

 to have been " Taken down in short-hand, and 

 transcribed wjtli great care and fidelity, by a Gen- 

 tleman present." This circumstance may account 

 for the appearance of Whitefield's portrait in the 

 frame of a stenographic monogram published 

 during his life. His venerable wig is distinctly 

 traceable, and a good magnifier will show even 



the cast in his eye. 



Thomas Boys. 



TWO CHILDEBN Or ONE FAMILT BEABING THE 

 SAME CHEISTIAN NAME. 



(2"'» S. iv. 207. 257.) 



When inquiry is made for instances of two 

 brothers or two sisters bearing the same christian 

 name, I presume the condition is implied that 

 both survived the period of infancy, and were 

 living at the same time. It may be difficult to 

 ascertain the reality of this circumstance, but I 

 believe the following instances will be found to 

 comply with such condition : 



1. John Leland, the antiquary, had a brother 

 of his own name. 



2. Thomas Cavendish, of the King's Exchequer, 

 who died 15 Hen. VIII., had two sons named 

 George. 



3. John White, Bishop of Winchester, 1556, 

 and Sir John White, Alderman of London, were 

 brothers. 



4. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, had 

 two sons named Henry. 



The question naturally arises, what could induce 

 our ancestors to adopt this practice ? — one that 

 seems to obviate the direct object of names, viz. 

 to distinguish one person from another ; and 

 which evidently did so, for we find traces of those 

 additional marks of distinction between the sy- 

 nonyme brothers, which though not given in 

 baptism became absolutely necessary. In legal 

 documents I believe this was usually effected by 

 the descriptions senior and junior. 



The question I have started may perhaps be 

 answered on two conjectural hypotheses. 1. The 

 repetition of the same name might sometimes arise 

 from the second child's birth occurring on the 

 festival of a favourite saint, from whose patronage 

 his parents could not persuade themselves to 

 withdraw their offspring. 2. It was usual, I be- 

 lieve, much more so than in modern days, for the 

 sponsors at baptism to give the name ; and a great 

 man was expected to give his own. Thus a 

 father with many sons might easily come to possess 

 two Edwards or two Henries. I believe this to 

 be the actual explanation of the two Henries in 

 the family of the Duke of Northumberland : one, 

 or both, were godsons of the king. 



But before I conclude I will give an instance of 

 three living sons hearing the same name. This oc- 



curred in the family of the Protector Somerset. 

 His eldest son, by his first wife, Katharine Fillol, 

 was named John; the second Edward, born in 

 1529, who was afterwards Sir Edward Seymour of 

 Berry Pomeroy, and the lineal ancestor of the 

 present ducal house of Somerset. I have found 

 him styled "Lord Edward" before his father's 

 disgrace, and afterwards Sir Edward, having been 

 knighted at Musselburgh in 1547. When the in- 

 heritance of the family was settled in preference 

 on the issue of the Protector's second wife, Anne 

 Stanhope, her eldest son, born in 1539, was also 

 named Edward. He had the courtesy title of 

 Earl of Hertford during the reign of his cousin 

 Edward VI., and was subsequently created Earl 

 of Hertford by Queen Elizabeth. The third Ed- 

 ward of this family was born in 1548, and the 

 reason of his being so named was because the 

 king was his godfather. According to Collins 

 {Peerage, 1779, i. 162.) he lived to manhood, and 

 " died unmarried, a knight, in 1574 ;" but I have 

 some doubt of the correctness of this statement, 

 as his elder brother Henry (born in 1541) was in 

 Queen Elizabeth's time styled " Lord Henry 

 Seymour," and he, had he been then living, would 

 by the same rule have been " Lord Edward." On 

 this point I should be glad to receive more ac- 

 curate information. 



It would probably be difficult to find another 

 family in which three brothers bore the same 

 name at one time. John Gough Nichols, 



VALUE OF MONEY, A.D. 1370 — 1415. 



(2°o S. iv. 129.) 



The usual method of determining the compara- 

 tive values of ancient and modern moneys is to 

 ascertain the quantity of pure metal the coins 

 contain at the respective periods. At the date 

 referred to, the silver penny weighed 18 grains 

 troy (Penny Cyc, Coins, vi. 330.) : therefore the 

 shilling weighed 216 grains and the mark 2880. 

 At present the silver penny weighs 7ff grains, 

 the shilling 87tAj., and the mark, taken as two- 

 thirds of the sovereign, would weigh 1290-j\ grains 

 {Brit. Alman., 1857, p. 96.). Without making any 

 adjustment for the seignorage and alloy*, which 

 must be done if minute accuracy is required, the 

 above shows that these coins contained, in a.d. 

 1370 — 1415, 2^ times as muchf silver as they 

 now contain. But there is another and most im- 

 portant adjustment to be made, which is usually 



* Now the seignorage is nearly 6 J per cent , the alloy 

 7J per cent., together -ISSSie. 



In Richard II. the seignorage was 2'6666 per cent., the 

 alloy 7J per cent., together •iOlQGfy. 



In Henry IV. and V. the seignorage was 3-3333 per 

 cent., the alloy 7i per cent., together 'lOSSSS. (Ruding's 

 Coins, i. 193, 1940 



t Exactly 232 J per cent. 



