392 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 156. 



consider, that it is not denied but at the beginning and 

 at the carrying on of the late Civil Wars there were 

 sundry causes that engaged several parties into that 

 quarrel against the king, — particular animosities, scan- 

 dals, sense of future emoluments great or less, defence 

 of liberties and religion under different garbs and ap- 

 prehensions. Yet had there been ten thousand other 

 motives, I should not count it a solecism, but truth, to 

 say that Libert;/ civil and spiritual were the Good Old 

 Cause. And however some may say that it was none 

 of the Old Cause to assert any proper sovereignty in 

 the people, yet I must tell them that the vindications of 

 the Parliament against the papers of the king then in 

 being, shew us that such a sovereignty was presup- 

 posed ; and if it were not the Old Cause, it was the 

 foundation thereof, and avowed for such." 



He does not give any light as to the precise date 

 when the phi*ase was first used, but enters very 

 discursively into a consideration of the principles 

 of government. He attacks Baxter fiercely, men- 

 tions Harrington and his Oceana with high respect, 

 and vindicates with great warmth and fond attach- 

 ment the character of Sir Harry Vane — 



" One whom not to have heard of, is to be a stranger 

 in this land, and not to honor and admire, is to be an 

 enemy to all that is good and virtuous; one whose in- 

 tegrity, whose uprightness in the greatest employments 

 hath secured him from the effects of their hatred (veiled 

 with justice), in whom his sincere piety, zeal for the 

 public, and singular wisdom, may have raised envy and 

 dread." 



His defence of Sir Harry Vane contains some 

 interesting particulars respecting that great man 

 which do not appear to me to have been noticed 

 by his biographers, and is certainly the most valu- 

 able part of this Essay in Defence of the Good Old 

 Cause. James Crossley. 



THE HEREDITART STANDARD BEARER, SCOTLAND. 



(Vol. v., p. 609. ; Vol. vi,, pp. 158. 300.) 



With reference to my former reply to E. N.'s 

 Query, I find, upon a re-examination of my col- 

 lection of "Edinburgh Almanacs," that I had taken 

 all of my notes from what is therein called a list of 

 the " Officers of the King's Household," without 

 looking to another list, entitled " High Officers of 

 the Crown," from which I find that the Earl of 

 Lauderdale was in the year 1778 " Heritable Royal 

 Standard Bearer." 



Upon looking over Mr. Warren's speech on the 

 question of the " Right of bearing the Imperial 

 Crown of Scotland at Royal Processions," as given 

 in the " Appendix to the Introductory Notice " of 

 a collection of Ancient Heraldic and Antiquarian 

 Tracts, by Sir James Balfour, 12mo. Edin. 1837, 

 I find he states that "The office of standard 

 bearer in Scotland had been seized by creditors, 

 and sold under a judgment of the Scotch courts ; 

 and there was no reason why a female, if she chose, 



might not have become the purchaser." Now, 

 unless Mrs. Seton of Touch did so in 1768, I am 

 afraid, from all that I can find, there must be 

 some mistake as to the name of the office said to 

 have been sold. 



From some law papers in my possession, of date 

 24th April, 1788, I find that Mrs. Seton in 1744 

 married a Hugh Smith, who on that occasion 

 assumed the surname of Seton. She died in 1775, 

 and Mr. Seton, who had carried on the business of 

 a wine-merchant at Boulogne-sur-Mer in France^, 

 became bankrupt in July, 1785, and a sequestra- 

 tion of his estate, real and personal, was awarded 

 against him on the 17th February, 1786, the Cou»t 

 of Session appointing a Mr. Gray as fiictor, who- 

 shortly after raised a process of Banking and Sale- 

 against him. But I regret to say that I can find 

 no mention in the papers as to the sale of any 

 " hereditary office " which may been in the " family 

 of Touch." Indeed, from the various dates which 

 I have given, I humbly think that it could not 

 have been the office of the " Heritable Royal 

 Standard Bearer " which was sold for behoof or 

 creditors. T. G. P.. 



Edinburgh. 



THE BARLOW FAMILY. 



My Query (Inserted in " N. & Q.," Vol. vi., 

 p. 147.) respecting Barlow, the inventor of re- 

 peating clocks and watches, having elicited no reply, 

 I am induced to bring the subject again before- 

 your readers. 



In 1691 arms were granted to Thomas Barlow 

 of Sheffield. Having good reason to believe this 

 Thomas to be my ancestor, I applied some years 

 ago to the Heralds' College for particulars of the 

 grant, and desiring to have a copy of the recorded 

 ancestry of the said Thomas, and also of any sub- 

 sequent record. The answer I received was that 

 the grant was made in 1691, but that the grantee 

 omitted to place on record his descent, as also who 

 would be entitled to such arms as his successors. 

 I was therefore induced, for want of positive evi- 

 dence, as In the case of my presumed ancestor the 

 repeater inventor, to fall back on presumptive and 

 negative evidence. 



Edward Barlow, alluded to in my former com- 

 munication, was the son of Henry Barlow, of Lady- 

 house within Butterworth, in the parish of Roch- 

 dale, gentleman, who I suppose to have been a 

 son of Thomas of Sheffield. As presumptive evi- 

 dence, I am in possession of an old book-plate with 

 the arms of Barlow of Sheffield, and the name 

 of "Henry Barlow" underneath, a family relic, 

 which I believe to have belonged to Henry of 

 Ladyhouse. As negative evidence, I have searched 

 in vain for the parentage of Henry both in the 

 Oldham and Rochdale registers. I have also 

 searched the Sheffield register, and there found 



