Jan. 14. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



39 



trouble you. In order, if possible, to set the 

 matter at rest, I will put together in the form of 

 a pedigree, compressed so as to be fit for insertion 

 in your columns, the material facts which have 

 been the subject of so much discussion ; but, be- 

 fore doing so, permit me a word of protest against 

 some of the communications alluded to, which are 

 ■carcely fair to " N. & Q." 



A correspondent (Vol. vii., p. 596.) asks for in- 

 formation as to Milton's widow, and Mr. Hughes 

 (Vol. viii., p. 12.) refers him to a volume in which 

 will be found the information asked for, and gives 

 a brief outline of the facts there stated. On this 

 Garlichithe (Vol. viii., p. 134.), misquoting Mr. 

 Hughes, calls his attention to Mr. Hunter's letter, 

 which, if Garlichithe had availed himself of the 

 reference furnished to him, he would have found 

 duly noticed. A second correspondent, Mr. Sin- 

 ger, whose literary services render me unwilling 

 to find fault with him (Vol. viii., p. 471.), heading 

 his article with five references, of which not one 



is correct, suggests as new evidence the very do- 

 cuments to which Mr. Hughes had furnished a 

 reference ; and a third, T. P. L. (quoting an ano- 

 nymous pamphlet), jumps at once to the con- 

 clusion that " there can be little doubt " the 

 author derived his information from an authentic 

 source, "and, if so, it seems pretty clear" — that 

 all the evidence supplied by heralds' visitations, 

 wills, and title-deeds is to be discarded as idle 

 fiction. Such objections as these, and the replies 

 which they have rendered necessary, are, with 

 the exception of the valuable contribution of 

 Mr. Arthur Paget, the staple of the contribu- 

 tions which have filled so much of your valuable 

 space. 



I conclude with my promised pedigree, the 

 authorities for which are the Cheshire Visitation of 

 1663-4, and the Lancashire Visitation of 1664-5, 

 confirmed by the letter to Randle Holmes, and 

 the legal documents published by the Chetham 

 Society : 



John Mynshull, fourth and youngest son of John Mynshull of Mynshull, married the daughter 

 and co-heiress of Robert Cooper of Wistaston, and founded the family subsequently settled 

 there, as stated in his great-grandson's letter. 



Randle Mynshull of Wistaston married the daughter of Rawlinson of Crewe, as stated in his grandson's letter. 



Thomas Mynshull of Wistaston married Dorothy Goldsmith of Nantwich, as stated in his son's letter. 



Richard Mynshull of Wistaston married Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas Goldsmith of Bosworth, 

 in co. Leic. (who was probably maternal aunt or great-aunt to the John Goldsmith men- 

 tioned in Dr. Paget's will). He was the writer of the letters in 1656, and died in 1657, aged 

 eighty-six. He had two daughters and three sons, viz. — 

 I 



Randle Mynshull of Wistaston married 

 Ann Boot, and had seven children, of 

 whom it will be necessary to mention 

 three only, viz. — 



Thomas Mynshull, the apothecary of 

 Manchester, mentioned in Thomas 

 Paget's will, aged h'fty-one in 1664, 

 had five sons and four daughters. 



Richard Mynshull, alderman of Chester, 

 to whom his father wrote the letter of 

 May 3, 1656, aged forty-seven in 1663. 



Richard Mynshull, baptized April 7, 

 1641. On June 4, 1680, he executed 

 a bond, by the description of Richard 

 Mynshull of Wistaston, frame-work 

 knitter, to Elizabeth Milton of thecity 

 of London, widow, who, though not 

 stated to be his sister, was evidently 

 a near relative, as appears from the 

 contents of the bond. 



Warrington. 



John Mynshull appears to 

 have resided in Manchester, 

 where he was buried, May 18, 

 1720, and administration was 

 granted at Cheshire to Eliz- 

 abeth Milton of Nantwich, 

 widow, his lawful sister and 

 next of kin. 



Elizabeth, baptized December 30, 1638, married 

 Milton in 1664, is described as of London in the 

 bond from her brother, on the occasion of her 

 purchase of an estate at Brindley in Cheshire ; is 

 described as of Nantwich in three legal documents 

 from 1713 to 1725; by the same description, ad- 

 ministered to her brother John in 1720, and made 

 her will on August 22, 1727, which was proved on 

 October 10 in the same year. 



J. F. Marsh. 



table-turning. 



(Vol. viii., pp. 57. 398.) 



One of the most distinguished men of science 

 in France, M. Chevreul, the editor (late or 

 present) of the Annates de Chimie, &c, has com- 

 menced a series of articles in the Journal des 

 Savants on the subject of the divining-rod, the 

 exploring pendulum, table-turning, &c, his inten- 

 tion being to investigate scientifically the pheno- 

 mena presented in these instances. Having 

 formerly written much on the occult sciences, 

 and being a veteran in experimental science, 

 M. Chevreul was generally deemed better quali- 

 fled than most men living to throw liedit on the 



intervention of a principle whose influence he 

 thinks he has proved by his own proper experi- 

 ence. It will be better to quote his own lan- 

 guage : 



" Ce principe conceme le developpement en nous d'une 

 action musculaire qui n'est pas le produit d'une volonte, 

 mais le resultat d'une pensee qui se porte sur un pheno- 

 mene du monde exterieur sans preoccupation de faction 

 musculaire indispensable a la manifestation du phenomene. 

 Cet enonce sera developpe lorsque nous l'appliquerons 

 a 1'explication des faits observes par nous, et deviendra 

 parfaitement clair, nous l'esperons, lorsque le lecteur 

 verra qu'il est l'expression precise de ces memes faits." 



A farther quotation (if it should not prove too 

 long for " N. & Q.") from M. Chevreul's prelimi- 



