Mar. 8. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



189 



mentioned, the other in Phillpot's Catalogue of 

 Knights ; but neither of them goes so far as to 

 connect them with the archbishop, or even with the 

 Nottinghamshire family ; for thej both begin with 

 Samuel Cranmer's grandfather, who is described 

 of Alcester, co. Warwick. Now the connexion is 

 certain : could one of your readers supply me with 

 the wanting links? Is it possible that they omit 

 all mention of the archbishop on account of the ! 

 prejudice mentioned by your correspondent; being : 

 able to supply the three generations necessary to 

 gentility without him ? 



I am obliged to write without any books of re- 

 ference, or I would have consulted the epitaphs in 

 question again. R. E. W. 



I am afraid that my quotations from memory, 

 in my letter of Saturday, were not exactly correct; 

 for on examining Lipscomb's Buckinghamshire 

 to-day, I find that it is stated (vol. iv. pp. 4-7.) on 

 the monument of Samuel Cninmer at Astwood 

 Bvrij, that he was " descended in a direct line 

 from Richai'd Cranmer, elder brother to Thomas, 

 archbishop of Canterbury ;" and that it was found, 

 on an inquisition held on April 7, 1640, that his 

 son and heir Caesar Cranmer (called on the monu- 

 ment " Sir Caesar Wood At° Cranmer, Kt.") was 

 his heir at six years of age. This Caesar was 

 knighted by Charles II., and died unmarried ; so 

 that his sister. Lady Chester, was evidently the re- 

 presentative of this branch of the Cranmer family. 



Now, with regard to this statement on the monu- 

 ment, in the first place it is discrepant with Lady 

 Chester's epitajjh at Chichley, which (Lipscomb's 

 Bucks, vol. iv. p. 97.) expressly declares that she 

 derived her descent from the archbishop. In the 

 next place it appears from Thoroton's Notts, that 

 the archbishop had no elder brother named 

 Richard. His elder brother's name was John; 

 who by Joan, dan. of John Frechevill, Esq., had two 

 sons, Thomas and Richard. Could this be the 

 Richard alluded to ? In the third place, in neither 

 of the pedigrees alluded to is there given any con- 

 nexion with the family of Cranmer of Aslacton. 

 And, lastly, it is opposed to the uniform tradition 

 of the family. Now, if any of your readers can 

 clear up this difficulty, or will refer me to any other 

 pedigree of the Cranmers, I shall feel extremely 

 obliged to him. 



AVith the exception of the points now noticed, 

 my former letter was perfectly correct, and may 

 be relied on in every respect. 



I may mention that these Cranmers were from 

 Warwickshire. The monument states that Sa- 

 muel Cranmer was born .at " Aulcester " in that 

 county, " about the year 1575." R. E. W. 



DUTCH POPULAR SONG-BOOK. 



(Vol. iii., p. 22.) 



The second edition of the song-book mentioned 

 by the Hermit of Holypobt must have been 

 published between 1781 and 1810, as the many 

 popular works printed for S. and W. Koene may 

 testify. In 1798 they lived on the Linde gracht, 

 but shifted afterwards their dwelling-place to the 

 Eoomstraat. For the above information — about 

 a trifle, interesting enough to call a hermit from his 

 memento-mori cogitations — I am indebted to the 

 kindness of Mr. J. J. Nieuwenhuyzen. 



But, alas! what can I, the man with a borrowed 

 •name and borrowed learning, say in reply to the 

 first Query of the busy anchorite? He will believe 

 mc, when I tell his reverence that I am 7iot Janus 

 DousA. What's in the name, that I could choose 

 it ? Must I confess ? A token of grateful re- 

 membrance ; the only means of making myself 

 known to a British friend of my youth, but for 

 whom I would perhaps never have enjoyed Mr. 

 Hermit's valuable contributions — the medium, in 

 short, of being recognised incognito. Will this do? 

 Or must I say, co])ying a generous correspondent 

 of "Notes and Queries," — Spare my blushes, 

 I fiiii J. H. VAN Lennep. 



Amsterdam, Feb. 25. 1851. 



BARONS OF HUGH LUPUS. 



(Vol. iii., p. 87.) 



Your correspondent P. asks for information re- 

 specting the families and descendants of William 

 Malbank and Bigod de Loges, two of the Barons 

 of Hugh Lupus, Earl of Cliester, whose signatures 

 are affixed to the charter of foundation of St. 

 AVerburgh's Abbey at Chester. 



Of the descendants of William Malbank I can 

 learn nothing ; but it appears from the MS. 

 catalogue of the Norman nobility before the Con- 

 quest, that Roger and Robert de Loges possessed 

 lordships in the district of Coutances in Normandy. 

 One at least, Roger, must have accompanied the 

 Conqueror to lingland (and his name appears in 

 the roll of Battle vVbbey as given by Fox), for we 

 find that he held lands in Horley and Burstowe 

 in Surrey. His widow, Gunuld de Loges, held 

 the manor of Guiting in Gloucestershire of King 

 William; and in the year 1090 she gave two 

 hides of land to the monastery of Gloucester to 

 pray for the soul of her husband. Roger had two 

 sons, Roger and Bigod, or, ns he is sometimes called, 

 Robert. The former inherited the lands in Surrey. 

 One of his descendants (probably his groat-grand- 

 son) was high sheriff of Surrey and Sussex in the 

 years 12G7, 12()8, and 1269. His son Roger de 

 Logos owned lands and tenements in Horley, 

 called La Bokland, which he sold to the Abbot of 



