204 §, No 13,, Mar. 29. °56.] 
RE-MARRIAGE OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN 
SEPARATED. 
As the following is in Brayley’s Surrey, it will 
be no novelty to some of your readers, though 
perhaps it will be so to the majority. My motive 
in transcribing it for you, is to ascertain whether 
there is any reason to suppose that at the period in 
question (1604), it was customary in other places 
to re-marry persons who had been long separated 
in the same formal manner as at Bermondsey, the 
clergyman of the parish being present, and the 
re-marriage being entered in the register. This 
is the entry in the register, at St. Mary’s Church, 
Bermondsey : 
“ The forme of a solemne vowe made betwixt a man and 
his wife, having been longe absent, through which 
occasion the woman beinge married to another man, 
tooke her again as followeth : — 
“ The Man’s Speach.—‘ Elizabeth, my beloved Wife, I 
am right sorie that I have so longe absented mysealfe 
from thee, whereby thou shouldest be occasioned to take 
another man to be thy husband. Therefore, I do now 
vowe and promise in the sighte of God, and this com- 
panie, to take thee againe as mine owne,®and will not 
only forgive thee, but also dwell with thee, and do all 
other duties unto thee, as I promised at our marriage.’ 
“ The Woman’s Speach.—‘Ralphe, my beloved Hus- 
band, I am right sorie that I have in thy absense taken 
another man to be my husband; but here, before God 
and this companie, I renounce and forsake him, and do 
promise to kepe mysealfe only unto thee during life, and 
to performe all duties which I first promised unto thee in 
our marriage.’” 
Then follows a short occasional prayer, and the 
entry concludes thus: 
“The first day of August, 1604, Raphe Goodchild, of 
the parish of Barkinge, in Thames St, and Elizabeth his 
wife, were agreed to live together; and thereupon gave 
their hands one to another, makinge either of them a 
solemne vow so to doe in the presence of us: William 
Stere, Parson; Edward Coker, and Richard Hires, Clark.” 
Can any entry, relating to a similar occasion, 
be found in any other parish register ? 
Henry Kensinerton. 
PAinar Queries. 
Cranmer’s Seals. —The Rey. G. C. Gornam 
has received two communications with impressions 
of Cranmer’s seals, one an original, the other a 
cast from an. original in the possession of his cor- 
respondent. ‘Though both of these had been an- 
ticipated by seals in Mr. Goruam’s own hands, 
yet he feels particularly obliged by these commu- 
nications, and to the Editor of “N. & Q.” (27S. 
i. 94.) for the facility granted him for making this 
enquiry ; from which he hopes the public will 
shortly profit through the engravings which Mr. 
G. proposes to publish. 
Mz, Goruam has now seven different seals of 
NOTES AND QUERIES. 
251 
the archbishop, only one of these being imperfect, 
viz. Cranmer’s Prerogative Court Seal. As this 
must doubtless exist, in many examples, among 
family or public muniments, attached to probates 
and administrations, Mr. Goruam will feel ex~ 
tremely indebted to any person who will furnish 
him with it (or will allow him to inspect it), by 
letter addressed to him at 
Brampford-Speke Vicarage, near Exeter. 
March 19, 1896. 
Generul Burgoyne.— Colonel, afterwards Ge- 
neral, Burgoyne, who represented Preston in part 
from 1768 to 1796, who filled some official posts, 
who played a rather undistinguished part in the 
American War, who is the subject of some of 
Junius’s fiercest invectives, and who wrote The 
Lord of the Manor, The Heiress, and other works 
for the stage, is stated in Burke’s Peerage and 
Baronetage to be the son of John, second son of 
Sir John Burgoyne, the third baronet of the 
family of Burgoyne, of Sutton. In Knight’s 
Penny Cyclop. (vol. vi. p. 28.) it is stated that he 
“is supposed to be a natural son of Lord Bingley, 
but concerning whose youthful history we are 
without information.” Can any of the readers of 
“N. & Q.” state anything to throw light on this 
point ? PRESTONIENSIS, 
Foolscap Paper. — What authority is there for 
the statement in the enclosed paragraph from a 
newspaper ? 
“ Foolscap. — Everybody knows what ‘foolscap’ paper 
is, but they would be puzzled to tell how it came to bear 
that singular cognomen. When Charles I. found his 
revenues short, he granted certain privileges, amounting 
to monopolies, and among these was the manufacture of 
paper, the exclusive right of which wa’ sold to certain 
| parties, who grew rich, and enriched the Government at 
the expense of those who were obliged to use paper. At 
this time all English paper bore in water marks the royal 
arms. The Parliament under Cromwell made jests of this 
law in every conceivable manner, and, among other in- 
dignities to the memory of Charles, it was ordered that 
the royal arms be removed from the paper, and the fool’s 
cap and bells be substituted. These were also removed 
when the Rump Parliament was prorogued, but paper of 
the size of the Parliament’s journals still bears the name 
of ‘ foolscap.’” 
The date given to this paper mark in Archeo- 
logia, vol. xii. p. 117. is 1661. 
W. C. TREVELYAN. 
Trencher-scraper. — The following, which oc- 
curs in a letter from the Countess of Northumber- 
land, given in Belsham’s Memoirs of the Rev. 
Theophilus Lindsay (p.376.), may serve not only 
to explain the full meaning of a term common, if 
Lam not mistaken, in our older dramatists ; but 
may be a text for ventilation by yourself or other 
antiquaries : 
“You have no notion how glad I was to hear of Sir 
Harry Heron; I was very desirous to know if any of that 
