234 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2n<» S. VI. 142., Sept. 18. '58. 



doubtful whether the Sacraments can be administered in 

 such places of worship without the sanction of the local 

 diocesan. Ancientlj' all private chapels were consecrated 

 by a bishop, but since the Reformation the practice ap- 

 pears to have fallen into desuetude.] 



Peeresses^ Second Marriages. — Some of the 

 learned correspondents of " N. & Q." will be able 

 to give information on the following point : — 



By the law of England, as exhibited by Coke, 

 " when a titled lady marries one without a title, 

 she ceases to retain her rank, unless it is heredi- 

 tary." " Si mulier nobilis nupserit ignobili viro, 

 desinet esse nobilis : nisi nobilitas fuit nativa. 4 

 Co. 118. Birthright being character indelebilis." 



Is the law changed ? or by what right do 

 females in the present day, on a second marriage, 

 retain the name, and assume the title of a former 

 husband? X. X. 



[A woman, noble by marriage, afterwards raanying a 

 commoner, is generally called and addressed by the style 

 and title which she bore before her second marriage; but 

 this is only hy courtesy, as the daughters of dukes, mar- 

 quesses, and earls are usually addressed hy the title of 

 "lady," though in law they are commoners." When, how- 

 ever, a woman, noble by marriage, contracts a second 

 marriage with a peer, inferior in dignity to her first hus- 

 band, it would appear that the licence of the sovereign is 

 necessary to enable her to assume the title of her second 

 husband ; as in the instance of the present Viscountess 

 Palmerston, who was originally married to the late Earl 

 Cowper.] 



Huttons Collectiom out of the Registers of 

 Wells. — Of what do these collections consist, and 

 are they published ? They are largely quoted by 

 the Editor of "N. & Q." in his replies to Ina. 



R. C. W. 

 [The valuable collections of extracts from various 

 ancient Registers, amounting to thirty-eight volumes, 

 formed and written by Dr. Matthew Hutton are in the 

 Harleian Collection, Nos. 6950— C985. Several of them 

 have alphabetical indexes of the records. In 6964 is 

 written, "These Collections were made by me, Matth. 

 Hutton, Anno Di. 1686."] 



Kfjilictf. 



THOMAS CAREW, THE WELL-KNOWN POET. 

 (2"" S. vi. 112.) 



I can add but little to the valuable Notes of 

 Dr. Rimbault respecting this gentleman. His 

 identity is very uncertain ; and the confusion be- 

 tween him and Thomas Carey is easily accounted 

 for by the similarity in the pronunciation of the 

 names : Carew having been always pronounced 

 Carey, as it still is by Mr. Pole-Carew of Antony, 

 a collateral descendant of the poet. Although 

 there is no proof produced of the fact, there can, 

 I think, be no doubt that Thomas Carew was the 

 second son of Sir Mathew Carey of Littleton, in 

 Worcestershire. Of the three dates assigned for his 

 birlh, I am inclined to adopt the second. Among 

 the documents in the State Paper Office, brought 



to light by the recently published and valuable 

 Calendar, are several documents which seem to 

 identify Sir Mathew's son with the dissipated poet. 



Sir Mathew Carew, writing to Sir Dudley 

 Carleton on 25th February, 1613, complains that 

 one of his sons " is roving after hounds and 

 hawkes, the other studying in the Temple, but 

 doing little at law." In the following year we 

 find Thomas Carew secretary to Carleton. His 

 father, writing to the latter on the 20th April, 

 1616, expresses a hope that he will deserve well 

 in his service. In this, however, Sir Mathew was 

 disappointed. In September of the same year, we 

 find that Thomas Carew was dismissed, and a de- 

 sign is entertained of obtaining him similar em- 

 ployment with Lord Carew ; but Thomas Carew 

 himself states (2nd Sept. 1616), that Lord Carew 

 refuses to accept him, thinking the position too 

 ignoble for his birth ; but (11th Sept.) that he pro- 

 mises to favour and help him. This he seems to 

 have done by recommending him to the Earl of 

 Arundel ; and Carew (20th Sept.) says, Lord 

 Arundel promises to take him if he can shake off 

 two competitors. On the 24th October, Sir Ma- 

 thew complains that his son Thomas, discarded 

 from Carleton's service, is wandering about -idly 

 without employment. The Earl of Arundel, hear- 

 ing what Carleton had against him, would not 

 take him. Sir Mathew, after this time, seems to 

 have lost all hope concerning his son. On 7th Nov., 

 writing to Carleton, he says, he can scarcely be- 

 lieve his son would write aspersions of Sir Dudley 

 and Lady Carleton, as he always spoke well of 

 them ; that he provided for him while there was 

 hope of the earl taking him, or of his return- 

 ing to Carleton, but now he gives him over for 

 lost. On 28th Dec. he writes, that Lord Arundel 

 has no employment for his son, who is leading a 

 vagrant and debauched life. He is unhappy in 

 both his sons. On 4th Oct. 1617, writing to Carle- 

 ton, he expresses a hope that for the sake of their 

 relationship and ancient friendship, he will pardon 

 the misconduct of his son Thomas ; and, again, 

 writing on 24th March, 1618, to Lady Carleton, his 

 niece, he hopes the misconduct of his son will not 

 diminish their natural afiection ; he would have 

 turned him off had he not been repentant. 



If Thomas Carew had been born in 1577, he 

 would at this time have been thirty years of age ; 

 with which age the conduct here represented, and 

 the language of the father, would scarcely be con- 

 sistent or probable. The circumstances would 

 seem to indicate rather the follies of a young man. 



John Maclean. 



CKASHAW. 



(2'"' S. V. 449. 516.; vi. 54. 94.) 



I have now before me a copy of the Parisian 

 edition of Crashaw's Sacred Poems, which issued 



