2''i S. VI. 144., Oct. 2. '58.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



271 



refutation, or, at least, it certainly makes some 

 further examples desirable before the position can 

 be permanently established. 



Of the uniformity of the services at pre-reform- 

 ation perioJs, little can be said in furtherance of 

 this inquiry. They probably varied in every 

 locality, and it may be questioned whether the 

 different relijjious orders did not maintain a dis- 

 tinct set of forms, and as a reference not dissi- 

 milar to those now in use in tlie magnificent 

 Abbey of the Premonstratensians at Averbode. 



Here th's vindication might have ended, but, 

 under the influence of irresistible temptation, the 

 following must be added : — To be studiously cor- 

 rect is a necessary obligation, and, for the non- 

 observance, all in common must pay the customary 

 penalty. Even F. C. H., under whose castiga- 

 tion the careless copyist of the chant now suffers, 

 may find that his reading " Patre et Saneto" is 

 incorrect; the " et" does not exist, and for " sem- 

 piterna," it ought to be read as it actually stands 

 upon the lectern, " Sepit'na." H. D'Aveney. 



Your correspondent F. C. H. asserts that the 

 lines written upon the lectern at Ranworth 

 church were not sung at the time stated in the 

 article upon rood-lofts. This assertion is not 

 satisfactorily established. Your correspondent 

 rests satisfied with stating, that such is not the 

 present practice of the Roman Catholic churcli, 

 and does not bestow due consideration upon the 

 grounds on which the contrary opinion may rest. 

 lie forgets that to refute an error fully, it is ne- 

 cessary, not only to state the facts which militate 

 against it, but also to investigate and explain the 

 manner in which it arose. Without passing an 

 opinion upon the merits of either view, I desire to 

 express a hope that this question may yet be 

 examined upon sounder principles of criticism. 



Your correspondent's corrected reading of the 

 inscription is open to three objections : — 



1st. The correction is unnecessary. 



2nd. The correction itself requires to be cor- 

 rected. 



3rd. The last line is inaccurately transcribed. 



Firstly. The omission of the word "patre" was 

 obviously the result of an inadvertence. Every 

 reader must have supplied it spontaneously, the 

 word being requii'ed by the metre as well as by 

 the sense. 



Secondly. The insertion of the word "et" is 

 faulty. It does not occur in the inscription, is 

 not required by the sense, and destroys the rythm. 



Thirdly. Your correspondent's version of the 

 Inst line is not accurately transcribed from the 

 original : — 



" In sepit'na soecula," 

 and is inconsistent with the metre, the last line 

 corresponding with the first, and not with the 

 second and third lines. The word "iu" answers 



to "glori," which forms one syllaljle : the i being 

 consonantalised, as is sometimes the case in Ho- 

 race and Virgil. Lincoln iensis. 



BROTHER OF SIMON FRASER LORD LOVAT, 



(•2"0 S, V. 335.; vi. 176. 191.) 



The enclosed paragraphs from a Highland news- 

 paper will probably interest CiEDo Illud, ]\1b. 

 Eraser, and A. S. A., if they have not already 

 seen them : — 



"A Claimant of the Barony of Lovat. — The fol- 

 lowing paragraph has been going the round of the 

 southern papers. We are unable to vouch for its authen- 

 ticity, and merely give it as one of the on dits of the day : 



"It is said that a descendant of the ancient farailyof 

 Fraser of Lovat exists in the direct line, and is likely to 

 appear shorth' as a claimant of the barony of Lovat in 

 the peerage of Scotland. This claimant, whose name is 

 John Fraser, asserts that he can trace his pedigree from 

 Thomas, the twelfth lord, through his eldest son, Alex- 

 ander Fraser, who having killed a man in Scotland, took 

 refuge from justice in Wales, where he lived in obscuritj-, 

 and married, leaving Simon, the thirteenth lord, in pos- 

 session of the family honours. It appears that marriage 

 and baptismal registers are existing in confirmation of 

 the facts that Alexander Fraser married, and that he left 

 a son, whose descendants, if thej' can make out their case, 

 would be thus the direct heirs of this ancient baron}'." — 

 Inverness Advertiser, Aug. 24th, 1858. 



" The Barony of Lovat We recently inserted a 



paragraph on this subject from a southern paper, and — 

 without being able to vouch for the truth of the story — 

 we now copy the following from the Shrewsbury Jour- 

 nal of Wednesday last : — 



" ' It would appear that on the death of Hugh, the ele- 

 venth Lord Fraser of Lovat, in 1696, the next in succes- 

 sion to the title was Thomas Fraser, of Beaufort, but in 

 consequence of the disputes between the nobility, and the 

 unsettled state of matters in the Highlands, resulting in 

 some degree from the Revolution of 168S, Thomas Fraser 

 never legally established his right to the Isarony of Lovat, 

 though he ordinarily was styled by that title. He died 

 in 1698, two years after his cousin Hugh, the eleventh lord. 

 The person who claimed the honours upon his death was 

 his second son, the well-known Simon Lord Lovat. The 

 person who was really entitled to them was Alexander 

 Fraser, his eldest son. This young man had unfortu- 

 nately killed a man in a brawl, and had fled from Scotland 

 into VVales some time before 1692, and some years before 

 his father became entitled to the barony. One traditional 

 account represents that lie struck a piper dead who 

 played a tune insulting to his Jacobite prejudices, and on 

 that account fled from justice. He remained some time 

 in Wales, where he married rather late in life, and left 

 children, both male and female. His sons, instead of 

 rising, appear to ha\e sunk in social position, and to have 

 fallen into obscurity and comparative poverty ; but their 

 descendants would be undoubtedly the heirs to the title 

 of Lovat, and would occupy a position probably unaffected 

 by the subsequent calamities of their family. In the 

 non-appearance of Alexander Fraser, the barony and 

 estates were claimed by his next brother, Simon, and 

 after long litigation .and delay, were awarded to him in 

 the year 1730. His subsequent treachery, attainder, and 

 death, are notorious as matters of historj'. After his exe- 

 cution the ancient barony of Lovat remained unclaimed 

 until the present Lord Lovat in the peerage of tlie United 



