332 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2"* S. VI. 147., Oct. 23. '58. 



exorbitant charges made by the Heralds preclude 

 reference to the Visitation. I must propose the 

 Query in your paper. 



The register-books of Millbrook give, in addi- 

 tion to the lines mentioned, the baptism of a 

 " William, the sonne of Edmund Hewet and Mar- 

 garet his wyfe, 1615." 



The registers of Ampthill may perhaps elucidate 

 the problem of the existence of any descendants, 

 and the wills in the Diocesan Will-office and Doc- 

 tors' Conmions may enable me to identify them ; 

 but I do not as yet possess any extract from the 

 books pertaining to that parish. Perhaps tlie 

 publicity given to the matter through the columns 

 of " N. & Q." may produce communications from 

 persons who believe themselves to be descended 

 from the Hewets of Ampthill and Millbrook. 



The only suggestion of any descendants of that 

 family I have discovered is (and I give the au- 

 thority entirely on its own merits), the pedigree 

 of the Hewetts of Dunston-Bassett, and Strelton 

 (now represented by Sir George Hewett, Bart.), 

 given in Nichols's History and Antiquities of Leices- 

 ter ; thus — 



" Pedigree of Hewet of Dunston-Bassett and Stretton, 

 from the Visitation of 1681-2, signed by George Hewett, 

 Mar. 24, 1G81-2. N.B. In proof of Arms, Mr. Hewett 

 referred to tlie Bedford books, and alledged he had a sanc- 

 tion of the Arms, signed by Mr. Camden. 



" Wm. Hewett of Milbrooke and Ampthill, Beds, after- 

 wards of Dunston-Bassett, married Dickens, 



&c. &c." 



The only William not accounted for mentioned 

 in the pedigree of Hewet of Ampthill and Mill- 

 brook, is William, second son of William of Mill- 

 brook, and IMary Price or Ap Rheese ; but as the 

 will of Sir William Hewett, Knt., Lord Mayor of 

 London, proved 1566, bequeaths to his "nephew," 

 William, son of brother Thomas, his property, &c. 

 at Dunston-Bassett, it is obvious the William 

 afterwards of Dunston-Bassett (as above) must be, 

 if correct at all, a William not mentioned in Ampt- 

 hill pedigree, a son of Thomas of Shenleybury, 

 Herts, and Margaret, the heiress of the Buttons of 

 Ampthill. But Thomas, the brother of Sir Wil- 

 liam, was a wealthy merchant, and his will (1575) 

 does not mention any son Richard, nor property 

 at Ampthill; but it mentions instead a son Henry, 

 and his own wife Elizabeth (instead of Margaret), 

 and his manor or grange called Shire-oak, Notts. 



If the Thomas Hewett from Shenleybury, Herts, 

 who married the heiress of the Buttons of Ampt- 

 hill, was Thomas, the brother of Sir William 

 Hewett, the Lord Mayor, the Hewetts of Ampt- 

 hill and Millbrook were descended fi-om the ancient 

 family seated anterior to the Conquest at Manor 

 Hewits, Ashford, Kent (vide Hasted's Hist. Kent), 

 afterwards of Yorkshire, from which sprang the 

 families of Hewetts, Headley Hall, York, barts. ; 

 Pishiobury, extinct in main line with George, 

 Viscount Hewett; Shire-oaks; and Stretton. 



I fear I have already trespassed too much upon 

 your space, but if the subject is of sufficient in- 

 terest, I will on a future occasion unravel the 

 tangled thread of the descent of these families, 

 which have been confused together by all genealo- 

 gists from the similarity of Christian names, and 

 from want of sufficient research into wills and 

 such evidences. J. F. N. H. 



THE KOOD LOFT. 



(2"^ S. vi. 141. 193. 270.) 

 How either of your correspondents, H. D'A ve- 

 NBY or LiNCOLNiENSis, could prouounco unneces- 

 sary or irrelevant my supplying an omission which 

 went to the serious extent of leaving out the First 

 Person of the Blessed Trinity from the doxolo- 

 gical termination of one of the hymns of the 

 Church I cannot understand. The omission of 

 the copyist was accidental, no doubt, but the four 

 lines were given in " N. & Q." as copied from the 

 lectern, and it was surely of some importance to 

 restore the serious omission. As to the word ef, 

 I have a shrewd suspicion how the case stands 

 with it, but must wait for my next opportunity of 

 visiting Ranworth to make sure. 



My assertion that the verse in question was 

 never sung after the epistle or gospel is consi- 

 dered " not satisfactorily established," and it is 

 observed that a very little examination will pro- 

 bably justify the contrary assumption. Why really 

 I never expected to be called upon to prove that 

 the well-known hymn, Jesu Redemptor omnium, of 

 which the verse under discussion forms the well- 

 known termination, and which has been used for 

 ages in the divine office at matins and vespers, was 

 ever used at mass ! I might as well be asked to 

 prove that the chasuble and mass vestments were 

 never used at the office in choir. But if the verse 

 in question was painted at the back of the lectern 

 for actual use — which I still doubt — it must be 

 observed that during the Octave of Christmas, and 

 on some other festivals, all the hymns at the dif- 

 ferent canonical hours were ended with this same 

 verse. So that possibly it may have been con- 

 spicuously painted there for the convenience of 

 the choir, saving them the trouble of turning 

 each time to the actual hymn of which it forms 

 the proper conclusion. But no one who knows 

 anything of the distinctive usages of mass and 

 office, would venture such an assertion as that 

 any verse of a hymn of matins or vespers was 

 ever repeated after the epistle or gospel at mass. 



Nor can it avail to recur to the variations in 

 the uses of religious orders ; for the question is 

 here of a lectern in a parish church ; nor did the 

 religious of any order ever use an office hymn at 

 mass. After the epistle, was chanted a Gradual, 

 Tract, Prose or Sequence ; after the gospel was 

 simply answered, Laus tihi Christi, or more an- 



