236 



JOURNAL, R.A.S. (CEYLON). 



[Vol. XIX. 



informant Loten made his later voyage to the Cape* wholly 

 as a private individual, and also because an inheritance had 

 fallen to his then deceased wife.f 



With respect to the later dispute of Loten's with the East 

 India Company regarding the deductions made in the repay- 

 ment of the loan of 100,000 rixdollars, van der Aa, " after 

 a careful perusal of the request," judges unfavourably of 

 Loten's complaint and demand, and even says further that 

 " Loten's actions and monetary concerns cannot perhaps in 

 any respect stand the test of careful investigation." For our 

 part, however, in like manner, after a careful perusal 

 of the documents, we, as in truth Prof. Veth, do not 

 regard Loten's demand as in any sense unreasonable, and 

 consequently van der Aa's suspicion of his rectitude is not 

 justified. 



Returning now to Loten himself, I can, thanks to Mr. 

 Grothe's communications, correct, and at the same time to a 

 large extent supplement, Robide van der Aa's statements. 



He was born 16th May 1710 at Scadeshoeve, in the parish 

 of Maartensdyk, and had as parents Jean Karel Loten, secre- 

 tary of the Lekdijk Benedendams and steward of the convent 

 of Marie Magdalena at Wij k-bi j -Duurstede , and Arnoudina 

 Maria Aerssen van Juchem. 



The Lotens were of Flemish origin. In 1461 an ancestor 

 appears as burgomaster of Aardenburg. 



Mr. Grothe also informs me that Loten, while residing in 

 England, was married a second time, on 4th July 1765, at 

 Banstead in Surrey, namely, to Letitia Cotes, daughter of 

 Digby Cotes and Elizabeth Bannister, who survived her hus- 

 band and died 11th June 1810. J 



In the plate given in the work mentioned, of the tombstone 

 of Mrs. Loten, appears also a representation of her arms,§ 



* In 1775-6 (see supra). 



f Lofcen had then been ten years married to an English wife (see below). 

 % Regarding this second marriage see under Section III, 

 § Cf. C. As. Soc. Jl. xv. 235 and 229. Owing to the ignorance of the 

 lapidaries or of the artist, the van Beaumont arms are very faultily 

 represented in the plates 16 and 25 of Lapid. Zeyl. For instance, in 

 plate 16, the lion in the crest, which Mr. de Vos describes as issuant, 



