No. 63.

DENTON FUST, eighth son of Sir Francis Fust, 5th Bart. Born 8 Oct., 1738. "Was married at St James's Church, in the city of Bristol, the 1st Feb., 1763, to Ann, the daughter of Mr Samuel Fox, of the city of Bristol, Attorney at Law, and Mary Laugher, his wife, who was sister of Walter Laugher, of the said city, Merchant." (Note in Hill register.) He died 4 Aug., and was buried 7 Aug., 1778, at Hill, leaving issue by his wife, who survived him, and whose will was proved 18 April, 1792, one child, Fanny (No. 68). "On canvas, 2ft. 6in. by 2ft. 2in." (Sale Catalogue.)

No. 64.

Another portrait of DENTON FUST, probably the one described in the inventory taken by order of the Court of Chancery as "A smallsized portrait of Denton Fust, when a boy." “2ft. 6in. by 2ft. lin." (Sale Catalogue)

There is a portrait at Hill Court answering this description, but no name on it.

No. 65.

FANNY FRANCELIA FUST, eldest daughter of Sir Francis Fust, 5th Bart. Born 16 March, 1729-30; and buried at Hill, 6 Feb., 1773. "On canvas, 2ft. 6in. by 2ft. 2in." (Sale Catalogue.)

No. 66.

Duplicate portrait of FANNY FRANCELIA FUST (No. 65).

No. 67.

FLORA FUST (Mrs. Langley), sixth daughter of Sir Francis Fust. Born 14 April, 1745; married at Hill, 26 Oct., 1767, George Langley, Esq., of the parish of Cound, co. Salop, (who had previously married Mallet, daughter of Wilmot, Lord Lisburne); and was buried at Hill, 18 Aug., 1806, leaving issue by him two daughters: Flora, afterwards Flora Langley-Fust, who died 1841; and Mary Ann, who died unmarried before 1827.

No. 68.

FANNY FUST, lady of the manor of Hill, 1803-1827; only child of Denton Fust, Esq. (No. 63), and Ann (Fox), his wife; born 11 Dec., 1764; succeeded to the estates of her uncle, Sir John Fust, 6th Bart., under his will, on the death of Dame Philippa Fust; and dying unmarried, was buried at Hill, 19 Feb., 1827. Full-length portrait, "5ft. 3in. by 3ft. 6in." (Sale Catalogue.)

This picture is in the possession of the Colt family.

No. 69.

Another portrait of FANNY FUST. "On canvas, 2ft. 6in. by 2ft. lin." (Sale Catalogue.)

Nos. 70 and 71.

These were sold in the general sale at Hill Court as lot 954, "Portrait of Judge Hyde," and lot 955, "Portrait of his Lady." The latter picture was again sold, among the other portraits, and in the catalogue is described as "Portrait of the Lady of Judge Hyde. On canvas, 4ft. by 3ft. 8in." In the inventory they are described as "A large portrait of a person in Judge's Robes, said to be Judge Hyde, Lord Clarendon ;" and "A large portrait of a

Lady, said to be wife of the aforesaid Judge Hyde."

Lord Chancellor Hyde was born 18 Feb., 1608-9; married 1st, in 1628, Anne, daughter of Sir George Ayliffe, who died within the year; and 2ndly, in 1632, Frances, daughter of Sir Thomas Aylesbury, Bart., Master of the Mint. He was made Lord Chancellor at Bruges in 1658, and Earl of Clarendon in 1661.

No. 72.

JAMES BUTLER, DUKE OF ORMONDE, son of Thomas, Viscount Thurles, who married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Poyntz, of Iron Acton, co. Gloucester. Born 1610; succeeded in 1632 his grandfather as 12th Earl of Ormonde; was created in 1642 Marquess of Ormonde, and in 1661 Duke of Ormonde, in the peerage of Ireland, and in 1682 in that of England.

This portrait is interesting from being connected with the family of Poyntz, of Iron Acton, who were lords of the manor of Hill from 1404 to 1604; it was included in the inventory, but I know of no reason for considering it in any sense a family portrait.

1579.-RANDOLPH AND ISHAM FAMILIES, OF VIRGINIA.-(See Nos. 301, 1222, 1335, 1426, 1502.) I am able to give Mr. Longden the information desired, and somewhat to amplify his notes, as follows:

2

Col. Francis Eppes (Lt-Col. Francis, Col. Francis, member of House of Burgesses from Shirley hundred, Va., 1625), of Henrico co., b. 1659; d. about Jan. 1718-19; justice of the peace, 1683; sheriff, 1685-6, 1698, 1700, 1710-12; burgess, 1691-2, 1703-4;, m. Anne, dau. of Henry Isham, and had issue,

i. Francis, justice of the peace of Henrico co., 1710; burgess, 1712-14; d. 1734; m. Sarah

ii. Capt. Isham, justice of the peace of Henrico co., and vestryman of Henrico parish; d. unm. 1717.

iii. William,4 m. in or before 1728

v. Elizabeth, m. Henry Randolph.

4

dau. of John Worsham.

vi. Sarah, b. 1702; d. Oct. 1750; m. Col. William Poythress. Issue of Francis1 and Sarah (-) Eppes:

i. Francis,5 d. unm. 1737.

ii. William," of “Longfield," Henrico and Chesterfield counties; justice of the peace of Chesterfield co., 1749; vestryman of Bristol parish, 1744.

5

iii. Richard, of Chesterfield co. ; justice of the peace, 1749; burgess, 1758; d. 1765; m. Martha, dau. of Robert Bolling. iv. Anne,5 m.

Harris.

v. Martha,5 m. 1st, Eppes; and 2ndly, John Wayles (his third wife).

Issue of Richard5 and Martha (Bolling) Eppes:

Francis, of "Eppington," Chesterfield co.; b. 1747; d. July 4, 1808; m. Elizabeth, dau. of John Wayles, of "The Forest" (by his first wife), and had issue,

i. John Wayles,7 b. 1773; d. 1823; member of the House of Delegates of Virginia; member of the U.S. House of Representatives of the U.S. Senate; m. 1st, Maria, dau. of Thomas Jefferson, President of the U.S.; and 2ndly, Martha, dau. of Willie Jones, member of the U.S. House of Representatives from North Carolina.

ii. Bolling,7 m. Jerman Baker.

7

iii. Percy, b. 1786; d. Feb. 29, 1860; m. Archibald Thweatt. iv. Mary, b. 1788; d. April 24, 1860; m. Richard N. Thweatt. v. Martha,7 m. Spooner.

7

Issue of John Wayles and Maria (Jefferson) Eppes:

Francis, of "Tallahasse," Florida.

He had by his second marriage a daughter, and perhaps other children.

Issue of William and

5

(Worsham) Eppes:

i Isham, who was probably Major Isham Eppes, of Prince George co., living 1779. He had a dau. Elizabeth, m. William Worsham, who d. about 1752.

ii. Anne, m. in or before 1739 Edward Osborne, of "Osborne's," Chesterfield co.

Richmond, Va., U.S.A.

ROBERT A. BROCK.

1580.-JOHN MOORE, D.D., ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.I have received a letter from Canon Scott Robertson, Secretary of the Kent Archæological Society, giving me some information regarding a famous Gloucestershire man, and asking whether I can tell him anything about his earlier years and the circumstances of his family. I cannot, I think, do better than ask you to insert a portion of his letter in your next issue, in the hope that some one may be able, and willing, to give the desired particulars. St. Mark's Vicarage, Gloucester.

(Extract from letter.)

S. E. BARTLEET.

"One of the natives of Gloucester who attained great eminence, was John Moore, who was born there in or about 1731. He was educated at a free-school-the Crypt school, I believe, one of his schoolfellows being Henry Dimock. Moore and Dimock went together to Pembroke College, Oxford, where they both took the degree of B.A. on Oct. 11th, 1748, Moore being then 17 years of

age only. He became tutor at Blenheim to George and Charles, sons of Charles, Duke of Marlborough. When the duke died in 1758, the duchess wanted young Moore, then aged 27, to marry her. He wisely evaded her overture, and thus secured the lasting gratitude of his pupil, her son, George, 4th Duke of Marlborough. In 1763 Moore, aged 32, took his D.D. degree, and became a canon of Christ Church about that time. In 1766 he was a prebendary of Durham, in 1771 dean of Bangor, and in 1783 archbishop of Canterbury, having been recommended to George III. by each of the two old bishops, Hurd and Lowth, to whom the king had offered the primacy, and from whom he asked advice when each in turn declined the see. I do not know in which parish Archbishop Moore was born. Are there any records of the Crypt school between 1738 and 1745? I should be glad to gather any facts that can be gleaned from the parish register, as to the names of his father and mother, and the career of the little lad, who actually went to Oxford when he was fourteen years of age, or thereabout. His father was connected with traffic in cattle. He is called by some a grazier, by others a butcher; but a man whose son at 14 goes to Oxford, must have been a man of more position than those words generally imply. If in your researches you come across any records of little John Moore between 1731, when I suppose he was born, and 1745, I shall be glad if you will favour me with notes of them. As one of the most distinguished of Gloucester's sons, his career ought to be well known in that city."

1581.-MEMBERS FOR CIRENCESTER IN THE LONG PARLIAMENT. The members originally returned in Oct., 1640, were Sir Theobald Gorges, Knt., and John George, Esq. The latter is described as "of Cirencester," but I know nothing of him, save that he had been returned in the three previous parliaments of 1626, 1627-8, and April, 1640. After the Restoration he was re-elected from 1661 to 1678, so that his entire parliamentary course was a lengthy one. Both Gorges and George were "disabled" in Jan., 1644, for following the king to Oxford, and sat in the king's anti-parliament there. On Nov. 4, 1646, writs were ordered to fill their places at Westminster. A twofold return was made in response. By one indenture Sir Thomas Fairfax, Knt., and Col. Nathaniel Rich: by a second indenture, John Gifford and Isaac Bromwich. The matter of the return appears to have been referred in the usual way to the election committee; but for above two years no report was made, Cirencester continuing to be unrepresented in the House until after the execution of King Charles. At last, on Feb. 8, 1649, "the election of the General and Col. Rich at Cyrencester, which never durst see the light before, after about three [two years lying dormant, and no account made of it, is on a sudden reported to the House, approved of, and the clerk of the crown (for whom they have not invented a new name yet)

VOL. IV.

I

ordered to mend the return of the writ at the bar. But the clerk certified, that between the committee of elections and himself, they could not finde the indentures of return; the House therefore ordered that they should sit, and do service, so they are burgesses not returned, but ordered to sit" (Walker's History of Independency, p. 119). This last statement as to Fairfax and Rich being "not returned" is inaccurate. They were returned, but the indentures were lost in committee. By the decision of the House, which was given Feb. 17, 1648-9, the indentures returning Gifford and Bromwich were taken off the file; and Fairfax (who had become Lord Fairfax by the death of his father in 1647) and Rich became the duly recognised members for Cirencester. It is, however, very doubtful if Fairfax ever took his seat. If he did so, he soon practically vacated it, Col. Rich being the sole member a little time after. This Col. Nathaniel Rich was a notorious 'Rumper," not only sitting till the forced dissolution by Cromwell in April, 1653, but being one of the members who returned to the House upon the restoration of the Rump in 1659. He was, if I mistake not, an illegitimate son of the first Earl of Holland, and acquired the estate of Slondon, in Essex. I shall be glad to learn further particulars respecting him; also the identity of Gifford and Bromwich, returned in 1646, but whose election was declared void in Feb., 1649. W. D. PINK.

Leigh, Lancashire.

1582.-MEMBERS FOR TEWKESBURY IN THE LONG PARLIAMENT. -The elections for Tewkesbury to the Long Parliament are somewhat confusing. Notwithstanding two separate and distinct elections were held within twelve months, above three years elapsed from the date of the calling of parliament together before the borough of Tewkesbury was duly represented, and its members allowed to sit in the House of Commons. The order of succession seems to have been as follows. The original election was held on Oct. 22, 1640. Two separate indentures were returned: one naming Sir Robert Cook, Knt., and Edward Stephens, Esq.; the other, John Craven, Esq., and Sir Edward Alford, Knt. What was the particular point at issue that led to this double return, is not stated. Doubtless, as in the election that followed, it had to do with the question of the right of suffrage-whether vested in the inhabitants at large, or in the more restricted circle of the baliffs and twentyfour burgesses. The first order of the House respecting this election was made within a week of the first sitting. On Nov. 9, 1640, "Mr. Maynard reported from the committee upon the double return of Sir Robert Cook and Mr. Stevens by one indenture, and Mr. Craven and Sir Edward Alford by another indenture; conceiving it unfit that all these four persons should sit till the election be determined; and also reports in the opinion of the committee that the bailiff of Tewkesbury should be sent for as a