Sept. 24. Oct. 15. Nov. 11. 19 Feb. 1598. Sealed and delivered in presence of Edw. Hicks, senior and junior. [cclxiv. 87.] Pardon to Simon Mason, of Eayford [Eyeford, or Eyford], for being accessory to horse stealing. (Docquet.) [cclxiv.] Grant to Wm. Hill, B.D., of the next vacant prebend in Bristol.* (Docquet.) [cclxiv.] Lease in reversion by the Commrs. to Thos. Collins, yeoman, of the Male, and Richd. Ridgdale, of Tottenham, co. Middlesex, for fifty years, of tenement, orchards, waste ground, &c., in Campden; rent, 187. 118. 6d. ; no fine, because he takes upon him to repair the decayed houses. (Docquet.) [cclxv.] (To be continued.) 1932. THE PATRONAGE OF PAINSWICK VICARAGE.-(Reply to No. 1909.) I think I can give GLOUCESTRENSIS a little information on this subject which may interest him. I have been unable to learn when the choice of their vicar was first entrusted to the parishioners of Painswick, but it was some time before 1684; for by an indenture of March 1 in that year, one George Clarke, heir of the surviving trustee, conveyed the right of presentation to new trustees, upon trust that they "do and shall, as often as occasion shall require, present some fit person or persons, such as the inhabitants and parishioners of the said parish of Painswick, or the major part of the chiefest and discreetest of them, should nominate to the said vicarage." These trusts were, it seems, altered (or attempted to be altered) on a subsequent appointment of new trustees; for by a deed dated October 30, 1810, it was provided that "the inhabitants and parishioners who should have received the Sacrament in the church of Painswick within one year before the vacancy, or the chiefest and discreetest of them," should nominate. The terms of these trusts were, as might be expected, a fertile source of dispute and litigation. It seems that the Rev. John Moseley was presented to the living by the trustees, although another clergyman had been elected by the parishioners. A suit in equity was instituted to establish the election of the latter, but was ultimately abandoned. This is, I presume, the litigation referred to in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. lxiv. Mr. Moseley died October 14, 1794, and at a parish meeting on the Thursday following, the election of his successor was fixed for January 5, 1795. The candidates were the Rev. John Fearon and the Rev. Charles Palmer. The poll was kept open till January 11, and Mr. Fearon was nominated by a majority of 251; but the trustees refused to present him, and a bill was filed to compel them to do so. In their • William Hill, S.T.B., exhibited the Queen's mandate for the next vacancy 9th Dec. 1597, and was admitted 26th Feb. 1606-7.-Le Neve's Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, ed. Hardy, vol. i, p. 232. answer, relying on the precedent at Mr. Moseley's presentation, they claimed the right to nominate without the interference of the parishioners, on account of the vagueness of the terms of the trust. They also alleged that at Mr. Fearon's election non-ratepayers, paupers, servants, and infants had voted, and that the conduct of the election had been disorderly. The suit was heard,* February 2 and 4, before Chief Baron Macdonald, who, in giving judgment for the plaintiffs, described the words "chiefest and discreetest of them" as "a badge of antiquity," and said that the only construction he could put upon them was, that "the chiefest" meant those who paid parish rates, and "the discreetest" those who had attained twenty-one years of age. The last election was on June 23, 1823, when the successful candidate was the Rev. Robert Strong, and his opponent the Rev. William Knight, who was for many years rector of St. Michael's, Bristol. According to parochial tradition the "treating" which took place at this election, surpassed anything revealed by parliamentary election petitions of later days. It was doubtless mainly owing to the scandals on this occasion that steps were taken to obtain, by the aid of Parliament, some improvement in the mode of presentation. Accordingly an Act (1 Vict. cap. 15) was passed on June 11, 1838, intituled "An Act for the Sale of the Advowson of the Vicarage of Painswick, in the County of Gloucester." In the preamble it is stated that "the existing method of electing a vicar has been found to be productive of riot and disorder, and to be in many respects inconvenient, and the same is detrimental to the interests of the said parish, and injurious to the cause of religion." It was provided by the Act that the monies arising from the sale should be invested in Consols in the names of trustees, and that the dividends therefrom should be applied in the reduction of such parochial rates as the trustees should direct. Shortly after the passing of this Act the advowson was advertised for sale. In the advertisement inviting tenders the income of the benefice was estimated at about £600 per annum; viz., £420 from tithe rent charge, £125 from glebe, and about £60 from Easter offerings, etc. It was sold in 1838 or 1839 for £2,000 to (I believe) Mr. Biddle, of Stroud, Mr. Strong, the then vicar, being forty-four years old. After Mr. Strong's death, Mr. Biddle presented his son, the Rev. John Arthur Biddle; and subsequently it was sold for £2,500 to Mr. Barnard, who sold it to the trustees of the Hon. and Rev. Percy George Willoughby for £5,000. Mr. Willoughby, after spending £1,000 on the vicarage-house, sold the advowson for £6,000 to Henry C. McCrea, Esq., who, in 1876, presented his son, the Rev. Henry Herbert McCrea. At that time the annual value of the benefice was £500. I have reason to believe that its annual value now (1890). is not much more than half what it was in 1838. F. A. HYETT. Painswick House. Reported 14 Ves. 13. 1933. "CURIOSITIES OF THE CHURCH." An interesting volume by Mr. William Andrews, of Hull, has been published under the above title, London, 1890. "It would be impossible," the author tells us, "to prepare a book of this class without having recourse to the works of other authors, more especially some of the older writers. I have tried, however, to render every acknowledgment to those to whom I am indebted for information." The following portions, in which a few inaccuracies may be observed, refer to Gloucestershire :— 1. P. 87.-"Rudder, in his History of Gloucestershire [p. 307], and other writers notice a quaint scrambling custom at St. Briavel's, Gloucestershire. The best account of the ancient usage is given in the pages of the Gentleman's Magazine for 1816 [vol. lxxxvi., pt. ii., p. 364], which [slightly revised] reads as follows:-' On Whitsunday, at St. Briavel's, in Gloucestershire, several basketsfull of bread and cheese, cut into small squares of about an inch each, are brought into the church; and, immediately after divine service is ended, the churchwardens, or some other persons, take them into the galleries, whence their contents are thrown among the congregation, who have a grand scramble for them in the body of the church. This occasions as great a tumult and uproar as the amusements of a village wake; the inhabitants being always extremely anxious to attend worship on this day. This custom is holden for the purpose of preserving to the poor of St. Briavel's and Havelsfield [Hewelsfield] the right of cutting and carrying away wood from 3,000 acres of coppice land, in Hudknolls and the Meend, and for which every housekeeper is assessed 2d., to buy the bread and cheese which are given away.' This is the most remarkable of the scrambling customs which have come under our notice." This strange custom has been already noticed in your pages, vol. ii., p. 266; iv., 188. 2. P. 100. "It is recorded in Frosbroke's [Fosbroke's] British Monachism [], that it was the practice of a rector [Benjamin Wynnington, 1641-1673] of Bilbury [Bibury], Gloucestershire, to take a couple of hours in the delivery of his sermons. The squire of the parish [Mr. Sackville] had no taste for his wordy expositions; and after hearing the text given out, withdrew to enjoy his pipe, returning to be present at the benediction."* 3. P. 163.-" A famous fool, named Dicky Pearce, died in 1728, at the age of 63 years, and was buried at Beckley [Berkeley]," etc. The familiar epitaph ascribed to Dean Swift has appeared in vol. i., p. 85, and need not be repeated. • See Rudder's Gloucestershire, p. 287, where the anecdote is somewhat differently recorded. 4. P. 186. "In the olden time it appears to have been the practice of the churchwardens to make a present to the bishop of the diocese when he visited a church. The accounts of the parish of St. James's, Bristol, contain items for sugar loaves given to bishops. The following are examples of the entries: 1626. For a sugar loaf that was given my lord [Robert Wright] at Christmas ... ... ... 1629. Paid for a sugar loaf for the Lord Bishop (Robert Wright) ... ... ... ... ... ... 1634. Paid for two sugar loaves bestowed on the Lord Bishop [George Coke] ... 15s. Od. 15s. 10d 1 6 0 We have found in old municipal and other accounts charges for sugar presented to distinguished visitors and gentlemen for whom those in authority wished to show their appreciation." In vol. iii., p. 18, a correspondent, desirous of information upon the subject, has mentioned the presentation of a loaf of sugar to Henry Parry, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester, by the churchwardens. of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, London, in the year 1609. Sugar, it may be observed, was not the only article presented; for, as we find noted in vol. iv., p. 349, amongst the disbursements of the churchwardens of Tewkesbury in 1673 this entry appears: -"Spent on the Bishop [John Pricket] at the visitation, a quart of mulled sack, for his morning draught, 28, 4d.” P. 193.-"Down to a comparatively recent period it was the custom of the churchwardens on a Sunday, during divine service, to visit public-houses situated in their respective parishes, and ascertain that no persons were in them that ought to be at church. Neglecting to attend the church was a serious matter in the days of old. Some notes appear on this theme in the books of St. James's Church, Bristol. On July 6, 1598, Henry Anstey, a resident in the parish, had, in answer to a summons, to appear before the vestry for not attending that church. At the same vestry, in the year 1679, four persons were found guilty of walking on foot to Bath on Lord's-day,' and were each fined twenty shillings. We gather from the following disbursements in the same parish records that the churchwardens also looked sharply after the morals of the people: 1627.-Item, for a warrant for her that laid the child at 1934. To the woman that kept that child Spent at the Bell when we went about that child SIR JOHN TRACY, OF TODDINGTON. G. A. W. Who was the "Sir John Tracy, Knight, of Tuddington, co. Glouc.," who represented Gloucestershire in the parliament of 1597-98 He could not, as generally supposed, have been father of the first Viscount Tracy, unless the date usually assigned for the latter knight's death, 1591, is an error. His son of the same name (afterwards the first peer) is invariably said to have been knighted by James I. in 1609; but query, 23 July, 1603 A Sir John Tracy, doubtless the M.P., was knighted by the Earl of Essex before Rouen in 1591. May not he have been subsequently the peer? Who, then, was the "Sir John Tracy, of Gloucestershire," knighted in 1603? W. D. PINK. Leigh, Lancashire. 1935. THE REV. THOMAS CONOLLY COWAN.-I have recently become possessed of a tract entitled The Nature, Design, and General Rule, of a Society of Christians in communion with the Established Church, meeting at the house of the Rev. Thomas Conolly Cowan, Bristol: printed by Harry Bonner, No. 2, Small St., 1813, 12mo. Can you inform me where Mr. Cowan's house was situated, the mention of the printer's name and address being the only clue I have to the connection of the tract with Bristol? F. A. H. In Mathews's Bristol Directory for 1820, p. 11, "Mr. T. C. Cowan," of "Brandon-hill House," appears in the list of Ministers." Dissenting 1936.-JOHN FRY, OF BRISTOL, OB. 1822.-He died June 28, 1822, aged thirty years (see Gent. Mag., vol. xcii., pt. ii., p. 566), having been author of a Selection of Poetical Works by George Carew, Legend of Mary, Queen of Scots, etc. Who were his parents and how was he related to Thomas Fry, printer, of Bristol, and to Richard Fry, of Santa Cruz, Teneriffe? Yarty, King's Norton. E. A. FRY. 1937. SIR SAMUEL GOODERE, BART., CAPT. R.N.—In the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xxii., p. 126, Professor J. K. Laughton has written as follows: Samuel, on the death of his brother John, should have succeeded to the baronetcy. He appears, however, to have been indicted [for the murder] as Samuel Goodere, Esq., and Ralph Bigland, in his manuscript collections in the Heralds' College (information supplied by Mr. A. Scott Gatty, York Herald), speaks of his sons Edward Dineley-Goodere and John Dineley-Goodere as successive baronets, following their murdered uncle. But Burke thinks that the baronetcy descended in due course to Samuel and to his sons after him. Collins (Baronetage, 1741) speaks of the baronetcy as extinct; so also does Wotton (Baronetage, ed. 1771), specifying 'attainted.' Nash (Hist. of Worcestershire, i. 272) says that Sir Edward Dineley-Goodere succeeded his grandfather, which is certainly wrong, and was succeeded by his brother, Sir John DineleyGoodere (so also Gent. Mag. 1809, pt. ii., p. 1084). It is probable |