Notes and Queries, Number 51, October 19, 1850 | Page 6

assizes of that time?
_Ibid._ Chap. 2. Rule 3. § 32.--
"The filthy gingran."
Apparently a drug or herb. Can it be identified, or its etymology
pointed out?
_Ibid._ §. 50.--
"That a virgin should conceive is so possible to God's power, that it is
possible in nature, say the Arabians."
Can authority for this be cited from the ancient Arabic writers?
A.T.
_First Earl of Roscommon._--Can you or any of your correspondents
put me on any plan by which I may obtain some information on the
following subject? James Dillon, first Earl of Roscommon, married
Helen, daughter of Sir Christopher Barnwell, by whom he had seven
sons and six daughters; their names were Robert, Lucas, Thomas,
Christopher, George, John, Patrick. Robert succeeded his father in 1641,
and of his descendants and those of Lucas and Patrick I have some
accounts; but what I want to know is, who are the descendants of
Thomas (particularly), or of any of the other three sons?
Lodge, in his _Peerage_, very kindly kills all the sons, Patrick included;
but it appears that he did not depart this life until he had left issue, from
whom the late Earl had his origin. If Lodge is thus wrong in one case,

he may be in others, and I have reason to believe that Thomas left a son
settled in a place in Ireland called Portlick.
FRANCIS.
_St. Cuthbert._--The body of St. Cuthbert, as is well known, had many
wanderings before it found a magnificent resting-place at Durham.
Now, in an anonymous _History of the Cathedral Church of Durham_,
without date, we have a very particular account of the defacement of
the shrine of St. {326} Cuthbert, in the reign of Henry VIII. The body
was found "lying whole, uncorrupt, with his face bare, and his beard as
of a fortnight's growth, with all the vestments about him as he
accustomed to say mass withal." The vestments are described as being
"fresh, safe, and not consumed." The visitors "commanded him to be
carried into the Revestry, till the king's pleasure concerning him was
further known; and upon the receipt thereof the prior and monks buried
him in the ground under the place where his shrine was exalted." Now,
there is a tradition of the Benedictines (of whose monastery the
cathedral was part) that on the accession of Elizabeth the monks, who
were apprehensive of further violence, removed the body in the
night-time from the place where it had been buried to some other part
of the building. This spot is known only to three persons, brothers of
the order; and it is said that there are three persons who have this
knowledge now, as communicated from previous generations.
But a discovery was made in 1827 of the remains of a body in the
centre of the spot where the shrine stood, with various relics of a very
early period and it was asserted to be the body of St. Cuthbert. This,
however, has not been universally assented to, and Mr. Akerman, in his
_Archæological Index_, has--
"The object commonly called St. Cuthbert's Cross" (though the
designation has been questioned), "found with human remains and
other relics of the Anglo-Saxon period, in the Cathedral of Durham in
1827."--p. 144.
There does seem considerable discrepancy in the statements of the
remains found in 1827 and the body deposited 1541.

I will conclude with asking, Is there any evidence to confirm the
tradition of the Benedictines?
J.R.N.
_Vavasour of Haslewood.--Bells in Churches._--It is currently reported
in Yorkshire that three curious privileges belong to the chief of the
ancient Roman Catholic family of Vavasour of Haslewood:
1. That he may ride on horseback into York Minster.
2. That he may specially call his house a castle.
3. That he may toll a bell in his chapel, notwithstanding any law
prohibiting the use of bells in places of worship not in union with the
Church of England.
Is there any foundation for this report; and what is the real story? Is
there still a law against the use of bells as a summons to divine services
except in churches?
A.G.
_Alteration of Title-pages._--Among the advertisements in the last
Quarterly and _Edinburgh Reviews_, is one which replies to certain
criticisms on a work. One of these criticisms was a stricture upon its
title. The author states that the reviewer had a _presentation copy_, and
ought to have inquired into the title under which the book was sold to
the public before he animaverted upon the connexion between the title
and the work. It seems then that, in this instance, the author furnished
the Reviews with a title-page differing from that of the body of his
impression, and thinks he has a right to demand that the reviewers
should suppose such a circumstance probable enough