Page:Notes and Queries - Series 11 - Volume 11.djvu/116

This page needs to be proofread.


NOTES AND QUERIES. [11 s. xi FEE 6, 1915.

" TUNDISH " = FUNNEL. A " tundish " is

  • , wooden or metal article used, in the days

when every farmer brewed his own beer or ale, to fill the casks when the brew was ready for tunning. The " tundish " I so well remember was fashioned like a funnel, but it was made entirely of wood, the upper portion or dish with sides sloping to the funnel, which was inserted into the bung- hole of the cask. Metal tuudishes are still used for bottling and other household pur- posesĀ ; but the name " tundish " for the funnel seems to be quite lost. I do not find " tundish " in any lexicon that I have. Sixty years ago every household had its "tundish." THOS. RATCLIFFE.

Southfield, Worksop.

MORTALITY AMONG BARONETS. (See ante, p. 59.) i n your review of ' Burke 's Peer- age ' you quots the editor as noting that in three cases the succession to baronetcies passed twics during the year 1914. This reminds me of an extraordinary mortality that befell the Northumbrian family of Loraine in last century. William Loraine, the sixth baronet, died, unmarried, 29 May,

1849, aged 48. His brother Charles suc- ceeded as seventh baronet, and died 19 Aug.,

1850, aged 43. Another brother, Henry Claude, followed as eighth baronet, and died 4 Jan., 1851, aged 38. Then the title reverted to the brothers of the fifth baronet, uncles of the three men who had so rapidly departed. Of these William, the eldest, ninth baronet, enjoyed his honours only eight weeks, and died, unmarried, 1 March,

1851, aged 70. His brother John Lambton, tenth baronet, held the title a little longer, dying on 11 July, 1852, aged 67. Thus in the brief space of three years and a quarter four heirs of the ancient house of Loraine had worn the family honours and departed.

BICHARD WELFORD. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

PARKER FAMILY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. The following is a transcript of a genealogical note concerning the Parker family, written on the end fly-leaf of a copy of Heylin's ' Help ' (ed. 1671), which I met with some time since, and entered into my note-book. It may interest some of the readers of ' N. & Q.,' and is, perhaps, not unworthy of a place among the Notes. The writer's name did not appearĀ :

" I find by a letter written by my uncle, Mr. Daniel Parker, who was S.T.B. of Brazenose Coll. in Oxford, that his great [qu. great-great] grand- father, Humphrey Parker, was elder brother unto William Parker, the last abbot of Gloucester, who

had his conge d'elire for the 1st bishop of Gloucester from Henry 8, but he coming down died on the way, and so was not installed 1st bishop there. But Jo. Wakeman, last abbot of Tewkesbury, was elected 1st bishop of G. 1541.

" John Parker of Barnwood, who was great- grandson [qu. grandson] unto the above Humphrey Parker, marry ed unto Margery Stephens, daughter unto Edward Stephens of Estington, who was father unto Richard Stephens, James Stephens, and Thos. Stephens (Attorney gen. unto Prince Henry) and the above-said Margery, who by her husband had two sons, Richard and the above- named Daniel, and four daughters. Deborah marryed William Ballow, one of the Canons of Christ Church in Oxon. 2. Joan marryed Jasper Clutterbuck of Stanley. Catherine m. William Batherne Tidnam in, the forest of Deane. Mar- garet m. James Carwardine in Herefordshire. Alice m. Christopher Stokes of Stanshaw.

" Humphrey Parker abovesaid m. with Lucye of Highnam neere Glo.

" John Parker, father unto the last John, who m. Margery Stephens, marryed the daughter of Marmyon of Upton, who was niece unto Sir Nicholas Arnold of Highnam neere Gloucester."

The two suggested corrections in brackets I must have inserted. This note was copied by me and, with the above prefatory statement, addressed to the Editor of ' N. & Q.' in 1859, but never posted, and has turned up again after this long lapse of time. A. S. ELLIS.


DICKENSIANA. The dramatization of ' David Copperfield ' presented at His Majesty's has been justly criticized, but the errors in the archaeology of the play have evidently escaped notice.

For example, Act I. sc. ii. is identified as the " Dining-room of the ' Golden Cross,' ' although the author (chap, xix.), in accord- ance with period and place, correctly names it the " Coffee-room." The boxes in it would have settle seats, not chairs, and assuredly not the school or village- inn forms used in the present representation.

The waiter serving a bottle of port would carry it almost parallel, probably in a wine- basket, certainly not like a carafe. This and the use of furniture obviously not of the period are, perhaps, only small faults, but they could be avoided so easily.


HUGUENOT MARRIAGE CUSTOMS. At 9 S. xii. 46, 115, 214, 337, 435, there was a dis- cussion on the ceremony of the breaking of a glass at Jewish weddings, and at the last reference I noted a statement that this custom obtains among " the members of the Greek Church " as well as among the Jews. It may, perhaps, be worth while recording in ' N. & Q.' that on 11 July, 1890, a similar