2*1 S. N 13., MAR. 29. '56.]
NOTES AND QUERIES.
251
RE-MARRIAGE OP PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN
SEPARATED.
As the following is in Brayley's Surrey, it will be no novelty to some of your readers, though perhaps it will be so to the majority. My motive in transcribing it for you, is to ascertain whether there is any reason to suppose that at the period in question (1604), it was customary in other places to re- marry persons who had been long separated in the same formal manner as at Bermondsey, the clergyman of the parish being present, and the re-marriage being entered in the register. This is the entry in the register, at St. Mary's Church, Bermondsey :
" The forme of a solemne votoe made betwixt a man and his wife, having been longe absent, through which occasion the woman beinge married to another man, tooke her again as followeth :
" The Man's Speach. ' Elizabeth, my beloved Wife, I am right sorie that I have so longe absented mysealfe from thee, whereby thou shouldest be occasioned to take 'another man to be thy husband. Therefore, I do now vowe and promise in the sighte of God, and this com- panie, to take thee againe as mine owne, and will not only forgive thee, but also dwell with thee, and do all other duties unto thee, as I promised at our marriage.'
" The Woman's Speach. ' Ralphe, my beloved Hus- band, I am right sorie that I have in thy absense taken another man to be my husband; but here, before God and this companie, I renounce and forsake him, and do promise to kepe mysealfe only unto thee during life, and to performe all duties which I first promised unto thee in our marriage.' "
Then follows a short occasional prayer, and the entry concludes thus :
" The first day of August, 1604, Eaphe Goodchild, of the parish of Barkinge, in Thames S*, and Elizabeth his wife, were agreed to live together; and thereupon gave their hands one to another, makinge either of them a solemne vow so to doe in the presence of us : William Stere, Parson ; Edward Coker, and Richard Eires, Clark."
Can any entry, relating to a similar occasion, be found in any other parish register ?
HENRY KENSINGTON.
Minav
Cranmer's Seals. The REV. G. C. GORHAM has received two communications with impressions of Cranmer's seals, one an original, the other a cast from an original in the possession of his cor- respondent. Though both of these had been an- ticipated by seals in MR. GORHAM' s own hands, yet he feels particularly obliged by these commu- nications, and to the Editor of " N. & Q." (2 nd S. i. 94.) for the facility granted him for making this enquiry ; from which he hopes the public will shortly profit through the "Engravings which MR. G. proposes to publish.
MR. GORIIAM Las now seven different seals of
the archbishop, only one of these being imperfect,
viz. Cranmer's Prerogative Court Seal. As this
must doubtless exist, in many examples, among
family or public muniments, attached to probates
and administrations, MR. GORHAM will feel ex-
tremely indebted to any person who will furnish
him with it (or will allow him to inspect it), by
letter addressed to him at
Brampford-Speke Vicarage, near Exeter.
March 19, 1856.
General Burgoyne. Colonel, afterwards Ge- neral, Burgoyne, who represented Preston in part from 1768 to 1796, who filled some official posts, who played a rather undistinguished part in the American War, who is the subject of some of Junius's fiercest invectives, and who wrote The Lord of the Manor, The Heiress, and other works for the stage, is stated in Burke's Peerage and Baronetage to be the son of John, second son of Sir John Burgoyne, the third baronet of the family of Burgoyne, of Sutton. In Knight's Penny Cyclop, (vol. vi. p. 28.) it is stated that he " is supposed to be a natural son of Lord Bingley, but concerning whose youthful history we are without information." Can any of the readers of " N. & Q." state anything to throw light on this point ? PRESTONIENSIS.
Foolscap Paper. What authority is there for the statement in the enclosed paragraph from a newspaper ?
" Foolscap. Everybody knows what ' foolscap ' paper is, but they would be puzzled to tell how it came to bear that singular cognomen. When Charles I. found his revenues short, he granted certain privileges, amounting to monopolies, and among these was the manufacture of paper, the exclusive right of which was sold to certain parties, who grew rich, and enriched the Government at the expense of those who were obliged to use paper. At this time all English paper bore in water marks the royal arms. The Parliament under Cromwell made jests of this law in every conceivable manner, and, among other in- dignities to the memory of Charles, it was ordered that the royal arms be removed from the paper, and the fool's cap and bells be substituted. These were also removed when the Rump Parliament was prorogued, but paper of the size of the Parliament's journals still bears the name of ' foolscap.' "
The date given to this paper mark in Archao- logia, vol. xii. p. 117. is 1661.
W. C. TREVELYAN.
Trencher -scraper. The following, which oc- curs in a letter from the Countess of Northumber- land, given in Belsham's Memoirs of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsay (p. 376.), may serve not only to explain the full meaning of a term common, if I am not mistaken, in our older dramatists ; but may be a text for ventilation by yourself or other antiquaries :
" You have no notion how glad I was to hear of Sir Harry Heron ; I was very desirous to know if any of that
