MILTON'S WIDOW.
(Vol. vii., p. 596.; Vol. viii., pp. 12. 134.)
A contribution of mine to the miscellaneous vol. of the Chetham Society's publications having been introduced to your readers by the handsome notice of Mr. Hughes, I feel bound to notice the objection raised by your correspondent Garlichithe (Vol. viii., p. 134.), who has confounded Randle the grandfather and Randle the son of the writer of these letters quoted by Mr. Hunter. Richard Minshull, who was the writer of these letters in 1656, and died in the following year, had several sons, of whom the eldest, Randle, correctly described by Mr. Hughes as the great-great-grandson of the Minshull who first settled at Wistaston, had seven children, of whom Elizabeth, the widow of Milton, was one. She was baptized at Wistaston on the 30th Dec. 1638. In 1680 (about six years after her husband's death), by means of a family arrangement with Richard Minshull of Wistaston, frame-work knitter, who, there can be little doubt, was her brother, evidenced by a bond in my possession, she acquired a leasehold interest in a farm at Brindley, near Nantwich. On the 20th July, 1720, by her name and description of Elizabeth Milton, of Nantwich, widow, she administered to the effects of her brother, John Minshull, in the Consistory Court of Chester; and her will, the probate of which is also in my possession, is dated 22nd August, and proved 10th October, 1727. Mr. Hughes having given a reference to the volume where this information will be found in detail, a reference to it might have saved Garlichithe the trouble of starting an objection, and shown him that, so far from the facts stated being irreconcilable with Mr. Hunter's tract, that gentleman's reference to Randle Holme's Correspondence was suggested by a communication of my own to The Athenæum, and in its turn furnished me with the clue from which I eventually ascertained the particulars of Mrs. Milton's birth and parentage. I am sorry to say that I have wholly failed in finding the register of her marriage: it is not in the register-book of her native place. It might be worth while to search the register of the parishes in which Milton's residence in Jewin Street, and Dr. Paget's in Coleman Street, are situate. There is no uncertainty as to the date, which Aubrey tells us was in "the yeare before the sicknesse."
Though Cranmore (Vol. v., p. 327.) is said to be a deserter from the ranks of "N. & Q.," I hope he is known to some of your readers, and that they will convey to him a hint that he is under something like a promise to furnish information, which, as regards Dr. Paget's connexion with the poet's widow, will still be welcome.
J. F. Marsh.
Despite his acknowledged infidelity, I must tender my thanks to Garlichithe for his obliging reference to Mr. Hunter's tract; albeit there is, I may be permitted to suggest, no position assumed in any note upon Milton's widow which that tract in any way contravenes or sets aside. The fact is, Garlichithe, in the outset, entirely misapprehends the nature of my argument; and so leads himself, by a sort of literary "Will-o-the-wisp," unconsciously astray.
It was not Randle the grandfather of Richard Minshull, writer of the two letters transcribed by Mr. Hunter, but Randle the eldest son of this Richard Minshull to whom I referred as the father of Elizabeth Milton. Nor is it possible that this Elizabeth could have "died in infancy," seeing that I possess a copy of a bond (the original is also extant) from her brother Richard, then of Wistaston, where he was baptized April 7, 1641, secured to her as Elizabeth Milton, dated June 4, 1680.
As to the marriage itself, it may have taken place in London, where the poet resided; or, which is more probable, at or near the residence of their mutual friend, Dr. Paget. Milton was certainly not over-careful about ritual observances, and it is not therefore unlikely that the rigid Puritan preferred a private, or what is termed a civil marriage, to one religiously and properly conducted in the church of his forefathers.
T. Hughes.