MILTON'S WIDOW.

(Vol. viii., p. 594. &c.)

Garlichithe's apologies to Mr. Hughes are due, not so much for neglecting his communications as for misquoting them. We all owe an apology to your readers for keeping up so pertinaciously a subject of which I fear they will begin to be tired.

Mr. Hughes has not stated that Richard Minshull of Chester, son of Richard Minshull, the writer of the letter of May 3, 1656, was born in 1641. What Mr. Hughes did state (Vol. viii., p. 200.) was, that Mrs. Milton's brother, Richard Minshull of Wistaston, was baptized on April 7 in that year; and the statement is quite correct, as I can vouch, from having examined the baptismal register. Richard Minshull of Chester was aged forty or forty-one at the date of his father's letter, as shown below; but even if he had been aged only fifteen, as supposed by Garlichithe, I do not see that there is anything in the language of the letter to call for observation. He had conveyed to his father a communication from Randle Holmes, and the father writes in answer,—"Deare and loveing sonne, my love and best respects to you and to my daughter [Garlichithe may read daughter-in-law if he likes, but I see no necessity for it], tendered w^th trust of y^r health. I have reaceived Mr. Alderman Holmes his letter, together with y^rs, wherin I understand that you desire to know what I can say concerning our coming out of Minshull House;" and he proceeds to give the information asked for.

Garlichithe, in his former communication, confounds Randle the great-grandfather with Randle the great-grandson, and in his present one he confounds Richard Minshull of Chester, the uncle, with Richard Minshull of Wistaston, the nephew. I agree with Garlichithe that "he, Richard, the writer of the said letter, must be fairly presumed to have been married at the date of such letter," which he addresses to his "Deare and loveing sonne;" but what of that? Whom he married, your readers are informed at p. 595. He died in the year following his letter, at the ripe age of eighty-six.

The misquotations noticed above would, if not pointed out, lead to inextricable confusion of facts; and I am compelled therefore again to

trouble you. In order, if possible, to set the matter at rest, I will put together in the form of a pedigree, compressed so as to be fit for insertion in your columns, the material facts which have been the subject of so much discussion; but, before doing so, permit me a word of protest against some of the communications alluded to, which are scarcely fair to "N. & Q."

A correspondent (Vol. vii., p. 596.) asks for information as to Milton's widow, and Mr. Hughes (Vol. viii., p. 12.) refers him to a volume in which will be found the information asked for, and gives a brief outline of the facts there stated. On this Garlichithe (Vol. viii., p. 134.), misquoting Mr. Hughes, calls his attention to Mr. Hunter's letter, which, if Garlichithe had availed himself of the reference furnished to him, he would have found duly noticed. A second correspondent, Mr. Singer, whose literary services render me unwilling to find fault with him (Vol. viii., p. 471.), heading his article with five references, of which not one is correct, suggests as new evidence the very documents to which Mr. Hughes had furnished a reference; and a third, T. P. L. (quoting an anonymous pamphlet), jumps at once to the conclusion that "there can be little doubt" the author derived his information from an authentic source, "and, if so, it seems pretty clear"—that all the evidence supplied by heralds' visitations, wills, and title-deeds is to be discarded as idle fiction. Such objections as these, and the replies which they have rendered necessary, are, with the exception of the valuable contribution of Mr. Arthur Paget, the staple of the contributions which have filled so much of your valuable space.

I conclude with my promised pedigree, the authorities for which are the Cheshire Visitation of 1663-4, and the Lancashire Visitation of 1664-5, confirmed by the letter to Randle Holmes, and the legal documents published by the Chetham Society:

John Mynshull, fourth and youngest son of John Mynshull of Mynshull,married the daughter and co-heiress of Robert Cooper of Wistaston, andfounded the family subsequently settled there, as stated in hisgreat-grandson's letter.

Randle Mynshull of Wistaston married the daughter of Rawlinson of Crewe,as stated in his grandson's letter.

Thomas Mynshull of Wistaston married Dorothy Goldsmith of Nantwich, asstated in his son's letter.

Richard Mynshull of Wistaston married Elizabeth, daughter of NicholasGoldsmith of Bosworth, in co. Leic. (who was probably maternal aunt orgreat-aunt to the John Goldsmith mentioned in Dr. Paget's will). He wasthe writer of the letters in 1656, and died in 1657, aged eighty-six.He had two daughters and three sons, viz.—

Randle Mynshull of Wistaston marriedAnn Boot, and had seven children, ofwhom it will be necessary to mentionthree only, viz.—

Thomas Mynshull, the apothecary ofManchester, mentioned in ThomasPaget's will, aged fifty-one in 1664,had five sons and four daughters.

Richard Mynshull, alderman of Chester,to whom his father wrote the letter ofMay 3, 1656, aged forty-seven in 1663.

Richard Mynshull, baptized April 7,1641. On June 4, 1680, he executeda bond, by the description of RichardMynshull of Wistaston, frame-workknitter, to Elizabeth Milton of the cityof London, widow, who, though notstated to be his sister, was evidentlya near relative, as appears from thecontents of the bond.

John Mynshull appears tohave resided in Manchester,where he was buried, May 18,1720, and administration wasgranted at Cheshire to ElizabethMilton of Nantwich,widow, his lawful sister andnext of kin.

Elizabeth, baptized December 30, 1638, marriedMilton in 1664, is described as of London in thebond from her brother, on the occasion of herpurchase of an estate at Brindley in Cheshire; isdescribed as of Nantwich in three legal documentsfrom 1713 to 1725; by the same description, administeredto her brother John in 1720, and madeher will on August 22, 1727, which was proved onOctober 10 in the same year.

J. F. Marsh.

Warrington.