Gresebrok, in Yorkshire (Vol. viii., p. 389.).—To assist your correspondent Ἡραλδικος, I may tell him that the family he inquires about now resides at Horton Castle and Audenham in Staffordshire. Many years ago, when I took some interest in genealogy, I had the pleasure of being a guest of this family; and I then heard it said, that they could trace a very ancient and brilliant line from one Osbert, who married a great heiress at the Conquest, and that they were direct descendants of the ancient kings of England. Some of Mr. Burke's publications I think would assist Ἡραλδικος; not having them by me, I cannot give the exact reference; but some months ago I saw, either in the Landed Gentry, or in the Visitations, a note of the family.[[6]] But I think, if your correspondent could by any means see Mr. Grazebrook's papers (as above noted), he would obtain all the particulars he may require.

Hospes.

Charlotte Street, London.

Footnote 6:[(return)]

Ferdinando Smith, Esq., of Halesowen, born March 26, 1779, a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant, and Lieut.-Colonel of the Worcester Militia, married first, in July, 1802, Eloisa Knudson, who died s. p. Sept. 14, 1805; and, secondly, Oct. 5, 1830, Elizabeth, fourth daughter of Michael Grazebrook, Esq., of Audnam, co. Stafford, by whom he left two surviving sons, Ferdinando Dudley Lea, now of Halesowen, and William Lea, born Feb. 27, 1836. Colonel Smith died July 20, 1841.—Burke's Landed Gentry, p. 1248.—Ed.

Sir Anthony Fitzherbert not Chief Justice (Vol. viii., pp. 576. 631.).—The accompanying extract will resolve the difficulty which M. W. R. proposes:

"But here our author objects against himself: That once upon a time the archbishop called a synod by his own authority, without the king's licence; and was thereupon prohibited by Fitzherbert, Lord Chief Justice; but the archbishop regarded not his prohibition. What this is to his purpose I cannot tell, nor do I see wherefore he brought it in, unless it were to blame Rolle for quoting Speed for it. And therefore, in behalf of both, I shall take the liberty to say thus much. That I know not what harm it is for a man in his own private collections—for such Rolle's Abridgment was, though afterwards thought worthy of a public view—to note a memorable passage of history, and make a remark of his own upon it, out of one of the most faithful and judicious of all our modern historians.

"I have before taken notice of this passage, and that not from Speed, but from Roger Hoveden; from whom I suppose Speed may also have taken the relation. I shall therefore only beg to set this gentleman, to whom all our historians are I doubt equally unknown, right in two particulars; by telling him, that neither was Fitzherbert the man who prohibited the archbishop, neither was he Chief Justice when he did it. His name was Geoffrey Fitz-Peter. He was Earl of Essex, and a very eminent man in those days; and his place was much greater than this author represents it; even Lord Justice of England, which he was first made by King Richard, anno 1198; and held in the King's absence to his death, anno 1213; in which year King John, going over into France, constituted Peter, Bishop of Winchester, Lord Justice in his place."—Wake's Authority of Christian Princes asserted, pp. 284-6.

Wm. Fraser, B.C.L.

Tor-Mohun.

The Privileges of the See of Canterbury (Vol. viii., p. 56.).—As no one has yet volunteered to solve Mr. Fraser's question, How the letter of Pope Boniface ordaining that, however human circumstances might be changed, the city of Canterbury should ever thereafter be esteemed the metropolitan see, can be reconciled with the creation of the archiepiscopal see of Westminster,—I may suggest as a solution this maxim: