(Vol. ii., p. 216.)
The creation of the baronetcy of Norton, of Rotherfield, in East Tysted, co. Hants, took place in the person of Sir Richard Norton, of Rotherfield, Kt., 23d May, 1622, and expired with him on his death without male issue in 1652.
The style of Baronet, in the case of Sir Gregory Norton, the regicide, was an assumption not uncommon in those days; as in the case of Prettyman of Lodington, and others.
The regicide in his will styles himself "Sir Richard Norton, of Paul's, Covent Garden, in the county of Middlesex, Bart." It bears date 12th March, 1651, and was proved by his relict, Dame Martha Norton, 24th Sept., 1652. He states that his land at Penn, in the county of Bucks, was mortgaged, and mentions his "disobedient son, Henrie Norton;" and desires his burial-place may be at Richmond, co. Surrey.
The descent of Gregory Norton is not known. There is no evidence of his connexion with the Rotherfield or Southwick Nortons. His assumption of the title was not under any claim he could have had, real or imaginary, connected with the Rotherfield patent; for he uses the title at the same time with Sir Richard of Rotherfield, whose will is dated 26th July, 1652, and not proved till 5th Oct, 1652, when Sir Gregory was dead; and, what is singular, the will of Sir Richard was proved by his brother, John Norton, by the style of Baronet, to which he could have had no pretension, as Sir Richard died without male issue, and there was no limitation of the patent of 1622 on failure of heirs male of the body of the grantee.
G.
SHAKSPEARE'S WORD "DELIGHTED."
That the Shakspearian word delighted might, as far as its form goes, mean "endowed with delight," "full of delight," I should readily concede; but this meaning would suit neither the passage in Measure for Measure,—"the delighted spirit,"—nor (satisfactorily) that in Othello,—"delighted beauty." Whether, therefore, delighted be derived from the Latin delectus or not, I still believe that it means "refined," "dainty," "delicate;" a sense which is curiously adapted to each of the three places. This will not be questioned with respect to the second and third passages cited by MR. HICKSON: and the following citations will, I think, prove the point as effectually for the passage of Measure for Measure:
1. "Fine apparition".—Tempest, Act i. sc. 2.