Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 1.djvu/52

 46

NOTES AND QUERIES. [12 s. i. JAN. is, me.

<of a son, Henry. Another son, John, was

-an officer of " Guise's," and during the time that the regiment was in Scotland after the

^45 he married Mary, daughter of Thomas Forbes of Thornton, Kincardineshire, and died in 1786. His wife died in 1813. His

-eldest son, Samuel Guise, LL.B., F.A.S. (1752-1811), was a surgeon in the Bombay Presidency. Another son, Capt. John Guise (1760-1828), married a sister of Sir Richard Westmacott, P.R.A. His eldest daughter, Elizabeth (1754-1798), married Thomas Stewart of Montrose ; and his youngest daughter, Mary Ann (1769-1840), married Thomas Dougal of the same place (see Burke's ' Landed Gentry,' Roney-Dougal of Raitho, Midlothian).

F. W. S. CUMBRAE STEWART. University of Queensland, Brisbane.

HAMPSTEAD SAND. The large deposits of fine sand on Hampstead Heath have been the subjects of many actions for trespass brought by the Lords of the Manor against the dealers who for a century and more hawked it about the streets of London. Abraham's ' Unequal and Partial Assess- ments,' 1811, cited by Park, supposed that twenty loads of this sand passed through Hampstead daily, but in 1813 Park was informed that the average quantity was
 * not more than seven or eight loads. I

believe the West Heath in front of Judges' Walk was the principal deposit worked. Constable and other artists have depicted the scene, showing carts being filled.

Before me is a broadside (circa 1760) issued to oppose the powers sought by the Paving Act, 1760. The Commissioners for the City of London sought powers to pro- hibit the use of sand on the floors of houses, &c., as it was swept into the kennel, and washed by the rains into the common sewer and thence to the river, which from this and other deposit had " within these fifty years actually been raised by this means two feet.'

The objections to this are addressed to both

Houses of Parliament " on behalf of several

land-owners near the City of London and

several thousands of Poor People in or near

the said City." They state :

" That there are a great number of Land- owners and Tenants, in the several Counties near the said City, who have great quantities of Land, which is so barren, that no other Profit can be made thereof, than by selling the sand; whereby a considerable advantage hath been made within these twenty years last past ; and if this clause l>e permitted to stand, the Proprietors and Tenants of the said lands will be Losers of several Hun- dreds of Pounds per annum.

" That several thousands of poor People are Employ'd in the Carriage of the Sand, by Land and Water, to the City and Suburbs, and in Carrying it up and down the Streets, and selling it ; most of which will be totally deprived of a Livelihood, if the use of it be prohibited, &c.

" 'Tis conceived there is no Necessity for such a clause ; because the Sand used in Houses is generally put into the Dust-Cart, with the Ashes and other Dust.

"If the Scavengers did their duty in taking up the Dirt, and not sweeping it into the Kennels, bo be drove into the Common- Sewers, there would be no Cause of Complaint."

Hampstead would have been most affected by this legislation, but it is evident the use of the sand continued, although its disposal after use was remedied.

ALECK ABBAHAMS.

BARONY OF WHARTON. (See 9 S. iv. 381.) It is worthy of note that the argument as to whether this barony had been created by writ or by patent was finally set at rest by the Report of the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords on Dec. 13, 1915, in respect of the petition of Mr. Kemeys- Tynte to the Crown to terminate the abey- ance in his favour ; and it confirms the judg- ment of their predecessors in 1845, that the Barony of Wharton was created by writ, and not by patent. The following are the exact terms of the report :

THE WHARTOX PEERAGE.

" 0. 1 hat on the 28th day of July, 1845, it was resolved and adjudged by this House that the Barony of Wharton is a Barony created by Writ and sitting on the 26th November, 2nd Edward VI. in the year 1548, and is descendible to heirs general ; that upon the death of Philip James, the sixth Lord Wharton, in 1731, without issue, the said Barony fell into abeyance between his two sisters and co-heirs Lady Jane Coke and Lady Lucy Morrice ; that Lady Lucy Morrice died without issue in the year '1739 ; that upon the death of Lady Jane Coke (who survived her sister) without issue in 1761, the said Barony fell into abeyance between the descendants of the three daughters of Philip, fourth Lord Wharton, Elizabeth, Mary, and Philadelphia Wharton ; and that the said Barony was then in abeyance between Charles Kerne ys Kerne ys-Tynte, Esquire, Alexander Dundas Ross Cochrane Wishart Baillie, Esquire, Mrs. Matilda Aufrere, the Right Honour- able Peter Robert, Lord Willoughby D'Eresby, and the Most Honourable George Horatio, Mar- quess of Cholmondeley :

" That the Petitioner, Charles Theodore Hals- well Kemeys-Tynte, is one of the co-heirs of the said Barony of W T harton as being descended from and sole heir of Mary, one of the said daughters of Philip, fourth Lord Wharton :

" That the Right Honourable Gilbert, Earl of Ancaster, the Most Honourable Charles Robert, Marquess of Lincolnshire, and the Most Honour- able George Henry Hugh, Marquess of Cholmon- deley, are three others of the co -heirs of the said