46
NOTES AND QUERIES. [128 .vi FEB..IWOI
seems to be untenable for the following
reasons : (1) No one from outside could as a
rule see the altar through these wall openings
much less receive the Sacrament through
them. Three or four examples have been
found of undoubted " low side windows " in
upper chapels. (2) Windows such as these
are often to be found in churches which were
quite near to old Lazar hospitals with their
own chapel and priest for the special use
of the lepers. (3) The ninth canon of Pope
Alexander III. specialty enacts that as
lepers cannot use the churches or church
yards commonly resorted to, they shall
gather together in certain places and" have a
church and burial place of their own with a
priest to minister to their wants.
(6) A lamp may have been lit within to scare away ghosts or evil spirits. This is, however, improbable.
(c) Confessions may have been heard through them of persons not allowed to enter the church. This idea also seems to be impossible.
(d) A sanctus bell may have been rung therefprm at the time of Mass to inform those in the vicinity of the Elevation of the Host. This theory would appear to have most evidence to support it. For illustrated articles on this subject see The Antiquary, vols- xxi. and xxii. ; J. J. Cole in Journal of the Arch. Institute, March, 1848 ; P. M. Johnston in Trans, of St. Paul's Eccles. Soc., vol. iv. 263 ; J. H. Parker in the Arch. Journal vol. iv., December, 1847 ; J. Piggott in The Reliquary, vol. ix. 9, 1868 ; and J. P. Hodgson in Archaeologia Aeliana for 1901.
Aysgarth, Sevenoaks. H " G " HARBISON.
About a dozen explanations have been suggested. The most probable one is that they were for ringing the sacring bell so that it might be heard by persons outside the church. They are found in chapels to which a cemetery has never been attached, and which are also on an upper floor. The com- paratively late sanctus bell - cot appears to have superseded the earlier low side window arrangement where both are found in the same church. They are visually found in earlier work than bell-cots are. There is reason to think that they were sometimes utilized in the sixteenth century for hearing the confessions of all comers. There was an order for the walling up of places where friars heard such confessions, and before the days of "Restoration" low side - windows were very commonly in a walled-up condition. See ' Handbook of English Ecclesiology,' 1847, 201 ; 'N. & Q.,' 4 S. i. 415, 488 ; The Reliquary,
July, 1868 ; Rock, ' Church of Our Fathers,'
vol. iii., p. 1 ; Proc. Soc. Ant., Dec. 23, 1869 ;;
many other ecclesiological works and com-
munications might be consulted.
J. k T. F.
F. W. will find an interesting article on ' Low Side Windows,' more particularly in. Sussex churches, in voL xli.. of The Sussev. Archaeological Collections, L898.
PERCY HULBURD. [REV. J. HARVEY BLOOM also thanked for reply.]'
ENSIGN OLIVER CROMWELL : CROMWELL. PRICE (12 S. v. 292, 331). Mark Noble, in- ' Memoirs of the Protectoral House of Crom- well,' 1787, gives, in vol. i., p. 127, the- following particulars about Ensign Oliver Cromwell, a great grandson of the Protector. He was the son of Henry Cromwell, 1658 1711, and a grandson of Henry Cromwell,. 1627-1673, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. 8th child. Oliver, born at Gray's Inn, London,, Sept. 23, 1704.
He, like his father, served in the British Army, and was an ensign in an Irish regi- ment, but, disliking his situation, he resigned his commission and spent the remainder of his life in privacy and retirement. He died Aug. 4, 1748, unmarried.
Clutterbuck, in his ' History of Herts * (vol. ii., p. 98) states further that this same- Oliver Cromwell was buried at Bunhill Fields..
In the Cromwell room in the London Museum, in Sir Richard Tangye's collection,. is a genealogical tree of the Cromwell family,, the latter part of which (1602-1791) is the- work of Rev. Mark Noble.
I find no mention of Cromwell Price, and presume that he was not a lineal descendant, of the Protector. O. KING SMITH.
LORD JOHN VAUGHAN : DEHANY (12 S.. v. 268, 330). There seems to have been two- branches of the Dehany family at one time settled in the West Indies. The one referred to by your correspondent was probably the head of the family. The other held property in Barbadoes, and of this branch Philip Salter Dehany came to this country, and 1 after living sometime in Herts, purchased Hayes Place, Kent, where the first Earl of Chatham had lived and died. Philip Dehany had an only daughter Mary Salter, who was to have married the eleventh Et;rl of Caith- ness. He died suddenly on the eve of his marriage. Miss Dehany never married, but adopted a daughter of Lady Janet Sinclair (Traill), niece af her intended husband, to whom she bequeathed Hayes Plr.ce and the West Indian property. Hayes Place had.
