COG BA RON ETA GE— CHA OS. the Marquis had never investigated the real facts of the connexion of the families, -which are believed to be as follows, viz. that Mehitabel Nelson, the mother of (Sir) John Temple, was granddau. of Robert Nelson, of Gray's Inn, London, bv his wife Mary, 3rd dau. of Sir John Temple, Knt. 2nd son of Sir Thomas Temple, 1st Baronet. (See Herald and Genealogist, vol. iii. pp. 39.3. .529, vol. iv. p. 8, vol. viii. p. 510.) Title acknowledged by Burke, Lodge, Walford's County Families, and all lists of Baronets. WARDLAW, of may be cone requires investigation anu baronetcy e pedigree LUSHINGTON-TELSON, (Sir) William Til- son Maesh (Bart.), so styled in Crockford's Clergy List 1880; he d. 12 Jan. 1881. TURING, (SlE) RoBEBT Feaser, consul at Rotterdam 1860/74, grandson of (Sir) Robert Henry Turing, who assumed the title in 1792, the first of the name and family to do so. An alleged receipt for a patent of creation is said to have been discovered in 1843. The patent referred to was however never registered, and there is no other evidence of its existence, though the leading genea- logical editors have admitted it in their works. But Sir Bernard Burke eliminates it from his Peerage 1879, (See Genealogist, vol. ii. pp. 6G/67.) A notice of the Baronetcy appears in Burke's Peerage 1828, wth a note, " We have no means of tracing the present Baronet;" a further notice appeared in the addenda to the edition of 1846, and the pedigree was continued until 1879, as before stated. Arms — Not registered. Title acknowledged by Lodge, Walford's County Families, and all lists of Baronets. WEMYSS, late (Sie) John, of Bogie, co. Fife, a merchant of Berhampore, Bengal (son of John Wemyss, of Kirkcaldy, writer); b. 1 Aug. 1830; died at Allyghur, n.w.p. India, having been served heir to the former (Sir) James Wemyss, in the court of the sheriii of chancery, Edinburgh, 1 Oct. 1858, and is now (1879) succeeded, according to Lodge, by his brother (Sir) David, of Mirzapore, merchant. The Baroxetcv. SIR JAMES WEilYSS (descended from Sir James Wemyss, of Bogle, 2nd son of Sir David Wemyss, ancestor of Earl Wemyss), created a Baroxet OF Nova Scotia 12 Oct. 1704, with remainder to his heirs male. His line failed on the death of his grandson, whereupon (Sir) James Wemyss was sen-ed heir after his father's death, and died 29 Dec. 1849, when he was succeeded by the first -named (.Sir) John, who it is said was descended from a son who was disinherited, and whose sister was served heir of her father (not of pro'S'iso or entail), which means heir-at-law. A notice of this Baronetcy appeared in Burke's Peerage until 1839, when a pedigree appeared which was withdrawn from the edition of 1879. Arms — Not registered. Title acknowledged by Lodge, Walford's County Families, and all lists of Baronets. A GNEW- WALLACE, (SiE) William Thomas Francis, grandson of (Sir) Thomas Dunlop- Wallace, who, claiming through his mother, as- sumed the Baronetcy conferred upon Sir HixgL Wallace 1669. It may be presumed— fi-om the successors of the 1st Baronet being collateral — that this Baronetcy was created -with remainder to heirs male ; had it been to heirs general, the representation would have been through the daughters of the 3rd Baronet, and not through the daughters of the 5th Baronet, according to the pedigree published in Burke's Peerage 1828/78. Arms— Not registered. Title acknowledged by Lodge, Walford's County Families, and all lists of Baronets. GRIFFIES- WILLIAMS, Sir George, of Llwyn-y-Wermwd, created a Baronet 22 May, 1815, and on the death of his son Sir Watkin Lewes Griffies- Williams, 3rd Baronet, 23 May, 1877, this creation became extinct. His youngest son Rev. David Herbert Thackeray, rector of Penboyr, &c. died 8 April, 1877, and, consequently could not have become 4th Baronet, as stated by Sir Bernard Burke in his Peerage publi.shed 1878. p. 1279, and copied into the various publications of the year. WRIGHT, Sir John, of South Carolina, said by Sir Bernard Burke to have succeeded his co;sin as 4th Baronet in Sept. 1837, although Debrett of that period omitted the title doubtless on the supposition that it had become extinct Nothing seems known of this gentleman, although it is supposetl that he was alive in 1821. I
