QUERIES:-Sedbergh School Register-Bede Rolls-Nairne -Picture Sale - Cole's Residences of Actors' - Sir R. Owen's Monographs-"Nag's Head" Fable-Adams: Butcher, 467-Thomas Martin-Engraver-Etymology of "Patrick" - Tudeley Parish Register - Soldiers and Sailors' Nicknames Churches dedicated to Thomas à Becket Pamela, 468-Bloomsbury Volunteers Irish Power"Hither and yon' Margaret Combridge "Sandwich Men"-Daily Orator, 469. REPLIES:-Penny Cyclopædia,' 469-Shell Grotto-Tomb of Queen Elizabeth, 471-Phenomena of the Midnight Sun Arabella: Annabella-Continuation of Edwin Drood'-Three-eyed Peacock Feathers- Once a Week,' 472-Obelisk: Wellbeloved-Source of Quotation-Joshua " Jonathan Smith -"Blenkard": "London Flower Burial in Point Lace-£. s. d., 473-" Auld Kirk”—Celliwig, 474-Cow-dug for. Fuel-Poem on Names-Raffman, 475-Pym's Amateur Theatre-The Artist'-Plan of Monastery-Simonds-" Humby's Hotel," 476-Island of Barbados" Hoodlum"-N. Whittock-Second-hand Book Prices-Thomas Randolph, 477-" Photogram"-"A blind alehouse" — Information for the People, 478-Authors Wanted, 479. third edition of 1615 these Meditations' were left out without his giving any account of this proceeding." What is to be thought about that? Are we to suppose that he conceived any doubt as to the authorship of this writing? This is not probable at all. In this case the author, who was universally esteemed, would have given some account of this proceeding. It is probable that Sommalius, who in 1615 was already eighty-one years it is only the printers that are to be made responsible old, did not take any part in this edition, and therefore for the omission. They thought it of greater advantage for themselves to publish an edition less voluminous and therefore better saleable. Also after Sommalius's death several more editions were made under his name, so that he who does not know better is easily induced to believe that they were published by him. S. Kettlewell, in the preface of his English edition, published in 1893, supposes that the Jesuits ordered Sommalius to omit the Meditations' because they appeared to contain several expressions not very agreeable to the Roman Catholics, whereas they seemed to favour the belief of the Protestante. But Kettlewell did not prove this supposition, and when he had got to know the Cologne edition of the Meditations' of 1717, which was made under the assistance of the Jesuits, he dropped it altogether, and his second edition, which is already being printed, will no longer contain it. That is all the information I can give you at present. The principal of the grammar school of Kempen, Dr. Pohl, has lately he has also come to the conclusion that our Thomas, and made many researches about Thomas of Kempen, and NOTES ON BOOKS :-Murray's 'New English Dictionary Fotes. THOMAS A KEMPIS. I enclose a copy of a letter, which reached me a few months since, from Herr P. A. Klöckner, of Kempen, in answer apparently to one from my husband, the late Archdeacon Henry Press Wright, extract from the Kempener Zeitung, edited by Herr Klöckner's brother, and translated by the learned Dr. Rost, C.I.E. also an The letter will speak for itself, and I cannot but think that both it and the extract may be interesting to students of the works of Thomas à Kempis : SIR,-In your letter of October 28, 1889, you asked if I could answer the following question: In the Sommalius edition of Thomas à Kempis of 1607 we have the De Vita Christi Meditationes,' in four books, as one of the writings of Thomas, But in no other edition is it found. What is the reason of this? I was then not able to answer this question, although I inquired about the subject. But at present being better informed, I take the liberty of sending you these lines in order to let you know what I lately learned on the subject. In 1893 an extract of the Studies on the Science of Religion,' &c., year twenty-five, part xl., came out at P. W. van de Weijer's at Utrecht, in Holland. This extract, a small pamphlet, says: "When, in 1600, Sommalius published his first edition of the complete works of Thomas à Kempis he did not yet know this writing, viz., the De Vita Christi Meditationes.' In the second edition of 1607 he printed this writing after a manuscript which he had got to know in the mean time. In the he from whom I got the information given above. Kempen (Rhein), June 29, 1894. The following is the extract from the Kempener Zeitung : "The Kölnische Volkzeitung, in a recent issue, gave the following further details regarding the question whether Thomas à Kempis is, or is not, the author of the four books on the 'Imitation of Christ' (for not all savants admit him to be their author), as regarding the way in which Dr. J. Pohl, the head master of our grammar school, has answered the question in his last annual report to the effect that Thomas à Kempis is the author of the books De Imitatione Christi.' The literary proof in favour of this assertion is brought by Dr. J. Pohl, head master of the grammar school at Kempen, in this year's annual report on the Gymnasium Thomaeum. It was probably modesty which induced the author of The Imitation of Christ' to suppress his name; he would certainly not have done so, as Pohl justly remarks, if he could have foreseen that the suppression of his name would cause so much envenomed and bitter strife. In the course of nearly three centuries no fewer than about thirty names have turned up to which the authorship of the work has been attri buted; the best known, next to Thomas, is that of Gerson. The earliest witness for Thomas (who was born in 1379 or 1380, and died in 1471)-a witness who could know the truth and was anxious to tell it-is John Busch (born at Zwolle in 1399 and died about 1480) in his book 'Chronicon Windeshemense' ('De Viris Illustribus,' cap. 21). He wrote as a contemporary and eyewitness; he finished his work seven years before Thomas's death. Windesheim, in which place Busch resided for about twelve years, is only eight or nine kilomètres distant from Mount St. Agnes, Thomas's monastery. Busch, a man of great mental powers, who died in the odour of sanctity, was in every respect qualified to tell the truth. The adversaries of Thomas repel this testimony by saying that the passage in question is interpolated. Pohl has personally examined all the MSS. of the Chron, Windesh.-of which he had any knowledgethere are twelve of them, and only concerning two he procured information from competent persons. There is nowhere a trace of interpolation; only in one MS. (at Gae-donk) the note on the authorship of Thomas is wanting. But the question is here, according to Pohl's, in my opinion, well-founded view, exclusively about the first redaction of the Chronicle, a matter which frequently occurs in chronicles. Pohl's treatise contains but a fraction of his researches on Thomas; but I consider it ample for proving his point. The list of printed works he has made use of consists of one hundred num bers; besides these he has up to the present collated thirteen MSS. of the Imitatio,' and nine of these completely. Other MSS., at Cologne, Treves, Mainz, and elsewhere are to follow. We may, therefore, at last look forward to a critical edition, and express but the author's own wish when we prefer a request that he may be favoured with many communications concerning MSS, of the Imitatio,' &c." MARIAN L. WRIGHT. ACHILLES AND THE TORTOISE. Some men delight in paradox; and those who do so are generally men of the higher order of mind. Having examined questions for themselves, the opinions they arrive at are very diverse from those held by the multitude at large. The masses are content with received opinions, as they are with what comes to table; they accept and swallow both as part of the day's work, and would no more analyze the one critically than the other chemically. The famous paradox above named is again alluded to by Prof. Cajori, of Colorado College, in his "History of Mathematics.' It was started by Zeno the Eleatic two thousand odd years ago, and has never encountered an answer yet. Aristotle, the professor tells us, always supported the theory of infinite divisibility. I do not feel at all certain that he did; but let that pass. The professor runs on, Zeno's position was that, if true, it makes motion impossible. But ought we to contrast Aristotle with Zeno? The latter, by best account, lived nearly a hundred years before the other. At any rate, Zeno could not have contested any doctrine of Aristotle's, if even their opinions were as widely sundered as the initial letters of their names, A and Z, happen to be in our alphabet. Perhaps both Zeno and Aristotle are equally wrong. Zeno can only be right if we suppose him to mean that man can form no idea of "absolute motion," he can only conceive it relatively. But then that difficulty remains the same with every other idea. The human mind can form no absolute idea of anything; it must first be perfect in itself before it can do that. Our reply to Zeno is, Your argument is useless if this be your intention, rightly | understood, because nobody can rationally dispute the point when he once knows what you mean. To Aristotle you may say the same. He is even more absurd if he theorizes, as the professor says he does, about the "infinite divisibility" of matter, for only Omnipotence can operate in, or follow up an operation that is to be carried to, infinitude. Finite man is shut away from the infinite, as by the gulf of Abraham. He may talk about the infinite divisibility of matter. Dalton does; but it is nonsense, for he talks about nothing all the while. He cannot divide it. He cannot see it. It goes into gas and vapour, and there quits him. Bayle calls Aristotle's solution pitoyable. Ritter's solution is a réchauffé from Coleridge, unacknowledged, and equally lamentable. The sophism or trick seems to have been devised by Zeno as a pitfall for all those philosophers who are ready to explain to others what they do not understand themselves. I will now pass away from all their solutions to propose one that pretends to no profundity at all, but yet by its simplicity reduces the answer to the level of the meanest capacity. Zeno's fly-catching paper was this. Place a tortoise twenty paces before Achilles, and suppose the fleetness of the latter as against the tortoise to be as twenty to one. Zeno says that whilst Achilles moves twenty paces the tortoise advances one. Whilst Achilles moves that twenty-first pace the tortoise gains the twentieth part of the twentysecond pace, and so on ad infinitum. Suppose we substitute sixty for the original twenty, and let the speed of Achilles cover sixty paces whilst the tortoise completes but one. Each of the paces of Achilles occupies one second of time, so that his first sixty paces bring him to the starting-point of the tortoise in one minute. By that time the tortoise will have advanced one pace, or be one second (at the speed of Achilles) ahead still. In the next pace, or second, Achilles will complete the sixty-first pace, and the tortoise the sixtieth part of the sixty-second pace. When Achilles begins the sixty-second pace the tortoise is one second ahead; but at the close of this pace, or second (called the sixty-second pace), Achilles has completed it, whilst the tortoise has only done its second sixtieth of the same space, i.e., is fiftyeight tortoise paces behind Achilles. This result utterly snuffs out for every rational human understanding all the subtle sophistry of Zeno, together with his "so on ad infinitum," whereby he has deceived a number of able heads for a long stretch of years. Zeno has arranged all his words precisely so as to capture the reason through the ear. He speaks of the tortoise as "she gains," whereas she is losing from first to last throughout. De Quincey is most amusing on this subject in Tait's Magazine for 1834. He says he propounded the intricate matter to Coleridge, and pointed out to him that it should be styled a difficulty rather than a sophism. In this, to begin with, he was wrong; it is most rigidly a sophism, and it is nothing else. "Yes," said Coleridge; an apparent absurdity in the Grecian problem arises thus, because it assumes the infinite divisibility of space, but drops out of view the corresponding infinity of time." On this De Quincey makes the following ridiculous remark: "There was a flash of lightning, which illuminated a darkness that had existed for twenty-three centuries!" It is wonderful Coleridge should have supposed that his explanation explained anything. It is yet more wonderful that De Quincey, a razor-like incisive sort of man, if ever there was such, should have fancied that he understood the oracular nonsense he reports. The very statement of Zeno's position gives twenty paces, implying space, and twenty-fold speed to Achilles, which involves time. So that Coleridge is merely beating the futile air. It is like picking a lock with a draught of the bellows. He was guilty of another stupidity. He said this was like the other paradoxes of Zeno, which are mere identical propositions spun into conundrums. How you could spin conundrums out of identical propositions is a dictum itself requiring interpretation. It seems to me very like Ariel's music, 'a tune played by the picture of nobody." The seven sages were σopol, or masters of their craft; but Zeno, σopiorys, I should render crafty master." He has contrived to make Aristotle, De Quincey, Coleridge, Ritter, and I do not know how many thousand more philosophers talk nonsense at Achilles's pace. Here we have another instance, blazing like a mountain beacon-fire from afar, of the deceit of words that can turn discourse of reason from the finest heads to a sport for the mob of fools that listen. It justifies Homer's description of the dread fatality of eloquence as Alluring speech, that steals the wisest minds. In the honey of words there ever lurks a lie; and oratory, at its best, even when warning against danger, is to be looked upon with suspicion, as constituting a fresh and altogether separate danger in itself. C. A. WARD. NOTES ON THE EARLY PART OF THE PEDIGREES OF THE AUDLEYS, STANLEYS, AND SNEYDS. It may be well to mention some of the statements in the usual Audley-Stanley pedigree, and then to state certain facts upon which a correct pedigree, I believe, has been drawn up. It is usually said that Adam de Alditheley came over from Alditheley, in Normandy, at the Conquest with his two sons, Lyulf and Adam. This notion of their coming from a place so named in Normandy is ludicrous. If ever there was such a place in Normandy, which is hard to believe, the said name must have been simply borrowed from England, for it is Anglo-Saxon. Again, it is at least odd that they should have come from a place named Aditheley, in Normandy, and settled at a place which was called in the Confessor's time Alditheley, or, as it is spelt in Domesday, Aldidelege. Then supposing Lyulf and Adam to have come over with their father in 1066, how can we account for the fact that Lyulf's son Adam granted Stanley to William de Stanley in the time of King John, nearly a hundred and fifty years afterwards? Again, it is stated, or rather I, perhaps, should say has been thought, by some men of great research that Liulf de Aldredeslega, who, according to the Staffordshire Pipe Roll, 1129-30, had been amerced for the murder of Gamel (his debt thus arising was 200 marks, 10 deerhounds, and 10 hawks), was Liulf de Alditheley, and that the murdered Gamel was Gamel the tenant in capite of Aldidelege (Audley), Baltredelege (Balterley), and Talc (Talke), &c. In the first place, Gamel was a very common A.-S. name, meaning old (gamol), and there is not the least evidence that the murdered Gamel was the owner of the above places. Again, the Gamel of Domesday, if alive, would have been a very old man in 1130, and Lyulf de Alditheley was certainly very young to have committed this murder, for he was living, 80 far as I can make out from charters, till about sixty years after this. Also the name of the supposed murderer is not Aldithelega, but Aldredeslega. In other words, he was a member of the family of Alderleigh, and not of Alditheleigh. In all my researches I have never met with the spelling Aldredeleigh for Alditheleigh. Alderleigh was always spelt with an r in it, and took such forms as Aldredelie, Alderdeley, Aldurdeleigh, Alderley; but Alditheleigh took such forms as Aldidelege, Aldithelega, Aldithleg, Alditheleia, Auditheley, Audley, &c. There are three entries in Domesday for Alderley, and they are spelt Aldredelie, which is obviously an attempt of the Norman scribe to represent the AngloSaxon Eald-rædes-leah, that is Ealdræd's lea, Ealdræd being a common Anglo-Saxon name. The only reason for assuming that Lyulf de Aditheley was the murderer of Gamel appears to be the fact that Lyulf's father held Alditheleigh under the Verdons and afterwards he himself held it, and of Alditheleigh Gamel was the Domesday tenant in capite. In addition to this, at first sight Aldredeslega looks something like Aldithelega, and you might confuse them, unless you remembered that the two places and the two families Aldredeleigh and Alditheleigh had nothing whatever to do with one another. It is curious that one man of great research mixes up Gamel, the Domesday owner of Alditheley, Balterley, and Talke, &c., with Gamel, the son of Grifin, owner of Biddulph (Bidolf), and another confuses this Domesday Gamel with Gamel de Tettesworth, the son of Wlmar, owner of Rudyard T.R.E., and another mixes up this same Domesday Gamel with yet another Gamel. Another statement is made that the second Adam de Alditheley married Mabel, daughter and heir of Henry or William de Stonleigh or Stanley, and so brought Stanley, in Staffordshire, into the Audley family. What evidence is there for this? Adam, the son of Lyulph de Alditheley, married, according to Hulton Charters, Petronilla (very likely the daughter of Eugenulphus de Gresley and his wife Alina, from whom this Adam de Alditheley had Tunstall, Chatterley, Chell, and Normacot, the words in the confirmation charter granted by Henry III. to Henry de Aldithlege, the son of Adam de Aldithlege, of his estates, 1227, being, "Ex dono Eugenulfi de Greslia et Aline, ux ejus Tunstall, Chaddersley, Chelle, ot Normancote." Adam's father, Lyulf de Alditheley, according to these Hulton Charters, married Mabel, who, no doubt, was Mabel de Stonleigh, as will be seen from what follows. It is also said that Lyulf de Alditheley had a brother Adam, who was father of William de Stonleigh, the ancestor of the Stanleys, and that this William de Stonleigh took his name from Stonleigh, which was given him by Adam de Alditheley in exchange for Talke. But this William de Stonleigh's father Adam is described in the charter of exchange as Adam de Alditheley's maternal uncle, the words being "Gulielmo de Stoneleigh, filio avunculi sui Ada, totam Stonlegh, cum omnibus pertinentibus "; thus supporting the Hulton Charter, that Lyulf de Alditheley's wife was Mabel (de Stonleigh). No doubt the Stanleys sprang from the same stock as the Audleys, but it must have been in the generation before, or, in other words, that the first Stonleigh or Stanley was brother of the first Alditheley, viz, Adam de Alditheley. Now, who was this first Stanley, who was the brother of the first Audley? We have already seen that the usual pedigree is incorrect in saying that Adam de Stanley, the father of William de Stanley, was brother of Lyulf de Alditheley, for we see that he was really his brother-in-law. It would seem to be almost impossible that there was an earlier Anglo-Saxon who bore the name of Stanley than Robert de Stanley, the sheriff; in other words, we can hardly suppose that his father, being an Anglo-Saxon, had the name Stanley or Stonleigh. So we may take it that he was the first Stanley. We are told in the Deulacresse Abbey Cartulary that the Stanleys sprang from the same stock as the Audleys; therefore, as we have good reason for thinking Robert de Stanley, the Sheriff of Staffordshire 1123-28, was the first Stanley, he must have been the brother of an Audley, and that Audley, by the dates, must have been Adam de Aldithele, the son of Gamel. Who, then, was Henry de Stonleigh, the father of Mabel, the wife of Lyulf de Alditheleigh? He must have been the son of the first Stanley, viz, Robert de Stanley; again, dates do not allow us to think otherwise. Who, next, was Thomas de Stonleigh, of Stafford, the father of Joan, the wife of William de Stonleigh? He must have been son or grandson of Robert de Stanley, and this is supported by the fact that he was the owner of Talke, which was held by Gamel, the father of Robert de Stanley. This seems to clear up the early Stanley pedigree. With respect to the remainder of the early pedigree of this Auditheley-Stanley-Sneyd house all is plain sailing after we have got over the Stanley difficulty. The Hulton Abbey Charters state that Lyulf de Alditheley had two sons by his wife Mabel, viz., Adam, the father of Henry de Alditheley, and Robert, who, it says, was father of Richard de Sned, who granted land to the abbey. It is shown also by the same Hulton Charters that Adam de Alditheley, the father of Lyulf, was the son of Gamel, and he again the son of Wulfric Cild, the son of Godwin, the son of Earl Leofwine. All this is confirmed, in the first place, by a very old pedigree (two hundred years old) of the Trenthams, of Rocester, in Staffordshire, a pedigree which was sent to Mr. Sneyd by the late Prof. Freeman, no mean authority on such matters. This Trentham pedigree includes the Sneyd pedigree from Leofwine, Earl of Mercia, and his mother's grandfather Alfred the Great, down to Jane, daughter of Sir William Sneyd, who married Thomas Trentham, M.P. for Newcastle in Staffordshire.* To any one examining the Staffordshire and Cheshire Domesday one fact must be apparent, viz., the vast demesnes held by the Thanes Godwin, Uluric, Ulviet, Godric, Alward, and he will very likely come to the conclusion that they were men of great power, and he will further see that there is some sort of connexion between them, by their so often holding parishes jointly, and he will very likely wonder whether they belonged to the family of the great Earl of Mercia. For instance, you find parishes part held by Godric and part by Ulviet, and others by Ulviet and Alward, and others by Godric and Uluric, and so on, and they seem to be so mixed up with one another that you cannot help thinking that they were very nearly related to one another. These thoughts will be confirmed if you read the early charters relating to Croxton, Marton, Goosetrey, and Cranage, and * In the Confessor's time a great part of Staffordshire and Cheshire was held by Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and by members of bis family, and this would seem to have and in Oxfordshire, the earl had many manors, and Í believe Chastleton, of which Mr. Sneyd is rector, was one of them. been the case in other counties also. Even about here, so you will not be surprised when you find that what you thought was probable was really the case. on It may help to make this matter clearer if I give the situations of the places I have mentioned. Balterley is on the Staffordshire and Cheshire border, and joining it on the east is Audley; next to Audley on the north is Talke, and joining Talke are Tunstall, Chatterley, and Chell; and joining Tunstall and Chell the south is Sneyd. On the east, joining Sneyd, is Norton in the Moors; and on the south of Sneyd are Rushton Grange and Hulton, where is the abbey which was founded by Henry de Alditheley in 1223. Joining Norton-in-the-Moors to the east is Endon and Stanley. I am giving these situations from memory, but they are fairly correct, as I know the country well. It may now be well to see what we know about the early owners of some of these places. One part of Balterley was held T.R.E. by Godwin, and the other by his son Uluric (Wulfric), the Uluric part being held T.R.W. by his son Gamel, and afterwards by Gamel's son, Adam de Alditheley. Alditheley (Audley) was held T.R.E. by Uluric (Wulfric), and his brother Godric, and T.R. W. by Gamel, Uluric's son, and afterwards by Gamel's son, Adam de Alditheley, under the Verdons, and still later by the Alditheleys as chief lords. Talke was held T.R.E. by Godric, T.R. W. by Godric's nephew Gamel; but it very likely was held between times, like Marton, &c., by Wulfric, the brother of Godric and father of Gamel. Afterwards Talke was held by the Stanleys, Gamel's descendants, until it came by exchange in the time of John to Adam de Alditheley, the son of Lyulf. Tunstall, Chalterley, Chell, &c., came to Adam de Alditheley from Eugenulphus de Gresley and his wife Alina, the daughter of Robert, son of Ormus le Guidon, son of Richard Forester, who held it T.R.W. Sneyd, or Sned, or Sneade, from snæd (=Snead), a thing cut off, or part of a large manor, is not mentioned in Domesday. It was not part of Burslem, for there was no large wood there, nor was it, as Ward, in his History of Stoke,' says, part of the Domesday Chell, Chell itself not being in Domesday, he having confused it with Cheadle (Celle). To my mind there can be litttle doubt that Sneyd was part of the Domesday "In Nortone et in append" (Norton-in-the-Moors), which now contains only about one thousand five hundred acres, but then with its appendices contained nearly nine thousand acres of wood alone. The present Sneyd joins Norton on the west, and there was a Boscus or Wood of Sneyd in 1223. "In Nortone et in append" was held by Godric and Ulviet T. R. E., and by Robert de Statford T.R. W., with Godric and Ulviet as tenants in fee, according to Ward. Godric's part probably went first to Wulfric and then to Gamel, and certainly came to Gamel's descendants, the Alditheleys, in very early times. Sneyd (Sned or Sneade), minus the Boscus (wood), was held by Richard de Sned, son of Robert de Alditheley, under Henry de Álditheley, his cousin, and has been held by the Sneyds ever since, and they are also lords of most of the manors I have mentioned. Stanley, which is now part of the parish of Endon, and has been so for a long time, was, I believe, part of the Domesday "In Nortone et in appendice."* If so, it had much the same history as Sneyd, descending from Godric first to Wulfric, and then to his son Gamel, and then to Gamel's son Robert de Stanley. As late as 1594 this belonged to Sir Roland Stanley, of Howton, and according to a deed in possession of Dryden Sneyd, of Ashcombe, Esq., this manor was sold by William Stanley, of Hooton, Esq., Richard Draycott, of Paysley, &c., to Thomas Fernihough, of Stanley, July 10, 1660. WALTER NEWMAN. Evesham. The CRAIK AND MACFARLANE'S 'HISTORY OF ENGLAND.'-Why is it that this work when quoted is constantly referred to not by the name of the editor or author, but by that of the publisher ? believe it was spoken of a short time since in "Charles Knight's History." It N. & Q.' as would sound strange, and hardly just, to speak of Macaulay's well-known work as "Longman's 66 Macmillan's." History," or of Green's as explanation, no doubt, lies in the fact that the name of the author does not appear on the title-page of the first four volumes. It is clearly set forth, however, in the preface to the fourth volume, and is placed on the title-page of the remaining four. It is not a mere matter of sentiment nor of punctiliousness, but one of even justice, that this, the most comprehensive and impartial history of England we possess, should be known by the name of its author. The work consists of upwards of 6,500 pages, and contains about 1,700 wood engravings, is edited by George L. Craik, and written (with the exception of about one-sixth) by The remaining sixth consists of a series of monographs by various authors, late J. R. Planché, Somerset Herald. It is valuincluding one on 'Manners and Customs,' by the able as a work of reference, but is too voluminous for entire perusal during an average lifetime ; indeed, it seems almost incredible that so much of it could be the work of one man. Charles Macfarlane. Yet I do not see the name of either the author or the editor in If Sneyd and Stanley were not in the Domesday "In Nortone et in append," it is hard to see how the 8,640 acres of wood, together with the other land in this Domesday "In Nortone et in append,' could have come in, as we know fairly well the borders of the adjoining manors, |
