some of the others, namely, Richard, Anthony, William,
Francis, and Robert, married, I wish to procure proof either that they did
or did not. If any of these married, I wish to know which of them, to whom,
and when and where.

Perhaps some of your correspondents can tell me where Richard, Anthony, and
William resided, and what became of Francis and Robert after they had left
their tutor, the minister of Appleshaw.

NEWBURIENSIS.

_Wheale_ (Vol. vi., p. 579.; Vol. vii., p. 96.).--Since this word is once
more brought forward in "N. & Q." (Vol. viii., p. 208.), I will answer the
Query respecting it. I was prepared to do so shortly after it first
appeared, but I had reason to expect a reply from one more conversant with
such archaisms. If the Querist, or either respondent, had examined the
context, he could not have failed to discover a clue to the meaning, as the
words "gall of dragons" instead of "wine," and "wheale" instead of "milk,"
are evidently translations of sound expressions in the preface of Pope
Sixtus (or Xystus) V., to his edition of the Vulgate. The words there are
"fel draconum pro vino, pro lacte sanies obtruderetur." Wheale more
commonly signified, in later times, a pustule or boil; but it is from the
Ang.-Sax. _hwele_, putrefaction. The bad taste of such language is too
manifest to require farther comment.

If I were disposed to conclude with a Query, I might ask where Q. found
that _wheale_ ever meant _whey_?

W. S. W.

Middle Temple.

_Sir Arthur Aston_ (Vol. viii., p. 126.).--He was appointed Governor of
Reading, November 29, 1642; that his relative, Geo. Tattershall, Esq., was
of Stapleford, Wilts, and only purchased the estate, West Court in
Finchampstead, which went, on the marriage of his daughter, to the Hon.
Chas. Howard, fourth son of the Earl of Arundel, and was sold by him.

A READER.

_"A Mockery," &c._ (Vol. viii., p. 244).--Thomas Lord Denman is the author
of the phrase in question. That noble lord, in giving his judgment in the
case of O'Connell and others against the Queen, in the House of Lords,
September 4, 1844, thus alluded to the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench in Ireland, overruling the challenge by the traversers to the array,
on account of the fraudulent omission of fifty-nine names from the list of
jurors of the county of the city of Dublin:

"If it is possible that such a practice as that which has taken place
in the present instance should be allowed