daughter of Thomas Needham, M.A., by whom he had issue. (1) John Lord Jeffreys who succeeded to the title and estates, but who died in 1703 without male issue, the title became extinct. By his wife, Lady Charlotte Herbert, daughter and heir of Philip, Earl of Pembroke, he had issue an only daughter and heir Henrietta Louisa married to Thomas first Earl of Pomfret. (2) Margaret married to Sir Thomas Stringer; and (3) Sarah married to Capt. Harnage of the marines.

Lord Jeffreys married secondly Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas Blodworth, Knt., and relict of Sir John Jones of Furman in Gloucestershire. VII. James, canon of Canterbury, grandfather of Dr. Jeffreys, Rector of Whitford, Residentiary of St. Pauls.1 The canon died young of a broken heart at the sad conduct and character of his brother.2 VIII. Margaret, married to Robert Belton of Shrewsbury, Esq. The old man outlived all his sons. There was a portrait of him at Acton, taken when he was in mourning for his seventh son. The Jeffreys come through Cynwrig ab Rhiwallon from Tudor Trefor.

Arms. Quarterly, first and fourth ermine, a lion rampant sable, for Cynwrig ab Rhiwallon, second and third Tudor Trefor.

1656. Sir Owen Wynn of Gwydir, Bart. was the third son of Sir John Wynn of Gwydir, Bart., and succeeded his brother Sir Richard in the title and estates in 1649, and was high sheriff of Carnarvonshire in 1650. He married Grace, daughter of Hugh Williams of Weeg in the county of Carnarvon, Esq., and died the 13th the confidante turned out of doors. Jeffreys, with a generosity unknown to him in his prosperous days, took pity and married her. She proved an excellent wife, and lived to see him Lord Chief Justice." 1 Edwards, St. Asaph, 420.

2 Pennant, i, 408; Royal Tribes, 110. Pennant makes this younger brother to be a dean of Rochester, and states that his death occurred "on his road to visit his brother, the Chancellor, when under confine. ment in the Tower."

August, 1660, aged sixty-eight, being succeeded by his

son.

Sir Richard Wynn of Gwydir, fourth baronet, who by his wife Sarah daughter of Sir Thomas Myddelton of Chirk Castle, Bart., was the father of an only daughter and heir, Mary,who by her marriage with Robert Marquis of Lindsay, afterwards Duke of Ancaster, conveyed the Gwydir estates to that family, now represented by the Right Hon. Sir Alberic Drummond Willoughby Lord Willoughby de Eresby.

The Wynns of Gwydir were descended from Owain Gwynedd, Prince of Gwynedd.

Arms.-Quarterly, first and fourth vert three eagles displayed in a fess or; for Owain Gwynedd second and third gules, three lions passant in pale argent, Gruffydd ab Cynan, King of Gwynedd.

1657.-Sir Thomas Powell of Horseley, Bart. was the son of John Powell of Horseley, Esq., by Margaret his wife. He married Mary, daughter of William Conway of Bodrhyddan in the county of Flint, and was the father of the high sheriff for 1684, and two daughters, Elizabeth and Margaret.

1658.-Robert Price of Geeler, Esq. was the eldest son of Thomas ab Rhys (or Price) of Geeler, the high sheriff in 1624. He married Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Owen Lloyd of Dulassau, Esq., by whom he had issue a son and heir.

Thomas Price of Giler, who married Margaret, daughter and heir of Bwlch-y-beddau and was the father of (1) Robert Price, one of the barons of the exchequer from 1702 to 1726, and founder of the baronet family of the Prices of Foxley in the county of Hereford-the present representatives of the ancient family of Giler. (2) Thomas, (3) Charles, (4) Elizabeth, (5) (6) Janet, (7) Anne, (8) Grace.

1659.-Edward Vaughan of Llwydiarth, Esq.

J. Y. W. LLOYD.

(To be continued.)

118

CROMLECHS IN NORTH WALES.

THE great question whether all cromlechs are the perfect or imperfect remains of sepulchral chambers or the work of druidic hands, or at any rate intended for druidic purposes, must in the year 1869 be considered. finally and satisfactorily settled. It is not impossible, however, that there are still to be found those who cling to the ancient faith as taught by Stukely, Rowlands, and others of that school, and who will still insist on seeing an altar in the covering slab of a grave. Such persons must be given up as hopeless, as they show what little weight the unanswerable arguments and proofs on the other side have with them. They may allege, however, in reply, that it is not denied that druids did once exist and that they did sacrifice on altars. What has become of them? Why are they the sole missing relics of a race or races that are supposed to have left such numerous monuments of themselves? Even in those wild and remote districts where such monuments exist in the greatest numbers, thus indicating the extent and perhaps duration of these primitive races, we cannot find an altar— if what we would call such are nothing but sepulchral monuments. This kind of argument hardly requires an answer, although it cannot be denied that the nonexistence of druidic altars has been a stumbling-block in more than one instance. Thus a few years ago Dr. Fouquet of Vannes believed he had at last discovered this long-lost relic of druidic faith. He was too well acquainted with the nature and character of cromlechs to confound them with altars, but he detected in certain natural rocks, projecting from the ground, the object of his pursuit. All that is known with any certainty about the altars on which druids actually sacrificed is that they consisted of natural masses of rock, but Dr. Fouquet adds other distinguishing marks which he considers as certain indications.

of a veritable altar. These are the gorge and the gradin, features which do not admit of an easy explanation without drawings. The gorge, however, appears to be a natural depression running round the lower portion of the rock, forming a kind of hollow moulding. Borlase, (Antiquities of Cornwall, p. 173), gives representations of two examples of this hollow depression, which he considers entirely artificial, but in this respect he is as much in error as in his assignation of the stones themselves; for he calls them "stone deities," and his mode of reasoning is remarkable enough to be here mentioned. "As these stones," says he, " are evidently shaped by art and for no conceivable purpose either civil, military, or domestic, I conclude them stone deities, their plint (sic) designed perhaps to express the stability of their god, and the roundness of the upper part his eternity.' One of these two stones, the less rounded one of the two, is here reproduced from his work, and is said to have

stood close to a fine stone circle in St. Mary (Scilly Isles) which was in existence during his time. On a reference to the cut, the gorge will be easily recognised dividing the stone into two portions, the lower one of which is Borlase's" plint." Had it been furnished with a" gradin" also, it would have been a veritable altar in the eyes of Dr. Fouquet. There may indeed possibly have been one, as this stone is entirely of natural formation, but it would have attracted no more attention than the examples Dr. Fouquet himself has given in his little book. This gradin is, in fact, a natural shouldering or spreading out of the lower part of the stone, forming so low a step as to be in many instances level with the ground.

There is, however, a circumstance in this particular

stone which should be mentioned, and that is, that on its upper surface were thirteen "perfect rock-basins," to use the language of Borlase, and which he confidently asserts to be artificial. If this assertion is correct, the presence of these hollows would have been still more conclusive evidence in Dr. Fouquet's estimation as regards the truth of his views; for he maintains that as it was equally forbidden by druidic and Mosaic law "to lift up a tool" against an altar, that is a stone altar, [for it is clear that the Mosaic law refers to stone altars only], so the first missionaries would make it their chief care, not only to destroy by main force all such objects of pagan superstition, but also to desecrate them, even after such violent mutilation, by cutting such hollows and markings on them. In many instances the desecration might be much more easily effected, and was certainly as efficacious, as the more laborious breaking up a huge rock. This is Dr. Fouquet's view of the subject, which, unfortunately for it and for himself, he proceeds to confirm by what he calls an invariable rule, namely, that these cups or hollows never exist on stones, which men have placed in position, such as cromlechs and pillar stones, but are invariably found only on rocks or stones in their natural position. The former, he says, being merely sepulchral remains were spared, not merely because they were not objects of superstition, but also because they were as graves, to be protected from violence and desecration. Therefore, none of these hollows were cut on them, as are found on the natural rocks assumed to have been altars. But, unluckily for this theory, the reverse is in reality the case, not only in Britanny but more especially in these islands, as any one may judge by referring to Sir James Simpson's invaluable work on the subject. Dr. Fouquet's theory may therefore be considered finally disposed of and consigned to the company of other druidic theories, long since exploded.

All that can be said, therefore, on the subject, is that at present we know nothing about druidic altars, except