8. (Inquired after at
Vol. ii, p. 406.)--I have this book. It appears to be a Narrative of
Complaint of the widow of "John Wh--y, Esq.," of "Great H-y-w--d" (Great
Heywood, near Stafford), against Sir W--m W--y in the same neighbourhood.

THOMAS KERSLAKE.

Bristol.

_Modum Promissionis_ (Vol. ii., pp 279. 347.).--Your correspondent C. H.
has not solved my difficulty as to _modum promissionis_. In the hope that
he, or others, will still kindly endeavour to do so, I subjoin the context
in which it stands:--

"Noluit Jethro legem posteris figere: sed, quoad quietam stationem
adeptus esset populus, remedium praesentibus incommodis, atque (ut vulgo
loquitur) modum promissionis ostendit."

An old French translation renders it:--

"Il n'a point donc voulu mettre loy pour la posterite: mais seulement
remedier aux incommoditez presentes _par maniere de provision_ (comme
on dit)," &c.

The general import of the passage is, that Jethro's counsel to Moses, as to
the appointment of rulers over the people, was not intended to apply to
Canaan, but only to their sojourn in the wilderness.

I do not see how the "formula professionis monasticae" helps us; unless,
indeed, "modus promissionis" were a kind of temporary and conditional vow,
which does not appear in Ducange.

C. W. B.

_End of Easter_ (Vol. ii., p. 9).--Should not the end of Easter be
considered its octave--Low Sunday?

J. W. H.

_First Earl of Roscommon_ (Vol. ii., p. 325.).--There was, in the
burying-ground of Kilkenny-West, some thirty-five years or more ago, an old
tombstone belonging to the Dillon Family, on which was traced the genealogy
of the Roscommon branch from one of the sons of the first earl (if I
remember right, the third or fourth), down to a Thomas, who had, I have
heard my father say, a son called Garrett, who had issue two sons, Patrick
and Thomas. Patrick was always, in that part of the country, _considered
the heir_ to this title. Patrick and Thomas had issue, (living or dead I
know not), but should imagine dead; as, had they been living, they would no
doubt have come forward when the late earl claimed the title, as he claimed
it as being descended from the youngest son of the first earl, whereas
Patrick and Thomas were certainly the descendants of one of the elder sons
of the first earl; and therefore, had the sons of either Patrick or Thomas
come forward, it would no doubt have been decided in their favour. On this