Newton was twice married: 1. to a daughter of Newton, of
Crossland; and 2. to Emmett, daughter of John Harvey, of London, according
to a MS. in the British Museum; but, according to Somersetshire and
Gloucestershire Visitations, to Emma, daughter of Sir Thomas Perrott, of
Islington. He had issue by both marriages, and from the second descended
Sir John Newton, who was created a baronet 12 Car. II., and died in 1661.
The baronetcy was limited in remainder, at its creation, to John Newton, of
Hather, in Lincolnshire, and he became the second baronet. There are
several pedigrees tracing the descent from Sir Richard to the first
baronet; but I have not yet seen the descent to the second baronet, though
there can be no doubt that he was also descended from Sir Richard,
otherwise the baronetcy could not have been limited to him; and probably he
was the next male heir of the first baronet, as that is the usual mode of
limiting titles. In the Heralds' College there is a pedigree of Sir Isaac
Newton, signed by himself, in which he traces his descent to the brother of
the ancestor of the second baronet. It should seem, therefore, that Sir
Isaac was himself descended from the Chief Justice. It would confer a great
obligation on the writer if any of your readers could afford any assistance
to clear up the pedigree of the second baronet.

As to the representatives of Sir Richard, I doubt whether his heir is
discoverable, although there are many descendants now living who trace
their descent through females.

C. S. G.

* * * * * {601}

THE MARRIAGE RING.

(Vol. vii., p. 332.)

I cannot agree with the answer given, under the above reference, to the
question of J. P.: "How did the use of the ring, in the marriage ceremony,
originate?" The answer given is taken from Wheatly's _Rational
Illustration_, &c., and is in substance this:--The ring anciently was a
_seal_, and the delivery of this seal was a sign of confidence; and as a
ceremony in marriage, its signification is, that the wife is admitted to
the husband's counsels. From this argument, and the supposed proofs of it,
I beg to dissent; and I conceive that Wheatly has not thrown any light upon
the origin of this beautiful ceremony. To bear out his view, it would be
necessary to prove that a signet ring had originally been used for the
wedding ring--a matter of no slight difficulty, not to say impossibility.

What I take to be the real meaning