47. Lord and Lady Roper, and the Yates Pass to France (Partially in Correction of #46)

In 46. How Young was the Mother of George Yate of Maryland (d. 1691)?, I noted that “Mr. Yates” and “his Wife” received a pass to travel to France from the House of Lords, on the same day and just before a similar pass was issued for “Lord Roper” and “his Lady”.  Because Lady Roper was a second cousin of Catherine Weston White, these records were taken as implying that the Yates were John Yate and his proposed wife Elizabeth White, Catherine’s daughter.

Unfortunately, however, I mistakenly identified the Lord and Lady as John Roper, 3rd Baron Teynham, and his wife Mary Petre.  In fact, in 1642 when the passes were issued, John Roper had long been dead, and the recipient was actually the couple’s son Christopher Roper, the 4th Baron Teynham [1].

Monument of Christopher Roper, 2nd Baron Teynham, and his Wife Katharine Seborne

The error, however, does not materially affect the observation that the two passes, issued the same date, likely went to related parties.  Through his mother Mary Petre Roper, Christopher Roper was the second cousin once removed of Catherine Weston White, and the third cousin of Elizabeth White.  A known relationship therefore continues to lend support to the identification of the Yates couple as John Yate and his proposed wife Elizabeth White. 

Motivation for Leaving England

Some further digging has revealed the motivation of the Ropers for leaving England.  Their pass was approved on 9 Sept 1642 [2], but on 5 Sept it had been reported to the House of Lords that Lord Roper and Sir Peter Rycaut had been apprehended, and that they had been [3]:

. . . brought out of Kent, and committed . . . to the Custody of the Gentleman Usher attending this House.

The Dean of Canterbury had also been apprehended in Kent, and being considered “very malignant” toward Parliament, was committed to Fleet Prison.  Further, all the arrestees [3]:

… shall remain in the several Prisons where they are now, until the Pleasure of this House . . . be further known.

It is therefore clear that Lord Roper was a royalist who had been captured by Parliamentarian forces in the opening phase of the First English Civil War.  Records indicate that his apprehension took place at Rochester, co. Kent, a bit prior to 20 Aug [1].  The arrest was probably made at his own house [4]:

[In August] parliamentarian soldiers made an expedition into Kent, visiting the houses of known Royalist sympathisers and removing not only arms and armour but also money and other goods.

By 5 Sept, Lord Roper had been committed to prison, awaiting judgment by the House of Lords.   Four days later he was granted a pass to France.  His exile, it seems, was not purely voluntary.

As Lord Roper was one of the bigger fish in Parliament’s net, his pass suggests that there was some added but unknown significance to the Yates pass immediately preceding.  In fact the Yates pass was taken up right after opening prayers in the House of Lords on 9 Sept 1642.  Why hadn’t the seemingly more important Roper case been handled first?

A Speculation

Having a working hypothesis is a key tool in the The Genealogist’s Craft.  Having one directs research into nooks and crannies that might otherwise go unexplored.  In fact that is its main utility; it is probably the case, more often than not, that a working hypothesis proves wrong.

Recognizing that, I suggest the following speculation, offered purely as a working hypothesis.  When Lord Roper was imprisoned, the House of Lords was presented with the problem of what to do with one of their own, a peer of the realm [1].  A possibility was a pass to France that would solve the problem through a not-completely-voluntary exile.  However, supporters in the House were faced with a dilemma.  If they offered that up as a proposal, there was no guarantee that it would be approved — and if it wasn’t approved, attitudes might harden in favor of indefinite incarceration or worse.

What was needed was a test case that would allow assessment of the temper of the House.  Therefore the decision was made to first propose a pass for someone closely associated with Lord and Lady Roper.  As we know, there was a third cousin relationship to Elizabeth White, the proposed wife of John Yate.  Perhaps the Yate couple had been visiting the Ropers, and John had been arrested, or at least had been suspected and briefly detained.  

In any event the Yates case could be presented as connected to that of the Ropers, but with less risk.  Debate on the case would cast light on the likely outcome of any proposal to issue the Ropers a pass.  If the Yates pass was approved, a Roper pass might be approved.  On the other hand, if prospects appeared dim based on the handling of the Yates pass, the Roper pass would not be proposed at all, and another strategy would be developed.  Presumably things went well, and both the Yates and Ropers were issued passes.

The problem with speculation, of course, is that there is no evidence for it.  There’s no conclusive evidence that the Yates and Roper cases were connected, even though the cousin relationship is suggestive.  There’s certainly no evidence that the Yates were visiting the Ropers, or that John Yate had been arrested or detained when Lord Roper was arrested.  But the speculation does have a basis, the fact that the Yate case was handled as the first business of the day in the House of Lords, followed immediately by the presumably much more important Roper case.

Could speculation be true?  The answer may depend on further application, over time, of The Genealogist’s Craft.

---

Notes:

[1] Cokayne, G.E. (1953).  The Complete Peerage.  London: The St. Catherine Press Ltd., v. 12, part 1, pp. 681-2.

[2] Journal of the House of Lords, v. 5, p. 344. 

[3] Journal of the House of Lords, v. 5, pp. 338-340.

[4] Information retrieved from https://www.wilcuma.org.uk/the-hstory-of-the-english-counties-after-the-conquest-crusade/the-civil-war (2020).

---

Picture Attribution

“Lynsted, Ss Peter & Paul church, Sir Christopher Roper monument” by Jules & Jenny is licensed under CC BY 2.0. The 2nd Baron was father of the 3rd Baron, and grandfather of the 4th Baron, the Lord Roper of the pass to France.

46. How Young was the Mother of George Yate of Maryland (d. 1691)?

Recently I described evidence that George Yate of Maryland (d. 1691) was the son of Elizabeth White, daughter of Richard White and Catherine Weston, and a descendant of King Edward III of England (see 43. The Maternal Ancestry of George Yate of Maryland (d. 1691)).  The most important evidence for the Yate-White relationship was the following, for which references were given in the blog entry.

1.  Jerome White, son of Richard and Catherine Weston White, called George Yate his “cousin” in Mar 1666/7, several years prior to George’s marriage.  Jerome himself was a Dominican lay priest and was unmarried.  Therefore the relationship was between Jerome and George.  Also, the use of the word “cousin” to denote “nephew” was common at the time.

2. Jerome had a sister Elizabeth who could have been George Yate’s mother, which would make George the nephew of Jerome.  George’s mother is known to have been named Elizabeth.

3. Given the well-understood White-Weston ancestry, no other close Yate-White relationship appears plausible [1]. 

4. George Yate could have been named after George White, the brother of Jerome and Elizabeth White.

5. George Yate’s daughter Elizabeth Yate Plummer named a son Jerome.

A Chronological Issue

In two posts responding to the evidence, user lionheart0317 raised an issue over the age of Elizabeth White, and suggested that she was too young to plausibly have been George Yate’s mother.  The crux of the matter is that in a 1999 article in the Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin [3], James Duvall Trabue quoted from a list of recusants in co. Essex, England, giving the ages of two of the children of Richard and Catherine White.  One was George White, “12 yeares old”, and the other was Elizabeth White, the putative mother of George Yate, “10 years old”.  Although the list was undated, in the Visitation of Essex in 1634 [4], George White was stated to be 6 years old.  According to lionheart0317, this would mean that Elizabeth White was 4 years old in 1634, and born in 1630.  George Yate, however, was a Maryland juror on 2 Mar 1664/5, and therefore — it was argued — at least 18 years old at that time. Since that means he was born no later than 1646/7, Elizabeth was at most 17 years old when she is proposed to have mothered George Yate. Lionheart0317 considered this a chronological improbability.

In fact lionheart0317 understated the case. In colonial America the minimum juror age was 21, not 18 [5].  So just how young was George Yate’s mother, if she was Elizabeth White?

If we start with the 1634 Visitation of Essex, we know that George White was age 6 in the latter part of that year.  That’s because a death date was recorded in the visitation pedigree, as 9 Aug 1634.  George was therefore born no earlier than 10 Aug 1627 (i.e., he could have been one day short of age 7 on 9 Aug 1634, the earliest date on which the pedigree could have been recorded).

Elizabeth White’s age was stated in the recusant list to be two years less than her brother’s.  If he was born as early as 10 Aug 1627, she could have been born as early as 11 Aug 1628.  Thus, assuming the earliest possible birth dates, on the specific date 10 Aug 1639, George would have just turned 12, and Elizabeth would have been 10 (i.e., one day short of age 11).

So what is the maximum age Elizabeth could have been to have a son, George Yate, who was at least 21 on 2 Mar 1664/5?  That places his birth date no later than 2 Mar 1643/4, making Elizabeth, who we just saw was born no earlier than 11 Aug 1628, no older than 15 years of age. 

In my earlier post, I implied that Elizabeth may have married John Yate sometime between Apr 1642, when the White family received a pass to go to France, and Sept 1642 when a “Mr. Yates” and “his Wife” received a similar pass [9]. This was on the assumption that “Mr. Yates” and “his Wife” were John and Elizabeth White Yate. If so, Elizabeth could have been no older than 14 at marriage.

An Important Discovery

In an attempt to further identify the “Mr. Yates” of the Sept 1642 pass, I very recently reaccessed the record and made what I think is an important discovery. Legislative passes to France were infrequent at that time, yet on 9 Sept, two were issued consecutively. One was to Yates and wife, and the second was to “Lord Roper” and “his Lady”, also to go to France [9]. “Lord Roper” was John Roper, 3rd Baron Teynham, who in 1615 married the 14-year-old Mary Petre [10]. She was the great-granddaughter of Edward and Frances Neville Waldegrave — as was Catherine Weston White, making the two women second cousins [2, 3].

As the saying goes, “What are the odds?” I had suggested that “Mr. Yates” was John Yate, and that “his Wife” was Elizabeth White, daughter of Richard and Catherine Weston White. Now it was discovered that another pass to France, issued consecutively the same day, went to the second cousin of Catherine Weston White. Surely this was not coincidental, and the two passes were issued to relatives leaving England. Indeed, it seems quite possible that the Yates pass was only taken up by the House of Lords because of the relationship to Lord Roper. The earlier pass to the Whites had been issued by the House of Commons.

William II, Prince of Orange, and his Bride, Mary Stuart

Child Brides in 17th-Century England

Yet how likely was a 14-year-old bride in 17th-century England?  In spite of the existence of Mary Petre, who as we have just seen married at 14, it may be assumed they were uncommon. Nevertheless they were not unheard of.  In fact in researching the question I was surprised to find a Wikipedia article devoted to the specific topic, “List of Child Brides” [8].  It names a number of upper-class British examples of young brides in the 17th century:

1. Lady Margaret Sackville, age 14, m. 1629 to John Tufton, 2nd Earl of Thanet

2. Mary, Princess Royal, age 9, m. 1641 to William II, Prince of Orange

3. Mary Scott, 3rd Countess of Buccleuch, age 11, m. 1659 to Walter Scott of Highchester

4. Jane Needham, aged about 14/15, m. 1660 to Charles Myddelton

5. Anne Scott, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, age 12, m. 1663 to James Crofts, 1st Duke of Monmouth

6. Lady Anne FitzRoy, age 13, m. 1674 to Thomas Lennard, 15th Baron Dacre

7. Lady Charlotte Fitzroy, age 13, m. 1677 to Sir Edward Lee

8. Lady Mary Tudor, aged 13, m. 1687 to Edward Radclyffe, 2nd Earl of Derwentwater

Of course these were very upper-class – but then Catherine Weston White was the daughter of the Earl of Portland [7].

There is also this, referring specifically to 17th-century England, and with no reference to social class [6]:

Theoretically, it was possible for two people to marry very young. The minimum legal age was 12 years for women and 14 years for men.

Evaluating the Evidence

Again, in Apr 1642 the White family was granted a pass to travel to France [7].  Essentially they chose voluntary exile over religious persecution in a country on the brink of civil war.  Under stress, one of their last acts before departure might have been to wed their eldest daughter to a fellow English Catholic, namely the future George Yate’s father, John Yate.  That would have saved her from potentially unmarriageable status as an exile.  The 14-year-old age of the bride, or even less, would have been no impediment in a country where the minimum marriageable age was 12. 

On the one hand, we have what seems to be strong evidence that George Yate was closely related to Jerome White, and a sufficiently well known White-Weston pedigree to seemingly render implausible anything other than a connection via Elizabeth White.  Such a connection appears supported by the two passes issued on 9 Sept 1642.

On the other hand, we have evidence that if Elizabeth White was George Yate’s mother, she was very young when married, no more than age 14.  Should the latter be considered to overturn the former? 

Speaking for myself, I don’t think so, given that marriage at that age was both legal and sometimes practiced.  However, one of the strengths of The Genealogist’s Craft is that all are free to evaluate the evidence before arriving at their own conclusion.  Perhaps in the process, new records will be discovered that will shed further light.

---

Notes:

[1] James Duvall Trabue argued that the relationship might have been based on the marriage of George Yate’s great-great-grandfather Thomas Yate to Frances White, of the “Swanborne Whites”, stated without attribution to be related to the Whites of co. Essex (the family of Elizabeth White).  However, there is no evidence for such a marriage.  Thomas Yate’s son Francis did have a wife named Frances White, but George Yate descended from Francis through his other wife Jane Tichbourne (The Omnibus Ancestry: 785 Documented American and European Lines, 2020).  He therefore was not related to Jerome White by that route.  Also, any such relationship would require additional generations of White descent to reach common ancestry, and surely would have been far more distant than anything Jerome White would have referred to as  a cousin relationship.

[2] Mary Petre was not, however, the sister of the John Petre who m. 1681 to Frances White, daughter of Richard and Catherine Weston White (Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin, v. 40, p. 14, 1999). Mary was the daughter of William Petre, 2nd Baron Petre (Cokayne, op. cit.), and while she had a brother John Petre, of Margaretting, co. Essex, his will was proved in 1670, long before the 1681 marriage (information retrieved from https://www.essexarchivesonline.co.uk/Result_Details.aspx?DocID=325536, 2020). It appears, however, that the two Johns were kinsmen (information retrieved from https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/gorw5AGwu7E/m/MkMfmdA3YQ0J, 2020).

[3] Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin, v. 40, pp. 3-25 (1999).

[4] W.C. Metcalfe (1878). The Visitations of Essex. London: Mitchell & Hughes.

[5] Eakle, A.H. (1984). American court records. In A.H. Eakle and J. Cerny (Eds.), The Source: A Guidebook of American Genealogy. Salt Lake City: Ancestry Publishing Co., pp. 151-214.

[6] Information retrieved from https://www.phil.muni.cz/angl/thepes/thepes_02_02.pdf (2020).

[7] The Omnibus Ancestry: 785 Documented American and European Lines (2020).

[8] Information retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_brides (2020).

[9] In my earlier blog entry, as well as in The Omnibus Ancestry (op. cit.), the reference for the 9 September pass was mistakenly given as Journal of the House of Commons, v. 5, pp. 344-5. Please note that the correct reference is to Journal of the House of Lords, v. 5, p. 344.

[10] Cokayne, G.E. (1953).  The Complete Peerage.  London: The St. Catherine Press Ltd., v. 12, part 1, p. 681.

---

Picture Attribution

“William II, Prince of Orange, and his Bride, Mary Stuart” by f_snarfel is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

43. The Maternal Ancestry of George Yate of Maryland (d. 1691)

The new 4th edition of The Omnibus Ancestry: 785 Documented American and European Lines (2020), has been simultaneously released with this blog entry.  Besides extending existing lines and correcting errors, it has 166 more lines than the 3rd edition.  Many of the new lines, but by no means all, concern the maternal ancestry of George Yate.  The book is available through this link to Lulu.com.

George Yate (ca 1643?-1691) immigrated to Maryland by March 1664/5, and from 1670 to 1684 served as Deputy Surveyor for Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties.  Because he named several of his land tracts after locations in Berkshire, England (e.g., Lyford, Ufton’s Court, Denchworth, and Padworth Farms), his paternal ancestry was deduced some time ago to derive from a Yate family of Lyford, Berkshire.  This was confirmed when a probate record of the estate of Thomas Yate of Lyford, dated 1658, named George Yate as a minor grandson.  He and his sister Elizabeth were then wards of their mother Elizabeth Yate.  From this it was possible to conclude that George was the son of John Yate, who was deceased as of the writing of his father Thomas’ 1654 will [12].  However, his maternal ancestry through Elizabeth has heretofore been unknown [13].

Yet in March 1666/7, Jerome White, Surveyor General of Maryland, called George Yate “my cousin” [1].  That was several years before George married Mary Wells Stockett, whose first husband Thomas Stockett died in 1671 [2].  The relationship was therefore between Jerome and George, and not between Jerome and George’s wife as often claimed.  Furthermore, in 1667 White was surveyed “Portland Manor” [7, 10], thereby identifying as the Jerome White who was the son of Richard White, of Hutton, co. Essex, England, by his wife Catherine Weston, daughter of Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland [8].

Jerome and George were not first cousins, however, for the first and last names of all four of Jerome’s grandparents are known, and there is no possibility that any of them were also grandparents of George.  Any such relationship would have had to be through George’s mother Elizabeth [9].  But Richard and Mary (Plowden) White, Jerome’s paternal grandparents, had no daughter Elizabeth as of ca 1614 and 1634 [14].  The maternal grandparents, Richard Weston and Frances Waldegrave, did have a daughter Elizabeth, but she married in 1623 to John Netterville, and predeceased him [3].

However, George Yate could have been Jerome White’s “cousin” if by cousin Jerome actually meant nephew.  At the time such usage was common, and there are many known examples where “cousin” meant nephew, including several in The Omnibus Ancestry (see the Dickinson, Martin (James), Shircliffe, and Whittamore Lines).  Jerome had an older sister named Elizabeth of about the right age to be George Yate’s mother [4].  In April 1642, she was included in a pass to France issued to her parents and siblings, approved by Parliament [5] – presumably an attempt by the Catholic family to escape a religiously repressive England on the brink of civil war.  I believe that about this time Elizabeth married John Yate, perhaps an attempt by the family to save her from an unmarried exile’s fate.  Intriguingly, a “Mr. Yates” and “his Wife” were also issued a pass to France, in September 1642 [6].  Whether or not those were John and Elizabeth, and whether or not their children were born outside the country, George was their first child, born ca 1643? [11].  Assuming his mother was Jerome White’s sister, George was Jerome’s “cousin” – i.e., nephew.

Importantly, the name of their son is itself supporting evidence for the marriage between John Yate and Elizabeth White.  Specifically, Elizabeth White’s eldest brother was George White, providing a source for the name.  George White was the presumptive heir of their father Richard White, and he did in  fact succeed to and sell the Hutton estate [15].  He was also the heir of the childless Jerome White, and sold Portland manor to Lord Baltimore sometime after 1676 [10].

Finally, Elizabeth, daughter of George Yate, married Thomas Plummer, and named a son Jerome Plummer [16].  The name manifestly derived from Jerome White, who because of the Yate-White marriage would have been Elizabeth’s great uncle.

Assuming the circumstances sufficiently establish, as I believe they do, that George Yate was a son of Elizabeth White and great-grandson of Richard Weston, 1st Earl of Portland, he had extensively traceable ancestry including multiple descents from King Edward I and King Edward III of England.  For those, and for Richard White’s surprising academic career and association with Galileo, see the new 4th edition of The Omnibus Ancestry: 785 Documented American and European Lines (2020).

---

Notes:

[1] See J. Kilty, The Land-Holder’s Assistant and Land-Office Guide, p. 158 (1808), where a document is transcribed instructing that land “be laid out by my cousin George Yate”.  It was signed by Surveyor General Jerome White.  Writing on the back of the document, Charles Calvert instructed “Captain Burges” and Richard Ewins, “you may cause George Yate to lay it out accordingly”, and gave the date as 13 Mar 1666.  Today this would commonly be stated as 13 Mar 1666/7, given that at the time, the new year began on 25 Mar.

[2] Information retrieved from https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stockett-9 (2020).

[3] Dictionary of National Biography, v. 40, pp. 234-5 (1885-1900).

[4] In the 1634 Visitation of Essex (see W.C. Metcalfe, The Visitations of Essex, 1878), her oldest brother was named as George White, age 6 – i.e., b. 1627/8.  Elizabeth was shown as the oldest daughter.  If she was older than George, she would have been b. ca 1625?.  John Yate, her inferred husband, was bap. 1612/3, and George Yate was b. ca 1643?.

[5] Journal of the House of Commons, v. 2, pp. 516-518.

[6] Ibid, v. 5, pp. 344-5.

[7] Information retrieved from http://genealogytrails.com/mary/annearundel/lordsofthemanor.html (2020).

[8] A transcription from the Journal of the House of Commons (v. 2, pp. 516-518) gave the name “George Jerome”, but those were actually two sons.  See note 10, indicating that Jerome bequeathed property to his brother George.

[9] George Yate’s mother is often said to have been Mary Tettershall, daughter of George Tettershall [Sr.].  Indeed, during the 1665-6 Visitation of Berkshire, George Tettershall [Jr.] named as his sister “Mary wife to John Yate of Lyford in Com: Berks” (see W.H. Rylands, The Four Visitations of Berkshire, v. 1, 1907).  Yet there can be little doubt that John Yates’ widow was named Elizabeth, for she was the mother of Thomas Yate’s underaged grandchildren George and Elizabeth Yate in 1658 (National Genealogical Society Quarterly, v. 64, pp. 176-180, 1976).  This conundrum has a simple solution: John Yate must have married twice, his first wife having been Mary Tettershall, and his second wife and widow having been Elizabeth.  This conclusion is supported by the relatively late marriage of John to Elizabeth, apparently in 1642 when John was about 30 years of age.

[10] It is said of Jerome White that he “came to Maryland in about 1661 and left late in 1670”, and that he “was a Catholic who had lived in Rome and probably had been educated there” (see E. Arnett, R.J. Brugger, & E.C. Papenfuse, A New Guide to the Old Line State, 1999, 2nd ed.).  In Maryland, he may have been responsible for the “baroque axial plan” of the city of St. Mary’s, a design largely developed in Italy (see R. Bennett, Settlements in the Americas, 1993).  In 1673, in Modena, Italy, he played a role in the marriage of Mary of Modena to the future King James II of England.  Thus “the Bishop of Modena did not deem it advisable to perform the marriage ceremony himself, — ‘so a poor English Jacobine was found, Brother to Jerome White'” (M. Haile, Queen Mary of Modena, 1905).  The “brother” [actually uncle] was Thomas White (Md. Historical Magazine, Spring 2015, p. 115), alias Thomas Blackloe, a Dominican priest and prominent religious author (information retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_White_(scholar), 2020).  Jerome himself was a Dominican lay priest, and became a chaplain of Mary of Modena (The Catholic World, v. 33, p. 762, 1881; also R. Palmer, The Life of Philip Thomas Howard, O.P., Cardinal of Norfolk, 1867).  It is said he was gifted a jewel by a relative of Mary, which he subsequently bequeathed to a sister (information retrieved from https://www.geni.com/people/Frances-Petre/6000000019362767656, 2020).  Jerome died childless in 1677 (information retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquinsicke, 2020), leaving his Maryland manor to his brother George White, who sold it to Lord Baltimore (E. Putnam, The Governor’s Council of Md., 1634-1689, thesis, 1969).

[11] The second and apparently last child was named Elizabeth (National Genealogical Society Quarterly, v. 64, pp. 176-180, 1976).

[12] Ibid.

[13] Writing in Plantagenet Ancestry (2011), Douglas Richardson implicitly rejected the contention in National Genealogical Society Quarterly – by pointedly not mentioning it — that Elizabeth was the same person as Mary Tattershall (Tettershall), a known wife of John Yate of Lyford.  I completely agree.  Richardson left Elizabeth’s surname blank.

[14] W.C. Metcalfe, The Visitations of Essex (1878).

[15] P. Morant, The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex, v. 2, p.195 (1768).

[16] For Jerome Plummer, and for the discussion and resolution of misunderstandings about the Plummer ancestry, see the Plummer Line in The Omnibus Ancestry.  It is not true that Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Plummer, was the daughter of Mary Wells by Mary’s first husband Thomas Stockett.  Elizabeth also did not marry the Thomas Plummer who d. 1694/5.

[Postscript 25 Oct 2020 — Please note that [6] gives an incorrect reference. Instead of Journal of the House of Commons, v. 5, pp. 344-5, the correct reference is Journal of the House of Lords, v. 5, p. 344.]