[Footnote 6: Ferdinando Smith, Esq., of Halesowen, born March 26, 1779, a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant, and Lieut.-Colonel of the Worcester Militia, married first, in July, 1802, Eloisa Knudson, who died _s. p._ Sept. 14, 1805; and, secondly, Oct. 5, 1830, Elizabeth, fourth daughter of Michael Grazebrook, Esq., of Audnam, co. Stafford, by whom he left two surviving sons, Ferdinando Dudley Lea, now of Halesowen, and William Lea, born Feb. 27, 1836. Colonel Smith died July 20, 1841.--Burke's _Landed Gentry_, p. 1248.--ED.] _Sir Anthony Fitzherbert not Chief Justice_ (Vol. viii., pp. 576. 631.).--The accompanying extract will resolve the difficulty which M. W. R. proposes: "But here our author objects against himself: That once upon a time the archbishop called a synod by his own authority, without the king's licence; and was thereupon prohibited by Fitzherbert, Lord Chief Justice; but the archbishop regarded not his prohibition. What this is to his purpose I cannot tell, nor do I see wherefore he brought it in, unless it were to blame Rolle for quoting Speed for it. And therefore, in behalf of both, I shall take the liberty to say thus much. That I know not what harm it is for a man in his own private collections--for such Rolle's _Abridgment_ was, though afterwards thought worthy of a public view--to note a memorable passage of history, and make a remark of his own upon it, out of one of the most faithful and judicious of all our modern historians. "I have before taken notice of this passage, and that not from Speed, but from Roger Hoveden; from {286} whom I suppose Speed may also have taken the relation. I shall therefore only beg to set this gentleman, to whom all our historians are I doubt equally unknown, right in two particulars; by telling him, that _neither was Fitzherbert the man who prohibited the archbishop, neither was he Chief Justice when he did it. His name was Geoffrey Fitz-Peter._ He was Earl of Essex, and a very eminent man in those days; and his place was much greater than this author represents it; even Lord Justice of England, which he was first made by King Richard, anno 1198; and held in the King's absence to his death, anno 1213; in which year King John, going over into France, constituted Peter, Bishop of Winchester, Lord Justice in his place."--Wake's _Authority of Christian Princes asserted_, pp. 284-6. WM. FRASER, B.C.L. Tor-Mohun. _The Privileges of the See of Canterbury_ (Vol. viii., p. 56.).--As no one has yet volunteered to solve MR. FRASER'S question, How the letter of Pope Boniface ordaining that, _however human circumstances might be changed_, the city of Canterbury should ever thereafter be esteemed the metropolitan see, can be reconciled with the creation of the archiepiscopal see of Westminster,--I may suggest as a solution this maxim: