Following our publication of his article on bellows bagpipes in 17th century England in our previous issue, Paul Roberts sent this correction

I’ve just been re-looking at “Three Extraordinary Collections” and it would seem my claim that most late 17th/early 18th century bagpipe-style music in English collections stays within the 2nd octave 4th and the low leading note - and that most of Marsden is playable on a Swayne pipe - is mistaken. Blame it on my extremely poor music reading skills and haste to complete the talk. In fact Marsden (and similar music in other collections) frequently goes as high as the 2nd octave 5th and occasionally the 6th (and sometimes below the low leading note, though my impression is that in this case it is very much due to these being fiddle settings, and is largely confined to the variations. The 2nd octave notes in contrast tend to be more integral to the tunes)
So not playable on John‘s excellent instruments. But - apart from the low sections in some variations - certainly playable on the bagpipe described by John Geoghegan.
Publish in haste, repent at leisure.....!

Paul Roberts also pointed out that an intended amendment to his article in our previous issue slipped through the final editorial net.

On p.37 it says "Hale was apparently patronized by the Duke of Rutland at Haddon Hall and Belvoir Castle in Derbyshire, and has been described as 'house piper at Haddon'." This should have read: "Hale was apparently patronized by the Duke of Rutland of Haddon Hall and Belvoir Castle in Derbyshire".
Paul comments:  “the house piper phrase was a convenient shorthand for a complex discussion about Hale's relationship with the Duke and the latter's patronage of pipers, for which there was no time in the talk. I wouldn't want it to appear in any printed version without elaboration. In fact the 'house piper' phrase came from John Tams, who cannot remember his source except it was probably a Victorian article he found in the Derby local history library a long time ago. There's no doubt the Duke patronized pipers, and Hale is named at least once in the family records, but most of the references to pipers in these records are anonymous, so the idea of a retained "house" piper may be an inference too far at this stage - at least until I can find and evaluate John's source. This might seem a little like nitpicking, but as you know there is too much unelaborated "has been described" and "it is thought that" floating around the bagpipe literature!”

Not long after Paul’s comment arrived, we received the following from Jane Moulder, who first discovered the Derbyshire portrait of piper Hale, and who has written more about his remarkable bagpipe in this issue.

I've done quite a bit of research into the Haddon archives (very useful knowing the family, staff and the Hall!) and there is one very brief mention of "Hales the pyper" having played at the Hall on 4th January 1671 (paid 2/6 for his troubles).  He was obviously there as a supplement to another piper (Dickens) who had been employed to play at Haddon Hall for one day at New Year and then for another day to play at 5 or 6 houses on the estate.  Having studied the household accounts at Haddon, it is clear that a variety of entertainers, musicians and dancers were employed throughout the year for various special occasions but no-one was employed on a permanent basis.  It is unlikely that the "Duke" would have employed them directly but more likely the Steward/household.  So to infer that they were "Duke's Pipers" would be stretching a point.  There is no record of Hale ever having played at Belvoir.  Belvoir was the grand family seat and Haddon a long neglected, unfashionable and rural backwater.  Soon after 1670 the family permanently left Haddon as a place of residence.
Belvoir meanwhile employed large numbers of musicians but usually in the form of visiting troupes such as Waits bands and trumpeters.  There is no evidence from the records that there was ever a "retained" musician or piper.
Meanwhile, the search for the elusive Mr Hale(s) continues!