Chapter M: Coquebert De Montbret (3)

In the 14th of Edward the second (p. 371.) complaint was made by the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of felonies for which they besought a remedy: and the Record concludes “Et Concordatum est per Dominum Regem de Consilio Prelatorum, Comitum, Baronum, et aliorum Peritorum, in dicto Parliamento existentium quod,” &c. that is, “and it was agreed between our Lord the king and the council of Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other great men in the said Parliament assembled, &c.”

The Entries in the sixth of Edward the third, 1331, (to the Parliament Rolls of which year Lord Coke particularly refers for proof of the Lords and Commons then sitting together) which appear to bear on the point in question, are in vol. ii. p. 66. At the first meeting at Westminster, the Prelates by themselves, and the Knights for counties by themselves, deliberated on the business opened to them at the beginning of the Parliament, and answered by advising the king not to go in person to Ireland to quell the rebellion there. And in the third meeting in that year at York, when a statement was made by Geoffrey le Scroop, in the presence of the king, and “de touz les Grantz en plein Parlement,” of all the Lords in full Parliament; and afterwards it was agreed by the king and the whole in full Parliament, that certain Bishops and Peers named, should meet on the business in discussion by themselves, the other Prelates, Earls and Barons, and the Proxies by themselves; and the Knights of the shire and Commons by themselves. The business was discussed accordingly during some days; after which the Commons had leave to return to their counties, and the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, were to remain till the day following.

In the 13th of Edward the third (vol. 2. p. 104.) a grant was made to the king, “par les Grantz,” of a tenth of the grain of their demesne lands, and of their fleeces, with certain reservations. The Commons, however, after representing their having heard the statement of the king’s necessities, the extent of which they were aware of, and were willing to relieve as they had always done; said, that as the aid must be a great one they dared not assent to it without consulting with “les Communes de leur Pais,” the Commons of their counties. And they desired another Parliament to be summoned. At which subsequent meeting, in the same year, (p. 107. b.) the occasion of summoning the Parliament was explained to the Commons, on which they said they would deliberate. They afterwards proposed to grant 30,000 sacks of wool on certain conditions, which if not agreed to by the king, the aid was to be withheld. The Earls and Barons the same day granted for themselves and the Peers of the land who held by Barony, the tenth sheaf, the tenth fleece, and the tenth lamb.

In the 14th of Edward the third, (p. 112, a.) grants were made by the Prelates, Earls, and Barons, for themselves and all their tenants, and by the Knights of shires for themselves, and for the commons of the land, of the ninth sheaf, the ninth fleece, and the ninth lamb; and by the Citizens and Burgesses of a real ninth of their property; and merchants not inhabiting cities and towns, and other people who reside in forests and wastes, and who do not live by their gains or their flocks, a fifteenth of all their property according to the true value.

In the 15th of Edward the third (p. 127, a.) on occasion of a Grant made to the king in a former Parliament, to enable him to purchase friends and allies for the recovery of his rights, having not been as available as it ought to have been, it was proposed that consideration should be had, “par touz les Grantz et Communes,” “by all the Lords and Commons,” how the grant should be made most profitable to the king, and least burthensome to the people, “les Grantz de par eux, et les Chivalers des Counteez, Citeyens, et Burgeys de par eux,” that is, “the Lords by themselves, and the Knights for counties, Citizens and Burgesses by themselves.”

In the 17th of Edward the third, (p. 136, a.) “les ditz Prelatz et Grantz assemblez en la Chambre Blanche (the court of requests) responderent,” &c. (p. 136, 6.) “Et pour vindrent les Chivalers des Counteez et les Communes et responderent par Monsieur William Trussell en la dite Chambre Blanche qi’ en Presence de nostre Signeur le Roi et les ditz Prelates,” &c. that is, “on which day the said Prelates and Lords assembled in the _Chambre Blanche_, answered,” &c. “And then came the Knights for counties, and the Commons, and answered by Monsieur William Trussell in the said _Chambre Blanche_, and in the presence of our Lord the king, and the said Prelates,” &c.

There can be little doubt but that this William Trussell was Speaker of the House of Commons. He is styled by Higden, who wrote in the reign of Edward the third, in his “Polychronicon,” “Procurator of the Parliament,” when he, in the name of all the men in the land of England, renounced allegiance to king Edward the second, in the last year of that king’s reign.

The Speaker of the Commons was indeed styled “Parlour and Procurator,” so late as the first of Henry the fourth. (Rolls of Parl. vol. 3. p. 424, b.)

In the 18th of Edward the third, when the king was going-to France for the recovery of his rights, the grants by the Lords and Commons were quite distinct; the former to accompany him in the war, “les ditz grantz granterent de passer et lour aventurer ovesque lui;” the Commons granted, for the same cause, two fifteenths of the commonalty, and two tenths of the cities and boroughs. (Rolls of Parl. vol. 2. p. 150, b.)

There are other grants in this reign by the Commons; 20th of Edward the third, (p. 159, b.) and 21st of Edward the third, (p. 166.) In the 22d of Edward the third, (p. 200.) the Commons grant an aid, after several days consideration, but under certain conditions. In the 29th of Edward the third, (p. 265, b.) there is a separate grant by the Commons.

In the 40th of Edward the third, after the occasion of summoning the Parliament had been explained, the Lords and Commons were directed to depart, and to meet again on the day following, the Lords “en la Chambre Blanche,” and the Commons in the painted Chamber. (Vol. 2. p. 289.)

In the 42d of Edward the third (p. 227, a.) a Petition of the Commons, and the answers thereto, were read in the Court of Requests, in the presence of the King, Lords, and Commons; and a statement was made to the king in this Parliament “par les Grantz et Communes,” by the Lords and Commons, all the former and many of the latter having dined with the king; after which John de la Lee was put on his defence before them in the said place.

In the 50th of Edward the third, (p. 283.) the Commons profess the utmost loyalty and goodwill to the king; but add, that if he had faithful ministers about him, he must be rich enough to do without subsidies, especially considering the sums of money brought into the kingdom by the ransoms of the king of France, the king of Scotland, &c. They then proceed to the impeachment of a considerable number of persons.

And in the 51st of Edward the third, (p. 363.) on the opening of the Parliament, the Commons were directed by the king to retire to their ancient place of meeting, in the Chapter House of the abbey of Westminster. To this record Lord Coke himself refers.

It will be seen in the note p. 146, that Sir Thomas Hungerford is mentioned as Speaker of the House of Commons; and in the first of Richard the second, that Peter de la Mare was Speaker of the Commons.

The second opinion of Lord Coke’s to which allusion has already been made, is, that if an act mentions only that the king enacts, and the Lords assent, without naming the Commons, the omission cannot be supplied by any intendment. Lord Coke expressly says, if an act be penned, that “the king with the assent of the Lords,” or “with the assent of the Commons,” it is no act of Parliament, for three ought to assent to it, the King, the Lords, and the Commons; or otherwise it is not an act of Parliament; and by the record of the act it is expressed which of them gave their assent; and that excludes all other intendments that any other gave their assent. (Lord Coke, 8th Report, p. 20, b.)

How dangerous it would be to decide on the validity of our statutes, on such ground, will be seen by a single instance.

The act of the first of Edward the sixth against exporting horses without a licence, after the recital in the preamble, runs thus; “For remedy whereof, be it therefore enacted by our sovereign lord the king, and by the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same,”—the Lords being not once mentioned in the statute, which is accurately printed from the original act.

Now it appears by the Lords’ Journals, (vol. 1. p. 303, a,) that this act had not only the assent of the House of Lords, but that it had its origin in that House, where it passed unanimously, (p. 306, a.) was returned from the Commons with a proviso, which was agreed to by the Lords, (p. 312, a.) and is in the Journals among the acts passed that session. (p. 313, a.)

There has not been found in the Records, the slightest foundation for an opinion, that there was any election of representatives of the Commons earlier than the 49th of Henry the third, 1265, except in the entry respecting the borough of St. Alban’s, so often referred to by different writers. It is, however, certain that those who held _in capite_ of the king, were a necessary part of the great council, as early as king John’s time, when aids and escuage were to be granted to the sovereign.

In the 52d of Henry the third, 1268, a parliament, or more properly a great council, of Barons only, was held at Marlborough, where the great charter was confirmed. The members of this parliament or council were such of the great Barons and Tenants _in capite_, as the king pleased to summon thereto.

King Edward the first, at Easter, 1276, held a parliament at Westminster, of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and _Commons_, wherein many excellent laws were made, called the Statutes of Westminster the first. It is proper to mention that the _Commons_ here spoken of, were not Knights of shires, or Burgesses, but the smaller Tenants who held in chief of the king, or Tenants _in capite_.

It is generally said by our Historians, that the first time that any Citizens, or Burgesses were summoned to parliament by the king’s authority, was in the 23d year of king Edward the first, 1294, but the editors of the Parliamentary History (vol. 1. p. 87,) have shewn that the same king, in the eleventh year of his reign, 1283, called a parliament to be holden at Shrewsbury, on occasion of taking prisoner, David, brother of Llewellyn, prince of Wales, the latter having lately been killed in battle.

The king in summoning this Parliament was more explicit than he had ever been before. The writs of summons are still extant. The first is directed to the Barons to meet the king at Shrewsbury, on the 30th of September. The second writ is directed to the sheriffs of every county in England, to cause to be chosen two Knights for the commonalty of the county, as also a third directed to the several cities and boroughs mentioned, and a fourth writ to the Judges.

Mr. Tyrrell observes, that “neither Prynne nor Dr. Brady, with all their diligence, have taken any notice of these writs to summon this Parliament.

“The writs were directed to all the Earls and Barons by name, to the number of 110; but the writs to the cities and boroughs are more remarkable, especially as they are the first upon record, requiring the attendance of the Knights of the shire, Citizens, and Burgesses, except those issued in the name of the late king Henry the third.”

The cities and boroughs to which these writs were directed were the following:—Bristol, Canterbury, Carlisle, Colchester, Chester, Exeter, Grimsby, Hereford, Lynn, Lincoln, Newcastle (Tyne,) Norwich, Northampton, Nottingham, Scarborough, Shrewsbury, Winchester, Worcester, Yarmouth, (Norfolk) and York.

In the 23d of Edward the third, 1294, a Parliament was summoned to meet at Westminster, and writs were sent to the several sheriffs of England to cause to be elected two Knights for each county, two Citizens for each city, and two Burgesses for each borough, to be at the said Parliament, to consent and agree to such things, as the Earls, Barons, and Peers of the Realm should ordain; and from this year is to be dated the first regular general summons of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses to Parliament. It is proper to observe that in this Parliament, the Earls, Barons, and Knights of the several counties, sat, treated, and consulted altogether, and gave the king an eleventh part of all their moveable goods; the Citizens and Burgesses acted separately, and granted a seventh part of all their moveables.

In the more early period of the history of the House of Commons, when the Parliament frequently sat only for a single day, the whole business being to grant the king a subsidy, it is probable that the Speaker might with more propriety be called the chairman, for sometimes one of the members was appointed to the chair, and sometimes another; some resolutions were ordered to be made by one member, and others to be reported by another.

In the 19th of Edward the second, 1325, William Trussell was in the chair, when Hugh Spenser the younger was accused of Treason, in Parliament.

In the 6th of Edward the First, the Commons made answer to the king by Sir Geoffrey le Scroop, and it was agreed by the king, and the whole in full Parliament, that certain Bishops and Peers named, should meet on the business in discussion by themselves; the other Prelates, Earls, and Barons, and the Proxies[40] by themselves; and the Knights of the shires and Commons by themselves. In the fifty first of the same king Sir Thomas Hungerfore was Speaker of the Commons.

In the first of Richard the Second, 1377, Sir Peter de la Mare, knight of the shire for the county of Hereford, was Speaker of the Commons, as he had been in the last Parliament but one of Edward the Third. In the fifth of the former king, 1382, Sir Richard Waldegrave was chosen by the Commons to be their Speaker, who made an excuse, and desired to be discharged. He is the first Speaker that appears upon record to have made an excuse, but the king commanded him, upon his allegiance, to accept the office, seeing he had been chosen by the Commons.

In the fifth of Henry the fourth, 1404, Sir Arnold Savage being chosen Speaker, after making an excuse, requested the king, in the name of the Commons, that they might freely make complaint of any thing amiss in the government, and that the king would not by the sinister information of any person take offence at that of which they should complain, which petition was granted by the king.

In the seventh year of the same king, 1406, Sir John Tiptoft being chosen Speaker, made an excuse on account of his youth, which not being accepted, he requested that if any writing was delivered by the Commons, and they should desire to have it again, to amend or alter any thing therein, it might be restored to them, which was granted. Whilst he was Speaker, he signed and sealed in the name of the Commons the deed which entailed the crown upon Henry the fourth. This _young_ Speaker is said to have taken more upon him, and to have spoken more boldly and freely to the King and the Lords, than any before him, insomuch that his example being followed, the king gave a check to it, when Thomas Chaucer, Esq. was chosen Speaker in his room.

In the 20th of Henry the sixth, 1450, the Commons presented Sir John Popham to the king as their Speaker, who making an excuse, it was received, and he was discharged, on which the Commons presented William Tresham, who had twice before been Speaker, who was accepted.

In the 31st of the same king, 1453, Thomas Thorpe, Esq. Speaker of the House of Commons was arrested in execution at the suit of the Duke of York during the vacation between two sessions, and the opinion of the judges being demanded by the Lords, they refused to judge of the liberties of Parliament as not belonging to their jurisdiction, whereupon the Lords without their advice adjudged that the Speaker was not entitled to any privilege, which, on being-signified to the Commons, and also the king’s pleasure being made known to them that they should choose another Speaker, they chose Sir Thomas Charleton.

In the 15th of Henry the eighth, 1523, Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons. He made the usual protestation for himself, and prayed that if any member should in debate speak more largely than he ought, that he might be pardoned by the king, which was granted.

In the first year of queen Elizabeth, 1559, Sir Thomas Gargrave was chosen Speaker; in his speech to the queen he made four requests, namely first, free access to her majesty; secondly, for liberty of speech; thirdly, privilege from arrests; and fourthly, that his mistakes might not prejudice the house.

In Scotland the system of representation was not adopted till the reign of James the first, of that kingdom, in 1427. By an act of that year it was enacted, that “the king with consent of the whole council generally has statute and ordained that the small Barons and free Tenants need not to come to Parliaments nor general councils, so that of each sheriffdom there be sent, chosen at the head court of the sheriffdom, two or more wise men after the largeness of the sheriffdom, &c.”—Scottish Acts printed in 1682, p. 30.

In Scotland the Lords and Commons unquestionably sat in the same House till the Union of the two kingdoms, and the Commissioner who represented the sovereign, debated with them from the throne, although he had the power, which he sometimes used, of adjourning the assembly when he pleased.

Footnote 35:

Several of these were men remarkable for their talents and learning:
among whom were Petyt, Tyrrel, Sir Robert Filmer, Dr. Brady, Prynne,
Rymer, &c. &c.

Petyt and Prynne were keepers of the Records in the Tower; and Rymer,
who was the king’s Historiographer, had a warrant not only to search
the Records in every office in the kingdom, but to make copies of such
as he should select for publication. How diligent he was in using this
authority is evident from the invaluable collection of Records, &c.
published by him, and from a large collection of others in manuscript,
now in the Museum.

Petyt makes a direct charge, and not unfounded, against Prynne, for an
intended omission of a reference to the Rolls of Parliament (2d Hen.
V. p. 2. No. 10.) in the Abridgment of the Rolls made by Sir Robert
Cotton, and printed by Prynne.

Even Sir Robert Atkyns, a man eminently distinguished for his
integrity and learning, as well as for his deep research into the
ancient History of Parliament, who had been a Judge of the Common
Pleas, and was afterwards Chief Baron of the Exchequer and Speaker of
the House of Lords, in his learned and elaborate argument in the year
1680, in the case of an information by the Attorney General against
Williams, Speaker of the House of Commons, in asserting the antiquity
of that House, fell into some mistakes, from not having resorted to
the original records. He states, and insists much on it, that the
Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Thomas Hungerford, 51 Edward III.
was Speaker _of the Parliament_; whereas the words in the Record are,
“Monsieur Thomas de Hungerford, Chivaler, q’i avoit les Paroles pur
les Communes d’ Engleterre.” Rolls of Parl. vol. ii. p. 374, a. In the
first of Richard the Second, the Speaker, Sir Robert says again, was
termed the Speaker _of the Parliament_; the words in the Record are,
“Mons. Pere de la Mare Chivaler q’avoit les Paroles de Par la
Commune.”—Vol. iii. p. 5, 6.

The same with respect to Sir John Bussey, 20 Richard II. The words in
the Record are, “les Communes presenterent Mons. John Bussey pour leur
Parlour.”—Page 338, a.—339, b.

Footnote 36:

In 1766, the late Thomas Astle, Esq. was consulted by the
Sub-Committee of the House of Lords, concerning the printing of the
Rolls of Parliament, and in 1768, on the death of Mr. Blyke, Mr. Astle
introduced his father-in-law, the Rev. Philip Morant, author of the
History of Essex, to succeed that gentleman in preparing the Rolls for
the press. Mr. Morant died in November, 1770, after proceeding in them
as far as the 16th of Henry the fourth, when Mr. Astle was appointed
by the House of Lords to carry on the work, which he completed in
1775. They are printed in six volumes, _folio_.

Footnote 37:

Some reliance was placed by his Lordship on the Treatise “de Modo
tenendi Parliamentum;” the authority of which, if not entirely
destroyed by Prynne, will not at least in future have much
weight.—Prynne’s Animadversions on 4 Inst. p. 1. to p. 8. and p. 331.

Footnote 38:

In the Parliament of the 18th of Edward the first there were no
Citizens or Burgesses. There is a bundle of writs yet extant, by which
this Parliament was summoned. They are directed to the sheriffs of
several or most of the counties of England, by which two or three
Knights were directed to be chosen for each county, and accordingly
the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon, and
Cumberland returned each of them _three_ Knights, and the other
counties two each. This Parliament gave the King a fifteenth of all
their moveables as appears by the account of the same which is entered
upon the Great Roll of the 23d of that king, in which account we have
the style of this Parliament, namely, “The account of the fifteenth,
granted to the king in his 18th year, by the Archbishops, Bishops,
Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and _all others of the kingdom_,
assessed, collected, and levied,” &c.

We may here observe that the two or three Knights, chosen by the
several counties, did represent those counties, and according to the
form of the writ, consulted upon and consented to this grant of a
fifteenth.

So also in the 22d Edward the First there were neither Citizens nor
Burgesses summoned to the Parliament of that year. On the 8th of
October the king issued writs directed to every sheriff in England to
cause two discreet Knights to be chosen for each county, with full
powers, “so that for defect of such powers, the business might not
remain undone.” And on the following day the king issued other writs
to the sheriffs to cause to be elected two knights more, to be added
to the former two, making four for each county, and these four Knights
for each county, and the Earls, Barons, and Great Men, on the day of
their meeting gave the king a tenth part of all their goods.

Footnote 39:

This was only a grant of forty shillings for every Knight’s fee.—See
Rolls of Parliament, vol. 2, p. 112, a. hereinafter referred to in 14
of Edward III.

Footnote 40:

Proxies in Parliament is a privilege appropriated to the Lords only;
the first instance of a Proxy that occurs in the History of the
English Parliament, is in the reign of Edward the first.

In a Parliament at Westminster in the reign of Edward the second, the
bishops of Durham and Carlisle were allowed to send their Proxies to
Parliament.

In the early period of the History of Parliament, the Lords were not
obliged to make Barons only their Proxies as the custom now is; the
Bishops and Parliamentary Abbots usually gave their letters of proxy
to Prebendaries, Parsons, and Canons; but since the first year of king
Henry the eighth, there appear in the journals no Proxies but such as
were Lords of Parliament.

In the 35th of king Edward the third, 1360, the following Peeres were
summoned by writ to Parliament, to appear there by their Proxies,
namely, Mary, Countess of Norfolk; Eleanor, Countess of Ormond; Anna,
Baroness Despenser; Philippa, Countess of March; Joanna, Baroness
Fitzwalter; Agneta, Countess of Pembroke; Mary de St. Paul, Countess
of Pembroke; Margaret, Baroness de Roos; Matilda, Countess of Oxford;
Catherine, Countess of Athol. These ladies were called _ad colloquium
et tractatum_ by their Proxies.

MOSAIC PAINTING.

Mosaic is a representation of painting by means of small pebbles, or shells of sundry colours, and, of late years, with pieces of glass coloured at pleasure; it is an ornament of much beauty, and lasts for ages, and is mostly used in pavements and floors.

The term _Mosaic_ is derived from the latin _musivum_, and ought to be pronounced _musaic_. It is odd enough that many persons have really fancied they could trace the etymology of this word to the name of the great Jewish legislator. It is well observed by Wotton that Mosaic has “long life;” and we have much to lament that, the art was not practised in ancient Rome with the perfection it has attained in modern Rome. Had Mosaic been applied to exact imitations of the pictures of Apelles, Zeuxis, and the great artists of ancient times, we should still have been the contemporaries of every fine genius, and a new polish had renewed their fading beauties, and restored them to immortal youth.

Pliny has proved that the Greeks first practised Mosaic, and notices a curious work of the kind which was called “the unswept piece.” This singular performance exhibited to the eye, crumbs of bread and other things which fall from a table, so naturally imitated, that the eye was perfectly deceived, and it looked as if the pavement had never been swept; it was formed of small shells, painted of different colours.

There were several pieces of Mosaic found in Herculaneum; one much resembled a Turkey carpet. The ancients probably gave in Mosaic some historical subjects, for there was also discovered the Rape of Europa, composed of small flints.

Mosaic has been practised in Italy two thousand years; the manner of working it in that country is by copying in very small pieces of marble of different colours, every thing which a picture can be expected to imitate. Instead of common stones, too difficult to collect for so great a work, or which would require too much time to prepare and polish, the Italian artists sometimes have recourse to paste, that is to a composition of glass and enamel, which after passing through a crucible takes a brilliant colour. All these pieces are inlaid, and very thin, and their length is proportioned to their slenderness. They sometimes inlay a piece not thicker than a hair, and the artist afterwards arranges these pieces according to the colours and design of the picture before him. They are easily fixed in the stucco or plaster of Paris placed to receive them which soon hardens and dries. Such works are so solid that they are capable of resisting the assaults of time through ages. The Mosaic of St. Mark at Venice has existed above 900 years in perfect splendour and beauty.

Several fine pieces of Roman Mosaic work have been discovered in England in the last and preceding centuries, particularly at Woodchester in Gloucestershire, and at Horkstow, in Lincolnshire, both of which have been elaborately described and engraved by the late Samuel Lysons, Esq. Others have been found at Winterton, Roxby, Scampton, and Denton, in the county of Lincoln; in Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, &c. &c.

Sir Christopher Wren intended to have beautified the inside of the Cupola of St. Paul’s Cathedral, instead of painting it in the manner in which it now appears, with the more durable ornament of Mosaic work, as is nobly executed in the Cupola of St. Peter’s at Rome. For this purpose he intended to have procured from Italy four of the most eminent artists in that profession; but as this art was a great novelty in England, and not generally understood, the plan did not receive the encouragement it deserved. It was thought also that the expense would prove too great, and the time very long in the execution; but though these and all other objections were fully answered, yet this excellent design was no further pursued.

KING EGBERT.

It is a generally received opinion, sanctioned by nearly every modern historian, that Egbert king of the West Saxons, having dissolved the Heptarchy, about the year 828, became the first sole monarch of England. This is, however, one of those historical points which it is more easy to assert than to confirm. There were undoubtedly many chief monarchs of the heptarchy, both before and after the time of Egbert, that sovereign himself having been one of those chief monarchs, but some of those petty kingdoms subsisted for nearly one hundred and twenty years after Egbert’s death. That this was the fact is proved both by their coins and their laws. Several of their coins are still to be found in the cabinets of the curious. Thus we find that in the kingdom of the East Angles, king Edmund, called the Saint, and Ethelstan, (Guthrun the Danish general being so named by Alfred at his baptism,) coined money, the first in 857, and the latter in 878. The kings of Mercia coined money until A. D. 874, and the kings of Northumberland till A. D. 950. In the last mentioned year, the kingdom of Northumberland, which included all the country north of the Humber, terminated, and England became one kingdom. It was again divided by Edwy, who began to reign in 959, so that Edgar may more justly be regarded as commencing the series of kings of all England. It may be proper here to remark that two kingdoms of the Heptarchy never coined any money; these were the kingdoms of the East Saxons and the South Saxons.

Alfred was the first king that made a code of laws which was common to the whole kingdom. There were very few legislators among the Saxon Monarchs. The laws of Ethelbert, who died in 617, are the most ancient that we have. The next are those of Lothaire, 673; Edric, 684; and Wightred, 694; all of them kings of Kent. Ina, king of the West Saxons, 688, and Offa king of the Mercians, 757, were the only other kings of the Heptarchy who formed any laws which have been preserved by historians. If it be objected that the people of the other kingdoms could not subsist without laws suited to the situation of their affairs, we may observe that the monarchs of those kingdoms received into their states and adopted the laws of the kings already mentioned. The laws of Ina were received by the other kings of the Heptarchy, and in one of the great councils held by Offa, king of Mercia, there were present the king of the East Saxons, the king of the West Saxons, the king of Kent, the king of Northumberland, and three kings of Wales.

Alfred having conquered the Danes at Edington, and Guthrun their general and his principal officers having been baptized in the church of Aller, near Langport, in Somersetshire, Alfred concluded a treaty of peace with Guthrun, and gave him the kingdoms of East Anglia and Northumberland for himself and his Danes, appointing the boundaries of his dominions and giving him laws which were agreed to and confirmed by Alfred’s and Guthrun’s nobles. In all cases which were not provided for by this treaty, Guthrun consented that the Danes should observe the general laws of Alfred. This treaty was afterwards confirmed and enlarged by Edward the Elder, Alfred’s son, with the consent and approbation of his and Guthrun’s nobles.

THE LATIN LANGUAGE.

So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national manners, that it was their most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the latin tongue. The ancient dialects of Italy, the Sabine, the Etruscan, and the Venetian, sunk into oblivion; but the eastern were less docile than the western provinces to the voice of its victorious preceptors. This obvious difference marked the two portions of the empire with a distinction of character, which, though it was in some degree concealed during the meridian splendour of prosperity, became gradually more visible, as the shades of night descended upon the Roman world. The western countries were civilized by the same hands which subdued them. As soon as the barbarians were reconciled to obedience, their minds were opened to any new impressions of knowledge and politeness. The language of Virgil and Cicero, though with some inevitable mixture of corruption, was so universally adopted in Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain and Pannonia, that the faint traces of the Punic or Celtic idioms were preserved only in the mountains or among the peasants. The Celtic was indeed preserved in the mountains of Wales, Cornwall, and Armorica; and it may here be observed that Apuleius reproaches an African youth, who lived among the populace, with the use of the Punic, whilst he had almost forgot Greek, and neither could nor would speak Latin. The greater part of St. Austin’s congregations were strangers to the Punic. Education and study insensibly inspired the natives of the countries just mentioned with the sentiments of Romans; and Italy gave fashions, as well as laws, to her latin provincials. They solicited with more ardour, and obtained with more facility, the freedom and honours of the state; supported the national dignity in letters and in arms; and at length in the person of Trajan, produced an Emperor whom the Scipios would not have disowned for their countryman. Spain alone produced Columella, the Senecas, Lucan, Martial, and Quinctilian.

The situation of the Greeks was very different from that of the barbarians. The former had been long since civilized and corrupted. They had too much taste to relinquish their language, and too much vanity to adopt any foreign institutions. Still preserving the prejudices, after they had lost the virtues of their ancestors, they affected to despise the unpolished manners of the Roman conquerors, whilst they were compelled to respect their superior wisdom and power. The Greeks seemed to be entirely ignorant that the Romans had any good writers; and it is believed that there is not a single Greek critic, from Dionysius to Libanius, who mentions Virgil or Horace. Nor was the influence of the Grecian language and sentiments confined to the narrow limits of that once celebrated country. Their empire, by the progress of colonies and conquests, had been diffused from the Adriatic to the Euphrates and the Nile. Asia was covered with Greek cities, and the long reign of the Macedonian kings, had introduced a silent revolution into Syria and Egypt. In their pompous courts, those princes united the elegance of Athens with the luxury of the East, and the example of the court was imitated, at an humble distance, by the higher ranks of their subjects. Such was the general division of the Roman empire into the Latin and Greek languages.

To these we may add a third distinction for the body of the natives in Syria, and especially in Egypt. The use of their ancient dialects, by secluding them from the commerce of mankind, checked the improvements of those barbarians. The slothful effeminacy of the former, exposed them to the contempt; the sullen ferociousness of the latter, excited the aversion of the conquerors. Those nations had submitted to the Roman power, but they seldom desired or deserved the freedom of the city; and it was remarked, that more than two hundred and thirty years elapsed after the ruin of the Ptolemys, before an Egyptian was admitted into the Senate of Rome, the first instance of which happened under the reign of Septimius Severus.

Dr. HERSCHEL.

In the History of Doncaster, written by Dr. Miller, we find the following account of the early years of this eminent astronomer:—

“It will ever be a gratifying reflection to me,” says Dr. Miller, “that I was the first person by whose means this extraordinary genius was drawn from a state of obscurity. About the year 1760, as I was dining with the officers of the Durham militia, at Pontefract, one of them informed me, that they had a young German in their band, as a performer on the hautboy, who had been only a few months in this country, and yet spoke English almost as well as a native; that exclusively of the hautboy, he was an excellent performer on the violin, and if I chose to repair to another room, he should entertain me with a solo. I did so, and Mr. Herschel executed a solo of Giordani’s in a manner that surprised me. Afterwards I took an opportunity to have a little private conversation with him, and requested to know if he had engaged himself to the Durham militia for any long period? he answered, ‘No, only from month to month.’ Leave them then, said I, and come and live with me; I am a single man, and think we shall be happy together; doubtless your merit will soon entitle you to a more eligible situation. He consented to my request, and came to Doncaster. It is true, at that time, my humble mansion consisted but of two rooms; however, poor as I was, my cottage contained a small library of well chosen books; and it must appear singular, that a young German, who had been so short a time in England, should understand even the peculiarities of our language so well, as to adopt Dean Swift for his favourite author. I took an early opportunity of introducing him at Mr. Copley’s concert; and he presently began

“Untwisting all the charms that tie
”The hidden soul of harmony.”

For never before had we heard the concertos of Corelli, Geminiani, and Avison, or the overtures of Handel, performed more chastely, or more according to the original intention of the composers, than by Mr. Herschel. I soon lost my companion; his fame was presently spread abroad, he had the offer of scholars, and was solicited to lead the public concerts at Wakefield and Halifax.

“About this time a new organ, for the parish church of Halifax, was built by Snetzler; which was opened with an oratorio, by the late well-known Joah Bates. Mr. Herschel, and six others, were candidates for the organist’s place. They drew lots how they were to perform in rotation. Herschel drew the third lot—the second performer was Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Wainwright, of Manchester, whose finger was so rapid, that old Snetzler, the organ builder, ran about the church exclaiming:—‘Te tevil, te tevil, he run over te keys like one cat, he will not give my pipes room for to shpeak!’ During Mr. Wainwright’s performance, I was standing in the middle aile with Herschel;—What chance have you, said I, to follow this man? He replied, ‘I do not know, I am sure fingers will not do.’ On which he ascended the loft, and produced from the organ such an uncommon fullness, such a volume of slow, solemn harmony, that I could by no means account for the effect. After this short extemporary effusion, he finished with the old hundredth psalm, which he played better than his opponent. ‘Aye, aye,’ cried old Snetzler, ‘tish is very goot, very goot inteet; I will luf tish man, for he gives my pipes room for to shpeak!’ Having afterwards asked Herschel by what means, in the beginning of his performance he produced such an uncommon effect? he replied, ‘I told you fingers would not do,’ and producing two pieces of lead from his pocket, ‘one of these,’ said he, ‘I placed on the lowest key of the organ, and the other upon the octave above; thus by accommodating the harmony, I produced the effect of four hands instead of two. However, as my leading the concert on the violin, is their principal object, they will give me the place in preference to a better performer on the organ; but I shall not stay long here, for I have the offer of a superior situation at Bath, which offer I shall accept.’“

PARODIES.

The present use of this word is strictly consonant with that of the ancients, who applied it to the giving a ridiculous turn to passages in Homer and the tragic Poets. There are many in Aristophanes. One of the happiest modern instances is the parody of the speech of Sarpedon to Glaucus in the Rape of the Lock. The genealogy of Agamemnon’s sceptre is also parodied in the same poem, canto 5, v. 87.

MOURNING FOR THE DEAD.

In the Mosaic law the Israelites were commanded _not to cut themselves for the dead_. The original Hebrew has, however a more extensive meaning than cutting, and includes all assaults on their own persons, arising from immoderate grief, such as beating the breasts, tearing the hair, &c. which were commonly practised by the heathen, who had no hope of a resurrection, particularly by the Egyptians, which might afford a particular reason for the Mosaic prohibition. We may also observe, that among the Romans, it was ordained by one of the laws of the twelve tables, “Let not women tear their faces, or make lamentations at funerals,” which proves that this was the custom with the Romans, previously to making this law. No doubt the law itself was immediately borrowed from the Athenian code, of which it is a literal translation.

The Priests of Baal, (1 Kings, ch. 18, v. 28.) assaulted themselves with knives and lances, which was indeed equivalent to cutting themselves. Nor was this frantic custom confined to the Priests of Baal; the _Galli_, and other devotees of the Syrian goddess, cut their arms, and scourged each others backs, according to Lucian. “Baal’s Priests”, says Dr. Leland, “were wont to cut and slash themselves with knives and lances. The same thing was practised in the worship of Isis, according to Herodotus, and of Bellona, as Lucan mentions. Many authors take notice of the solemnities of Cybele, the mother of the gods, whose priests in their sacred processions, made hideous noises and howlings, cutting themselves till the blood gushed out, as they went along.”

GARRICK.

The genius of Garrick seems to have been particularly calculated to introduce Shakespeare on the stage. He knew how to alter him so as to fit him for the audience of the present day, without divesting him of any of his excellencies, and the few additions he has ventured are in the spirit of the original. These Plays, so altered, are likely to keep possession of the theatre, while every other attempt at change or improvement are forgotten, except Cibber’s Richard the Third, and Tate’s Lear, which, with some correction of Garrick’s, are still acted, though the alteration of the last is directly in opposition to the precepts of Aristotle and Mr. Addison.

Cibber, though versed in the province of the drama, which is perhaps essential to make a good dramatic writer, since the knowledge of stage effect is of great consequence, possessed a genius not above mediocrity; and Tate was a very indifferent poet. Yet there is a line in Cibber’s Richard, written by himself, so characteristic of the manner of his archetype, that it has often been cited as one of Shakespeare’s beauties. I mean the exclamation of Richard, on Buckingham’s being taken,

“Off with his head! so much for Buckingham.”

And I heard, says Mr. Pye, (Comment. on Aristotle,) Mr. Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, quote the following verse of Tate’s, in the House of Commons, undoubtedly taking it for Shakespeare’s,

“Where the gor’d battle bleeds in every vein.”

The tragedy of Hamlet was, by order of Mrs. Garrick, thrown into Garrick’s grave. Though he was undoubtedly great in that character, he was equally so in many of Shakespeare’s characters, and superior in Lear. The comic characters it is presumed were thought too light for so solemn an occasion. If by burying that tragedy with Garrick it was meant to infer that it was lost to the stage with him, a complete edition of Shakespeare might, with the utmost propriety have been interred with that inimitable actor.

LEMONS.

Theophrastus, who studied under Plato and Aristotle, says of lemons, that they were cultivated for their fragrance, not for their taste; that the peel was laid up with garments, to preserve them from moths; and that the juice was administered by physicians medicinally.

Virgil in his second Georgic, describes agreeably the Lemon-tree. Pliny mentions the lemon-juice as an antidote; but says that the fruit, from its austere taste, was not eaten.

Plutarch, who nourished within a generation of Pliny, witnessed the introduction of lemons at the Roman tables. Juba, king of Mauritania, was the first who exhibited them at his dinners. And Athenæus introduces Democritus as not wondering that old people made wry mouths at the taste of lemons; for, adds he, in my grandfather’s time, they were never set upon the table. And to this day the Chinese, who grow the fruit, do not apply it to culinary purposes.

The great use of lemons began with the introduction of sugar, which is said to have resulted from the conquest of Sicily, by the Arabs, in the ninth century. Sestini, in his letters from Sicily and Turkey, thinks that the best sorts of lemons, and the best sorts of sherbet, were derived from Florence, by the Sicilians. Probably Rome continued, even in the dark ages, to be the chief seat of luxury and refinement; and had domesticated the art of making lemonade, before either Messina or Florence.

In Madagascar slices of lemon are boiled, and eaten with salt.

Pomet, in his History of Drugs, gives the preference over all others to the lemons of Madeira; but according to Ferrarius, there grows at the Cape a sweet lemon, to which he gives the name _incomparabilis_.

ORIGIN OF THE POINT OF HONOUR.

We meet with inexplicable enigmas in the codes of the laws of the barbarians. The law of the Frisians allowed only about the value of a farthing, by way of compensation, to a person who had been beaten with a stick; and yet for ever such a small wound it allows more. By the Salic law, if a freeman gave three blows with a stick to another freeman, he paid about three halfpence; if he drew blood, he was punished as if he had wounded him with steel, and he paid about seven-pence halfpenny; thus the punishment was proportioned to the greatness of the wound. The law of the Lombards established different compensations for one, two, three, four blows, and so on. At present a single blow is equivalent to a hundred thousand.

The constitution of Charlemagne, inserted in the law of the Lombards, ordains, that those who were allowed the trial by combat, should fight with clubs. Perhaps this was out of regard to the clergy; or, probably, as the usage of legal duels gained ground, they wanted to render them less sanguinary. The capitulary of Louis the Pious, added to the Salic law in 819, allows the liberty of chusing to fight either with the sword or club. In process of time none but bondmen or slaves fought with the club.

Here may be seen the first rise and formation of the particular articles of our point of honour. The accuser began with declaring, in the presence of the judge, that such a person had committed such an action, and the accused made answer that, _he lied_; upon which the judge gave orders for the duel. It became then an established rule, that whenever a person had the lie given him, it was incumbent on him to fight.

Upon a man’s declaring he would fight, he could not afterwards depart from his word; if he did, he was condemned to a penalty. Hence this rule followed, that whenever a person had engaged his word, honour forbade him to recal it.

Gentlemen fought one another on horseback, armed at all points; villans fought on foot, and with clubs.[41] Hence it followed, that the club was looked upon as the instrument of insults and affronts,[42] because to strike a man with it, was treating him like a villan.

No one but villans fought with their faces uncovered;[43] so that none but they could receive a blow on the face. Therefore a box on the ear, became an injury that must be expiated with blood, because the person who received it, had been treated as a villan.

The several people of Germany were not less sensible of the point of honour. The most distant relations took a very considerable share to themselves in every affront, and on this all their codes are founded. The law of the Lombards ordains, that whoever goes attended with servants to beat a man by surprize, in order to load him thereby with shame, and to render him ridiculous, should pay half the compensation, which he would owe if he had killed him; and if through the same motive he tied or bound him, he should pay three fourths of the same compensation.

Footnote 41:

The club was in use at the Norman Conquest, and in the succeeding
ages. St. Louis had a band of Guards armed with clubs, and was himself
very dextrous in the use of it.

Pennant, in describing the customs of the ancient Bards and Minstrels
of Wales, says, that the lowest of the musical tribe was the
_Datceiniad pen pastwn_, or he that sung to the sound of his club,
being ignorant of every other kind of instrument. When he was
permitted to be introduced, he was obliged to stand in the middle of
the hall, and sing his _cowydd_ or _awdl_, beating time, and playing
the symphony with his _pastwn_ or club; but if there was a professor
of music present, his leave must be first obtained before he presumed
to entertain the company with this species of melody. Wherever he came
he must act as a menial servant to the bard or minstrel.

Footnote 42:

Among the Romans it was not infamous to be beaten with a stick.

Footnote 43:

They had only the club and buckler.

GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH.

Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first person, after the conquest, who attempted to write any thing concerning the ancient history of Britain. Although the century, in which he lived, is known, yet neither his family, the time of his birth, nor the place of his education has been ascertained. We are only informed that he was born at Monmouth, and became archdeacon of that place, and that he was consecrated bishop of St. Asaph, in 1152, which he resigned to live in the monastery of Abingdon. By some writers he is called a monk of the Dominican order, but, according to Leland, without sufficient authority. Warton says that he was a Benedictine monk.

The history which has made his name celebrated, is entitled _Chronicon sive Historia Britonum_. This history, written in the British or Armorican language, was brought into England by Walter Mapes, otherwise Calenius, archdeacon of Oxford, a learned man, and a diligent collector of histories. Travelling through France, about the year 1100, he procured in Armorica, this ancient chronicle, and, on his return, communicated it to Geoffrey, who, according to Warton, (History of English Poetry,) was an elegant Latin writer, and admirably skilled in the British tongue. Geoffrey, at the request and recommendation of Walter, translated this British chronicle into Latin, executing the translation with some degree of purity, and fidelity, insomuch that Matthew Paris speaking of him with reference to this history, says that he approved himself _Interpres verus_. With whatever fidelity the translation might be made, Geoffrey, however, was guilty of several interpolations, for he confesses that he took some part of his account of king Arthur’s achievements, from the mouth of his friend Walter, the archdeacon. He also owns that the account of Merlin’s prophecies was not in the Armorican original. The speeches and letters were his own forgeries, and in the description of battles, he has not scrupled to make frequent variations and additions.