Chapter C: Mansfield Ingleby

Birmingham.

_When and where does Sunday begin or end?_ (Vol. ix., p. 198.).--The Christian festival, commonly called Sunday, named by the ancient church "The Lord's Day," because that thereon the resurrection was accomplished, and the new creation, the work of Messias, commenced, this feast, I say, begins at six o'clock in the evening of Saturday, the last day of the week, at the close of that Hebrew fast; and the end of Sunday arrives at six o'clock in the evening of that first day of the week. When time was measured out, the count began with "the evening," which was created first; and which, with the succeeding morning, reckoned as the first day.

H. OF MORWENSTOW.

This question has been, to a certain extent, before debated by Mr. Johnson in his addenda to his _Clergyman's Vade Mecum_, pp. 106, 107., and _Ecclesiastical Law_, as quoted by Wheatly, who combated his reasoning of Sunday beginning at six o'clock on the Saturday evening. Johnson rests his argument upon Deuteronomy xvi. 6., where the sacrifice of the passover is ordered "at even, on the going down of the sun;" upon Exodus xii. 6., where the whole "congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening;" and I think he might have also taken Genesis i. 5., "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Johnson says that

"The Church of England has divided her nights and days according to the
Scriptural, not the civil account: and that though our civil day begins
from midnight, yet our ecclesiastical day begins at six in the
evening.... The proper time for vesper, or evening song, is six of the
clock, and from that time the religious day begins."

Wheatly admits that "the festival is not past till evensong is ended," but does not agree to its commencing on the preceding evensong; for if it does, he cannot reconcile the rubric at the end of the Table of Vigils.

On the whole, I think Johnson has the best of the argument: and that Sunday begins ecclesiastically at six in the evening on Saturday; civilly, at midnight.

R. J. S.

_Precious Stones_ (Vol. viii., p. 539.; Vol. ix., pp. 37. 88.).--Respecting precious stones, some information may be gleaned from the notes to Sir John Hill's translation of Theophrastus' _History of Stones_ (8vo., 2nd edit., London, 1774).

J. M.

Oxford.

_Scotch Grievance_ (Vol. ix., p. 160.).--Your correspondents refer to coins of a period when the Scotch do not complain. Their grievance, as alleged, is as to the mode of bearing the lion _since_ the Union in 1707; to which the instances quoted, between the time of James I. and William III., have no reference.

G.

_"Corporations have no Souls," &c._ (Vol. viii, p. 587.).--The following, which I extract from Hone's _Table-Book_, is probably the remark to which your correspondent B. alludes:

"Mr. Howel Walsh, in a corporation case tried at the Tralee assizes,
observed that a corporation cannot blush. It was a body, it was true;
had certainly a head--a new one every year--an annual acquisition of
intelligence in every new lord mayor. Arms he supposed it had, and long
ones too, for it could reach at anything. Legs, of course, when it made
such long strides. A throat to swallow the rights of the community, and
a stomach to digest them! But who ever yet discovered, in the anatomy
of any corporation, either bowels or a heart?"

HENRY H. BREEN.

St. Lucia.

{285}

_Devereux Bowly_ (Vol. ix., p. 173.).--In reply to UNEDA'S inquiry, Devereux Bowly, watchmaker, of Lombard Street, London, died Mar. 15, 1773, in his seventy-eighth year.

He was a member of the Society of Friends, and being at the time of his decease a widower, and without family, he left a large portion of his property to their school, then at Clerkenwell, in the neighbourhood of which he resided.

T. S. N.

_Reversible Names_ (Vol. viii., pp. 244. 655.).--There is a gentleman in this island who bears the name and surname of _Xuaved Devaux_, which are mutually reversible.

HENRY H. BREEN.

St. Lucia.

Your correspondent BALLIOLENSIS, in speaking of reversible or palindromic English names, seems to have overlooked the names of _Hannah_ and _Anna_.

X.

_Duval Family_ (Vol. viii., pp. 318. 423.).--A grant was made by the crown in Ireland on the 4th July, 1 James II., to Garret Wall, _alias_ Duvall, sen., Esq.; Garret Wall, _alias_ Duvall, jun.; Jas. Wall, _alias_ Duvall; and Michael Wall of the manor, town, and lands of Culenemucky, co. Waterford.

J. F. FERGUSON.

_Member of Parliament electing Himself_ (Vol. viii., p. 536.).--In the article forwarded by H. M. are many gross errors. William McLeod Bannatyne, Esq., was Sheriff of Buteshire from Dec. 22, 1775, till May 28, 1799; during which period there were only two county elections in Buteshire, viz. April 22, 1784, and June 27, 1796 (the counties of Bute and Caithness being represented only in alternate parliaments), and on _neither_ of those occasions was he the _sole_ freeholder present. The statement in question can therefore only refer to the election on Nov. 13, 1806, when, owing to some accidental circumstances, he was the only freeholder present. In 1799 he was raised to the Bench of the Court of Session by the title of Lord Bannatyne; and consequently he neither _did_ nor _could_ act as sheriff seven years after he ceased to hold that office. It is true that, as a technical formality, he nominated himself chairman of the meeting to enable him to sign the minute of the election in that capacity; but it is _not true_ that he either administered the oaths to himself, or signed the return of the election as sheriff. I was then a lad, and was present as a spectator on that occasion, when I saw Mr. Blain the sheriff-substitute administer the oaths to Lord Bannatyne; and, of course, Mr. Blain also made the election return, certifying that "the Honorable James Stuart Wortley Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, &c. (a relation of the family of Bute) had been duly elected." Thus you see that the title of the article is quite erroneous, and is not even borne out by the original account, as the freeholder did not elect _himself_, but another person; and he did not act in any other capacity than that of a freeholder: the case being extraordinary enough of only _one_ freeholder attending at a county election, without the addition of those marvellous circumstances.

J. McK.

_Gresebrok, in Yorkshire_ (Vol. viii., p. 389.).--To assist your correspondent [Greek: Hêraldikos], I may tell him that the family he inquires about now resides at Horton Castle and Audenham in Staffordshire. Many years ago, when I took some interest in genealogy, I had the pleasure of being a guest of this family; and I then heard it said, that they could trace a very ancient and brilliant line from one Osbert, who married a great heiress at the Conquest, and that they were direct descendants of the ancient kings of England. Some of Mr. Burke's publications I think would assist [Greek: Hêraldikos]; not having them by me, I cannot give the exact reference; but some months ago I saw, either in the _Landed Gentry_, or in the _Visitations_, a note of the family.[6] But I think, if your correspondent could by any means see Mr. Grazebrook's papers (as above noted), he would obtain all the particulars he may require.

HOSPES.

Charlotte Street, London.

[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:

"Nihil tam conveniens est naturali æquitati, unumquodque dissolvi eo
ligamine quo ligatum est."

It is possible, too, that Pope Pius IX. may have considered that a case had arisen for applying this principle,--

"Necessitas publica major est quam privata."

But be this as it may (and you will excuse me in observing, by the way, that I do not concur in the correctness of this hypothetical view if taken by his holiness), I hope we shall hear from MR. FRASER whether the former of the above maxims has been effectual to remove his difficulties, which, as I presume from their insertion in "N. & Q.," are not of a purely theological nature.

RESPONDENS.

_Chauncy or Chancy_ (Vol. ix., p. 126.).--Your correspondent J. Y. will find an account of Charles Chauncey, B.D., and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, born in 1589, and died in 1671, in vol. iii. p. 451. of Brook's _Lives of the Puritans_. See also Chalmers's _Biographical Dictionary_.

[Greek: Halieus]

Dublin.

_"Three cats," &c._ (Vol. ix., P. 173.).-MISS BOCKETT wishes for the remainder of the "old ballad" beginning with "Three cats;" and I beg to inform her, that there never was any more than what she mentions. The object of the singer was, to cause fun by an elaborately modulated cadenza on the word _coal-dust_, and then to call on the company to join in chorus. He next continued with some significant word, as "notwithstanding;" and, after a pause of some bars rest, he went on with "Three cats," as before, _ad infinitum_, changing the initial word each time. It required some tact to give it effect; but, if sung by a clever humorist, was sure to keep the room in a roar of laughter. But its day is gone by.

GRIMALKIN.

Halliwell, in his _Collection of Nursery Rhymes_, does not mention "Three cats by the fire-side," &c.; but I have in my possession several not named by him, and "Three cats," &c. amongst the number, which I have much pleasure in transcribing for the benefit of JULIA R. BOCKETT'S ancient friend:

"Three cats sat by the fire-side,
In a basket full of coal-dust,
One cat said to the other
In fun, pell mell, 'Queen Anne's dead.'
'Is she,' said Grimalkin, 'then I'll reign queen in her stead,'
Then up, up, up, they flew up the chimney."

ANON.

Probably this is the song of "The Turnspits:"

"Two little dogs sat by the fire-side,
In a basket full of coal-dust;
Says one little dog to the other little dog,
'If you don't go in, I must.'"

N.B.--Into the wheel.

SMOKEJACK.

_Officers of Charles I._ (Vol. ix., p. 74.).--SIR T. METCALFE mentions, as among the "curious stray sheets" in his possession, "a list of all the gentlemen and officers who fell in the cause of Charles I." As I have long wished to see a list of King Charles's officers, but have never, as yet, met with anything like a complete catalogue of those who fell, or of those who survived, it would be interesting to me, as I doubt not it would be interesting to many of your readers, to see this "curious stray sheet" transferred to the pages of "N. & Q."

Can you refer me to any published, or otherwise accessible, list of the officers who fought _against_ Charles I., whether by sea or land?

Is there any printed list of officers at the time of the Restoration?

* *

_D. O. M._ (Vol. iii., p. 173.; Vol. ix., p. 137.).--Would R. W. D. state his reasons for rendering these letters "Datur omnibus mori?" Such an inscription would of course be _à propos_ in the case of a tombstone; but the ordinary interpretation, "Deo Optimo Maximo," would likewise be fitting, and it is not probable that the same initials should have two distinct meanings.

W. M. N.

_Whitewashing in Churches_ (Vol. ix., p. 148.).--Mr. Hudson Turner informs us (_Domestic {287} Architecture in England_, vol. i. p. 246.) that as early as the thirteenth century the practice of the whitewashing buildings was universal; and that "the process, so vehemently denounced by modern antiquaries, was liberally applied also to ecclesiastical edifices."

WILLIAM KELLY.

Leicester.

Mr. Hudson Turner says:

"We are not to consider the practice of whitewashing stonework as a
vice peculiar to modern times. Our ancestors had as great an objection
to the natural surface of stone, whether in churches or other
buildings, as any church wardens or bricklayers of the nineteenth
century. Several writs of Henry III. are extant, directing the Norman
Chapel in the Tower to be whitewashed. Westminster Hall was whitewashed
for the coronation of Edward I.; and many other ancient examples might
be cited. In fact it seems to have been the rule to plaster ordinary
stonework."--_Domestic Architecture in England_, p. xxvi.

A far earlier instance of the practice appears in Deuteronomy xxvii. 2.

K's question, however, is scarcely answered by the above, as it cannot be supposed that delicate sculpture was clogged with whitewash until it became obnoxious on religious grounds.