Chapter M: W. B (1)

Bruges, Sept. 26, 1851.

Queries.

GENERAL JAMES WOLFE, WHO FELL AT QUEBEC.

A short time ago I accidentally became possessed of a small packet of autograph letters, by this distinguished man, to a very intimate friend and brother officer. These letters were found in an old military chest, which had belonged to the latter. They are twelve in number; the first is dated Glasgow, 2d April, 1749, and the last, Salisbury, 1st December, 1758, on the eve of his embarkation with the memorable expedition against Quebec. The letters are written in a small and remarkably neat hand, and Wolfe's seal is still adhering to some of them. They contain much honourable sentiment, and proofs of a warm generous heart.

The perusal of these curious letters, and their allusions to passing incidents, have excited a desire to become better acquainted with the details of Wolfe's personal history; but in this I experience considerable difficulty, from the meagreness with which his biographers appear to have treated the subject. I shall accordingly feel much obliged by any of your military, or other correspondents, favouring me with references to the fullest and best account of this distinguished officer. I am anxious to obtain information, in particular, on the following points.

1. Wolfe's family connexions? I am aware who his father was, but should like to know if the former had any brothers or sisters, and who is the present representative? What was his mother's name and family?

2. Where was Wolfe educated? In one of the letters he mentions that he was taken from his studies at fifteen, and entered the army at that early age.

3. The different regiments in which he held a commission, with his rank in each, the steps and date of promotion?

4. His _first_ and subsequent military services?

5. How long was he stationed in Scotland, on what duty, and in what places?

6. In particular, was he engaged in the formation of any of the military roads in that country, _when_ and _where_?

7. Did he serve in Scotland during the rebellion of 1745-46, and was he present at the battle of Culloden? If so, in what regiment, and with what rank?

8. Are there any good portraits of Wolfe extant, and where are they to be seen?

9. Was his body brought to England, and are memorials of him preserved, such as his sword, pistols, &c.? His spurs were lately in the possession of a gentleman near Glasgow.

[Ezh.]

WALKER'S SUFFERINGS OF THE CLERGY.

Is it the intention of the Ecclesiastical History Society to publish a new edition of Walker's _Sufferings of the Clergy_? At the time when the society was instituted it was on the list of works to be published by them.

Surely, if that is the case, somewhat might be done to correct the many inaccuracies, and, in other ways, increase the value of a work which has preserved the memory of some of the most exalted acts of Christian heroism that England has ever witnessed.

Will the editor of "NOTES AND QUERIES" open his pages to receive notes and corrections for a future edition of _The Sufferings of the Clergy_?

DRYASDUST.

[It is believed that the trading speculation, miscalled a Society,
has ended with considerable loss to both undertakers and
subscribers; and is not likely to publish any more of the works
which figured in its rhodomontade prospectus. Certainly it is very
desirable that there should be a new, careful, and critical
edition of Walker; and any assistance which can be rendered by
"NOTES AND QUERIES" will be at the service of anybody who will
undertake such a work. It would be well, however (and it is
mentioned here with general reference to all such cases, though it
is particularly applicable to the present), if the learned doctor
would specify some mode by which the readers of "NOTES AND
QUERIES", may address him directly. The Editor suggests this, not
to save himself trouble, or because he grudges room (or rather
would grudge room if he had it) for many voluminous and important
communications, which would be very valuable to the Doctor, but
which, from length, and want of general interest, could not be
inserted in this little work. It is probable that he would by this
mode obtain many communications which the writers would not send
to "NOTES AND QUERIES," from being aware that they could not be
inserted. There would be nothing in this to prevent his
maintaining his incognito; and, therefore, the Editor ventures to
request his correspondents to send to "NOTES AND QUERIES" anything
that is brief, and may promise to be of general interest; and to
address anything which may be more voluminous to DR. DRYASDUST, at
our publisher's, No. 186. Fleet Street.]

Minor Queries.

207. _Colonies in England._--Can any of your correspondents give me any information about a colony of Spaniards said to exist at Brighton; of Flemings in Pembrokeshire; of Frisians in Lancashire; of Moors in (I think) Staffordshire; and of some Scandinavian race, with dark eyes and dark hair, at Yarmouth in Norfolk. I should feel thankful for the mention of other colonies besides these, if any more exist, as I believe many do, in other parts of England.

THEOPHYLACT.

208. _Buxtorf's Translation of the "Treatise on Hebrew Accents," by Elias Levita._--John Buxtorf the elder, in his _Bibliotheca Rabbinica_ (printed along with his useful book _De Abbreviaturis Hebraicis_: Basil, 1630), p. 345., speaking of the curious and valuable work on the Hebrew Accents, by R. Elias Levita, called

[Hebrew: Sefer Tuv Ta'am],

says, "Habemus cum Latine a nobis translatum."

Can any of your readers inform me whether this translation was ever printed; and, if not, whether the MS. of it is known to exist?

JAMES H. TODD.

Trin. Coll. Dublin.

209. _The Name "Robert."_--Can any of your readers offer any suggestions as to how the name "Robert," and its various diminutives, became connected with so much diablerie?

Besides the host of _hob_-goblins, _hob_-thrush, _hob_-with-the-lantern, and the Yorkshire _Dobbies_, we have those two mysterious wights _Robin_ Hood and _Robin_ Goodfellow, and "superstitious favourite" the _Robin_ Redbreast. It is a term also frequently applied to idiotcy (invariably among our lower orders linked with the idea of super-naturalism). _Hobbil_ in the northern and _Dobbin_ in the midland districts of England are terms used to denote a heavy, torpid fellow. The French _Robin_ was formerly used in the same sense.

SAXONICUS.

210. _Meaning of "Art'rizde."_--In Halliwell's _Archaic Dictionary_, p. 821. col. 2., there is a quotation from Middleton's _Epigrams and Satyres_, 1608. Will you, or any of your readers, be kind enough to inform me what is the meaning of the word "Art'rizde" which occurs in the quotation, and also give some information as to the book from which it is quoted? Dyce professes to publish _all_ of Middleton's known works, but in his edition (1840) there are no epigrams to be found.

QUÆSO.

211. _Sir William Griffith of North Wales._--Elizabeth, daughter of William Fiennes, Constable of Dover Castle, who was slain at the battle of Barnet, 10 Edw. IV., married, according to the pedigrees of Fiennes, "_Sir William Griffith, of North Wales, Knt._" It appears there were several persons of this name, and one styled Chamberlain of North Wales, but no such wife is given to him. Can any of your Welsh genealogists _identify_ the Sir William Griffith by reference to any evidence or authorities, manuscript or otherwise, which state the marriage, and show whether Elizabeth Fiennes had any issue?

G.

212. _The Residence of William Penn._--I have been informed that Chatham House, opposite the barracks at Knightsbridge, was the residence of Penn. This house was built in 1688; it had formerly large garden grounds attached both in front and behind. Another account informed me that a house, now known as the "Rising Sun," was the honoured spot. This house has only of late years been turned into a public-house; it is of neat appearance, and the date of 1611 is, or was till lately, to be seen at the two extremes of the copings. Query, Can either of these houses be pointed out with certainty as having been the residence of the great Quaker, and, if so, which? Why was the first-mentioned house called Chatham House?

H. G. D.

213. _Martial's Distribution of Hours._--

"Prima salutantes atque altera continet hora;
Exercet raucos tertia causidicos.
In quintam varios extendit Roma labores,
Sexta quies lassis ----"

Martial, iv. 8.

These lines are the forenoon portion of Martial's well-known distribution of hours and occupation.

Taking these hours then, for the sake of simplification, at the equinox, when they assimilate in length to our modern hours and assuming it as granted that "_quies lassis_" refers to the noon-tide siesta, and therefore that "_sexta_" cannot signify any time previous to our twelve o'clock, or noon, I wish to ask the classical readers of "NOTES AND QUERIES"--

1st. How far into the day are we carried by the expression "_in quintam_?"

2nd. If no farther than to a point equivalent to our eleven o'clock, A.M., in what way is the vacant hour between that point and _sexta_, or noon, accounted for by Martial?

A. E. B.

Leeds.

214. _Moonlight._--A sermon of Dr. Pusey's contains the following beautiful illustrations of the danger of much knowledge and little practice:

"The pale cold light of the moon, which enlightens but warns not,
putrifies what it falls upon."

Will any one inform me whether this is a physical truth, or only an allowable use of a popular opinion?

PHILIP HEDGELAND.

215. _Ash-sap given to new-born Children._--Lightfoot, in his _Flora Scotia_, vol. ii. p. 642., says--

"That in many parts of Scotland (the Highlands), at the birth of a
child the nurse or midwife puts one end of a great stick of the
ash-tree into the fire, and while it is burning receives into a
spoon the sap or juice which oozes out at the other end, and
administers this as the first spoonfuls of liquor to the new-born
babe."--Phillip's _Sylva Flora_.

Why?

G. CREED.

216. _Cockney._--In John Minshieu's _Ductor in Linguas_, published in 1617, the origin of this word is thus explained:--

"That a citizen's son riding with his father out of London into
the country, and being a novice and merely ignorant how corn and
cattle increased, asked, when he heard a horse neigh, what the
horse did? His father answered, the horse doth neigh. Riding
further he heard a cock crow, and said, doth the _cock neigh_
too?"

I should not have troubled you with this story had I not been anxious to ascertain the real origin of the word "Cockney," about which Johnson seems to have been nearly as much in the dark as I am. For any other and more rational explanation I shall be much obliged, as well as by being informed from what source Minshieu derived this story of a cock and a horse, which I am confident I have met with elsewhere, and which is probably familiar to many of your readers.

H. C.

Workington.

217. _Full Orders._--This term is well understood to mean those orders conferred in the church which elevate a deacon to the rank of a priest, capable of a full and entire performance of the duties of the Christian ministry. An interesting point has recently been stirred afresh, touching the validity of any ministerial commission which does not draw its authority from the imposition of episcopal hands. I am not proposing to start a controversial question, unsuited to the quiet and pleasant pages of "NOTES AND QUERIES;" but there branches out from this question a Query solely relating to the Church of England, and involving no dispute; and therefore I beg to ask, whether our church holds that a bishop can confer the full orders of the priesthood without any concomitant laying on of the hands of the presbytery? The rubric in the office for the Ordering of Priests, says, "_The Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of Priesthood_:" and the Bishop then says, "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands," &c. Is, then, the aid of the priests _essential_ to the due performance of the rite? Does the expression "_our_ hands" mean both bishop's and priests' hands, as the joint instruments of conveying authority to do the work and office of a priest? Is there any instance of an Anglican bishop ordaining a priest without assistance? I am aware that Beveridge considers that the bishop's hands alone are sufficient; that it has never been the practice in the Greek or the Eastern churches for priests to take a part in the ceremony of conferring "full orders;" and that the custom of their doing so is referred to a decree of the Council of Carthage, A.D. 398, which says, "When a priest is ordained, the bishop blessing him and laying the hand upon his head, let all the priests also, that are present, hold their hands upon his head, by the hands of the bishop." Without the slightest reference to which is really the orthodox method, I would merely ask, whether the Church of England could _legally_ forego the intervention of the priests, just as the Church of Scotland dispenses with the aid of bishops in the act of conferring "full orders?"

ALFRED GATTY.

218. _Earwig._--Can any correspondent furnish a derivation of _ear-wig_ superior to the ones in vogue?

[Greek: AXÔN.]

219. _The Soul's Errand._--I will thank any one to tell me on what grounds the stanzas called the _Soul's Errand_ are reported to have been written by Sir Walter Raleigh the night before his execution. The first stanza is (memoriter)--

"Go, soul, the body's guest,
Upon a thankless errant!
Fear not to touch the best,
The truth shall be thy warrant.
Go, since I needs must die,
And give the world the lie."

It will be satisfactory to hear at the same time in what work they are to be found. A nobleman of high rank is said to have them engraved on a silver table of the period.

ÆGROTUS.

Minor Queries Answered.

_Call a Spade, a Spade._--What is the origin of the common saying _to call a spade, a spade_? Is it an old proverb or a quotation? In a letter of Melancthon's to Archbishop Cranmer respecting the formularies of the Anglican Church, dated May 1st, 1548, the following sentence occurs, which seems to be another form of it:--

"In Ecclesiâ rectius, _scapham, scapham dicere_; nec objicere
posteris ambigua dicta."

Is _scapham, scapham dicere_, I would also ask, a classical quotation, or a modern Latin version of the other expression?

W. FRASER.

[Mr. Halliwell, in his _Dictionary_, says, "The phrase _To call a
spade a spade_ is applied to giving a person his real character or
qualities. Still in use." "I am plaine, I must needs call _a spade
a spade_, a pope a pope."--_Mar-Prelate's Epitome_, p. 2.]

_Prince Rupert's Drops._--At the risk of being thought somewhat ignorant, I beg for enlightenment with regard to the following passage extracted from a late number of _Household Words_:--

"Now the first production of an author, if only three lines long,
is usually esteemed as a sort of Prince Rupert's Drop, which is
destroyed entirely if a person make on it but a single scratch."

If you, or some of your correspondents, would not think this too trivial a matter to notice, and would inform me what the allusion to "Prince Rupert's Drop" refers to, I should be very much obliged.

YRAM.

[For the history of Prince Rupert's Drops our correspondent is
referred to our 100th Number, p. 234. These philosophical toys,
which exhibit in the most perfect manner the effects of expansion
and contraction in melted glass, are made by letting drops of
melted glass fall into cold water. Each drop assumes an oval form
with a tail or neck resembling a retort; and possesses this
singular property, that if a small portion of the tail is broken
off the whole bursts into powder with an explosion, and a
considerable shock is communicated to the hand that grasps it.]

_"Worse than a Crime."_--Who first remarked, with reference to the murder of the Duc D'Enghien by Napoleon, "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder?"

T. ALLASON.

Furnival's Inn, Oct. 3. 1851.

[This saying has always been attributed to Talleyrand; and it is
so clearly the remark of a clever politician, but lax moralist,
that we have little doubt it has been very justly appropriated to
that distinguished sayer of good things.]

_Arbor Lowe, Stanton Moor, Ayre Family._--Can any of your readers oblige me with information respecting the Druidical remains at Arbor Lowe and Stanton Moor, in the Peak of Derbyshire? I am unable to find any but meagre notices; and in one or two so-called histories of Derbyshire, they are only casually mentioned. Also any particulars concerning the old family of the Ayres, who formerly lived at Birchever, and whose house still stands in a very ruinous condition at the foot of the Routor Rocks?

I have heard that some very singular histories are connected with the family.

H.

[Arbor Lowe and Stanton Moor will be found very fully described by
that indefatigable Derbyshire antiquary Mr. Bateman, in his
_Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire_, published in 1848.]

_Bishop of Worcester "On the Sufferings of Christ."_--Who was the Bishop of Worcester about the year 1697? I have a book by him _On the Sufferings of Christ_, and it only states by Edward Bishop of Worcester. I presume it is Dr. Stillingfleet.

[Greek: Sigma.]

[This work is by Bishop Stillingfleet; the first edition was
published in 1696, and Part II. in 1700, the year following the
Bishop's death.]

_Lord Clifford._--Is the present Lord Clifford lineally descended from the Lord Clifford who was Lord High Treasurer _temp._ Charles II., or whether he derives through any collateral branch?

CLERICUS.

[The present Lord Clifford, the eighth baron, is lineally
descended from Thomas first Baron Clifford of Chudleigh, who was
so created 22nd April, 1672.]

_Latin Translation of Sarpi's Council of Trent._--Can any one inform me who translated this into Latin? I have a copy of an early edition, without printer's name or place of publication, and with the fictitious name _Petri Suavis Polani_; an anagram, though not an accurate one, of _Pauli, Sarpis, Veneti_. The date is 1622, and over it is the device of a man under a tree, round which a vine twines, with "non solus" on a scroll. At the foot of the title-page is a MS. note in the handwriting of Rev. Francis Boult, who was a dissenting minister in Shrewsbury about a hundred years ago. It would enable those who have access to public libraries (which I have not) to answer the question above proposed. _Si scire cupias quis interpres hanc historiam ex Italico in Latinum sermonem verterit, consula opusculum Degorii Wheare, Relectiones Hyamales vocatum pag. 219 et 220._

E. H. D. D.

[This is the first edition of the very inaccurate Latin
translation of Sarpi's _Council of Trent_. The first two chapters
were translated by Sir Adam Newton, and the last two by William
Bedell, afterwards Bishop of Kilmore.]

_Livery Stables._--What is the meaning of _livery_ stables, and when were they first so called?

J. C. W.

[_Livery_, i.e. _delivery_, from the French _livrer_, to deliver.
To the origin of this word (says Junius) these words of Chaucer
allude, "that is the conisance of my _livery_, to all my Servants
_delivered_." Richardson also gives the following quotation from
Spenser explanatory of it:--"What _livery_ is, wee by common use
in England know well enough, namely, that it is allowance of
horse-meate, as they commonly use the word in stabling, as to
keepe horses at _livery_:--the which word, I guesse, is derived of
_livering_ or delivering forth their nightly foode. So in great
houses the livery is said to be served up for all night, that is,
their evening's allowance for drinke. And livery is also called
the upper weede which a serving man weareth, so called (as I
suppose) for that it was delivered and taken from him at
pleasure."--_Spenser on Ireland._]

Replies.

MABILLON'S CHARGE AGAINST THE SPANISH CLERGY.--CAMPANELLA AND ADAMI.--WILKES MSS.

It may seem a little too late to notice a criticism nearly two years old; but, though I had casually looked at "NOTES AND QUERIES," it is but lately that I have, with very great pleasure, read through the volumes which have appeared. I was therefore ignorant of some remarks relating to myself, which from time to time have been made. Greatly as I am open to the charge of too frequent inaccuracy in what I have published, I can defend myself from some strictures of your correspondents.

The first of these is contained in a letter signed CANTAB (Vol. i., p. 51.), and relates to a passage in my _History of the Middle Ages_, where I have said, on the authority of Mabillon, "Not one priest in a thousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a common letter of salutation to another." CANTAB produces the passage in Mabillon, which contains exactly what I have said; but assigns as a reason for it, that the Christians, that is, the clergy, had wholly devoted themselves to the study of Arabic and Hebrew books. And this excuse CANTAB accepts. "They were devoting all their energies to Arabic and Chaldean science, and in their pursuit of it neglected other literature. A similar remark might be made respecting many distinguished members of the university to which I belong." In order to make this a parallel case, it should be asserted, not that many senior wranglers would be at a loss in a Greek chorus, but that they cannot write a good English letter. CANTAB seems to forget, that in the age of Charlemagne, all that was necessary towards writing a Latin letter in Spain was to substitute regular grammar for the corrupt _patois_, the _lingua Romana rustica_, which was soon to become Castilian. The truth is, that the reasons assigned by Mabillon's authority, whoever it might be, is wholly incredible. I am not convinced that it was more than a sarcasm on the ignorance which it affects to excuse. Does CANTAB believe that the whole body of the Spanish clergy relinquished at once, not other literature, but the most elementary knowledge, for the sake of studying Arabic and Chaldee books? And this is not alleged to have been for the purpose of converting Moors and Jews, but as a literary pastime. They are expressly said to have neglected the Scriptures. The object that I had in view was to show the general ignorance of various nations in those ages and this charge of ignorance, as to what lay most open to the Spanish clergy, would hardly be alleviated, even if it were true, that some of them had taken to the study of Arabic.

Another criticism in Vol. i., p. 435., relating to what I have said in _Hist. of Literature_, vol. iii. p. 149. (1st edition), concerning Campanella and Adami, is better founded, though your correspondent C. is himself not wholly accurate. I have said of Tobias Adami, that he "dedicated to the philosophers of Germany his own _Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ_ (Instaur_atio_ is, of course, an error of the press), prefixed to his edition of Campanella's _Compendium de Rerum Naturâ_, published at Frankfort in 1617." C. says, "This _Prodromus_ is a treatise of Campanella's, not, as Mr. Hallam says, of Adami. Adami published the _Prodromus_ for Campanella, who was in prison; and he wrote a preface, in which he gives a list of other writings of Campanella, which he proposes to publish afterwards. What Mr. Hallam calls an edition, was the first publication."

The words _Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ_, which appear only on the title-page, are of Adami himself, not of Campanella. The work of the latter is called _Compendium de Rerum Naturâ_, and is printed, after the preface, with this running title. The error into which I fell was to refer the words _Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ_ to the preface of Adami, and not to the entire work. It may be satisfactory to give the title-page, and one or two extracts from the preface:--

"Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ, id est, Dissertationis de
Natura rerum Compendium, secundum sera principia, ex scriptis
Thomæ Campanellæ præmissum, cum præfatione ad philosophos
Germaniæ. Francofurt. 1617."

_Prodromus_, of course, means the _avant-courier_ of a new philosophy; and this, I might think, was intended for Adami himself. But, on looking again at the preface, I perceive that it refers to the _Compendium_, which was to lead the way to ulterior publications.

"Præmittere autem hoc saltem opusculum visum nobis est, quo brevis
[Greek: anakephalaiôsis] physicorum philosophematum conjecta est,
ut judicia doctorum ex eo in Germania experiremur,
exercitaremusque. Cui si operæ pretium videbitur, subjungemus
posthac autoris pleniorem et concinniorem Epilogismum Philosophiæ
Naturalis, Moralis et Politicæ, addito opusculo Civitatis Solis,
quo idea ingeniosissima reipublicæ philosophiæ secundum naturam
instituendæ proponitur."

I had at one time a doubt, suggested by the language of the title-page, whether the _Compendium de Rerum Naturâ_ were not an abridgment of Campanella, by Adami himself. But the style has too much vigour and terseness to warrant this supposition. And the following passage in the preface leads us to a different conclusion:

"De stylo, si tam delicatæ, ut nostratium nonnullæ sunt, aures
reperiantur, quibus non ubique ita accuratus, _et ex scriptis
mendosis interdum depravatus videatur_, supervacuum puto excusare,
cum philosophus non loquatur, ut loquatur, sed ut intelligi
velit."

Your correspondent observes also: "What Mr. Hallam calls an 'edition,' was the first publication." Is not this rather hyper-critical? "First edition" is a familiar phrase, and Adam was surely an editor.

In Vol. iii., p. 241., it is said that "in 1811 these MSS. (viz. of Wilkes) were, I presume, in the possession of Peter Elmsley, Principal of St. Alban's Hall, as he submitted the Junius Correspondence, through Mr. Hallam, to Serjeant Rough, who returned the letters to Mr. Hallam." And it is asked, "Where now are the original Junius letters, and where the other MSS.?"

I have to answer to this, that I returned the Junius letters (I never had any others of Wilkes) to Mr. Elmsley some years before his death in 1825. They are, in all probability, in the possession of his representatives.

HENRY HALLAM.

PRINTING.

(Vol. iv., p. 148.)

More than a few of your contributors have, I trust, concurred with me in hoping, if not expecting, that something will be done to effect the object presented to our notice through M.'s most judicious suggestion. It will be admitted that now, for about thirty years, the study of the history of early printing has been commonly neglected, frequently despised. The extent of the advance or decline of any science in general estimation can always be accurately computed by means of a comparative view of the prices demanded at different periods for the works which treat of it; and it is unquestionable, that books on bibliography, which once were highly rated, have latterly become (at least to those who have them already) provokingly cheap. In fact, unless some measures be adopted to revive a taste for this important branch of learning, the next generation will be involved in decrepitude and darkness with respect to typographical antiquities.

M. has incidentally asked, "Do _different books_ circulate under the title of _Fasciculus Temporum_?" I should say, strictly speaking, Certainly not. But there is a sense in which the supposition is perfectly true; for we not only meet with the genuine _Fasciculus_ of 1474, by Wernerus Rolevinck de Laer, but have also to encounter the same work as it was interpolated by Heinricus Wirezburg de Vach, and published for the first time in 1481. Ratdolt's edition of 1484, which M. used, does not contain the remarkable substituted passage in which the author was compelled to record the _invention_, instead of the _propagation_, of printing; and it would appear, therefore, that that impression does not belong to the Wirezburgian class. I have been surprised at finding that Pistorius and Struvius have reprinted the sophisticated, and not the authentic, book; and it is curious to see the introduction of an "&c." along with other alterations in the account given of the death of Henry VII. from the reception of a poisoned Host.

M. will instantly perceive that we cannot safely trust in a _Fasciculus Temporum_ of, or after, the date 1481; but I can answer for the agreement of the impression of Colon. 1479 with the _editio princeps_. The citations respecting the Gutenberg Bible are not from the _Fasciculus Temporum_, but from _Die Cronica van der hilliger Stadt van Coellen_, A.D. 1499; the testimony of which (or rather of Ulric Zell related therein) as to the origin of printing is very well known through the Latin translation of it supplied by B. de Mallinckrot. (Clement, vii. 221.; Meerman, ii. 105.; Marchand, _Hist. de l'Imp._, ii. 4. 104.; Lambinet, 132.)

R. G.

THE PENDULUM DEMONSTRATION, ETC.

(Vol. iv., pp. 129. 177. 235.)

It would have been more courteous in H. C. K. to have requested me to exhibit my authority for the assertion that the pendulum phenomenon had been latterly attributed to differences in the earth's superficial velocity, than to have assumed that explanation as having originated with myself. There is certainly nothing to justify H. C. K. in calling it "A. E. B.'s theory;" on the contrary, my avowed object was to suggest objections to it, and even my approval of it was limited to this, that, providing certain difficulties in it could be removed, it would then become the most reasonable explanation as yet offered of the alleged phenomenon,--the only one, I might have added, that I had the slightest hope of comprehending.

I can understand what is meant by the parallelism of the earth's axis; and, with the slight exceptions caused by precession and nutation, I take _that_ to be the standard of _fixity of direction in space_. When, therefore, I am told that the plane of a pendulum's oscillation is also fixed in direction, and yet that it is continually changing its relative position with respect to the other fixity, the axis of the earth, not only does it not present to my mind a comprehensible idea, but it does present to it a palpable contradiction of the commonest axiom of philosophy.

I am therefore in a disposition of mind the reverse of H. C. K.'s; that which to him is only "hard enough to credit," to me is wholly incomprehensible; while that which to him is "utterly impossible to conceive," appears to me a rational hypothesis in which I can understand at least the ground of assertion.

H. C. K. asks me to "reduce to paper" the assertion of the difference of velocity between two parallels of latitude ten feet apart. He is not surely so unphilosophical as to imagine that a theory, to be true, must necessarily be palpable to the senses. If the element of increase exist at all, however minute and imperceptible it may be in a single oscillation, repetition of effect must eventually render it observable. But I shall even gratify H. C. K., and inform him that the difference in linear circumference between two such parallels in the latitude of London would be about fifty feet, so that the northern end of a ten-feet rod, placed horizontally in the meridian, would travel less by that number of feet in twenty-four hours than the southern end. This, so far from being inadequate, is greatly _in excess_ of the alleged apparent motion in the plane of a pendulum's vibration.

In the remarks of another correspondent, E. H. Y. (Vol. iv., p. 177.), there is but one point that seems to require observation from me; it is his assertion that "there is no force by which a body unconnected with the earth would have any tendency to rotate with it!" Is then the rotation of forty miles of atmosphere, "and all that it inherit," due to friction alone? And even so, can any object, immersed in that atmosphere, be said to be "_unconnected with the earth_"?

A. E. B.

WINIFREDA.--"CHILDE HAROLD."

(Vol. iii., pp. 27. 108. 155.; Vol. iv. p. 196.)

I have not yet thanked LORD BRAYBROOKE for the obliging manner in which, in reply to my inquiry, he furnished a list of the reputed authors of "Winifreda." His recent note on the same subject gives me an occasion for doing so, while expressing my concurrence in his view that G. A. Stevens was not the author. In short, it may be taken now I think as an established fact, that the author is unknown.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that this poem was written in any part of the seventeenth century. It appears to me to be the work of a true poet in the most vicious age of English poetry, and infected with all its faults. Weakened with epithets, and its language poor and artificial, it rises to nature at the close, than which nothing of the kind can be much better. In the following stanza I do not altogether like the personification of Time:--

"And when with envy, Time transported,
Shall think to rob us of our joys,
You'll in your girls again be courted,
And I'll go wooing in my boys."

A likely thought, truly, for a boy of sixteen! My own impression is, that it did not long precede the age of "the little folks on Strawberry Hill."

Since writing the above I have referred to my copy of Steven's songs, which I had not at hand before. It is the Oxford edition mentioned by LORD BRAYBROOKE; and although it does not contain "Winifreda," a clue, it appears to me, may be drawn from it as to Stevens's connexion with this piece. In the first place, it is to be remarked that the title of the book is, _Songs, Comic and Satyrical_, by George Alexander Stevens. The motto is from the author's _Lecture on Heads_, "_I love fun!--keep it up!_" These circumstances are important, as one would hardly expect to find "Winifreda" in such a volume, though it were by the same author. Yet, there is a song which, though written in a more lilting measure, is quite as much out of place; and this song shows evidence, in my opinion, of Stevens having known and admired "Winifreda." It is entitled "Rural Felicity," and is to be found at page 71 of the volume. Compare the two following stanzas with the last two of "Winifreda:"--

III.

"He smiles on his babes, as some strive for his knee,
And some to their mother's neck cling,
While playful the prattlers for place disagree,
The roof with their shrill trebles ring.

VI.

"I remember the day of my falling in love,
How fearful I first came to woo;
I hope that these boys will as true-hearted prove,
And our lasses, my dear, look like you."

"Rural Felicity," however, though in a purer style than "Winifreda," can hardly be said to rise to poetry at all; and if the latter had been by the same author, it is most improbable that he would have excluded it from the volume containing the former. Looking at the two songs together, one is an evident imitation; and the conclusion I should come to with regard to the other is, that it was written by a man who _knew_ the feeling he describes; by one of whom it could not be said, "He has no children;" by one to whom that more than identity of interest that centres in the--

"Unselfish self, the filial self of twain,"

was a familiar feeling. Stevens, perhaps, had repeated the poem, or made a copy of it, and thus gained the credit of being its author.

I am surprised that your correspondent T. W. should find any difficulty in the passage he quotes from _Childe Harold_:

"Thy waters wasted them while they were free,
And many a tyrant (_has wasted them_) since."

This mode of expression is only faulty when ambiguous; but here of ambiguity there is none.

SAMUEL HICKSON.

THE THREE ESTATES OF THE REALM.

(Vol. iv., pp. 115. 196.)

As CANONICUS EBORACENSIS considers that I have "not exactly hit the mark" in inferring that "the Lords, the Clergy _in Convocation_, and the Commons" are the "Three Estates of England" named in the Gunpowder Treason Service, I would claim, being not yet altogether convinced by CANON. EBOR.'S arguments that such is the case, a share of your space for discussing a question which must certainly be interesting to all who uphold "our Constitution in Church and State." My apology for prolixity must be, that having but just received "NOTES AND QUERIES" I have not had time to study brevity.

The passages, which contain the expressions referred to in the Service, are as under:--

"We yield Thee our unfeigned thanks and praise for the wonderful
and mighty deliverance of our gracious Sovereign King James the
First, the Queen, the Prince, and all the royal branches, _with
the Nobility, Clergy, and Commons of England_, then assembled in
Parliament, by popish treachery appointed as sheep to the
slaughter, in a most barbarous and savage manner, beyond the
examples of former ages."--The First Collect at Morning Prayer.

"By discovering and confounding their horrible and wicked
enterprise, plotted and intended this day to have been executed
against the King _and the whole State of England_, for the
subversion of the government and religion established among
us."--The Litany.

"Acknowledging Thy power, wisdom, and goodness in preserving the
King, _and the Three Estates of the Realm of England_, assembled
in Parliament, from the destruction this day intended against
them."--The Communion Service.

"Who on this day didst miraculously preserve _our Church and
State_ from the secret contrivance and hellish malice of popish
conspirators."--After the Prayer for the Church Militant.

CANON. EBOR. asserts that these Three Estates (the word "estates" being used of course in its second intention, as meaning the representatives, and not the orders _en masse_) are "the Lords Spiritual," "the Lords Temporal," and "the Commons," representing severally the clergy, the nobility, and the commonality. As "the Lords Spiritual" are always placed before "the Lords Temporal," he is obliged to rank _the clergy_ before _the nobility_ in spite of the order of precedency observed in the Collect. This seems to show that the clergy are not represented by the bishops. And in the Coronation Oath they are separately specified:

"And will you preserve unto _the bishops and clergy of the realm_,
and to the churches committed to them, all such rights and
privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of
them?"

This in an older oath ran thus:

"Et quil gardera le peas de seynt Eglise _et al clergie_ et al
people de bon accorde."

From these quotations it does not seem very faulty to infer, that the clergy as represented by Convocation are the second Estate of the realm; and are not, as represented by "the Lords Spiritual," the first, which is the Estate of the nobility represented by the Peers.

Against this CANON. EBOR.'S arguments are two: first, "that the phrase 'assembled in Parliament' has no application to the Convocation;" and next, that the "Convocation does not sit at Westminster."

With regard to the first, I have to say that it was somewhat late in our history that the point was settled that Convocation was not a part of Parliament. In Mr. Palin's recently published _History of the Church of England_, ch. x. p. 242., I read, with respect to the dissolution of the Convocation of 1701,--

"With the presentation of this document the Convocation dispersed,
both the King and the Prolocutor being now dead; and in the act
that empowered the Parliament to sit after the king's
death, no provision was made to continue the Convocation. The Earl
of Rochester moved, in the House of Lords, that it might be
considered, _whether the Convocation was not a part of the
Parliament, and whether it was not continued in consequence of the
act that continued the Parliament_. But that was soon let fall;
for the judges were all of opinion that it was dissolved by the
king's death."

In _A Reconciling Letter, &c._, a pamphlet published in 1702:

"Pray inform me to which notion I may subscribe; whether to the
Convocation being a Parliamentary body, and _part of Parliament_,
as Dr. A. has made it? Or to the Convocation having a
Parliamentary relation, and such an origin and alliance," &c.

On going back to an earlier date:--In Statutis 21 Richard II. c. 2., and 21 Richard II. c. 12. the preambles state that--

"These statutes were made by the assent _of the procurators of the
clergy, as well as_ of other constituent members _of parliament_."

And we know that the _Procuratores Cleri_ occasionally sat in parliament in the Lower House, as the Judges do now in the Upper: in a treatise quoted by Coke (_De modo tenendi Parliamentum_)--

"It appeareth that the proctors of the clergy should appear, 'cum
præsentia eorum sit necessaria' (which proveth they were voiceless
assistants only), and having no voices, and so many learned
bishops having voices, their presence is not now holden
necessary."--4 Inst. 5.

Perhaps they were not altogether voiceless, for we find that on Nov. 22, 1547, a petition was presented by the Lower House of Convocation to the Upper, the second clause of which was--

"2dly. That the clergy of the lower house of Convocation may be
admitted _to sit in Parliament with the House of Commons_
according to antient usage."

In support of this, the clause _Præmunientes_ in the writ directing the elections of Proctors was appealed to. This "Præmunitory Clause," which at a later period of the history of Convocation was the cause of much discussion, ran thus:--

"The Bishop was commanded to 'give notice to the (Prior or) Dean
and Chapter of his Cathedral Church, and to the Archdeacons and
all the clergy of his diocese, that the Prior, Deans, and
Archdeacons, in their own persons, the chapter by one, and the
clergy by two, proper proxies, sufficiently empowered by the said
chapter and clergy, _should by all means be present at the
Parliament with him_ to do and to consent to those things, which,
by the blessing of GOD, by their common advice happened to be
ordained in the matters aforesaid, and that the giving this notice
should by no means be omitted by him.'"

"The clergy _thus summoned to Parliament_ by the King and
Diocesan, met for the choice of their proxies; for this purpose
the Dean or Prior held his chapter, and the Archdeacon his synod.
The representatives being chosen in these assemblies _were sent up
to Parliament_, with procuratorial letters from the chapter and
clergy to give them an authority to act in their names, and on the
behalf of their electors."--Collier's _Eccles. Hist._, Part II.
book iv.

Also--

"All the members of both Houses of Convocation have the same
privileges for themselves and their servants as _the members of
parliament_ have, and that by statute."--Chamberlayn's _Mag. Brit.
Notitia_, p. 94.

It may be reasonably doubted, whether a little research would not afford further reasons for thinking that there was some ground for applying the phrase "assembled in Parliament" to Convocation.

With respect to the Convocations sitting at Westminster. The first Convocation of 1283 sat "at the New Temple;" the next was summoned on St. Matthew's day, 1294, to meet _at Westminster_. On April 22, 1523, a National Synod of both Convocations was held _at Westminster_ by Cardinal Wolsey, the Papal Legate. The Convocation sat _at Lambeth_ in 1555 and 1558. In 1586 and 1588, we find Convocation often sitting _at Westminster_. In 1624 the Upper House sat _at Christ Church_, Oxford, and the Lower _at Merton College_. On May 16, 1661, the Convocation met in "the Collegiate Church _at Westminster_." The first Convocation of William III. had its amended commission brought to it on the 4th of December, while both Houses were sitting together _in Henry VII.'s Chapel_. The last Convocation of the same king met on the 10th of February, 1701, at St. Paul's, where they heard divine service, and then went to the chapter-house, where they chose for their prolocutor Dr. Hooper. On the 25th of February, the Lower House was sitting in Henry VII.'s Chapel; and on the 6th of March they were both sitting _in the Jerusalem Chamber: where_ twice in this present year it has sat. It is true that the writ which summoned James I.'s first Convocation called the clergy to appear before the archbishop "in our cathedral church of St. Paul in London, the twentieth day of March then next ensuing, or elsewhere, as he should have thought it most convenient;" and it seems that they did assemble "at the time and place before-mentioned;" yet, supposing they were not at Westminster then, they were in almost equal danger from the Popish Plot, as it is not likely they would have received any greater mercy at the hands of the conspirators.

I have always imagined that it was still a moot-point as to whether all the Estates ever _deliberated_ together in the presence of the sovereign. It is not generally known, I think, that they all re-assemble for the formal passing of every act: and with respect to the authority of all three being recited in the preamble, I beg to point out to CANON. EBOR. the following exceptions:--In the Act of Uniformity, the style of "Lords Spiritual" is omitted throughout, as every one of the bishops voted against it. It has also been ruled by the judges that the King may hold a parliament without any Spiritual lords; and, in fact, the first two parliaments of Charles II. were so holden.

I will presume CANON. EBOR. intended to say that Prelates do not sit in the Upper House as _Peers_, otherwise the charge of "mistake" will fall upon Blackstone, _Comm._ book i. ch. 2.:

"The next in order are the Spiritual lords. These consist of two
archbishops and twenty-four bishops; and at the dissolution of
monasteries by Henry VIII. consisted likewise of twenty-six mitred
abbots, and two priors: a very considerable body, and in those
times equal in number to the temporal nobility. All these hold, or
are supposed to hold, _certain ancient baronies_, under the king:
for William the Conqueror thought proper to change the spiritual
tenure of frank-almoign, or free alms, under which the bishops
held their lands during the Saxon government, into feodal or
Norman tenure _by barony_; which subjected their estates to all
civil charges and assessments from which they were before exempt:
and in right of succession to those baronies, which were
unalienable from their respective dignities, the bishops and
abbots were allowed their seats in the House of Lords."

Sir Matthew Hale divides the king's extraordinary councils into two kinds: 1. Secular or temporal councils; 2. Ecclesiastical or spiritual: the king's extraordinary secular councils being the Houses of the Peers and of the Commons; and the extraordinary ecclesiastical, the Upper and Lower Houses of Convocation.

Some illustration of this may be perhaps found in the following extract from an appendix to _A Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House of Convocation_, published by T. Bennet, London, 1701, in which _Prelates_ are Spiritual Lords, whether Bishops or Abbots; and the phrase "full Parliament" seems equivalent to the ones used in the Gunpowder Treason Service:--

"When the several Estates were assembled in _full Parliament_, and
received the King's commands concerning the business which they
were to consider, and were adjourned by him to another day of
_full Parliament_, in which they were to meet, and give their
answer: the Clergy, and Lords, and Commons consulted in the mean
time separately, ... Instances of this are not necessary, but one
may be seen among the Records in the appendix to a late book
call'd _Essays concerning the Balance of Power_, &c., and 'tis
this: 6 Edw. III. Part 3. N. 1., on Tuesday in Full Parliament the
King charged the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other Great Men, and
the Knights of the Shires, and the Commons, that having regard to
the honor and profit of his Realm, they should give him their
counsel. The which Prelates with the Clergy by themselves, and the
Earls and Barons by themselves, and the knights and others of the
counties and the Commons by themselves, treated and consulted till
Friday next, the day assigned for the next session, and there _in
full Parliament_, each by themselves and afterward all in common,
answered."

The formation and development of Convocation, at least that of Canterbury, presents a great analogy to the English Parliament; as that of York does to the Scottish Parliament.

We must remember that before the Norman times, the clergy were exempt from all taxation; inasmuch as "they held in Frankalmoigne," that is, held their lands, &c., on free alms "in liberam eleemosynam." Littleton (lib. ii. c. 6. s. 135.) says:

"And they which hold in Frankalmoigne are bound of right before
God to make orisons, prayers, masses, and other divine services
for the soul of their grantor or feoffer, and for the souls of
their heirs which are dead," &c.

The king's succeeding William the Conqueror tried to make the clergy contribute to the public exchequer, but were effectually resisted. In order to surmount the difficulty, King John (A.D. 1206) summoned all the priors and abbots _to parliament_, and obtained from them a vote of a _thirteenth_: and then wrote to the archdeacons to get the same from the clergy generally. Edward I. rendered this scheme for the taxation of the clergy complete. He applied to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to assemble, by _their canonical authority_, the convocations of each province; and these Metropolitans, moved by the King's writ (the same practice is settled now), summoned these bishops and clergy.

The earliest royal writ, summoning a provincial synod, is dated Nov. 24, 1282, and calling them to meet at _Northampton_: "Venire ... _coram nobis_ apud Northampton."

This Convocation assembled at Northampton; and we find another mandate from the Archbishop to the dean of the province, directing him to summon the bishops and clergy to a Convocation for the 9th of May, 1283, at the _New Temple_ (now the Inner and Middle Temples), pursuant to a resolution of the Convocation of Northampton. At this Convocation, the proctors of the clergy refused to pay the tenth. Eleven years after, we find Edward summoning the whole body of the bishops and clergy to _Westminster_ on St. Matthew's day, 1294. His writ orders "The dean and archdeacon to appear in their proper persons, the chapter by one, and the clergy of the diocese by two procurators." The clergy objected to this writ as uncanonical, and claimed to be convoked only by their Metropolitans; as tending to abolish their provincial synods convened by regular ecclesiastical authority, and to establish in their place a parliamentary chamber under secular authority. The King, finding them so opposed to his project of thus making them a part of the Third Estate, reverted to the established practice, and addressed his writs to the Archbishops; whereupon the Metropolitans issued their mandates, Convocations met, and subsidies were voted.

An important result followed this struggle (see 2 Lingard, p. 375.), viz., that the procurators of the common clergy of each diocese (in compliance with the direction on the Kings writ) were admitted as _constituent members_ of these and all subsequent Convocations; the archdeacons, before this time, being considered as their representatives, who probably were furnished with letters of procuration from them.

The constitution of the English Convocation may be said to be finally established in the reign of Edward I., and it has so continued to the present day; except that in 1665 the clergy in Convocation gave up the privilege of self-taxation, and received in return that of voting for the House of Commons, losing thereby one distinctive sign of their being "an Estate of the Realm."

WILLIAM FRASER, B.C.L.

P.S. The error which my former note was intended to correct was not utterly a "cockney" one, as the following Proposition, condemned in 1683, by the University of Oxford, together with several others contained in the books of the time, as "damnable and destructive," will show:--

"The sovereignty of England is in _the Three Estates, viz. King,
Lords, and Commons_. The King has but a co-ordinate power, and may
be overruled by the other two." _Lex Rex. Hunter of a limited and
mixed Monarchy._ Baxter's _H. C. Polit. Catech._ See Collier's
_Eccl. Hist._, Part 2. Book ix.

MEANING OF WHIG AND TORY.

(Vol. iv., p. 57.)

The derivation of these terms, as applied to the two extreme parties in politics, is a much vexed question, which will probably never be satisfactorily settled. That staunch Tory, Roger North, in his _Examen_, has referred the origin of the name of his party to their connexion with the Duke of York and his popish allies.