Chapter C: W. G

[We have never met with the word, and can only guess at random
that it is _quasi_ "the bee-croft," the enclosure where the bees
were kept; always remembering that formerly, when honey was an
article of large consumption, immense stores of these insects must
have been kept. In royal inventories we have "honey casks"
enumerated to an immense amount.]

_A great Man who could not spell._--Of what great historical character is it recorded, that though by no means deficient in education, he never could succeed in spelling correctly? I have an impression of having read this in some biography a few years since, and I think it was a great military commander, who always committed this error in his despatches, though a man of acknowledged high talents and well-informed mind, and conscious of this defect, which he had endeavoured in vain to overcome.

SAMPSON ANRAMENII.

[Does our correspondent allude to the Duke of Marlborough, who was
avowedly "loose in his cacography" as Lord Duberly has it?]

_Glass-making in England._--The appearance in your pages of several very interesting Notes on the First Paper-mill in England leads me to beg space for a few Queries on another subject of Art-History.

1. _When_, _where_, and under what circumstances, was the first manufactory for _glass_ established in England?

2. What writer first notices the introduction or use of glass, in our island?

3. Are there any works of authority published devoted to this material? If so, may I request some of your learned contributors to direct me to them, or, in fact, to any good notice of its early history?

JOSIAH CATO.

5. Holland Place, North Brixton.

[Fosbroke, in his _Encyclopædia of Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 397.,
has given some curious notices of the early manufacture of this
useful article. The art of glass-making was known to the early
Egyptians, as is fully discussed in a Memoir by M. Boudet, in the
_Description de l'Egypt_, vol. ix. _Antiq. Mémoires_. See also the
_Encyclopædia Metropolitana_, vol. viii. p. 469, which contains
many historical notices, from a neat and concise sketch published
by Mr. Pellatt, of the firm of Pellatt and Green, whose works are
scientifically conducted on a scale of considerable magnitude.]

_Eustace._--Was Eustachius Monachus ever in Guernsey?

MORTIMER COLLINS.

[It is very probable. Some of the crew of this renowned pirate
were captured at Sark. See Michel's Introduction to the _Roman
d'Eustache le Moine_, 8vo. 1834, where copies of most of our
records, and of the passages in our early historians, in which
Eustace is mentioned, have been collected with great care.]

_Mas._--I inquired what was the meaning of Mass Robert Fleming, and I partly answer my own question, by saying that Cameronian preachers were so styled, or rather Mas with one "s" before their Christian names,--as Mas David Williamson, Mas John King: see John Creichton's _Memoirs_. But I ask again, how the title arises, and whether it is short for master?

A. N.

[Nares, in his _Glossary_, has given several examples from our
earlier dramatists in which _Mas_ is used as a colloquial
abbreviation of _Master_, the plural being _Masse_.]

_John Le Neve._--Who was John Le Neve, the compiler and editor of the _Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ_, fol. 1716? He has been, though erroneously, supposed to be a brother of Peter Le Neve, Norroy. When did he die?

G.

[John Le Neve was born in Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury, Dec.
27, 1679. In his twelfth year he was sent to Eton School, and at
the age of sixteen became a fellow-commoner of Trinity College,
Cambridge, where he remained three years. He married Frances, the
second daughter of Thomas Boughton, of King's Cliffe, in
Northamptonshire, by whom he had four sons and four daughters. He
died about 1722. Mr. Lysons, in _Environs of London_, says he had
a house at Stratford, Bow. (See Nichols's _Lit. Anecdotes_, vol.
i. p. 128.) In Cole's MSS., vol. i. p. 143., is the following
curious note respecting his _Fasti_:--"I was told by my worthy
friend and benefactor, Browne Willis, Esq., that though Mr. John
Le Neve has the name and credit of the _Fasti Ecclesiae
Anglicanae_, yet the real compiler of that most useful book was
Bishop Kennett." The Bodleian contains a copy of this work, with
MS. additions by Bishop Tanner.]

_Meaning of Crow._--At page 437. of Lloyd's _Statesmen and Favourites of England_ is a letter from Queen Elizabeth addressed to the mother of Sir John Norris, written upon the occasion of the death of the said Sir John, which she commences thus: "My own Crow." This appears to me a very curious mode of address, particularly from a queen to a subject, and seems to mark a more than ordinary intimacy between the correspondents, for it has been suggested to me that it is still used as a term of endearment, in the same way as "duck," &c. are used: I have, however, never before met with it myself, and have sent you a Note of it now, not only because I consider it curious that the queen should thus write, but because I hope that some of your correspondents may be able to suggest how this word came to be thus used.

JOHN BRANFILL HARRISON.

Maidstone.

[Queen Elizabeth had pet-names, or nick-names, for all the people
of her court. Burghley was her "Spirit," Mountjoy her
"Kitchen-maid;" and so of many others.]

Replies.

PRESBYTERIAN OATH.

(Vol. v., p. 274.)

No such oath as that given in page 274. of "N. & Q." is taken by Presbyterian ministers. Immediately previous to the ordination of a minister of the church of Scotland, the Moderator--that is, the member of Presbytery who presides upon the occasion--calls upon him to answer certain questions, acknowledging the Scriptures to be the word of God, the doctrines of the Confession of Faith to be the truth of God; disowning certain doctrinal errors; declaring his belief that the Presbyterian government and discipline of this church are founded on the word of God, and agreeable thereto; expressing the views with which he enters the ministry, and his resolution faithfully to discharge its duties. Having answered these questions satisfactorily, he is set aside to the work of the ministry by prayer and imposition of the hands of the Presbytery (the local Ecclesiastical Court).

At the conclusion of the service he is called on to sign what is called the Formula, an abstract of the first portion of the questions put to him. It is as follows:--

"I, A. B., do hereby declare, that I do sincerely own and believe
the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith, approven
by the General Assemblies of this national church, and ratified by
law in the year 1690, and frequently confirmed by divers acts of
parliament since that time, to be the truths of God; and I do own
the same as the confession of my faith: as likewise, I do own the
purity of worship presently authorised and practised in this
church, and also the Presbyterian government and discipline now so
happily established therein; which doctrine, worship, and church
government, I am persuaded, are founded upon the word of God, and
agreeable thereto: and I promise that, through the grace of God, I
shall firmly and constantly adhere to the same; and to the utmost
of my power, shall, in my station, assert, maintain, and defend
the said doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of this
church by Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods, and
General Assemblies; and that I shall in my practice conform myself
to the said worship, and submit to the said discipline and
government, and never endeavour directly or indirectly the
prejudice or subversion of the same: and I promise that I shall
follow no divisive course from the present establishment in this
church: renouncing all doctrines, tenets, and opinions whatsoever,
contrary to or inconsistent with the said doctrine, worship,
discipline, or government of this church.

"Signed, A. B."

No oath is taken, and no obligation come under but the above. In the Confession of Faith, under the head Church, the supremacy of the Pope is denied; but neither in that, the Questions, or the Formula, is there any other reference to any other form of church government.

H.

THE OLD COUNTESS OF DESMOND.

(Vol. v., p. 145.)

As there has been, from time to time, much written in your very interesting publication on the subject of the "Old Countess of Desmond," it may, perhaps, not be unacceptable that I should give you a description of an old family picture in my possession, said to be of that person, to which allusion has been made by some of your correspondents, especially by A. B. R., in your paper of Saturday, 14th February. The painting in question has been for a great number of years in the possession of my family, and from my earliest childhood I have heard it designated as that of the old "Countess of Desmond," although there is no mention of her name thereon. My father for a long time thought it was a work of Rembrandt; but on a close examination there was discovered the name of "G. Douw," low at the left-hand side; and since the picture has been cleaned, the signature has become more distinct. It is painted on board of dark-coloured oak, of eleven inches by eight and a half. The portrait, which reaches to below the bust, and represents a person sitting, is eight and a half inches in length; the face about two and three quarter inches. It is admitted by the best judges to be a painting of great merit. It represents, as well as it is possible, extreme old age, with an extraordinary degree of still remaining vigour, and in this respect certainly fits exactly the character of its subject. The dress is correctly described by your correspondent A. B. R. The forehead is not very high, but square and intellectual--deeply wrinkled; the nose is rather long, and very well formed; the eyes dark; the mouth compressed, and denoting quiet firmness; the expression altogether pleasing and placid, and the face one that must have been handsome in youth. Should any of your correspondents wish to see this picture, I shall leave it for a short time in the hands of my bookseller, Mr. Newman, 3. Bruton Street, Bond Street, who has kindly consented to take charge of it, and to show it to those who feel an interest in such matters.

It must, at first sight, appear strange that such men as G. Douw, the painter of the picture in question, or Rembrandt to whom are attributed other portraits of this old lady, should have condescended to copy from other artists, (for the respective dates render it quite impossible they could have painted from life in this instance): however, it is natural to suppose that this extraordinary instance of longevity made great noise at the time of, and for some time after, her death, and that a correct representation of such a physical phenomenon, although the work of an inferior artist, may well have afforded a fitting study for even such eminent painters as Rembrandt and G. Douw.

As I am on this subject, I shall further trouble you with a circumstance in connexion therewith, which has recently come to my knowledge. My friend, Mr. Herbert, M.P., of Muckross Abbey, Killarney, has also an old family picture of the same lady, with a very curious inscription, which, while it would appear to go far towards establishing several of her characteristic attributes, has also its peculiar difficulties, which I shall presently point out, in the hope that some of your correspondents who are learned in such matters may explain them. The inscription, which is on the canvass itself, is as follows:

"Catharine, Countesse of Desmonde, as she appeared at ye court of
our Sovraigne Lord King James, in thys preasant A.D. 1614, and in
ye 140th yeare of her age. Thither she came from Bristol to seek
relief, ye house of Desmonde having been ruined by Attainder. She
was married in ye Reigne of King Edward IV., and in ye course of
her long Pilgrimage renewed her teeth twice: her Principal
residence is at Inchiquin, in Munster, whither she undoubtedlye
proposeth (her Purpose accomplished) incontinentlie to return.
LAUS DEO."

Now, as to the authenticity of this picture, there can, I should think, be no question. It has not been _got up_ for the present antiquarian controversy; for it is known to have been in existence in the family of Mr. Herbert for a great many years. It could not well be a mystification of the intervening "middle age," for in that case it would doubtless have been brought forward at _the time_, to establish a particular theory as to this lady. I think, therefore, it is only reasonable to suppose that it was painted at the time it professes. It may also be mentioned, in corroboration, that a connoisseur who examined this picture for Mr. Herbert attributed it to the hand of Jamieson, the Scotch painter, who lived at a time that would render it quite possible for him to have painted it from life. So far so good. The main difficulty is that of the dates given in the inscription. If the Countess was 140 in 1614, and therefore born in 1474, she could have been but eight or nine years old at the death of Edward IV., and therefore could not have been married in his reign. It is difficult to account for this discrepancy, except by supposing that the old lady sank ten years of her age (and there are statements in existence of 1464 being the year of her birth); or else by supposing that the story of her marriage in the reign of Edward IV. was not her own, but communicated, at second-hand and erroneously, to the artist.

On this point I hope some of your more learned correspondents will favour us with their opinion. There has also been recently sent me by a friend an extract from the "Birch Collection," British Museum (Add. MSS. 4161.), being transcripts of a _Table Book of Robert Sidney, second Earl of Leicester_, which contradicts the inscription in some particulars: but Lord Leicester writes in a loose and apparently not very authentic style. He states, on the authority of a "Mr. Harnet," that the Countess of Desmond came to petition "the Queen" (Elizabeth), and not King James; and quotes Sir W. Raleigh (on memory) as saying that he (Sir W. R.) saw her in England in 1589. He also talks of her death as occurring at the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and as being caused by a fall from a "nutt-tree." I do not think, indeed, that much weight should attach to these notes of Lord Leicester; but it is fair to give all that comes to light, whether it makes against or for the authenticity of what one wishes to establish.

P. FITZGERALD, KNIGHT OF KERRY.

Union Club, London.

SHAKSPEARE'S SICKLE OR SHEKEL.

(_Value of Solidus Gallicus?_)

(Vol. v., p. 277.)

I undertake to answer C. W. B.'s Query with the greater readiness, because it affords me an opportunity of upholding that which has ever been the leading object in every amendment of Shakspeare's text advocated by me, viz., the unravelling and explaining, rather than the alteration, of the original. Perhaps it is with a similar aim that C. W. B. wishes to investigate the value of "siclus;" if so, he must pardon me if I forestall him.

I see no difficulty in the passage which he asks to have construed; its meaning is this:

"The sacred sickle (or shekel) was equivalent to an Attic
tetradrachma, which Budæus estimated at 14 Gallic solidi, or
thereabouts; for the didrachma was seven solidi, since the single
drachma made three and a half solidi, _less_ a denier Tournois."

Which is as much as to say, that the sickle equalled fourteen solidi, less four deniers; or 13-2/3 solidi.

But owing to the rapid declension in the value of French coin after the tenth century, it is manifestly impossible to assign a value to these solidi unless the precise date of their coinage were known. A writer may, of course, allude to coin indefinitely precedent to his own time. In the present case, however, we may, as a matter of curiosity, _analytically_ approximate to a result in this way:--

The drachma is now known to have contained about 65 grains of pure silver, consequently the tetradrachma contained 260 grains. The present franc contains about 70 grains of pure silver, and consequently the sol, or 20th part, is 3-1/2 grains.

This last, multiplied by 13-2/3, produces about 48 grains. But the weight of the tetradrachma is 260 grains; therefore the sol with which the comparison was made must have contained upwards of fivefold its present value in pure silver.

Now, according to the depreciation tables of M. Dennis, this condition obtained in 1483, under Charles VIII., at which time Budæus was actually living, having been born in 1467; but from other circumstances I am induced to believe that the solidus gallicus mentioned by him was coined by Louis XII. in 1498, at which time the quantity of pure silver was fourfold and a half that of the present day.

So much in answer to C. W. B.'s Query; now for its relation to Shakspeare's text, with which however the "siclus" in question has nothing in common except the name; since the "sickles," so beautifully alluded to by Isabella, in _Measure for Measure_ (Act II. Sc. 2.), were _sicli aurei_, "of the tested gold."

But I have designedly used the word _sickle_ as the English representative of the Latin _siclus_ (Gallicè _cicle_), because it is the original word of Shakspeare, which was subsequently, most unwarrantably and unwisely, altered by the commentators to _shekels_ in conformity with the Hebraicised word of our scriptural translation.[2] Hence it is that "sickles" has come to be looked upon as _a corruption of the text_; and "shekels" as a very clever _conjectural emendation_!

We retain _sickle_, Anglicè for _sicula_, a scythe; but we refuse it to Shakspeare for a word almost identical in sound--_siculus_, or siclus!

The real corruption has been that of Shakspeare's commentators, not his printers'; and I hope that some future editor of his plays will have the courage to permit him to spell this, and other proper names, in his own way. For how can his text continue to be an example of his language, if his words may be altered to suit the _précieuse_ fashion of subsequent times?

A. E. B.

Leeds.

[Footnote 2: [Our correspondent of course alludes to King James's
translation. Upon reference to Sir Frederic Madden's admirable
edition of Wickliffe's Bible, we find A. E. B.'s position directly
corroborated: "The erthe that thou askist is worth foure hundryd
_sicles_ of silver."--Genesis, xxiii. 15. And in Exodus, xxx. 13.,
"A _sicle_ that is a nounce hath twenti half scripples;" or, as in
the second edition, "A _sicle_ hath twenti halpens."--ED.]]

A FEW MORE WORDS ABOUT "DULCARNON."

(Vol. i., p. 254.; Vol. v., pp. 252-3.)

By the aid of Dr. Adam Littleton and your correspondent A. N., all future editors of Chaucer and glossarists are helped over this _pons asinorum_: the word being evidently nothing more than the adoption of the Arabic DHU 'LKARNEIN, i.e. _two-horned_; and hence, as the reputed son of Jupiter Ammon, Alexander's oriental name, Iscander _Dhu 'lkarnein_, i.e. Bicornis.

The legend of the building of the wall, in the fabulous Eastern lives of Alexander, is to be found in the 18th chapter of the Koran; and it is related with variations and amplification by Sir John Mandeville. The metrical as well as prose romances on the subject of Alexander also contain it; and those who wish for more information will find it in the third volume of Weber's _Metrical Romances_, p. 331.

I cannot say that I am quite convinced of the truth of the ingenious supposition of your correspondent, that "Sending to Dulcarnein is merely an ellipsis of the person for his place, _i.e._ for the rampart of Dulcarnein." It appears to me more probable, that as, according to St. Jerome and other writers of the Middle Ages, the _Dilemma_ was also called Syllogismum _Cornutum_, its Arabic name was _Dhu 'lkarnein_; and we know how much in science and literature the darker ages were indebted to the Arabian writers. Wyttenbach, in his _Logic_, says "_Dilemma_ etiam _Cornutus_ est; quod _utrimque_ veluti _Cornibus_ pugnat." At any rate it is clear that the enclosure had another name:

"En Ynde si naist uns grans mons
Qui est une grans regions
C'on apiele _Mont Capien_.
Illuec a unes gens sans bien,
Qu' Alixandres dedens enclost,
Et sont la gent _Got_ et _Magot_."

_Extrait de l'Image du Monde, par Le Roux de Lincy, Livre des
Légendes_, p. 208.

It does not appear to me that _to be at Dalcarnon_ is equivalent to being _sent to Coventry_, or to Jericho, as your correspondent A. N. supposes; or that the word _flemyng_, in this passage, means _banishing_, but rather _defeating_, _daunting_, _dismaying_, in which sense it occurs more than once in Layamon; thus, vol. ii. p. 410.:--

"Thine feond _flæmen_
& driven hem of londen."

The general sense of the word is, however, _to expel_, _to drive out_, and not _to enclose_, as Alexander is said to have done the Gog and Magog people, by his iron, or rather bituminous, wall. Now those who were at Dulcarnon, or _in a Dilemma_, might well be said to be defeated or dismayed.

Let us hope that some oriental scholar among your correspondents may be able to indicate where the word is to be found in some Arabian expositor of logic or dialectic, &c., and thus set the question entirely at rest.

Are we never to have an edition of Chaucer worthy of him, and creditable to us? Had our northern neighbours possessed such a treasure, every MS. in existence would have been examined and collated, and the text settled. His language would have been thoroughly investigated and explained[3], and every possible source of elucidation made available. May we not hope that the able editor of Layamon and Wickliffe will yet add to the obligation every lover of our early literature owes to him, an edition of our first great poet, such as his previous labours have shown that he is so well qualified to give?

[Footnote 3: This is evident from the interest the Germans have
manifested, _e.g._ the younger Gesenius, in his able essay, _De
Lingua Chauceri Commentationem Grammaticam_; and Edward Fiedler's
_Translation of the Canterbury Tales_.]

S. W. SINGER.

ENGLISH SURNAMES.

(Vol. v., p. 290.)

I have, as most of the readers of "N. & Q." are aware, for a considerable time past turned my attention to the subject of _English Surnames_, and the sale of three editions of my work under that title shows that such a book was a desideratum. Chapters on the origin of surnames exist in Camden's _Remaines_, Verstegan's _Restitution_, and elsewhere, and there are detached notices in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ and other periodicals; but my work is the first, and as yet the _only_ independent treatise on the subject. Any one who will be at the trouble to compare my first and third editions will at once see how this inquiry has grown under my hands; but although I have collected and classified 6000 names, much still remains to be accomplished. Under this conviction, I am now engaged in the compilation of a _Dictionary of English Family Names_, which I hope to complete within the present year. My plan will include:

I. The name.

II. The class to which it belongs. The classes will be about twenty in number.

III. The etymology of each name when necessary.

IV. Definitions and remarks.

V. Illustrative quotations from old English authors.

VI. The century in which the name first occurs.

VII. The corruptions and most remarkable variations which the name has undergone.

VIII. Proverbs associated with family names, _e.g._:--

"All the _Tracys_
Have the wind in their faces,"

in allusion to the judgment of heaven which is said to have befallen the posterity of Wm. de Traci, one of the assassins of Thos. à Becket.

IX. Anecdotes and traditions.

My object in making this statement, is to solicit from the numerous and learned correspondents of "N. & Q." contributions of surnames and suggestions in furtherance of my undertaking; and from the Editor, permission to query from time to time upon the origin, date, and history of such surnames as I am unable satisfactorily to elucidate without assistance. A field so large requires the co-operation of many labourers. I have already secured the friendly aid of some of the most competent antiquaries in England; and I confidently anticipate for the forthcoming collection a degree of success proportioned to the amount of labour and research bestowed upon it.

Of _local_ surnames few will be introduced; for, as nearly every landed property has given a name to the family of its early proprietor, it would be impossible to include all the names so derived. Only the more remarkable ones of this class, which would appear at first sight to come from a totally different source, will be admitted. Blennerhasset, Polkinghom, Woodhead, Wisdom, Bodycoat, and Crawl, for example, are names of places, and surnames have been derived from them, although few except the persons resident in the particular localities are aware that any such places exist. Most of the names that baffle all historical and etymological acumen are probably of this class.

I wish it to be understood that my dictionary will only include family, that is, _hereditary_ surnames. Merely personal sobriquets which died with their first possessors (and which are found in large numbers in ancient records) will be passed by, unless they should illustrate some appellative which has descended to our times.

In conclusion, this work is by no means intended to supersede my _English Surnames_, which contains much matter unsuited to dictionary arrangement, and is intended to convey information on a neglected subject in a popular form. The illustrations in the _Dictionary_ will for the most part be new, with references to the _English Surnames_ for others.

The foregoing announcement was intended to be sent to "N. & Q." some weeks since. I am now induced to forward it without further delay, because I see the subject of surnames introduced in to-day's number by two different correspondents. COWGILL, the first of these, could, if so disposed, render me efficient help. As to the remarks of J. H. on the works of "Lower and others" (_what others?_), they clearly show that he has never read what he so summarily condemns, or he would not now have to ask for the supposed number of surnames in England, which is given in my third edition, vol. i., preface, p. xiii. Though I am, perhaps, more fully aware than any other person of the defects and demerits of my _English Surnames_, I think the literary public will hardly deny me the credit of "_some_ study and research," praise which has been awarded me by better critics than J. H. It is not my practice to notice the censures of anonymous writers, but I cannot forbear adverting to two points in J. H.'s short communication. In the first place his desire for a work giving _all_ the names used in England, and "showing when they were first adopted or brought into this country," shows his entire want of acquaintance with the existing state of the nomenclature of English families. A glance at a few pages of so common a book as the _London Directory_, will convince any competent observer that there are hundreds upon hundreds of surnames that would baffle the most imaginative etymologist. Secondly, J. H. proposes that an author treating on the subject of family names, should begin "with the Britons." Does he really suppose that the Celtic possessors of our island bore family names according to the modern practice? If so, "Lower and (many) others" can assure him that his antiquarian and historical knowledge must be of a somewhat limited kind.

MARK ANTONY LOWER.

Lewes.

REV. JOHN PAGET.

(Vol. iv., p. 133.; Vol. v., pp. 66. 280.)

Since the Notes, kindly transmitted from Holland in answer to my Query respecting the family of the Rev. John Paget, appeared in "N. & Q.," I have discovered that the Pagets to whom my Query related, as well as the others alluded to by your correspondents, were all of the family of Paget of Rothley, Leicestershire, of whom a (partially incomplete) pedigree is given in Nichols's _Leicestershire_, vol. iv. p. 481. I was led to this conclusion by finding that Robert Paget (the writer of a preface before alluded to "from Dort, 1641") mentions in his will Roadley (Rothley) in Leicestershire as his birthplace, and speaks of his brother George as residing in his "patrimoniall house" there: he is probably the Robert, son of Michael Paget, and great-grandson of the Rev. Harold Paget, vicar of Rothley in 1564, who is mentioned in the pedigree as born at Rothley in 1611: he died at Dordt in 1684. The pedigree gives him an uncle named Thomas, born in 1589 (two indeed of that name, and both born the same year!); this will do very well for the Rev. Thomas Paget, incumbent of Blackley, and rector of Stockport; and another named John, who died, aged seven, in 1582: still I cannot help believing that John Paget, the writer, was this Robert's uncle, and feel mightily disposed to metamorphose one of the two Thomases into John. The Rev. Thomas Paget died in October, 1660, leaving his property to his two sons, Nathan M.D., and Thomas a clergyman. What relation was he to that Mr. Paget to whom Dee, the astrologer (see his _Diary_, p. 55. Camden Society, 1842), sold a house in Manchester in 1595? His son, Dr. Nathan, in a _Thesis on the Plague_, printed at Leyden in 1639, describes himself on the title-page as Mancestr-Anglus. According to Mr. Paget's will, dated May 23, 1660, he was then minister at Stockport, Cheshire; and I am inclined to think him identical with Thomas Paget, rector of St. Chads, Shrewsbury, from 1646 to 1659, although Owen and Blakeway (_History of Shrewsbury_, 2 vols. 4to. 1825) consider the latter to be son of John (James?) Paget, Baron of the Exchequer, temp. Car. I.: this descent is, I am confident, erroneous. Thomas Paget appears to have gone to Amsterdam in 1639 on the death of the Rev. John Paget, and to have returned to England in 1646, in which year his son John (who must have been much younger than his two other sons, and is, moreover, not mentioned in his will dated 1660) was baptized at Shrewsbury. Dr. Nathan Paget was an intimate friend of Milton, and cousin to the poet's fourth wife, Elizabeth Minshull, of whose family descent (which appears to be rather obscure) I may, at another time, communicate some particulars.

Whilst the subject of the Pagets (a very interesting one to me), I cannot refrain from noticing, even at the risk of encroaching on your space, a singular mistake of Anthony à Wood respecting another writer (though of an entirely different family) of the name of Paget. Speaking of the Rev. Ephraim Paget (_Athen. Oxon._, vol. ii. p. 51.) he says:

"One of both his names (his uncle I think) translated into English
_Sermons upon Ruth_, Lond. 1586, in oct., written originally by
Lod. Lavater; but whether the said Ephraim Paget was educated at
Oxon, I cannot justly say, though two or more of his sirname and
time occur in our registers."

Had Anthony ever _seen_ the book in question, he would have been aware that the title-page informs him that it was translated by Ephraim Pagitt, a child of eleven years of age; and as, according to the said Anthony's account, Ephraim was born in 1575, he would also at once have seen that Ephraim himself--not that ideal personage, his "uncle of the same name"--was the translator.

CRANMORE.

LETTER TO A BRIGADIER-GENERAL.

(Vol. v., p 296.)

Your correspondent W. C. begins his letter modestly. "If," he says, Thomas Lord Lyttleton wrote _The Letters of Junius_, and "if" Junius wrote the "Letter to the Brigadier-General," then he sees a difficulty. Why, of course he does: but as nobody but the writer in the _Quarterly_ believes that the said Thomas did write the _Letters of Junius_, and as it has never been proved that Junius did write the "Letter to a Brigadier," I must believe that something remains to be done before we proceed a step farther either in the way of argument or inference. Unless some such resolution be come to by inquirers, we shall never get out of the mazes in which this question has been involved, by like conditional statements, and the conditional arguments founded thereon.

As to the Lyttleton story, I shall dismiss it at once: it is not entitled to the sort of respectability which attaches to a case put hypothetically, nor to the honour of an "if;" and I must remind your correspondent that in a Junius question "general belief" is no evidence. Every story, however absurd, once asserted, is "generally believed," until some one (a rare and exceptional case) proves that it is not true--probably that it could not be true. The general belief, for example, that the "Letter to a Brigadier" was written by Junius, is not, so far as I know, supported by a tittle of evidence. It is all assertion and assumption, founded on the opinion of A., B., and C., as to "style," &c. Now, as some two dozen different persons have been proved, by like confident opinions, on like evidence, to be the writer of _Junius's Letters_, I may be excused when I acknowledge that the test is not with me quite conclusive. In respect, however, to this "Letter to a Brigadier," Mr. Britton and Sir David Brewster have proceeded somewhat further. Having, with others, come to the conclusion that Junius was the writer, Mr. Britton proceeds to show that Barré served in Canada under Wolfe, and was the very man, from circumstances, position, and feelings, who could, would, and did write that letter. Sir David endeavours to show that Macleane was in like circumstance, stimulated by like feelings, and was the veritable Simon; founding his argument mainly on the belief that Macleane was also serving there as surgeon of Otway's regiment. It has been shown in the _Athenæum_ that Macleane never was surgeon of Otway's regiment, and that in all probability he never was in Canada: in brief, that the memoir is a mistake from beginning to end. As all, however, that is urged by Sir David in favour of Macleane, as one who had served under Wolfe, may be thought to strengthen, to that extent, the claim of Barré, who certainly did so serve, and was severely wounded, let us look at the facts.

Barré was wounded at the capture of Quebec; and, under date of Oct. 1759, Knox, in his _Historical Journal_, says, "Colonel Carlton and Major Barré retired to the southward for the recovery of their wounds." From his letter to Mr. Pitt (_Chath. Corr._), we find that Barré was at New York, April 28, 1760. He appears subsequently to have joined Amherst before Montreal; and on the capture of Montreal, on Sept. 8, 1760, he was appointed to convey the despatches to England, and arrived in London on the 5th October. These are facts public and unquestioned--admitted by Mr. Britton.

Now for a fact out of the "Letter to a Brigadier." I could give you half a dozen of like character, but space is precious, and one, I think, will be sufficient. The writer quotes _in extenso_ a letter written by Townshend, published in _The Daily Advertiser_, and dated "South Audley Square, 20th June, 1760." Mr. Britton admits that the pamphlet must have been published "some time before the 5th October, as on that day a Refutation appeared;" it was, in fact, reviewed, or rather abused, in the _Critical Review_ for September. We have proof, therefore, that the "Letter to a Brigadier" was written after 20th June, and founded, in part, on facts known _in London_ only on the 21st of June at the earliest: the probabilities are that it was published in August or September, certainly before the 5th October. How then could it have been written by a man in America, serving before Montreal?