Minor Queries Answered.

"Swan-like, in dyingFamous old ChaucerSang his last song."

"Swan-like, in dying

Famous old Chaucer

Sang his last song."

Who is the author of the above lines?

Eliza.

The Nacar.—What species of shell-fish is theNacar, said to be found in some of the islands of the Mediterranean, and off the east coast ofSpain. Is it not the same fish from which what is called mother-of-pearl is taken? Has not some part of it, the beard or otherwise, been spun and wove? Is theNacarthe true name, or only local; and, if so, what is the scientific appellation?

Cyrus Redding.

Cilgerran Castle.—I shall be much obliged to any correspondent of "N. & Q." who will direct me to any charters or other early records relating to this castle of Kilgarran, or Cilgerran, which is situated near Cardigan.

Llewellyn.

Use of Slings by the Early Britons.—In the course of the very interesting operations at present in progress on Weston Hill, there have been frequently found in the hut-pits small accumulations of shore-pebbles, of the size most convenient for slings, for which it is supposed they were intended. Any information on this topic will be received with many thanks. It is worth noting that to this day the boys of the obscure village of Priddy, on the Mendips, are notorious for the skill with which they can hit a bird on the wing with a stone thrown by the hand.

Henry G. Tomkins.

Weston super Mare.

"Squire Vernon's Fox Chase."—Can any of your correspondents refer me to a copy of the ballad called "Squire Vernon's Fox Chase?" I am anxious to meet with an original copy, and also to know if it has been reprinted in any modern collection.

R. S.

The Death Watch.—Has there appeared in any of your former Numbers a Note upon the popular, but now exploded "death watch?" In earlier life, an instance of it occurred in my presence, which did at the time, and does even now, "puzzle the sense." The noise (like the ticking of a watch) was so painfully distinct, that I endeavoured twice to discover the source of it, but in vain. I made a note of it at the time, but the narrative (although perfectly correct) reads so much like the speculation of a sick brain, that I hesitate to send it. If you would put this Query (however briefly), I should much like to see it discussed in your interesting pages.

M. W. B.

Genealogical Queries.—I beg to trouble you with the following Queries:—

On what day of the year 1690 did Elizabeth Bayning, created Countess of Sheppy for life, die? and where was she buried?

Where was buried Anne Palmer, alias Fitzroy, Countess of Sussex? She died 16th May, 1722. The Earl was buried at Chevening.

Was Sir John Mason, who died Treasurer of the Chamber, &c., 21st April, 1566, Chancellor ofthe Duchy of Lancaster? He is so designated in one of the Harl. MSS. He was twice Chancellor ofOxford.

G. Steinman Steinman.

Ben Jonson's adopted Sons.—They are said to be twelve in number. Alexander Brome was one; Bishop Morley another. Can any of your correspondents give the names of the other ten? By doing so, it will oblige an

Inquirer.

Kyrle's Tankard at Balliol.—A very beautiful silver tankard, bearing the following inscription, with the arms of the donor engraved in the centre of the body of the cup; the first two words above, the others beneath the arms, was presented to Balliol College, Oxford, by that celebrated and excellent man, John Kyrle, Esq., better known by his world-wide appellation, "The Man of Ross." It will be perceived from the inscription that he was a gentleman commoner of that society:

"Poculum Charitatis.Ex dono Johannis Kyrle, de Rosse, in agro Herefordiens, ethujus Collegii Socio Commensalis."

It weighed upwards of five pounds, and the cover was lifted up by his crest, a hedgehog. It is said to have been always produced at table when a native of Herefordshire favoured the society with his company. Can any of your correspondents favour me with the following particulars:—Is the tankard still in existence, and has it been ever engraved? If so, in what work? Is there any record in the college books to show in what year, and upon what occasion, it was presented?

J. B. Whitborne.

Irish Language in the West Indies.—The atrocities which Oliver Cromwell committed in Ireland are fresh in the memory of the poorest Irishman, and his memory held in the deepest execration: every ruined fortress that we pass is ascribed to the great castle-killer, and the peasant's bitterest malediction is, "Mallachd Crumwell ort" (The curse of Cromwell on you).

The particular atrocity of Oliver's that we have to do with at present is thus stated by Dodd, vol. iii. p. 58.:

"At Drogheda all were put to the sword together with the inhabitants, women and children, only about thirty persons escaping, who, with several hundreds of the Irish nation, were shipped off to serve as slaves in the island of Barbadoes, as I have frequently heard the account from Captain Edw. Molyneux, one of that number, who died at St. Germains, whither he followed the unfortunate King James II."

The following note occurs in a paper on the Irish language, read by Mr. Scurry before the Royal Irish Academy, Oct. 1826:

"It is now ascertained that the Irish language is spoken in the interior of many of the West India islands, in some of which it may be said to be almost vernacular. This curious fact is satisfactorily explained by documents in the possession of my respected friend James Hardiman, Esq., author of theHistory of Galway. After the reduction of Ireland by Cromwell and hismyrmidons, the thousands who were 'shipped to the Caribbees,' so these islands were then called, 'and sold as slaves,' carried with them their language.Thatthey preserved, and there it remains to this day."

Will some of your correspondents acquainted with the West Indies inform me if the Irish language be still spoken there, or if it be degenerated and merged into thetalkee-talkee, or negro jargon?

Eirionnach.

"Battle of Neville's Cross."—Can any of your correspondents inform me the name of the author of the "Battle of Neville's Cross," a prize poem, published about thirty or forty years ago?

Sir Walter Raleigh's Ring.—Can any of your correspondents inform me what has become of the ring Sir Walter Raleigh wore at his execution, and in whose possession it now is, as I have reason to believe it is still in existence as a heir-loom?

Bosquecillo.

"Narne; or, Pearle of Prayer."—I should feel obliged to any of your correspondents if they could give me any information of the following work, which I am unable myself to trace in any catalogue or bibliographical work:—

"Narne (by William P. of Dysart), Pearle of Prayer most Pretious and Powerful, &c. 18mo. Dedicated to Charles First (dated from Dysart the 28th May, 1630), and afterward to the Right Virtuous and Worshipfull Patrons of this famous Citie of Edinburgh, David Aikenhead most Worthie Lord Provost, &c., and to the whole Counsell, &c., of Edinburgh, &c. (dated from Dysart the last of May, 1630), 456 pp. (Concluding with a part of a page of 'Faults escaped' on the recto of last leaf.) Edinburgh, printed by John Wreittoun, 1630."

J. B. Rondeau.

Sir George Howard.—Sir N. W. Wraxall (Historical Memoirs, vol. iv. p. 614.) says of Field-Marshal Sir George Howard—

"His legitimate descent from, or alliance by consanguinity with, the Dukes of Norfolk, notwithstanding the apparent evidence of his name, was I believe not established on incontestable grounds."

Now it is well known that the Effingham branch of the house of Howard, to which Sir George Howard is reputed to belong, is a genuine one: so Wraxall must be understood as casting a slight on the legitimacy of Sir George. Are there traces of any scandals confirming this suspicion?

Tewars.

"Love me, love my Dog."—Whence comes this proverb? It is quoted by St. Bernard: "Dicitur certe vulgari quodam proverbio: Qui me amat, amat et canem meum."—In Festo S. Michaelis, Sermo Primus, sect. iii. p. 1026. vol. i. Parisiis, 1719, fol.

Rt.

Warmington.

Mummy Wheat.—In January, 1843, a near relative of mine, related by marriage to Mr. Martin Tupper, gave my father some grains of wheat, which he had the authority of Sir G. Wilkinson, direct or indirect, to believe to have been taken out of a mummy case, and to be in fact ancient Egyptian wheat, perhaps a couple of thousand years old at least. These were planted in a flower-pot, took root, grew, and had attained the height of many inches, when a cow got into the place where the pot was and ate the plants down. From the roots sprouted again a second crop of stems and leaves, and a similar catastrophe befell the second growth, frustrating the hopes of several anxious young amateur agriculturists, so that we never saw more than the leaves of this crop. In making the inquiries necessary to certify myself that these facts are true, I met with a lady who had seen a small quantity of wheat plants, the produce alleged of mummy wheat, and who spoke of it as a beautiful looking plant, with several stems from each root, and several ears on each stem. I could not ascertain whether this was the fruit of mummy wheat in the first or in the second generation. There was no question that it was sprung from grains taken out of a mummy. I believe that in the case of which I speak as having occurred within the range of my own acquaintance, the wheat was some of the same that Mr. M. F. Tupper possessed.

Perez.

A Photographic Query.—Is it probable that the number of stones and marbles which, without the aid of art, represent human and other figures, may have been natural photographs from the reflection of objects in a strong glare of sunlight? Some of those mentioned by D'Israeli in theCuriosities of Literatureare so singular, that if this interpretation be not admitted, we must suspect them to be factitious. One particular example will serve as an illustration:

"Pancirollus, in hisLost Antiquities, attests that in a church at Rome, a marble perfectly represented a priest celebrating mass and raising the host. Paul III. conceiving that art had been used, scraped the marble to discover whether any painting had been employed: but nothing of the kind was discovered."

Its classification amongstLost Antiquitiesseems to imply that the operation destroyed it, which proves that the figures were only on the surface; an argument in favour of its being a natural photograph. Any powerful die would have penetrated the pores of the stone for some considerable distance.

R. F. Littledale.

Dublin.

"Stunt with false care."—Where are the following lines, quoted by Charles Villiers in one of his corn-law speeches, to be found?

"Stunt with false care what else would flourish wild,And rock the cradle till they bruise the child."

"Stunt with false care what else would flourish wild,

And rock the cradle till they bruise the child."

J. N. O.

Winchester College.—Who wrote the account of Winchester College in Ackermann'sHistory of the Public Schools?

Mackenzie Walcott, M.A.

Old Royal Irish Academy House, Grafton Street.—This interesting building is now some two months abandoned, and bills on the windows announcing it "to be let, or the interest in the lease to be sold," I wish to ask through "N. & Q." if any person intends to make a drawing or other memoranda of the house, ere it undergoes a thorough alteration, as it certainly will, if taken for commercial purposes. I am not aware of any sketch of the house, except one in the fourth volume of theDublin Penny Journal, p. 129.; but I do not think that this, or its accompanying description, are well suited to the character of the institution.

R. H.

Dublin.

Quotations wanted.—

"Chords that vibrate sweetest pleasuresThrill the deepest notes of woe."

"Chords that vibrate sweetest pleasures

Thrill the deepest notes of woe."

"Like a fair lily on a river floating,She floats upon the river of his thoughts."

"Like a fair lily on a river floating,

She floats upon the river of his thoughts."

Captain Cuttle.

Shakspeare's Seal.—Some years ago, when in Warwickshire, a wax impression of a seal was given to me by a gentleman as that of William Shakspeare. The gentleman had no means of verifying its authenticity, beyond the bare but positive assurances of the person from whom he had received it, an inhabitant of Stratford.

The appearance of the seal is not against the hypothesis of its genuineness. It is circular: the device is the well-known ornament called theTrue Lover's Knot, cut somewhat rudely in intaglio, apparently in steel; a favourite ornament in Tudor architecture from the time of Anne Boleyn downwards.

Can any of the readers of "N. & Q." encourage me to believe in the genuineness of this relic?

Sydney Smirke.

The long-lived Countess of Desmond.—An acknowledgment is due toThe Knight of Kerryfor his recent interesting communication respecting the portraits of this remarkable old lady: and, at the same time, theKnightmay be requested to cause the portrait in the possession of Mr. Herbert, M.P., to be inspected; for it is respectfully suggested that the date on that picture is 1604, and not 1614.

This first date will correspond more closely with the age usually ascribed to the aged Countess.

It is said that an engraving of the portrait inThe Knight of Kerry's possession stated that she was "born in 1464." Can any of your correspondents refer to this engraving, and say whether there is such an inscription on it, and if any authority is given for that date?

H. F. H.

Temple Church and Lincoln's Inn Chapel.—Why is it, and whence results the practice of putting ladies on one side of the church and chapel, or in a separate place by themselves, in these societies? Are the lawyers so attractive that the devotions of the fair sex would be interrupted?

L. I.

[The lawyers no doubt are lovers of hoar antiquity and primitive customs. "Let the doorkeepers attend upon the entrance of the men; and the deaconesses upon the entrance of the women." (Apost. Const., lib. ii. can. lvii.; see also lib. vii. can. xxvi.) In the First Book of King Edward,A.D.1549, the following rubric occurs: "As many as shall be partakers of the Holy Communion shall tarry still in the quire; the men on the one side, and the women on the other side."—See Wheatly on theCommon Prayer, chap. vi. sect. 13.]

Edmund Bohun.—In Bright's Catalogue appears, "No. 2939.Historical Collections, 1675-1692. 8 vols. folio; formed by Edmund Bohun." Has this collection been dispersed? or where is it now? Bohun refers to it repeatedly in his private diary, which I am printing.

S. W. Rix.

Beccles.

[From the article "Bohun" in Rose'sBiographical Dictionaryit appears that theseHistorical Collectionshave been used in the following work: "The great Historical, Geographical, and Poetical Dictionary, Lond. 1694, folio, wherein are inserted the last Five Years' Historical and Geographical Collections, which the said Edm. Bohun, Esq., designed for his own Geographical Dictionary, and never extant till in this work."]

"Nimrod."—Will some of your correspondents be good enough to tell me who is the author of a very remarkable book entitledNimrod: a Discourse upon certain Passages of History and Fable, London: Priestley, 1828, 4 vols.; and can any one inform me for what purpose or with what intention the book was written? I believe it was suppressed soon after its publication. I have only met with two other copies, besides my own.

H. G.

[We believe that this work, for some reason or other, was suppressed, but not till after about one hundred copies had been circulated. It is attributed to the Hon. Algernon Herbert, author ofCyclops Christianus; Antiquity of Stonehenge.]

(Vol. iv., pp. 115. 196. 278.; Vol. v., p. 129.)

The quotations I have produced on the question, Which arethe Three Estates of the Realm? appeartoCanon. Ebor."quite to support his own positions." I must therefore again ask leave to defend the view which I advanced in Vol. iv., p. 115., and will endeavour, whether it be a right or wrong one, to express my arguments in support of it so definitely and distinctly as not again to leave room for any misapprehension of them. To adoptCanon. Ebor.'s threefold division:—

1.The Three Estates of the Realm are the Nobility, the Clergy in Convocation, and the Commons.In this order they are ranked in the collect I quoted, and in which they are described as "assembled in parliament;" i. e.en plein parlement. The following extract plainly bears out my view:

"And that this doctrine (viz. that the Clergy are anextrinsic partof Parliament, or anEstate of the Realm) was still good, and the language much the same, as low as the Restoration of Charles II., theOfficethen anew set out for the 5th of November shews, where mention is made of 'the Nobility, Clergy, and Commons of this realm, then assembled in Parliament:' for to say that by 'the Clergy of this realm,' my Lords the Bishops only are intended, were so absurd a gloss, that even Dr. Wake's pen would, I believe, be ashamed of it. And if they were then rightly said to be 'assembled in Parliament,' they may as rightly be said to be so assembled still: and if 'assembled in Parliament,' why not 'a member of Parliament?' to those intents and purposes, I mean, for which they are assembled in it."—Atterbury'sRights, Powers, and Privileges of Convocation, 2nd edit., p. 305.

The same order is observed in Sir Edward Coke's speech on Garnet's trial:—

"For the persons offended, they were these:—the King ... the Queen ... the noble Prince; ... then the whole royal issue. The Council,the Nobility,the Clergy; nay, our whole religion itself," &c.

And ifCanon. Ebor.wishes for a more decisive authority on the matter, he will find it inAn Act for granting Royal Aid unto the King's Majesty, passed in 1664.

2.The Convocations of the ClergyAREa part of the Parliament.This fact, and its importance, has been generally overlooked or disregarded by writers on Convocation. They have almost uniformly, while endeavouring to substantiate its synodical authority and purely ecclesiastical influence, omitted to point out its position as a part of our parliamentary constitution: the result has been a degree of vagueness and uncertainty on the subject.

The clearest and most distinct way of demonstrating this proposition, that the Convocation is a part of Parliament, will be, after noting that in our early historiansConvocatioandParliamentumare synonymous, first, to bring forward evidences that it was often regarded as being so somewhat late in our history, that is, just before its sessions were suppressed; and, in the next place, to produce facts, documents, and extracts which display this parliamentary character in the earlier stages of its existence. To begin, then, with Burnet, whose statements must be taken with allowance, as those of a hot anti-convocational partisan, as he had indeed good reasons for being:—

"When the Bill (Act of Comprehension) was sent down to the House of Commons, it was let lie on the table; and, instead of proceeding in it, they made an address to the King for summoning a Convocation of the Clergy,to attend, according to custom, on the session of Parliament. The party against the Government ... were much offended with the Bill of Comprehension, as containing matters relating to the Church,in which the representative body of the clergy had not been so much as advised with."—Burnet'sHistory of his own Times, book v.

In his account of the Convocation of 1701, the facts which he details are important. After saying that "the clergy fancied they hada right to be a part of the Parliament," he continues:—

"The things the Convocation pretended to were, first, that they had a right to sit whenever the Parliament sate; so that they could not be prorogued, but when the two Houses were prorogued. Next they advanced that they had no need of a licence to enter upon debates and to prepare matters, though it was confessed that the practice for a hundred years was against them; but they thought the Convocation lay under no further restraint than that the Parliament was under; and as they could pass no Act without the Royal assent, so they confessed that they could not enact or publish a Canon without the King's licence.Antiently the Clergy granted their own subsidies apart, but, ever since the Reformation, the grant of the Convocation was not thought good till it was ratified in Parliament....In the writ that the bishops had, summoning them to Parliament, the clause, known by the first word of it,'Præmunientes,'was still continued. At first, by virtue of it, the inferior clergy were required to come to Parliament, and to consent to the aids there given: but after the archbishops had the provincial writ for a Convocation of the province, the other was no more executed,though it was still kept in the writ, and there did not appear the least shadow of any use that had been made of it, for some hundreds of years;yet now some bishops were prevailed on to execute this writ, and to summon the clergy by virtue of it."—Book vi.

With this last extract from Burnet, let the following from Lathbury be compared:—

"This clause, it appears, was inserted in the bishops' writ in the twenty-third year of Edward I. When assembled by this writ, the Clergy constituted a State Convocation, not the Provincial Synod. When the clause was inserted, there was a danger of invasion from France; and it is clear that the Clergy were not assembled by this clause as an Ecclesiastical Council, but to assist the King in his necessities. This is evident from the words 'hujus modi periculis et excogitatis malitiis obviandum.' The clause was, however, continued in the writ after the cause for its insertion had ceased to exist:but whenever they were summoned by virtue of this writ, they constituted a part of theParliament. The clause, with a slight variation,is still retainedin the writ by which the bishops are summoned to Parliament."—Lathbury'sHistory of the Convocation of the Church of England, p. 121.

It will be obvious, then, and plain to the reader of the above passage, that when the clergy were summoned by this clausePræmunientes, in the writ directed to the archbishops, they were summonedto be a part of Parliament; but the King's writ was that which made Convocation what it was—which made it a legal, constitutional, parliamentary assembly, with definite power and authority—instead of a simple synodical meeting of the clergy, whose influence would be solely moral or ecclesiastical. Convocation, from the time of Edward I., that is, from its first beginning, has been a part of parliament, being "an assembly of ecclesiastics for civil purposes, called to parliament by the King's writ" to the archbishops; and before the time of Henry VIII. it voted subsidies to the King independently of the Houses of Lords and Commons. Of this clausePræmunientes,Canon. Ebor.has taken no notice whatever, although in the extract from Collier it was expressly stated that the proctors of the clergy were "summoned to parliament" and "sent up to parliament" by it, and, when assembled in the Lower House of Convocation, they were esteemedthe Spiritual Commonsof the realm, and a constituent part of "the great Council of the nation assembled in parliament." But as mere assertions, or even uncorroborated deductions, are but of little value without facts, I must establish this much by producing authorities.

The design of Edward I. for reducing the clergy to be a part of the Third Estate, by means of this præmunitory clause, is sufficiently known, as is also the fact that the clergy were unwilling to give up their own synods; and though, in obedience to the King's summons, they came to parliament from both provinces, yet shortly after they met by themselves, and constituted a body which was at once synodical and parliamentary.

"Now, then, though thePræmunienteswas obeyed nationally, yet the clergy that met with the Parliament acted provincially,i. e.the clergy of that province where the Parliament was held acted as a Synod convened by their metropolitan, and the clergy of the other province sent their deputies to the Lay Assembly to consult for them; but taxed themselves, and did all manner of ecclesiastical business, at home in their own province.And this was pitched upon as a means of complying with the Canons of the Church, which required frequent Provincial Councils, and yet paying their attendance in Parliament; the Archbishop's mandate summoned them to the one, and the præmunitory clause to the other, and both were obeyed."—Atterbury on Convocation, p. 243.

The same view is taken by Kennet in hisEcclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations in the Church of England.

Here, then, is the origin of Convocation, strictly so called, viz. the Clergy withdrawing themselves from the Commons into a separate chamber for purposes of debate, and for transacting their own business independently, but yet not ceasing thereby at all to be a part of that parliament, to their being summoned to which they owed the opportunity of meeting in their provincial synod, which wasCongregatio tempore Parliamenti.

We hear of the clerical proctors being occasionally present in the House of Commons in the earlier part of our history; and we may reasonably infer that they would not have been so present unless they hada rightto have been there. If they had that right, then they were a part of parliament. They certainly had that right by the clausePræmunientesso often referred to, "according to antient usage;" but they waived the exercise of it, on finding it more advantageous to deliberate by themselves. At a later period they wished to resume their right, and therefore petitioned "to be admitted to sit in parliamentWITHthe House of Commons, according to antient usage," of which Commons they had of usage considered themselves thespiritualpart. An instance in point we shall find in a petition of Parliament to Henry IV.:—

"Supplient humblementles Communesde vostre Roialme, sibienEspirituelzcomeTemporelz."—Rot. Parl.7 & 8 Henry IV. n. 128.

And again, in a proclamation of the 35 Henry VIII.:—

"The Nobles andCommonsbothSpiritualland Temporall,assembled in our Court of Parliament, have, upon good, lawful, and virtuous grounds," &c.

And "Direction to Justices of Peace," by the same King:—

"Henry R."Trusty and right well-beloved,—We grete you well ... and also by the deliberate advice, consultation, consent, and agreement,as well of theBishopsand Clergieas by the Nobles and Commons Temporal of this our Realmeassembled in our High Courte of Parliament, and by authoritie of the same, the abuses of the Bishop of Rome, ... but also the same our Nobles andCommonsbothe ofthe Clergieand Temporaltie, by another several acte," &c.—Weever'sFun. Mon., p. 83., quoted by Atterbury.

"Henry R.

"Trusty and right well-beloved,—We grete you well ... and also by the deliberate advice, consultation, consent, and agreement,as well of theBishopsand Clergieas by the Nobles and Commons Temporal of this our Realmeassembled in our High Courte of Parliament, and by authoritie of the same, the abuses of the Bishop of Rome, ... but also the same our Nobles andCommonsbothe ofthe Clergieand Temporaltie, by another several acte," &c.—Weever'sFun. Mon., p. 83., quoted by Atterbury.

For multitudinous examples of the Convocation Clergy, "Prælati et clerus," being spoken of as not only of the parliament, but presentinit, I must referCanon. Ebor.to Atterbury's work, pp. 61, 62, 63.

And it is certain that, before the Commons can be proved to have been summoned to parliament at all, the inferior clergy sat there. In the parliament of Henry III. held at Westminster, 1228, there sat "the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Templars, Hospitallers, Earls, Barons,Rectors of churches, and they that held of the King in chief" (Mat. Paris, p. 361.), in which the order of precedence is worth observing.

One more argument ofCanon. Ebor.'s has to be met. He says (Vol. iv., p. 197.), "The Convocation of the Clergy never met either the sovereign or the parliament." The following quotations will destroy this position:—

"Though sometimes the King himself has vouchsafed to appear and sit in Convocation, when it was called for some extraordinary cause; as in Arundel's RegisterHenry IV. is remembered to have done(in Conv. habitâ 23 Jul. 1408, causâ Uniones)."—Atterbury, p. 20.

Also:

"'Until the reign of Henry VII., there is a doubt whether the Convocation of the Clergy, then in separate existence from the Parliament since Edward I., had transacted purely ecclesiastical business not connected with the Government, or where the King was not present in person. (Henry IV.,Wilkins, p. 310.) In the reign of Henry VIII.,who also sat in Convocation, no Church Provincial Synod was held, and the House of Lords met and adjourned on the days on which Convocation transacted business in consideration to the bishops, who were barons of Parliament, and also members of the Upper House of Convocation. (Wake.)'"—Diocesan Synods, by Rev. W. Pound, M.A.

3.The Clergy were not, and are not, represented in parliament by the Spiritual Lords.The bishops are called to the House of Lords as barons; just in the same manner as the abbots and priors were formerly summoned,not as representing any body of men, but as holdingin capiteof the King. The prelates have sat in the House of Lords since William I., not as peers or nobles by blood, nor as representatives, but by virtue of this tenure. They certainly were not considered asrepresentativesbefore the Reformation; and that the same opinions respecting them prevailed still later, will appear from the decision of the House of Commons in 1 Mary, that a clerk could not be chosen into that House, "because he wasrepresentedalready in another House;" and again, from a speech in the Commons by Mr. Solicitor St. John on the "Act to take away Bishops' Votes in Parliament:"

"1. Because they have no such inherent right and liberty of being there as the Lords Temporal and Peers of the Realm have;for they are not there representative of any body else; no, not of the clergy; for if so, then the clergy were twice represented by them, viz. the Lords' House and in the Convocation; for their writ of election is to send two clerksad consentiendum, &c. Besides, none are there representative of others, but those that have their suffrages from others;and therefore only the clerks in Convocation do represent them."3. If they were representative of the clergy, as a third estate and degree, no act of parliament could be good if they did wholly disassent; and yet they have disassented, and the law good and in force, as in the Act for establishing the Book of Common Prayer in Queen Elizabeth's time. They did disassent from the confirming of that law, which could not have been good iftheyhad been a third estate, and disassented."—Rapin'sHistory of England, book xx.

"3. If they were representative of the clergy, as a third estate and degree, no act of parliament could be good if they did wholly disassent; and yet they have disassented, and the law good and in force, as in the Act for establishing the Book of Common Prayer in Queen Elizabeth's time. They did disassent from the confirming of that law, which could not have been good iftheyhad been a third estate, and disassented."—Rapin'sHistory of England, book xx.

And in the same parliament Lord Falkland—

"Had heard many of the clergy protest, that they could not acknowledgethat they were represented by the bishops. However, we might presume that, if they could make that appear,that they were a third estate, the House of Peers, amongst whom they sat, and yet had their votes, would reject it."—Clarendon'sHistory of the Rebellion, book iii.

That the Clergy in Convocation make statements to the House of Peers through the bishops, only proves that the latter were a medium of communication between the two; as does also, that on March 18th, 1662, "the President informed the Convocation that the Lord Chancellor had desiredthe Bishopsto thank themin the name of the Peers."Canon. Ebor.admits that the bishops donotrepresent the clergy, except by a fiction; the Canons declarethat Convocation does representthem. His position therefore falls at once to the ground.

I have set down the arguments necessary for maintaining my first position againstCanon. Ebor., whether they be good or bad, with sufficient positiveness and distinctness to prevent their being again mistaken. I would close the subject with the words of Atterbury:

"If I should affirm that the Convocation attended the Parliament asOne of the Three States of the Realm, I should say no more than the Rolls have in express terms said before me; where the King is mentioned as callingTres status Regniad Palatium suum Westm., viz.Prælatos et Clerum, Nobiles et Magnates, necnon Communitates dictiRegni."—Rot. Parl.9 Henry V. n. 15.

William Fraser, B.C.L.

(Vol. v., p. 414.)

Your correspondent the Rev.E. S. Tayloris referred to 30 Car. II. c. 3., and 32 ejusdem c. 1., for an answer to his inquiry respecting burials in woollen. The former Act is entitled, "An Acte for the lessening the importation of linnen from beyond the seas, and the encouragement of the woollen and paper manufactures of the kingdome." It prescribes that the curate of every parish shall keep a register, to be provided at the charge of the parish, wherein to enter all burials, and affidavits of persons being buried in woollen; the affidavit to be taken by any justice of peace, mayor, or such like chief officer in the parish where the body was interred: and if there be no officer, then by anycurate within the county where the corpse was buried (except him in whose parish the corpse was buried), who must administer the oath and set his hand gratis. No affidavit to be necessary for a person dying of the plague. It imposes a fine of 5l.for every infringement; one half to go to the informer, and the other half to the poor of the parish.

I have not been able to ascertain when this act was repealed, but imagine it to have been of but short continuance. Is there no mistake in the date of the affidavit quoted by Mr. Taylor? Is 1769 alapsusfor 1679? The first entry in the book provided for such purposes in this parish bears date August, 1678, and there is no entry later than 1681, which appears also to be the limit of the Act's observance in the adjacent parish of Radcliffe. There, the entries immediately follow the record of the burial itself in the registers, and not in a separate book, as with us.

Under the year 1679 occurs the following memorandum in the parish registers of Radcliffe:

"An orphan of Ralph Mather's, of Radcliffe, was buried ye9th day of April, and sertefied to be wounde uppe in woollen onely, under the hand of MrWilliam Hulme."

In the churchwardens' accounts of this parish (Prestwich) for the year 1681 is found the following item of receipt:

"Received a fine of James Crompton ffor buringe his son and not bringinge in an affidavitt according to the Acte for burying in woollin, 02.10.00."

John Booker.

Prestwich, Manchester.

The act of parliament imposing a penalty upon burials, where any material but wool was made use of was 30 Car. II. stat. 1. c. 3., afterwards repealed by the 54 Geo. III. c. 108. I am able to adduce an instance of the act being enforced, in the following extract from the churchwardens' book of the parish of Eye for the year 1686-7:

"Rec. for MisGrace Thrower beeinge buried in Linnen 02 10 00."

J. B. Colman.

Eye.

(Vol. v., p. 126.)

In the hope of satisfying the curiosity of J. M., I will communicate the information concerning Daniel Braams which I find in my family papers.

According to a genealogical tree in my possession, confirmed and delivered 13th September, 1661, by the kings-at-arms and heralds of Brabant[2], Daniel Braems descended from an illustrious family of Brabant, a younger branch of the Vilains, of the house of the burgraves, or viscounts of Ghent.

During the Spanish religious persecutions, about 1550, his ancestors emigrated from Flanders, and settled at Dover.

His father was Daniel Braams[3], keeper of the regalia of Charles I., and in high favour at court. On Cromwell's coming to power he fled, and soon after died, leaving an only son in childhood, by his widow, Mary, daughter of the well-known navigator Jacob le Maire.

Mary, with her youthful son Daniel, settled in Holland, where she had many relatives, and contracted a second marriage with Andreas Schnellingwouw. She soon after went to the East Indies with her husband, who had been appointed secretary to theSchepenenat Batavia. Thus, Daniel Braams went very early to the Indies, where he passed a great part of his life. He became General Accomptant of the East India Company at Batavia, and for his services received a gold chain and a medal.

In the family papers in his own hand now before me, he writes:

"The 29th November, Ao1686, I set sail with my family from Batavia, in the ship Kastricum, to return to Europe, after I had been thirty-four years and a half in India. The 21st March, 1687, we arrived at the Cape of Good Hope; and on the 19th April proceeded thence, with thirteen ships. When we had reached the ... degree of north latitude, having Ireland to the east, it pleased the Most High to call my dear and virtuous wife to His eternal rest, on the 9th of July, Ao1687. The dead body was, by my orders, enclosed in a coffin and placed behind the ship. At Amsterdam she was buried in the vault of my grandfather in the N. Capel."

Daniel Braams was twice married in Batavia; first, with Clara Reijers, and secondly, with a daughter of Anthonio Paviloen, Councillor Extraordinary of India. Besides several children who died young, he left the following, all born in the East Indies:—By his first marriage: 1. Maria, b. 1667; d. 1743; m. Philip David Uchelen, governor of Banda and Ternate. 2. Abigail, b. 1672; d. 1753; m. Cornelis Heinsius,Landschrijverof the land of Cuyk. 3. Clara Sara, b. 1681; d. 1750; m. at Amsterdam Jan van der Burgh. By his second marriage: 4. Johannes Jacobus, b. 1683; d. 1743. His godfather was Cornelis Speelman, governor of India; he m. Maria Uijlenbroek, and diedS. P.

J. F. L. C.

Amersfoort.

P.S.—Mr. J. F. L. Coenen would feel happy if,through the medium of the "N. & Q." and theNavorscher, he could learn in whose possession the MS. now is, and whether the owner would be inclined to dispose of it for a moderate price.

Footnote 2:(return)This document is quoted by Kok in hisVaderl. Woordenboek, vol. viii. p. 899.; and by Scheltema,Geschied. en letterk. Mengelwerk, vol. iii. p. 183.Footnote 3:(return)An excellent family portrait of him, painted by A. Vandyk, is now in the possession of Mevr. de douairière Coenen, van 's Gravesloot, at Utrecht.

This document is quoted by Kok in hisVaderl. Woordenboek, vol. viii. p. 899.; and by Scheltema,Geschied. en letterk. Mengelwerk, vol. iii. p. 183.

An excellent family portrait of him, painted by A. Vandyk, is now in the possession of Mevr. de douairière Coenen, van 's Gravesloot, at Utrecht.

(Vol. v., p. 496.)

In reference to the pardon to John Trenchard, Esq., here communicated in answer to me, I request permission, in the first place, to present my acknowledgments toMr. E. S. Taylorfor his courtesy; and, in the next, to explain the motive of my inquiry. I was about to print a very long document of this nature, which was issued on the 2nd Jan., 12 Car. II. (1660-1), in favour of Colonel Richard Beke, who had married a cousin of the Protector Cromwell. It appeared to me probable that some general pardon had been already printed, and I wished either to avoid the needless repetition should the pardon to Colonel Beke prove to be in the ordinary form, or, at least, to make a comparison between that and other records of the same class. I could not, however, ascertain that any general pardon had been printed, nor have I hitherto heard of any. The pardon to Colonel Beke has been printed forThe Topographer and Genealogist, but is not yet published. It occupies nearly seven large octavo pages, and consequently is much longer than that granted to Mr. Trenchard: speaking freely, it is between three and four times as long. It is evidently formed on a different and more ample precedent; but perhaps the main difference consists in its having relation to the tenure of landed property, and not merely to the simple pardon of offences conferred in the grant made to Trenchard, though, from the enumeration introduced in it of all imaginable offences and crimes, political and moral, it is certainly more quaint and extraordinary.

I much regret that the pardon to Trenchard has not been presentedin extensoto the readers of "N. & Q.;" for the contractions and very irregular punctuation will render it almost unintelligible to those who are not conversant with other documents of the kind. The following words are actually misprinted. In line 3. "he" for l're (literæ); line 12. "nuncupabatur" (one word); col. 2. line 1. "Jud'camenta" for Indictamenta, and "condempnac'onas" for condempnationes; line 3. and again line 14. "fforisfutur" for forisfactiones; line 23. "n're" for nostri; line 34. "existim't" for existunt; line 37. "p'liter" for placitetur; line 39. "mea parte" for in ea parte; last line, "p'rato" for privato.

It is also necessary to correct the error into whichMr. Taylorhas fallen in supposing that this pardon was granted on the 7th of December, 1688. The date it bears, "decimo septimo die Decembris anno regni nostri tertio," refers to a year earlier, viz., the 7th of December, 1687. The Revolution occurred in thefourthyear of the reign of James II. "Mr. Trenchard of the Middle Temple" was clearly the same who was afterwards Sir John, and Secretary of State to King William. See the biographical notice of him appended to the pedigree of Trenchard in Hutchins'sHistory of Dorsetshire, in which work two portraits of him are given. He had been engaged in Monmouth's rebellion; and it is said that he was at dinner with Mr. William Speke at Ilminster, when the news arrived of Monmouth's defeat at Sedgmoor. Speke was shortly after hung before his own door; whilst at the same time, having secreted himself, Trenchard had the good fortune to be embarking for the continent. The other John Trenchard mentioned byMr. Tayloras occurring among the regicides, was great-uncle to Sir John, who was only forty-six at his death in 1694.

John Gough Nichols.

Macaulay may be right about the great seal notwithstanding Trenchard's pardon. It is just possible such documents may have been kept ready "cut and dried" for filling up. Charles I. began to reign March 27, 1625. I know of a pardon dated Feb. 10th in the first year of his reign, with the great seal ofJames I.appended. Surely it did not take eleven months to cut a new great seal, which seems the likeliest way of accounting for the use of the old one.

P. P.

(Vol. v., pp. 463. 515.)

I beg to inclose the copy of a letter received by me in reply to my inquiry respecting the specimen of adodosaid to be at the house ofSir John Trevelyan, Bart., Nettlecombe Park, Somersetshire, a notice of which appeared in "N. & Q." published on the 15th ultimo. I shall feel much obliged if you will have the kindness to publish the same as an answer toMr. Winn's Query.

A. D. Bartlett.

"Sir,"I wish I could confirm the truth of the information given toMr. Winn, which I think it is scarcely necessary for me to say isentirely incorrect: and how such a report could have originated it is difficult to understand; unless by supposing that a member of the family when at Nettlecombe, in their childhood, had seen a stuffed specimen of the largebustard; and that this, in the course of years, had been magnified in their imaginative and indistinct recollection into adodo. I admired much your restoration of the dodo at the Great Exhibition; which, judging from the old pictures and known remains of the bird, gives, I think, a very good idea of what it was. I do not know ofany other remains of thedodothan those enumerated by Mr. Strickland; and had there been any at Nettlecombe, they would long ago have been known to naturalists."I remain, Sir,"Yours faithfully,"W. C. Trevelyan.To Mr. A. D. Bartlett,12. College Street, Camden Town."

"Sir,

"I wish I could confirm the truth of the information given toMr. Winn, which I think it is scarcely necessary for me to say isentirely incorrect: and how such a report could have originated it is difficult to understand; unless by supposing that a member of the family when at Nettlecombe, in their childhood, had seen a stuffed specimen of the largebustard; and that this, in the course of years, had been magnified in their imaginative and indistinct recollection into adodo. I admired much your restoration of the dodo at the Great Exhibition; which, judging from the old pictures and known remains of the bird, gives, I think, a very good idea of what it was. I do not know ofany other remains of thedodothan those enumerated by Mr. Strickland; and had there been any at Nettlecombe, they would long ago have been known to naturalists.

"I remain, Sir,"Yours faithfully,"W. C. Trevelyan.To Mr. A. D. Bartlett,12. College Street, Camden Town."

"I remain, Sir,"Yours faithfully,"W. C. Trevelyan.

"I remain, Sir,

"Yours faithfully,

"W. C. Trevelyan.

To Mr. A. D. Bartlett,12. College Street, Camden Town."

To Mr. A. D. Bartlett,

12. College Street, Camden Town."

(Vol. v., p. 468.)

Your correspondent who makes inquiry about Whipping-boys of Princes, I would refer to a very scarce old play from which I give an extract, and in which the whipping-boy wasknighted,When You see Mee You know Mee, as it was played by the High and Mighty Prince of Wales his Servants, by Samuel Rowley, London, 1632:

"Prince(Ed. VI.). Why, how now, Browne; what's the matter?Browne.Your Grace loyters, and will not plye your booke, and your tutors have whipt me for it.Prince.Alas, poore Ned! I am sorrie for it. I'll take the more paines, and entreate my tutors for thee; yet, in troth, the lectures they read me last night out of Virgil and Ovid I am perfect in, onely I confesse I am behind in my Greeke authors.Will(Summers). And for that speech they have declined it uppon his breech," &c.—Pages 48-53.

"Prince(Ed. VI.). Why, how now, Browne; what's the matter?

Browne.Your Grace loyters, and will not plye your booke, and your tutors have whipt me for it.

Prince.Alas, poore Ned! I am sorrie for it. I'll take the more paines, and entreate my tutors for thee; yet, in troth, the lectures they read me last night out of Virgil and Ovid I am perfect in, onely I confesse I am behind in my Greeke authors.

Will(Summers). And for that speech they have declined it uppon his breech," &c.—Pages 48-53.

He will also find the subject noticed by Sir Walter Scott,Fortunes of Nigel, ch. vi. p. 114. vol. xxvi. of Waverley Novels, Edinburgh, 1833, 8vo.; and also by Burnet inThe History of his own Time. The latter, in speaking of Elizabeth, Countess of Dysart, whom he describes as anintrigante, and who afterwards became Duchess of Lauderdale, says her father,William Murray, had been page andwhipping-boyto Charles I. We hear nothing of such office being held by any one in the household of Prince Henry, the elder brother of Charles I.; nor, if we can believe Cornwallis and others, can we suppose that "incomparable and heroique" prince infringed the rules of discipline, in any respect, to justify any castigation. It does not appear that it was the practice to have such asubstitutein France; for Louis XIV., who was cotemporary with our Charles I., on one occasion, when he was sensible of his want of education, exclaimed, "Est-ce qu'il n'y avait point de verges dans mon royaume, pour me forcer à étudier?" And Mr. Prince (Parallel History, 2nd edition in 3 vols. 8vo., London, 1842-3, at p. 262. vol. iii.) states, that George III., when Dr. Markham inquired "how his Majesty would wish to have the princes treated?"—"Like the sons of any private English gentleman," was the sensible reply; "if they deserve it, let them be flogged: do as you used to do at Westminster." This is very like the characteristic and judicious language of the honest monarch.

Φ.

Richmond.

Mr. Lawrencehas overlooked King Edward's most celebrated whipping-boy, Barnaby Fitzpatrick (as to whom see Fuller,Church History, ed. 1837, ii. 342.; Strype'sEcclesiastical Memorials, ii. 287. 331. 460. 503.; Burnet,History of the Reformation, ed. 1841, 456.; Tytler'sEdward VI. and Queen Mary, ii. 85.). I confess I do not recollect having before heard either of Brown or Mungo Murray, and hopeMr. Lawrencewill give particulars respecting them.

It seems very clear that Henry VI. was chastisedpersonally; see a record cited (from Rymer, x. 399.) inHistory of England and France under the House of Lancaster, p. 418.

C. H. Cooper.

Cambridge.

Penkenol(Vol. v., p. 490.).—Head of a family or tribe, from the Celtic: seepenkenedl, Welsh;ceanncinnidh, orcineal, Gaelic; of whichken-kenalis a Lowland corruption. The inference drawn from the three crescents (borne as a difference) almost explains the meaning of the word. Aubrey was a Welshman.

De Cameron.

Penkenolwas probably written in error forpencenedl, the head of a sept or family. Pennant so uses the word in hisWhiteford and Hollywell, p. 33. The Welsh pronunciation ofdlasthlwill point to an obvious Greek analogy, which Davies'sDictionarycarries to an earlier source.

Lancastriensis.

Johnny Crapaud(Vol. v., pp. 439. 523.).—I cannot but think that the solution ofMr. Philip S. King's Query about "Johnny Crapaud" will be found in the circumstance that three frogs are the old arms of France, and I would refer him if he needs it, to the Rev. E. B. Elliott'sHoræ Apocalypticæ, where the reasons for believing that such were the arms of France are fully given and illustrated by a plate, vol. iv. p. 64. ed. 1847. I may add that, for what reason I don't know, but perhaps Mr. Metivier does, the natives of Jersey are calledcrapaudsby Guernsey men, who in return are honoured by the title ofânes, asses.

Perez.

Sir John Darnall(Vol. v., p. 489.).—Sir John Darnall, Serjeant-at-Law 1714, knighted 1724, died Sept. 5, 1731, and was buried at Petersham, leaving by Margaret, daughter of Sir Thomas Jenner, two daughters and coheirs:Marythe elder married in 1727 Robert Orde, Esq., Lord Chief Baron of Scotland; andAnnethe younger married in 1728 Henry Muilman of London, Esq.,whose only daughter and heir married John Julius Angerstein, Esq.

The above Sir John Darnall was the only surviving son of Sir John Darnall of the Inner Temple, King's Sergeant-at-law 1698, knighted at Kensington June 1, 1699, died in Essex Street 1706, and was buried in the chancel vault of St. Clement's Danes, co. Middlesex (see theEnglish Post, Monday, Dec. 23, 1706). He was son of Ralph Darnall, of Loughton's Hope, co. Hereford, and his will was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in Jan. 1707.

The arms assumed by Sir John Darnall, who died 1706, were—Gules on a pale argent, a lion rampant azure impaling Gules a boar passant.

Bastides(Vol. v., pp. 150. 206.).—Dumas, in hisPictures of Travel in the South of France, says, that Louis XIV. while at Marseilles, observing the charming houses which surrounded the town, with their white walls, red tops, and green blinds, inquired by what name they were called in the language of the country: "They call themBastides," replied Fostea de Piles. "Good!" says the King; "I will have a Bastide." He built a fort to check the Marseillaise.

Again, Tarver, in hisDictionary, has:

"Bastide, a small country house (this word is used in the south of France, in Provence especially.)"

Did Louis intend a pun betweenBastideandBastille?

E. H. B.

Demerary.

Compositions under the Protectorate(Vol. v., p. 68.).—Such is the name of a heading to one of your recent Notes; and such is the formula of the very common error that Dring'sList, and the lists of his re-editors, represent the fines levied by Cromwell when he decimated the incomes (not the estates) of the Royalists, in consequence of Penruddock's rising. Dring'sListhas reference to the compositions during the years 1646-1648, when the fines were based on a totally different calculation. The error has arisen from Dring's catalogue having been published in 1655, the year after Penruddock's affair. I have compared a great number of the compositions as they are stated in the Lord's Journals, 1646,et seq., with Dring's account; and though there are discrepancies, their average resemblance is sufficient to show that they refer to one and the same affair. Indeed, any one acquainted with the actors in those events will see in a moment that Dring'sListcontains many who had repented of and acknowledged their "delinquency."

J. Waylen.

Hoax on Sir Walter Scott(Vol. v., p. 438.).—The reperusal of Mr. Drury's hoax upon Sir Walter reminds me of another, which having escaped the industry of, or been intentionally overlooked by Mr. Lockhart, may be appropriately noticed in your pages, as pleasantly showing that even "Anselmo's" black-letter sagacity might be deceived; and that, with the simple credulity of his own Monkbarns, he could mistake the "bit bourock of the mason-callants" for a Roman Pretorium.

I allude to a small stitchlet, or brochure, of five pages, entitled "The Raid of Featherstonehaugh: a Border Ballad." It was really written by Sir Walter's early friend, Mr. Robert Surtees of Mainsforth, author of theHistory of Durham, some of whose other impositions upon the poet were printed in theBorder Minstrelsy, or inserted in notes to hisMetrical Romances. Of this poem in particular, Sir Walter entertained so high an opinion, that he has incorporated a verse from it intoMarmion, and given it entire in a note as a genuine relic of antiquity; gravely commenting upon it in the most elaborate manner, and pointing out its exemplifications of the then state of society. It will be found inMarmion, Canto I., verse 13.:

Back to Index Next