Queries.

Dr. Peckard, in his Preface to theLife of Nicholas Ferrar of Little Gidding, says the memoir he published was edited or compiled by him from "the original MS. still in my possession" (p. xi.); and in the Appendix adds, that "Mr. John Ferrar," the elder brother of Nicholas, was the author of it (p. 279.).

How he compiled or edited "the original MS." he states with much candour in his Preface (p. xv.):

"The editor's intention," in altering the narrative, "was to give what is not observed in the original, a regular series of facts; and through the whole a sort of evenness and simplicity of stile equally free from meanness and affectation. In short, to make the old and the new, as far as he could, uniform; that he might not appear to have sewed a piece of new cloth to an old garment, and made its condition worse by his endeavours to mend it."

Again, at page 308., he says,

"There is an antient MS. in folio, giving an account of Mr. N. Ferrar, which at length, from Gidding, came into the hands of Mr. Ed. Ferrar of Huntingdon, and is now in the possession of the editor. Mr. Peck had the use of this MS. as appears by several marginal notes in his handwriting; from this and some loose and unconnected papers of Mr. Peck.... the editor, as well as he was able, has made out the foregoing memoirs."

Can any of your numerous correspondents inform me if this "antient MS." is still in existence, and in whose possession?

Peckard was related to the Ferrars, and was Master of Magdalen Coll., Cambridge.

In "A Catalogue of MSS. (once) at Gidding," Peckard, p. 306., the third article is "Lives, Characters, Histories, and Tales for moral and religious Instruction, in five volumes folio, neatly bound and gilt, by Mary Collet." This work, with five others, "undoubtedly were all written by N. Ferrar, Sen.," says Dr. Peckard; and in the Memoir, at page 191., he gives a list of these "short histories," ninety-eight in number, "which are still remaining in my possession;" and adds further, at p. 194.,

"These lives, characters, and moral essays would, I think, fill two or three volumes in 8vo., butthey are written in so minutea character, that I cannot form any conjecture to be depended upon."

I have been thus particular in describing these "histories", because the subjects of them are identical with those in Fuller'sHoly and Profane State, the first edition of which was published at Cambridge, in 1642. "The characters I have conformed," says Fuller in his Preface, "to the then standing laws of the realm (a twelvemonth ago were they sent to the press), since which time the wisdom of the King and state hath" altered many things. Nicholas Ferrar died December 2, 1637, and the Query I wish to ask is, Did Fuller compose them (for that he was really the author of them can hardly be doubted) at the suggestion and for the benefit of the community at Gidding, some years before he published them; and is it possible to ascertain and determine if the MS. is in the handwriting of Ferrar or Fuller?

Is there any print or view in existence of the "Nunnery," at Little Gidding?

In theLife of Dr. Thomas Fuller, published anonymously in 1661, it is stated, that at his funeral a customary sermon was preached by Dr. Hardy, Dean of Rochester, "which hath not yet (though it is hoped and much desired may) passe the presse," p. 63.

Query. Was this sermon ever published? and secondly, who was the author of theLifefrom which the above passage is quoted?

John Miland.

May I request a space in your periodical for the following Queries, drawn from Dr. Stukeley'sStonehenge and Abury, p. 31.?

1st. "But eternally to be lamented is the loss of that tablet of tin, which was found at this place (Stonehenge) in the time of King Henry VIII., inscribed with many letters, but in so strange a character that neither Sir Thomas Elliott, a learned antiquary, nor Mr. Lilly, master of St. Paul's school, could make any thing out of it. Mr. Sammes may be right, who judges it to have beenPunic. I imagine if we call it Irish we shall not err much. No doubt but what it was a memorial of the founders, wrote by the Druids and had it been preserved till now, would have been an invaluable curiosity."

Can you or any of your contributors give me any further information about this inscription?

2. The Doctor continues,

"To make the reader some amends for such a loss I have given a specimen of supposed Druid writing, out of Lambecius' account of the Emperor's library at Vienna. 'Tis wrote on a very thin plate of gold with a sharp-pointed instrument. It was in an urn found at Vienna, rolled up in several cases of other metal, together with funeral exuviæ. It was thought by the curious, one of those epistles which the Celtic people were wont to send to their friends in the other world. The reader may divert himself with trying to explain it."

Has this inscription ever been explained, and how? Stukeley's book is by no means a rare one; therefore I have not trusted myself to copy the inscription: and such as feel disposed to help me in my difficulty would doubtless prefer seeing the Doctor's own illustration at p. 31.

Henry Cunliffe.

Hyde Park Street.

Tristram Risdon, in his quaintSurvey of the Co. of Devon, after mentioning the foundation of the church of High Bickington by King Athelstane,

"Who," he says, "gave to God and it one hide of land, as appeareth by the donation, a copy whereof, for the antiquity thereof, I will here insert: 'Iche Athelstane king, grome of this home, geve and graunt to the preist of this chirch, one yoke of mye land frelith to holde, woode in my holt house to buyld, bitt grass for all hys beasts, fuel for hys hearth, pannage for hys sowe and piggs, world without end,'"—

adds presently afterwards, that

"Sir John Willington gaveWeekslandin this tything, unto Robert Tolla,cum 40 somagia annuatim capiend in Buckenholt(so be the words of the grant) in the time of K. Edw. I."

The Willingtons were lords of the manor of Umberleigh, where Athelstane's palace stood, with its chapel dedicated to the Holy Trinity, formerly rich in ancient monuments, and having a chantry near to it. Some of the monuments from this chapel are still preserved in the neighbouring church of Atherington.

My Queries upon this Note are:

1. Whence did Risdon derive his copy of King Athelstane's form of donation? 2. What is the precise meaning of the wordSomagia?

InDucange(ed. Par. 1726, tom. vi. col. 589.) I find:

"Somegia. Præstatio, ut videturex summis, v. gr. bladi, frumenti. Charta Philippi Reg. Franc. an. 1210. Idem etiam Savaricus detinet sibi census suos, et venditiones, et quosdam reditus, quiSomegiævocantur, et avenam, etcaptagiahominum et foeminarum suarum, qui reditus cum una Somegiarum in festo B. Remigii persolverentur; deinde secunda Somegia in vicesima die Natalis Domini, et tertia in Octabis Resurrectionis Dominicæ, ei similiter persolventur; caponum etiam suorum in crastino Natalis Domini percipiet solutionem: unaquæque vero somegiarum quatuor denarios bonæ monetæ valet."

Ducange refers also to some kindred words; but, instead of clearing up my difficulty in the wordsomagia, he presents me with another incaptagia, the meaning of which I do not clearly understand. Perhaps some of your more learned contributors will obligingly help me to the true import of these words?

J. Sansom.

Charade.—Can any one tell who is the author of the following charade? No doubt, the lines are well known to many of your readers, although I have never seen them in print. It has been said that Dr. Robinson, a physician, wrote them. It strikes me that the real author, whoever he be, richly deserves to be named in "Notes and Queries."

"Me, the contented man desires,The poor man has, the rich requires;The miser gives, the spendthrift saves,And all must carry to their graves."

"Me, the contented man desires,

The poor man has, the rich requires;

The miser gives, the spendthrift saves,

And all must carry to their graves."

It can scarcely be necessary to add that the answer is,nothing.

Alfred Gatty.

July 1. 1850.

"Smoke Money."—Under this name is collected every year at Battle, in Sussex, by the Constable, one penny from every householder, and paid to the Lord of the Manor. What is its origin and meaning?

"Rapido contrarius orbi."—What divine of the seventeenth century adopted these words as his motto? They are part of a line in one of Owen's epigrams.

N.B.

Lord Richard Christophilus.—Can any of your readers give any account of Lord Richard Christophilus, a Turk converted to Christianity, to whom, immediately after the Restoration, in July, 1660, the Privy Council appointed a pension of 50l.a-year, and an additional allowance of 2l.a-week.

CH.

Fiz-gigs.—In those excellent poems, Sandys'sParaphrases on Job and other Books of the Bible, there is a word of a most destructive character to the effect. Speaking of leviathan, he asks,

"Canst thou withfiz-gigspierce him to the quick?"

It may be an ignorant question, but I do not know what fiz-gigs are.

C.B.

Specimens of Erica in Bloom.—Can any of your correspondents oblige me by the information where I can procure specimens in bloom of the following plants, viz. Erica crescenta, Erica paperina, E. purpurea, E. flammea, and at what season they come into blossom in England? If specimens are not procurable without much expense and trouble, can you supply me with the name of a work in which these plants are figured?

E.S.

Dover.

Michael Scott, the Wizard.—What works by Michael Scott, the reputed wizard, (Sir Walter'sDeus ex MachinainThe Lay of the Last Minstrel), have been printed?

X.Y.A.

Stone Chalices.—Can any of the readers of "Notes and Queries" inform me whether the use ofstone chaliceswas authorised by the ancient constitutions of the Church; and, if so, at what period, and where the said constitutions were enacted?

X.Y.A.

I have never seen the article in theQuarterly Reviewto which your correspondent H.B.C. alludes: he will probably find it by reference to the index, which is not just now within my reach. The neat London edition, 1710, of theEpistolæwas given by Michael Mattaire. There are several subsequent reimpressions, but none worth notice except that by Henr. Guil. Rotermund, Hanover, 1827, 8vo.; and again, with improvements, "cum nova præfatione, nec non illustratione historica circa originem earum, atque notitia de vita et scriptis virorum in Epistolis occurentium aucta," 1830, both in 8vo.

The best edition, however, is that given by Dr. Ernst Münch, Leipsic, 1827, 8vo., with the following title:

"Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum aliaque Ævi Decimi sexti Monimenta Rarissima. Die Briefe der Finsterlinge an Magister Ortuinus von Deventer, nebst andern sehr seltenen Beiträgen zur Literatur-Sitten-und-Kirchengeschichte des xvi'n Jahrhunderts."

This contains many important additions, and a copious historical introduction. Both the editors write in German.

That this admirable satire produced an immense effect at the period of its publication, there can be no doubt; but that it has ever been thoroughly understood and relished among us may be doubted. Mr. Hallam, in hisLiterature of Europe, vol. i., seems to have been disgusted with the monkish dog-Latin and bald jokes, not recollecting that this was a necessary and essential part of the design. Nor is it strange that Steele, who was perhaps not very well acquainted with the history of literature, should have misconceived the nature of the publication, when we learn from an epistle of Sir Thomas More to Erasmus, that some of the stupid theologasters themselves, who were held up to ridicule, received it with approbation as a serious work:

"Epist. Obs. Viror. operæ pretium est videre quantopere placeant omnibus, et doctis joco, et indoctis serio, qui dum ridemus, putant rideri stylum tantum, quem illi non defendunt, sed gravitate sententiarum dicunt compensatum, et latere sub rudi vagina pulcherrimum gladium. Utinam fuisset inditus libello alius titulus! Profecto intra centum annos homines studio stupidi non sensissent nasum, quamquam rhinocerotico longiorem."8

Erasmus evidently enjoyed the witty contrivance, though he affects to disapprove it as an anonymous libel. Simler, in his life of Bullinger, relates that on the first reading Erasmus fell into such a fit of laughter as to burst an abscess in his face with which he was at that time troubled, and which prevented the necessity of a surgical operation.

The literary history of theEpistolæand theDialogueis involved in obscurity. That Ulrich von Hutten had a large share in their concoction there can be no doubt; and that he was assisted by Crotus Rubianus and Hermann von Busch, if not by others, seems highly probable. The authorship ofLamentationes Obscurorum Virorumis a paradox which has not yet been solved. They are a parody, but a poor one, of theEpistolæ, and in the second edition are attributed to Ortuinus Gratius. If they are by him, he must have been a dull dog indeed; but by some it has been thought that they are the work of a Reuchlinist, to mystify the monks of Cologne, and render them still more ridiculous; yet, as the Pope's bull against theEpistolæ, and Erasmus's disapproving letter, find a prominent place, and some other well-grounded inculpations occur, it appears to me that some slender-witted advocate of the enemies of learning has here shown his want of skill in handling the weapons of the adversary.

How much Sir Thomas More was pleased with the writings of Hutten we may gather from the opening of a letter which Erasmus addressed to Hutten, giving an interesting account of his illustrious friend, in August, 1519:

"Quod Thomæ Mori ingenium sic deamas, ac penè dixerim deperis, nimirum scriptis illius inflammatus, quibus (ut verè scribis) nihil esse potest neque doctius neque festivius; istue mibi crede, clarissime Huttene tibi cum multis commune est, cum Moro mutuum etiam. Nam is vicissim adeò scriptorum tuorum genio delectatur, ut ipse tibi plopemodum invideam."

The Dialogue (Mire Festivus), which in the edition of 1710 occurs between the first and second parts of theEpistolæ, bears especial marks of Hutten's manner, and is doubtless by him. The interlocutors are three of the illustrious obscure, Magisters Ortuinus, Lupoldus, and Gingolphus, and the first act of the comedy consists in their observations upon the promoters of learning, Reuchlin, Erasmus, and Faber Stapulensis, who afterwards make their appearance, and the discussion becomes general, but no impression can be made upon the stupid and prejudiced monks. The theme is, of course, the inutility of the new learning, Hebrew and Greek and correct Latinity. One short passage seems to me admirable:

"M. Ging. Et Sanctus Ambrosius, Sanctus Augustinus, et alii omnes zelossimi doctores non sciebant ipsi bene tot, sicut iste Ribaldi?M. Ort. Ipsi deberent interponere suis.M. Lup. Non bene indigemus de suo Græco.M. Ging. Videtur eis, qui sciunt diceretou, tou, logos, monsotiros, legoim, taff, hagiotatos, quod ipse sciunt plus quam Deus.M. Ort. Magister noster Lupolde, creditis, quod Deus curat multum de iste Græco?M. Lup. Certe non, Magister noster Ortuine, ego credo, quod Deus non curat multum."

Ranke, in hisHistory of the Reformation, has very justly estimated the merits and character of these remarkable productions:

"We must not look for the delicate apprehension and tact, which can only be formed in a highly polished state of society, nor for the indignation of insulted morality expressed by the ancients: it is altogether a caricature, not of finished individual portraits, but of a single type;—a clownish sensual German priest, his intellect narrowed by stupid wonder and fanatical hatred, who relates with sillynaïvetéand gossiping confidence the various absurd and scandalous situations into which he falls. These letters are not the work of a high poetical genius, but they have truth, coarse strong features of resemblance, and vivid colouring."

Ranke mentions another satire, which appeared in March, 1520, directed against John Eck, the opponent of Luther, the latter being regarded in the light of a successor of Reuchlin, under the title ofAbgehobelte Eck, orEccius dedolatus, "which, for fantastic invention, striking and crushing truth, and Aristophanic wit, far exceeded theLiteræ Obsc. V., which it somewhat resembled." I have not yet been able to meet with this; but such high praise, from so judicious a critic, makes me very desirous to see and peruse it.

S.W. Singer.

Mickleham, July 3. 1850.

Footnote 8:(return)"Ubi primum exissentEp. Ob. V.miro Monachorum applausu exceptæ sunt apud Britannos a Franciscanis ac Dominicanis, qui sibi persuadebant, eas in Reuchlini contumeliam, et Monachorum favorem, serio proditus: quamque quidam egregie doctus, sed nasutissimus, fingeret se nonnihil offendi stylo, consulati sunt hominem."—Erasm. Epist.979.

"Ubi primum exissentEp. Ob. V.miro Monachorum applausu exceptæ sunt apud Britannos a Franciscanis ac Dominicanis, qui sibi persuadebant, eas in Reuchlini contumeliam, et Monachorum favorem, serio proditus: quamque quidam egregie doctus, sed nasutissimus, fingeret se nonnihil offendi stylo, consulati sunt hominem."—Erasm. Epist.979.

Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum.—Your Querist H.B.C. (Vol. ii., pp. 55-57.) will find, in the 53rd vol.Edinb. Rev.p. 180., a long article on these celebrated letters, containing much of the information required. It is worthy of remark, that in page 195. we are told

"In 1710 there was printed in London themost elegantedition that has ever appeared of these letters, which the editor, Mich. Mattaire, gravely represents as the productions of their ostensible authors."

Now this edition, though neat, has no claim to be termed most elegant, which is hardly to be reconciled with what the reviewer says in a note, p. 210., "that the text of this ed. of 1710 is of no authority, and swarms with typographical blunders."

The work on its first appearance produced great excitement, and was condemned by Pope Leo X. SeeDict. des Livres Condamnés, &c., par Peignot, tom. ii. p. 218.

Many amusing anecdotes and notices are to be found in Bayle'sDict. See particularly sub nomine Erasmus. Burton, in hisAnatomy of Mel.pt. i. sec. 2. Mem 3 sub 6. citing Jovius in Elogiis, says,

"Hostratus cucullatus adeo graviter ob Reuchlini librum qui inscribitur, Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum dolore simul et pudore sauciatus, et scipsum interfecerit."

See alsoNouv. Diction. Historiquein the account of Gratius, O.

There is also a good article on these letters in a very excellent work entitledAnalectabiblion, orExtraits Critique de divers Livres rares, &c., tiréz du Cabinet du Marq. D. R. (oure). Paris, 1836. 2 tomes 8vo.

F.R.A.

Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum.—The article inquired for by H.B.C. (Vol. ii, p. 55) is probably one in theEdinburgh Review, vol. liii. p. 180., attributed to Sir William Hamilton, the distinguished Professor of Logic in the university of Edinburgh.

CH.

Mr. Rimbault is wrong in giving to Abbot Milling the honour of being the patron of Caxton, which is due to Abbot Esteney. Mr. C. Knight in hisLife of Caxton, which appropriately formed the first work of his series ofWeekly Volumes, has the following remarks upon the passage from Stow, quoted by Mr. Rimbault:

"The careful historians of London here committed one error; John Islip did not become abbot of Westminster till 1500. John Esteney was made abbot in 1474, and remained such until his death in 1498. His predecessor was Thomas Milling. In Dugdale'sMonasticonwe find, speaking of Esteney, 'It was in this abbot's time, and not in that of Milling, or in that of Abbot Islip, that Caxton exercised the art of printing at Westminster.'"—p. 140.

I have no work at hand to which I can refer for the date of Milling's death, but if 1492 be correct, perhaps he may have been promoted to a bishoprick.

With reference to Mr. Rimbault's remark, that Caxton first mentions the place of his printing in 1477, so that he must have printed some time without informing us where, I may be allowed to observe that it seems highly probable he printed, and indeed learned the art, at Cologne. At the end of the third book of his translation of theRecuyell of the Historyes of Troye, Caxton says:

"Thus end I this book which I have translated after mine author, as nigh as God hath given me cunning, to whom be given the laud and praises ... I have practised and learned, at my great charge and dispense, to ordain this said book in print, after the manner and form as you may here see."

And on the title-page he informs us:

"Whyche sayd translacion and werke was begonne in Brugis in 1468, and ended in the holy cyte of Colen, 19 Sept. 1471."

This may refer to the translation only; but as Caxton was both translator and printer, it does not seem unreasonable to regard it as indicating when his entire labour upon the work was brought to a close. I might support the view that Caxton printed at Cologne by other arguments which would make the matter tolerably certain (seeLife of Caxton, p. 125., &c.); but as the excellent little work to which I am indebted for these particulars is so well known, and so easily accessible, I should not be justified in occupying more of your space, and I will therefore conclude with noting that the parochial library at Shipdham, in Norfolk, is said to contain books printed by Caxton and other early printers. Perhaps some one of your correspondents would record, for the general benefit, of what they consist.

Arun.

Dr. Rimbault has evidently not seen a short article on Caxton's printing at Westminster, which I inserted in theGentleman's Magazinefor April, 1846, nor the reference made to it in the magazine for June last, p. 630., or he would have admitted that his objections to Dr. Dibdin's conjectures on this point had been already stated; moreover, I think he would have seen that the difficulty had been actually cleared up. In truth, the popular misapprehension on this subject has not been occasioned by any obscurity in the colophons of the great printer, or in the survey of Stow, but merely by the erroneous constricted sense into which the word abbey has passed in this country. Caxton himself tells us he printed his books in "th' abbay of Westminstre," but he does not say in the church of the abbey. Stow distinctly says it was in the almonry of the abbey; and the handbill Dr. Rimbault refers to confirms that fact. The almonry was not merely "within the precincts of the abbey," it was actually a part of the abbey. Dr. Rimbault aims at the conclusion that "the old chapel of St. Anne was doubtless the place where the first printing-office was erected in England." But why so? Did not the chapel continue a chapel until the Reformation, if not later? And Caxton would no more set up his press in a chapel than in the abbey-church itself. Stow says it was erected in the almonry. The almonry was one of the courts of the abbey, (situated directly west of the abbey-church, and not east, as Dr. Dibdin surmised); it contained a chapel dedicated to St. Anne, and latterly an almshouse erected by the Lady Margaret. The latter probably replaced other offices or lodgings of greater antiquity, connected with the duties of the almoner, or the reception and relief of the poor; and there need be no doubt that it was one of these buildings that the Abbot of Westminster placed at the disposal of our proto-typographer. There was nothing very extraordinary in his so doing if we view the circumstance in its true light; for thescriptoriaof the monasteries had ever been the principal manufactories of books. A single press was now to do the work of many pens. The experiment was successful; "after which time," as Stow goes on to say, "the like was practised in the Abbeys of St. Augustine, at Canterbury, St. Alban's, and other monasteries." The monks became printers instead of scribes; but they would not ordinarily convert their churches or chapels into printing-houses. The workmen, it is true, term the meetings held for consultation on their common interests or pleasures, theirchapels; and whether this may have arisen from any particular instance in which a chapel was converted into a printing-house, I cannot say. In order to ascertain the origin of this term these Queries may be proposed:—Is it peculiar to printers and to this country? Or is it used also in other trades and on the Continent?

John Gough Nichols.

Although I am unable to give a satisfactory reply to Mr. Foss's inquiries, such information as I have is freely at his service. It may, at all events, serve as a finger-post to the road.

My survey gives a most minute extent, of 35 preceptories, 23 "cameræ" of the Hospitallers, 13 preceptories formerly commandries of the Templars, 74 limbs, and 70 granges, impropriations, &c., and, among them all, not a single one of the valuation of the New Temple itself.Reprisesof that establishment are entered, but noreceipts.

The former are as follows:

"In emendationem et sustentationem ecclesie Novi Templi, London, et in vino, cera, et oleo, et ornamentis ejusdem ... x m."In uno fratri [sic] Capellano et octo Capellanis secularibus, deservientibus ecclesiam quondam Templariorum apud London, vocatam Novum Templum, prout ordinatum est per totum consilium totius regni, pro animabus fundatorum dicti Novi Templi et alia [sic] possessionum alibi ... lv m."Videlicet, frati Capellano, pro se et ecclesia, xv m., et cuilibet Capellano, v m., ubi solebant esse, tempore Templariorum, unus Prior ecclesie et xij Capellani seculares."Item in diversis pensionibus solvendis diversis personis per annum, tam in Curia domini Regis, quam Justiciariis Clericis, Officiariis, et aliis ministris, in diversis Curiis suis, ac etiam aliis familiaribus magnatum, tam pro terris tenementis, redditibus, et libertatibus hospitalis, quam Templariorum, et maxime pro terris Templariorum manutenendis, videlicet, Baronibus in Scaccario domini Regis Domino Roberto de Sadyngton, militi, Capitali baroni de Scaccario, xl." &c. &c.

"In emendationem et sustentationem ecclesie Novi Templi, London, et in vino, cera, et oleo, et ornamentis ejusdem ... x m.

"In uno fratri [sic] Capellano et octo Capellanis secularibus, deservientibus ecclesiam quondam Templariorum apud London, vocatam Novum Templum, prout ordinatum est per totum consilium totius regni, pro animabus fundatorum dicti Novi Templi et alia [sic] possessionum alibi ... lv m.

"Videlicet, frati Capellano, pro se et ecclesia, xv m., et cuilibet Capellano, v m., ubi solebant esse, tempore Templariorum, unus Prior ecclesie et xij Capellani seculares.

"Item in diversis pensionibus solvendis diversis personis per annum, tam in Curia domini Regis, quam Justiciariis Clericis, Officiariis, et aliis ministris, in diversis Curiis suis, ac etiam aliis familiaribus magnatum, tam pro terris tenementis, redditibus, et libertatibus hospitalis, quam Templariorum, et maxime pro terris Templariorum manutenendis, videlicet, Baronibus in Scaccario domini Regis Domino Roberto de Sadyngton, militi, Capitali baroni de Scaccario, xl." &c. &c.

enumerating pensions to the judges, clerks, &c., in all the courts, to the amount of above 60l.per annum. To

"Magnatibus, secretariis, et familiaribus domini Regis et aliorum;"

the pensions enumerated amount to about 440l.per annum.

Then, to the treasurer, barons, clerks, &c., of the Exchequer (140 persons):

"Bis in anno, videlicet, tempore yemali, pilliola furrata pellura minuti varii et bogeti, et quedam non furrata; et tempore estivali totidem pilliola lineata de sindone, et quedam non lineata, unicuique de Curia Scaccarii predicti, tam minoribus quam majoribus, secundum gradus, statum, et officium personarum predictarum, que expense se extendunt annuatim ad ... x ii.""Item sunt alie expense facte in Curiis Regis annuatim pro officio generalis procuratoris in diversis Curiis Regis, que de necessitate fieri oportet, pro brevibus Regis, et Cartis impetendis, et aliis, negociis in eisdem Curiis expediendis, que ad minus ascendunt per annum, prout evidencius apparet, per compotum et memoranda dicti fratris de Scaccario qui per capitulum ad illud officium oneratur ... lx m.""Item in donis dandis in Curiis domini Regis et aliorum magnatumpro favore habendoet pro placitis defendendis, et expensis parlialmentorum, ad minus bis per annum ... cc m."

"Item sunt alie expense facte in Curiis Regis annuatim pro officio generalis procuratoris in diversis Curiis Regis, que de necessitate fieri oportet, pro brevibus Regis, et Cartis impetendis, et aliis, negociis in eisdem Curiis expediendis, que ad minus ascendunt per annum, prout evidencius apparet, per compotum et memoranda dicti fratris de Scaccario qui per capitulum ad illud officium oneratur ... lx m."

"Item in donis dandis in Curiis domini Regis et aliorum magnatumpro favore habendoet pro placitis defendendis, et expensis parlialmentorum, ad minus bis per annum ... cc m."

I have made these extracts somewhat more at length than may, perhaps, be to the point in question, because they contain much that is highly interesting as to the apparently questionable mode in which the Hospitallers obtained the protection of the courts (and probably they were not singular in their proceedings); annual pensions to judges, besides other largesses, and much of this "pro favore habendo," contrasts painfully with the "spotless purity of the ermine" which dignifies our present age.

In the "extent" we have occasionally a grange held rent free for life by a judge. Chief Justice Geffrey de Scrop so held that of Penhull in Northumberland.

Putting all these facts together, and bearing in mind that, throughout this elaborate "extent," there are neither profits nor rent entered, as for the Temple itself, so that it seems to have then been neither in the possession nor occupation of the Hospitallers, is it not possible that they had alienated it to the lawyers, as a discharge for these heavy annual incumbrances,—prospectively, perhaps, because by the entry of these charges among the "reprise," the life interests, at all events, were still paid; or perhaps the alienation was itself made to them "pro favore habendo" in some transaction that the Hospitallers wished to have carried by the Courts; or it may have been made as abonâ fidebribe for future protection. At all events, when we see such extensive payments made annually to the lawyers, their ultimate possession of the fee simple is no unnatural result. But, as I am altogether ignorant of the history of the New Temple, I must refrain from suggestions, giving the simple facts as I find them, and leaving the rest to the learning and investigation of your correspondent.

L.B.L.

Mr. Ross is right in saying that "no alteration has taken place in thepracticeof the House of Commons with respect to the admission of strangers." The practice was at variance with the old sessional order: it is consistent with the new standing order of 1845. I do not understand how any one can read these words of the new standing order, "that the sergeant-at-arms ... do take into his custody any stranger whom he may see ... in any part of the house or gallery appropriated to the members of the House: and also any strangerwho, having been admitted into any other part of the house or gallery," &c., and say that the House of Commons does not now recognise the presence of strangers; nor can I understand how Mr. Ross can doubt that the old sessional order absolutely prohibited their presence. It did not keep them out certainly, for they were admitted in the teeth of it; but so long as that sessional order was in force, prohibition to strangers was the theory.

Mr. Ross refers to publication of speeches. Publication is still prohibited in theory. Mr. Ross perhaps is not aware that the prohibition of publication of speeches rests on a foundation independent of the old sessional order against the presence of strangers,—on a series of resolutions declaring publication to be a breach of the privileges of Parliament, to be found in the Journals of 1642, 1694, 1695, 1697, 1703, 1722, and 1724.

We unfortunately cannot settle in your columns whether, as Mr. Ross asserts, "if a member in debate should inadvertently allude to the possibility of his observations being heard by a stranger, the Speaker would immediately call him to order;" but my strong belief is, that he would not: and I hope, if there are any members of the House of Commons who have time to read "Notes and Queries," that one of them may be induced to take a suitable opportunity of obtaining the Speaker's judgment.

"Yet at other times," Mr. Ross goes on to say, "the right honourable gentlemen will listen complacently to discussions arising out of the complaints of members that strangers will not publish to the world all that they hear pass in debate." If this be so, I suppose the Speaker sees nothing disorderly in a complaint, that what has been spoken in Parliament hasnotbeen published: but I read frequently in my newspaper that the Speaker interruptsmembers who speak of speeches having been published. "This is one of the inconsistencies," Mr. Ross proceeds, "resulting from the determination of the House not expressly to recognise the presence of strangers." Inconsistency there certainly is,—the inconsistency of making publication a breach of privilege, and allowing it to go on daily.

As strangers may be admitted into the House to hear debates, and not allowed to publish what they hear, so they may he admitted, subject to exclusion at certain times, or when the House chooses. And this is the case. The House, of course, retains the power of excluding them at any moment. They are always made to withdraw before the House goes to a division. This is a matter of practice, founded probably on some supposed reasons of convenience. Again, on any member desiring strangers to be excluded, the Speaker desires them to withdraw, without allowing any discussion.

I have only to notice one other observation of Mr. Ross's, which is the following:

"When I speak of strangers being admitted, it must not be supposed that this was done by order of the House. No, everything relating to the admission of strangers to, and their accommodation in the House of Commons, is effected by some mysterious agency, for which no one is directly responsible. Mr. Barry has built galleries for strangers in the new house; but if the matter were made a subject of inquiry, it probably would puzzle him to state under what authority he has acted."

I do not think there is anything mysterious as regards admission. I am fond of hearing the debates, and my parliamentary friends are very kind to me. Sometimes I content myself with an order from a member, which takes me into the hinder seats of the non-reporting strangers' gallery; sometimes, when I know beforehand of an interesting debate, I get one of my friends to put my name on the "Speaker's list," and I then take my seat on one of the two front rows of the strangers' gallery; sometimes, again, I go down on the chance, while the House is sitting; and if I am fortunate enough to find any one of any friends there, he generally brings me, in a few moments, an order from the Sergeant-at-arms, which takes me also to the front row of the strangers' gallery. Some benches under the strangers' gallery are reserved for peers, ambassadors, and peers' eldest sons. The Speaker and the Sergeant-at-arms give permission generally to foreigners, and sometimes to some other persons, to sit in these benches. I do not know which officer of the House of Commons superintends the admission of reporters. Ladies are admitted to the Black Hole assigned to them, by orders from the Sergeant-at-arms. I have no doubt that the Speaker and Sergeant-at-arms are responsible to the House for everything relating to the admission of strangers, and without taking upon myself to say what is the authority under which Mr. Barry has acted, I have no doubt that, in building galleries for strangers in the new house, he has done what is consistent not only with the long established practice, but, under the new order of 1845, with the theory of the House of Commons.

As regards the passage quoted by Mr. Jackson from theEdinburgh Review, the reviewer would probably allow that he had overlooked the new standing order of 1845; and Mr. Jackson will perceive that the recognition of the presence of strangers does not legalise the publication of speeches. The supposed difficulty in the way of legalising publication is, that the House of Commons would then make itself morally responsible for the publication of any libellous matter in speeches. I do not see the force of this difficulty. But the expediency of the existing rule is not a proper subject for discussion in your columns.

CH.

Whatever the present practice of the House of Commons with respect to strangers may be, it does not seem probable that it will soon undergo alteration. In the session of 1849 a Select Committee, composed of fifteen members, and including the leading men of all parties, was appointed "to consider the present practice of this House in respect of the exclusion of strangers." The following is the Report of the Committeein extenso(Parl. Pap., No. 498. Sess. 1849):

"That the existing usage of excluding strangers during a division, and upon the notice by an individual Member that strangers are present, has prevailed from a very early period of parliamentary history; that the instances in which the power of an individual Member to exclude has been exercised have been very rare: and that it is the unanimous opinion of your committee, that there is no sufficient ground for making any alteration in the existing practice with regard to the admission or exclusion of strangers."

This Report confirms the statement of Mr. Ross (p. 83.,antè), that within his experience of thirty-one years no change has been made in the present rule of the House upon this matter, which, it would seem, dates very far back. The Speaker was the only witness examined before the Committee, and his evidence is not printed.

Arun.

Morganatic Marriage(Vol. ii., p. 72.).—According to M., Ducange has connected this expression withmorgingab; but I have looked in vain for such connection in my edition of theGlossary(Paris, 1733). The truth most probably is, thatmorganatic, in the phrase "matrimonium ad morganaticam,"was akin to the Gothicmaurgjan, signifying, "to procrastinate," "to bring to an end," "to shorten," "to limit." This application of the word would naturally rise out of the restrictions imposed upon the wife and children of a morganatic marriage.

C.H.

Umbrellas(Vol. i., p. 415. 436.; ii. 25.).—In Swift's description of a city shower (Tatler, No. 238., October 17. 1710), umbrellas are mentioned as in common use by women:

"Now in contiguous drops the flood comes down,Threatening with deluge the devoted town;To shops, in crowds, the daggled females fly,Pretend to cheapen goods, but nothing buy;The Templar spruce, while every spout's abroach,Stays till 'tis fair, yet seems to call a coach;The tucked-up sempstress walks with hasty strides,While streams run down her oiled umbrella's sides."

"Now in contiguous drops the flood comes down,

Threatening with deluge the devoted town;

To shops, in crowds, the daggled females fly,

Pretend to cheapen goods, but nothing buy;

The Templar spruce, while every spout's abroach,

Stays till 'tis fair, yet seems to call a coach;

The tucked-up sempstress walks with hasty strides,

While streams run down her oiled umbrella's sides."

H.B.C.

U.U. Club, July 2.

Bands(Vol. ii., pp. 23. 76.)—Scarf.—I was glad to read Arun's explanation of the origin of the bands now worn by the clergy; which, however, seems merely to amount to their being an adoption of a Genevan portion of clerical costume. That they are the descendants of the ruff, there can be no doubt, just as wrist-bands have more recently succeeded to ruffles.

I cannot resist mentioning that an ingenious friend suggested to me, that the broad, stiff, laid-down collar, alluded to in the former part of Arun's communication, possibly gave rise to the modern band in the following manner:—When the scarf, still in use, was drawn over the shoulders and hung down in front, that part of the broad collar which was left visible, being divided up the middle, presented a shape and appearance exactly like our common bands. Hence, it was imagined, this small separate article of dress might have originated.

Is it Butler, Swift, or who, that says,

"A Chrysostom to smoothe his band in"?

Whenever this was written, it must have referred to our modern bands.

Who amongst the clergy areentitledto wear a scarf? Is it the badge of a chaplain only? or what circumstances justify its being worn?

Alfred Gatty.

July 1. 1850.

Bands(Vol. ii., p. 76.).—An early example of the collar, approaching to the form of our modern bands, may be seen in the portrait of Cardinal Beatoun, who was assassinated in 1546. The original is in Holyrood Palace, and an engraving in Mr. Lodge'sPortraits. The artist is unknown, but from the age of the face one may infer that it was painted about 1540.

C.H.

Jewish Music(Vol. ii., p. 88.).—See a host of authorities on the subject of Hebrew music and musical instruments in Winer'sRealwörterbuchvol. ii., pp. 120.seq., 3d edit. There is a good abstract respecting them in Jahn'sHebrew Antiquities, sect. 92-96.

C.H.

North Sides of Churchyards unconsecrated(Vol. ii., p. 55.).—In illustration of, not in answer to, Mr. Sansom's inquiry, I beg to offer the following statement. During a long series of years an average of about 150 corpses has been annually deposited in Ecclesfield churchyard, which has rendered it an extremely crowded cemetery. But, notwithstanding these frequent interments, my late sexton told me that he remembered when there was scarcely one grave to the north of the church, it being popularly considered that only suicides, unbaptised persons, and still-born children ought to be buried there. However, when a vicar died about twenty-seven years ago, unlike his predecessors, who had generally been buried in the chancel, he was laid in a tomb on the north side of the churchyard, adjoining the vicarage. From this time forward the situation lost all its evil reputation amongst the richer inhabitants of the parish, who have almost entirely occupied it with family vaults.

Whether the prejudice against the north side of our churchyard arose from an idea that it was unconsecrated, I cannot tell but I suspect that, from inherited dislike, the poor are still indisposed towards it. When the women of the village have to come to the vicarage after nightfall, they generally manage to bring a companion, and hurry past the gloomy end of the north transept as if they knew

Back to Index Next