"Prima salutantes atque altera continet hora;Exercet raucos tertia causidicos.In quintam varios extendit Roma labores,Sexta quies lassis ——"Martial, iv. 8.
"Prima salutantes atque altera continet hora;
Exercet raucos tertia causidicos.
In quintam varios extendit Roma labores,
Sexta quies lassis ——"
Martial, iv. 8.
These lines are the forenoon portion of Martial's well-known distribution of hours and occupation.
Taking these hours then, for the sake of simplification, at the equinox, when they assimilate in length to our modern hours and assuming it as granted that "quies lassis" refers to the noon-tide siesta, and therefore that "sexta" cannot signify any time previous to our twelve o'clock, or noon, I wish to ask the classical readers of "NOTES ANDQUERIES"—
1st. How far into the day are we carried by the expression "in quintam?"
2nd. If no farther than to a point equivalent to our eleven o'clock,A.M., in what way is the vacant hour between that point andsexta, or noon, accounted for by Martial?
A. E. B.
Leeds.
—A sermon of Dr. Pusey's contains the following beautiful illustrations of the danger of much knowledge and little practice:
"The pale cold light of the moon, which enlightens but warms not, putrifies what it falls upon."
Will any one inform me whether this is a physical truth, or only an allowable use of a popular opinion?
PHILIPHEDGELAND.
—Lightfoot, in hisFlora Scotia, vol. ii. p. 642., says—
"That in many parts of Scotland (the Highlands), at the birth of a child the nurse or midwife puts one end of a great stick of the ash-tree into the fire, and while it is burning receives into a spoon the sap or juice which oozes out at the other end, and administers this as the first spoonfuls of liquor to the new-born babe."—Phillip'sSylva Flora.
Why?
G. CREED.
—In John Minshieu'sDuctor in Linguas, published in 1617, the origin of this word is thus explained:—
"That a citizen's son riding with his father out of London into the country, and being a novice and merely ignorant how corn and cattle increased, asked, when he heard a horse neigh, what the horse did? His father answered, the horse doth neigh. Riding further he heard a cock crow, and said, doth thecock neightoo?"
I should not have troubled you with this story had I not been anxious to ascertain the real origin of the word "Cockney," about which Johnson seems to have been nearly as much in the dark as I am. For any other and more rational explanation I shall be much obliged, as well as by being informed from what source Minshieu derived this story of a cock and a horse, which I am confident I have met with elsewhere, and which is probably familiar to many of your readers.
H. C.
Workington.
—This term is well understood to mean those orders conferred in the church which elevate a deacon to the rank of a priest, capable of a full and entire performance of the duties of the Christian ministry. An interesting point has recently been stirred afresh, touching the validity of any ministerial commission which does not draw its authority from the imposition of episcopal hands. I am not proposing to start a controversial question, unsuited to the quiet and pleasant pages of "NOTES ANDQUERIES;" but there branches out from this question a Query solely relating to the Church of England, and involving no dispute; and therefore I beg to ask, whether our church holds that a bishop can confer the full orders of the priesthood without any concomitant laying on of the hands of the presbytery? The rubric in the office for the Ordering of Priests, says, "The Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of Priesthood:" and the Bishop then says, "Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands," &c. Is, then, the aid of the priestsessentialto the due performance of the rite? Does the expression "ourhands" mean both bishop's and priests' hands, as the joint instruments of conveying authority to do the work and office of a priest? Is there any instance of an Anglican bishop ordaining a priest without assistance? I am aware that Beveridge considers that the bishop's hands alone are sufficient; that it has never been the practice in the Greek or the Eastern churches for priests to take a part in the ceremony of conferring "full orders;" and that the custom of their doing so is referred to a decree of the Council of Carthage,A.D.398, whichsays, "When a priest is ordained, the bishop blessing him and laying the hand upon his head, let all the priests also, that are present, hold their hands upon his head, by the hands of the bishop." Without the slightest reference to which is really the orthodox method, I would merely ask, whether the Church of England couldlegallyforego the intervention of the priests, just as the Church of Scotland dispenses with the aid of bishops in the act of conferring "full orders?"
ALFREDGATTY.
—Can any correspondent furnish a derivation ofear-wigsuperior to the ones in vogue?
ΑΞΩΝ.
—I will thank any one to tell me on what grounds the stanzas called theSoul's Errandare reported to have been written by Sir Walter Raleigh the night before his execution. The first stanza is (memoriter)—
"Go, soul, the body's guest,Upon a thankless errant!Fear not to touch the best,The truth shall be thy warrant.Go, since I needs must die,And give the world the lie."
"Go, soul, the body's guest,
Upon a thankless errant!
Fear not to touch the best,
The truth shall be thy warrant.
Go, since I needs must die,
And give the world the lie."
It will be satisfactory to hear at the same time in what work they are to be found. A nobleman of high rank is said to have them engraved on a silver table of the period.
ÆGROTUS.
—What is the origin of the common sayingto call a spade, a spade? Is it an old proverb or a quotation? In a letter of Melancthon's to Archbishop Cranmer respecting the formularies of the Anglican Church, dated May 1st, 1548, the following sentence occurs, which seems to be another form of it:—
"In Ecclesiâ rectius,scapham, scapham dicere; nec objicere posteris ambigua dicta."
Isscapham, scapham dicere, I would also ask, a classical quotation, or a modern Latin version of the other expression?
W. FRASER.
[Mr. Halliwell, in hisDictionary, says, "The phraseTo call a spade a spadeis applied to giving a person his real character or qualities. Still in use." "I am plaine, I must needs calla spade a spade, a pope a pope."—Mar-Prelate's Epitome, p. 2.]
—At the risk of being thought somewhat ignorant, I beg for enlightenment with regard to the following passage extracted from a late number ofHousehold Words:—
"Now the first production of an author, if only three lines long, is usually esteemed as a sort of Prince Rupert's Drop, which is destroyed entirely if a person make on it but a single scratch."
If you, or some of your correspondents, would not think this too trivial a matter to notice, and would inform me what the allusion to "Prince Rupert's Drop" refers to, I should be very much obliged.
YRAM.
[For the history of Prince Rupert's Drops our correspondent is referred to our 100th Number, p. 234. These philosophical toys, which exhibit in the most perfect manner the effects of expansion and contraction in melted glass, are made by letting drops of melted glass fall into cold water. Each drop assumes an oval form with a tail or neck resembling a retort; and possesses this singular property, that if a small portion of the tail is broken off the whole bursts into powder with an explosion, and a considerable shock is communicated to the hand that grasps it.]
—Who first remarked, with reference to the murder of the Duc D'Enghien by Napoleon, "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder?"
T. ALLASON.
Furnival's Inn, Oct. 3. 1851.
[This saying has always been attributed to Talleyrand; and it is so clearly the remark of a clever politician, but lax moralist, that we have little doubt it has been very justly appropriated to that distinguished sayer of good things.]
—Can any of your readers oblige me with information respecting the Druidical remains at Arbor Lowe and Stanton Moor, in the Peak of Derbyshire? I am unable to find any but meagre notices; and in one or two so-called histories of Derbyshire, they are only casually mentioned. Also any particulars concerning the old family of the Ayres, who formerly lived at Birchever, and whose house still stands in a very ruinous condition at the foot of the Routor Rocks?
I have heard that some very singular histories are connected with the family.
H.
[Arbor Lowe and Stanton Moor will be found very fully described by that indefatigable Derbyshire antiquary Mr. Bateman, in hisVestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire, published in 1848.]
—Who was the Bishop of Worcester about the year 1697? I have a book by himOn the Sufferings of Christ, and it only states by Edward Bishop of Worcester. I presume it is Dr. Stillingfleet.
Σιγμα.
[This work is by Bishop Stillingfleet; the first edition was published in 1696, and Part II. in 1700, the year following the Bishop's death.]
—Is the present Lord Clifford lineally descended from the Lord Clifford who was Lord High Treasurertemp.Charles II., or whether he derives through any collateral branch?
CLERICUS.
[The present Lord Clifford, the eighth baron, is lineally descended from Thomas first Baron Clifford of Chudleigh, who was so created 22nd April, 1672.]
—Can any one inform me who translated this into Latin? I have a copy of an early edition, without printer's name or place of publication, and with the fictitious namePetri Suavis Polani; an anagram, though not an accurate one, ofPauli, Sarpis, Veneti. The date is 1622, and over it is the device of a man under a tree, round which a vine twines, with "non solus" on a scroll. At the foot of the title-page is a MS. note in the handwriting of Rev. Francis Boult, who was a dissenting minister in Shrewsbury about a hundred years ago. It would enable those who have access to public libraries (which I have not) to answer the question above proposed.Si scire cupias quis interpres hanc historiam ex Italico in Latinum sermonem verterit, consula opusculum Degorii Wheare, Relectiones Hyamales vocatum pag. 219 et 220.
E. H. D. D.
[This is the first edition of the very inaccurate Latin translation of Sarpi'sCouncil of Trent. The first two chapters were translated by Sir Adam Newton, and the last two by William Bedell, afterwards Bishop of Kilmore.]
—What is the meaning ofliverystables, and when were they first so called?
J. C. W.
[Livery, i.e.delivery, from the Frenchlivrer, to deliver. To the origin of this word (says Junius) these words of Chaucer allude, "that is the conisance of mylivery, to all my Servantsdelivered." Richardson also gives the following quotation from Spenser explanatory of it:—"Whatliveryis, wee by common use in England know well enough, namely, that it is allowance of horse-meate, as they commonly use the word in stabling, as to keepe horses atlivery:—the which word, I guesse, is derived ofliveringor delivering forth their nightly foode. So in great houses the livery is said to be served up for all night, that is, their evening's allowance for drinke. And livery is also called the upper weede which a serving man weareth, so called (as I suppose) for that it was delivered and taken from him at pleasure."—Spenser on Ireland.]
It may seem a little too late to notice a criticism nearly two years old; but, though I had casually looked at "NOTES ANDQUERIES," it is but lately that I have, with very great pleasure, read through the volumes which have appeared. I was therefore ignorant of some remarks relating to myself, which from time to time have been made. Greatly as I am open to the charge of too frequent inaccuracy in what I have published, I can defend myself from some strictures of your correspondents.
The first of these is contained in a letter signed CANTAB(Vol. i., p. 51.), and relates to a passage in myHistory of the Middle Ages, where I have said, on the authority of Mabillon, "Not one priest in a thousand in Spain, about the age of Charlemagne, could address a common letter of salutation to another." CANTABproduces the passage in Mabillon, which contains exactly what I have said; but assigns as a reason for it, that the Christians, that is, the clergy, had wholly devoted themselves to the study of Arabic and Hebrew books. And this excuse CANTABaccepts. "They were devoting all their energies to Arabic and Chaldean science, and in their pursuit of it neglected other literature. A similar remark might be made respecting many distinguished members of the university to which I belong." In order to make this a parallel case, it should be asserted, not that many senior wranglers would be at a loss in a Greek chorus, but that they cannot write a good English letter. CANTABseems to forget, that in the age of Charlemagne, all that was necessary towards writing a Latin letter in Spain was to substitute regular grammar for the corruptpatois, thelingua Romana rustica, which was soon to become Castilian. The truth is, that the reasons assigned by Mabillon's authority, whoever it might be, is wholly incredible. I am not convinced that it was more than a sarcasm on the ignorance which it affects to excuse. Does CANTABbelieve that the whole body of the Spanish clergy relinquished at once, not other literature, but the most elementary knowledge, for the sake of studying Arabic and Chaldee books? And this is not alleged to have been for the purpose of converting Moors and Jews, but as a literary pastime. They are expressly said to have neglected the Scriptures. The object that I had in view was to show the general ignorance of various nations in those ages and this charge of ignorance, as to what lay most open to the Spanish clergy, would hardly be alleviated, even if it were true, that some of them had taken to the study of Arabic.
Another criticism in Vol. i., p. 435., relating to what I have said inHist. of Literature, vol. iii. p. 149. (1st edition), concerning Campanella and Adami, is better founded, though your correspondent C. is himself not wholly accurate. I have said of Tobias Adami, that he "dedicated to the philosophers of Germany his ownProdromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ(Instauratiois, of course, an error of the press), prefixed to his edition of Campanella'sCompendium de Rerum Naturâ, published at Frankfort in 1617." C. says, "ThisProdromusis a treatise of Campanella's, not, as Mr. Hallam says, of Adami. Adami published theProdromusfor Campanella, who was in prison; and he wrote a preface, in which he gives a list of other writings of Campanella, which he proposes to publish afterwards. What Mr. Hallam calls an edition, was the first publication."
The wordsProdromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ, which appear only on the title-page, are of Adami himself, not of Campanella. The work of the latter is calledCompendium de Rerum Naturâ, and is printed, after the preface, with this running title. The error into which I fell was to refer the wordsProdromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæto the preface of Adami, and not to the entire work. It may be satisfactory to give the title-page, and one or two extracts from the preface:—
"Prodromus Philosophiæ Instaurandæ, id est, Dissertationis de Natura rerum Compendium, secundum sera principia, ex scriptis Thomæ Campanellæ præmissum, cum præfatione ad philosophos Germaniæ. Francofurt. 1617."
Prodromus, of course, means theavant-courierof a new philosophy; and this, I might think, was intended for Adami himself. But, on looking again at the preface, I perceive that it refers to theCompendium, which was to lead the way to ulterior publications.
"Præmittere autem hoc saltem opusculum visum nobis est, quo brevisἀνακεφαλαίωσιςphysicorum philosophematum conjecta est, ut judicia doctorum ex eo in Germania experiremur, exercitaremusque. Cui si operæ pretium videbitur, subjungemus posthac autoris pleniorem et concinniorem Epilogismum Philosophiæ Naturalis, Moralis et Politicæ, addito opusculo Civitatis Solis, quo idea ingeniosissima reipublicæ philosophiæ secundum naturam instituendæ proponitur."
I had at one time a doubt, suggested by the language of the title-page, whether theCompendium de Rerum Naturâwere not an abridgment of Campanella, by Adami himself. But the style has too much vigour and terseness to warrant this supposition. And the following passage in the preface leads us to a different conclusion:
"De stylo, si tam delicatæ, ut nostratium nonnullæ sunt, aures reperiantur, quibus non ubique ita accuratus,et ex scriptis mendosis interdum depravatus videatur, supervacuum puto excusare, cum philosophus non loquatur, ut loquatur, sed ut intelligi velit."
Your correspondent observes also: "What Mr. Hallam calls an 'edition,' was the first publication." Is not this rather hyper-critical? "First edition" is a familiar phrase, and Adam was surely an editor.
In Vol. iii., p. 241., it is said that "in 1811 these MSS. (viz. of Wilkes) were, I presume, in the possession of Peter Elmsley, Principal of St. Alban's Hall, as he submitted the Junius Correspondence, through Mr. Hallam, to Serjeant Rough, who returned the letters to Mr. Hallam." And it is asked, "Where now are the original Junius letters, and where the other MSS.?"
I have to answer to this, that I returned the Junius letters (I never had any others of Wilkes) to Mr. Elmsley some years before his death in 1825. They are, in all probability, in the possession of his representatives.
HENRYHALLAM.
More than a few of your contributors have, I trust, concurred with me in hoping, if not expecting, that something will be done to effect the object presented to our notice through M.'s most judicious suggestion. It will be admitted that now, for about thirty years, the study of the history of early printing has been commonly neglected, frequently despised. The extent of the advance or decline of any science in general estimation can always be accurately computed by means of a comparative view of the prices demanded at different periods for the works which treat of it; and it is unquestionable, that books on bibliography, which once were highly rated, have latterly become (at least to those who have them already) provokingly cheap. In fact, unless some measures be adopted to revive a taste for this important branch of learning, the next generation will be involved in decrepitude and darkness with respect to typographical antiquities.
M. has incidentally asked, "Dodifferent bookscirculate under the title ofFasciculus Temporum?" I should say, strictly speaking, Certainly not. But there is a sense in which the supposition is perfectly true; for we not only meet with the genuineFasciculusof 1474, by Wernerus Rolevinck de Laer, but have also to encounter the same work as it was interpolated by Heinricus Wirezburg de Vach, and published for the first time in 1481. Ratdolt's edition of 1484, which M. used, does not contain the remarkable substituted passage in which the author was compelled to record theinvention, instead of thepropagation, of printing; and it would appear, therefore, that that impression does not belong to the Wirezburgian class. I have been surprised at finding that Pistorius and Struvius have reprinted the sophisticated, and not the authentic, book; and it is curious to see the introduction of an "&c." along with other alterations in the account given of the death of Henry VII. from the reception of a poisoned Host.
M. will instantly perceive that we cannot safely trust in aFasciculus Temporumof, or after, the date 1481; but I can answer for the agreement of the impression of Colon. 1479 with theeditio princeps. The citations respecting the Gutenberg Bible are not from theFasciculus Temporum, but fromDie Cronica van der hilliger Stadt van Coellen,A.D. 1499; the testimony of which (or rather of Ulric Zell related therein) as to the origin of printing is very well known through the Latin translation of it supplied by B. de Mallinckrot. (Clement, vii. 221.; Meerman, ii. 105.; Marchand,Hist. de l'Imp., ii. 4. 104.; Lambinet, 132.)
R. G.
It would have been more courteous in H. C. K. to have requested me to exhibit my authority for the assertion that the pendulum phenomenon had been latterly attributed to differences in the earth's superficial velocity, than to have assumed that explanation as having originated with myself. There is certainly nothing to justify H. C. K. in calling it "A. E. B.'s theory;" on the contrary, my avowed object was to suggest objections to it, and even my approval of it was limited to this, that, providing certain difficulties in it could be removed, it would then become the most reasonable explanation as yet offered of the alleged phenomenon,—the only one, I might have added, that I had the slightest hope of comprehending.
I can understand what is meant by the parallelism of the earth's axis; and, with the slight exceptions caused by precession and nutation, I takethatto be the standard offixity of direction in space. When, therefore, I am told that the plane of a pendulum's oscillation is also fixed in direction, and yet that it is continually changing its relative position with respect to the other fixity, the axis of the earth, not only does it not present to my mind a comprehensible idea, but it does present to it a palpable contradiction of the commonest axiom of philosophy.
I am therefore in a disposition of mind the reverse of H. C. K.'s; that which to him is only "hard enough to credit," to me is wholly incomprehensible; while that which to him is "utterly impossible to conceive," appears to me a rational hypothesis in which I can understand at least the ground of assertion.
H. C. K. asks me to "reduce to paper" the assertion of the difference of velocity between two parallels of latitude ten feet apart. He is not surely so unphilosophical as to imagine that a theory, to be true, must necessarily be palpable to the senses. If the element of increase exist at all, however minute and imperceptible it may be in a single oscillation, repetition of effect must eventually render it observable. But I shall even gratify H. C. K., and inform him that the difference in linear circumference between two such parallels in the latitude of London would be about fifty feet, so that the northern end of a ten-feet rod, placed horizontally in the meridian, would travel less by that number of feet in twenty-four hours than the southern end. This, so far from being inadequate, is greatlyin excessof the alleged apparent motion in the plane of a pendulum's vibration.
In the remarks of another correspondent, E. H. Y. (Vol. iv., p. 177.), there is but one point that seems to require observation from me; it is his assertion that "there is no force by which a body unconnected with the earth would have any tendency to rotate with it!" Is then the rotation of forty miles of atmosphere, "and all that it inherit," due to friction alone? And even so, can any object, immersed in that atmosphere, be said to be "unconnected with the earth"?
A. E. B.
I have not yet thanked LORDBRAYBROOKEfor the obliging manner in which, in reply to my inquiry, he furnished a list of the reputed authors of "Winifreda." His recent note on the same subject gives me an occasion for doing so, while expressing my concurrence in his view that G. A. Stevens was not the author. In short, it may be taken now I think as an established fact, that the author is unknown.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that this poem was written in any part of the seventeenth century. It appears to me to be the work of a true poet in the most vicious age of English poetry, and infected with all its faults. Weakened with epithets, and its language poor and artificial, it rises to nature at the close, than which nothing of the kind can be much better. In the following stanza I do not altogether like the personification of Time:—
"And when with envy, Time transported,Shall think to rob us of our joys,You'll in your girls again be courted,And I'll go wooing in my boys."
"And when with envy, Time transported,
Shall think to rob us of our joys,
You'll in your girls again be courted,
And I'll go wooing in my boys."
A likely thought, truly, for a boy of sixteen! My own impression is, that it did not long precede the age of "the little folks on Strawberry Hill."
Since writing the above I have referred to my copy of Steven's songs, which I had not at hand before. It is the Oxford edition mentioned by LORDBRAYBROOKE; and although it does not contain "Winifreda," a clue, it appears to me, may be drawn from it as to Stevens's connexion with this piece. In the first place, it is to be remarked that the title of the book is,Songs, Comic and Satyrical, by George Alexander Stevens. The motto is from the author'sLecture on Heads, "I love fun!—keep it up!" These circumstances are important, as one would hardly expect to find "Winifreda" in such a volume, though it were by the same author. Yet, there is a song which, though written in a more lilting measure, is quite as much out of place; and this song shows evidence, in my opinion, of Stevens having known and admired "Winifreda." It is entitled "Rural Felicity," and is to be found at page 71 of the volume. Compare the two following stanzas with the last two of "Winifreda:"—
III."He smiles on his babes, as some strive for his knee,And some to their mother's neck cling,While playful the prattlers for place disagree,The roof with their shrill trebles ring.VI."I remember the day of my falling in love,How fearful I first came to woo;I hope that these boys will as true-hearted prove,And our lasses, my dear, look like you."
III."He smiles on his babes, as some strive for his knee,And some to their mother's neck cling,While playful the prattlers for place disagree,The roof with their shrill trebles ring.
III.
"He smiles on his babes, as some strive for his knee,
And some to their mother's neck cling,
While playful the prattlers for place disagree,
The roof with their shrill trebles ring.
VI."I remember the day of my falling in love,How fearful I first came to woo;I hope that these boys will as true-hearted prove,And our lasses, my dear, look like you."
VI.
"I remember the day of my falling in love,
How fearful I first came to woo;
I hope that these boys will as true-hearted prove,
And our lasses, my dear, look like you."
"Rural Felicity," however, though in a purer style than "Winifreda," can hardly be said to rise to poetry at all; and if the latter had been by the same author, it is most improbable that he would have excluded it from the volume containing the former. Looking at the two songs together, one is an evident imitation; and the conclusion I should come to with regard to the other is, that it was written by a man whoknewthe feeling he describes; by one of whom it could not be said, "He has no children;" by one to whom that more than identity of interest that centres in the—
"Unselfish self, the filial self of twain,"
"Unselfish self, the filial self of twain,"
was a familiar feeling. Stevens, perhaps, had repeated the poem, or made a copy of it, and thus gained the credit of being its author.
I am surprised that your correspondent T. W. should find any difficulty in the passage he quotes fromChilde Harold:
"Thy waters wasted them while they were free,And many a tyrant (has wasted them) since."
"Thy waters wasted them while they were free,
And many a tyrant (has wasted them) since."
This mode of expression is only faulty when ambiguous; but here of ambiguity there is none.
SAMUELHICKSON.
As CANONICUSEBORACENSISconsiders that I have "not exactly hit the mark" in inferring that "the Lords, the Clergyin Convocation, and the Commons" are the "Three Estates of England" named in the Gunpowder Treason Service, I would claim, being not yet altogether convinced by CANON. EBOR.'Sarguments that such is the case, a share of your space for discussing a question which must certainly be interesting to all who uphold "our Constitution in Church and State." My apology for prolixity must be, that having but just received "NOTES ANDQUERIES" I have not had time to study brevity.
The passages, which contain the expressions referred to in the Service, are as under:—
"We yield Thee our unfeigned thanks and praise for the wonderful and mighty deliverance of our gracious Sovereign King James the First, the Queen, the Prince, and all the royal branches,with the Nobility, Clergy, and Commons of England, then assembled in Parliament, by popish treachery appointed as sheep to the slaughter, in a most barbarous and savage manner, beyond the examples of former ages."—The First Collect at Morning Prayer.
"By discovering and confounding their horrible and wicked enterprise, plotted and intended this day to have been executed against the Kingand the whole State of England, for the subversion of the government and religion established among us."—The Litany.
"Acknowledging Thy power, wisdom, and goodness in preserving the King,and the Three Estates of the Realm of England, assembled in Parliament, from the destruction this day intended against them."—The Communion Service.
"Who on this day didst miraculously preserveour Church and Statefrom the secret contrivance and hellish malice of popish conspirators."—After the Prayer for the Church Militant.
CANON. EBOR. asserts that these Three Estates (the word "estates" being used of course in its second intention, as meaning the representatives, and not the ordersen masse) are "the Lords Spiritual," "the Lords Temporal," and "the Commons," representing severally the clergy, the nobility, and the commonality. As "the Lords Spiritual" are always placed before "the Lords Temporal," he is obliged to rankthe clergybeforethe nobilityin spite of the order of precedency observed in the Collect. This seems to show that the clergy are not represented by the bishops. And in the Coronation Oath they are separately specified:
"And will you preserve untothe bishops and clergy of the realm, and to the churches committed to them, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them?"
This in an older oath ran thus:
"Et quil gardera le peas de seynt Egliseet al clergieet al people de bon accorde."
From these quotations it does not seem very faulty to infer, that the clergy as represented by Convocation are the second Estate of the realm; and are not, as represented by "the Lords Spiritual," the first, which is the Estate of the nobility represented by the Peers.
Against this CANON. EBOR.'Sarguments are two: first, "that the phrase 'assembled in Parliament' has no application to the Convocation;" and next, that the "Convocation does not sit at Westminster."
With regard to the first, I have to say that it was somewhat late in our history that the point was settled that Convocation was not a part of Parliament. In Mr. Palin's recently publishedHistory of the Church of England, ch. x. p. 242., I read, with respect to the dissolution of the Convocation of 1701,—
"With the presentation of this document the Convocation dispersed, both the King and the Prolocutor being now dead; and in the act that empowered theParliament to sit after the king's death, no provision was made to continue the Convocation. The Earl of Rochester moved, in the House of Lords, that it might be considered,whether the Convocation was not a part of the Parliament, and whether it was not continued in consequence of the act that continued the Parliament. But that was soon let fall; for the judges were all of opinion that it was dissolved by the king's death."
InA Reconciling Letter, &c., a pamphlet published in 1702:
"Pray inform me to which notion I may subscribe; whether to the Convocation being a Parliamentary body, andpart of Parliament, as Dr. A. has made it? Or to the Convocation having a Parliamentary relation, and such an origin and alliance," &c.
On going back to an earlier date:—In Statutis 21 Richard II. c. 2., and 21 Richard II. c. 12. the preambles state that—
"These statutes were made by the assentof the procurators of the clergy, as well asof other constituent membersof parliament."
And we know that theProcuratores Clerioccasionally sat in parliament in the Lower House, as the Judges do now in the Upper: in a treatise quoted by Coke (De modo tenendi Parliamentum)—
"It appeareth that the proctors of the clergy should appear, 'cum præsentia eorum sit necessaria' (which proveth they were voiceless assistants only), and having no voices, and so many learned bishops having voices, their presence is not now holden necessary."—4 Inst. 5.
Perhaps they were not altogether voiceless, for we find that on Nov. 22, 1547, a petition was presented by the Lower House of Convocation to the Upper, the second clause of which was—
"2dly. That the clergy of the lower house of Convocation may be admittedto sit in Parliament with the House of Commonsaccording to antient usage."
In support of this, the clausePræmunientesin the writ directing the elections of Proctors was appealed to. This "Præmunitory Clause," which at a later period of the history of Convocation was the cause of much discussion, ran thus:—
"The Bishop was commanded to 'give notice to the (Prior or) Dean and Chapter of his Cathedral Church, and to the Archdeacons and all the clergy of his diocese, that the Prior, Deans, and Archdeacons, in their own persons, the chapter by one, and the clergy by two, proper proxies, sufficiently empowered by the said chapter and clergy,should by all means be present at the Parliament with himto do and to consent to those things, which, by the blessing of GOD, by their common advice happened to be ordained in the matters aforesaid, and that the giving this notice should by no means be omitted by him.'"
"The clergythus summoned to Parliamentby the King and Diocesan, met for the choice of their proxies; for this purpose the Dean or Prior held his chapter, and the Archdeacon his synod. The representatives being chosen in these assemblieswere sent up to Parliament, with procuratorial letters from the chapter and clergy to give them an authority to act in their names, and on the behalf of their electors."—Collier'sEccles. Hist., Part II. book iv.
Also—
"All the members of both Houses of Convocation have the same privileges for themselves and their servants asthe members of parliamenthave, and that by statute."—Chamberlayn'sMag. Brit. Notitia, p. 94.
It may be reasonably doubted, whether a little research would not afford further reasons for thinking that there was some ground for applying the phrase "assembled in Parliament" to Convocation.
With respect to the Convocations sitting at Westminster. The first Convocation of 1283 sat "at the New Temple;" the next was summoned on St. Matthew's day, 1294, to meetat Westminster. On April 22, 1523, a National Synod of both Convocations was heldat Westminsterby Cardinal Wolsey, the Papal Legate. The Convocation satat Lambethin 1555 and 1558. In 1586 and 1588, we find Convocation often sittingat Westminster. In 1624 the Upper House satat Christ Church, Oxford, and the Lowerat Merton College. On May 16, 1661, the Convocation met in "the Collegiate Churchat Westminster." The first Convocation of William III. had its amended commission brought to it on the 4th of December, while both Houses were sitting togetherin Henry VII.'s Chapel. The last Convocation of the same king met on the 10th of February, 1701, at St. Paul's, where they heard divine service, and then went to the chapter-house, where they chose for their prolocutor Dr. Hooper. On the 25th of February, the Lower House was sitting in Henry VII.'s Chapel; and on the 6th of March they were both sittingin the Jerusalem Chamber: wheretwice in this present year it has sat. It is true that the writ which summoned James I.'s first Convocation called the clergy to appear before the archbishop "in our cathedral church of St. Paul in London, the twentieth day of March then next ensuing, or elsewhere, as he should have thought it most convenient;" and it seems that they did assemble "at the time and place before-mentioned;" yet, supposing they were not at Westminster then, they were in almost equal danger from the Popish Plot, as it is not likely they would have received any greater mercy at the hands of the conspirators.
I have always imagined that it was still a moot-point as to whether all the Estates everdeliberatedtogether in the presence of the sovereign. It is not generally known, I think, that they all re-assemble for the formal passing of every act: and with respect to the authority of all three being recited in the preamble, I beg to point out to CANON. EBOR. the following exceptions:—In the Act of Uniformity, the style of "Lords Spiritual" is omitted throughout, as every one of the bishops voted against it. It has also been ruled by thejudges that the King may hold a parliament without any Spiritual lords; and, in fact, the first two parliaments of Charles II. were so holden.
I will presume CANON. EBOR. intended to say that Prelates do not sit in the Upper House asPeers, otherwise the charge of "mistake" will fall upon Blackstone,Comm.book i. ch. 2.:
"The next in order are the Spiritual lords. These consist of two archbishops and twenty-four bishops; and at the dissolution of monasteries by Henry VIII. consisted likewise of twenty-six mitred abbots, and two priors: a very considerable body, and in those times equal in number to the temporal nobility. All these hold, or are supposed to hold,certain ancient baronies, under the king: for William the Conqueror thought proper to change the spiritual tenure of frank-almoign, or free alms, under which the bishops held their lands during the Saxon government, into feodal or Norman tenureby barony; which subjected their estates to all civil charges and assessments from which they were before exempt: and in right of succession to those baronies, which were unalienable from their respective dignities, the bishops and abbots were allowed their seats in the House of Lords."
Sir Matthew Hale divides the king's extraordinary councils into two kinds: 1. Secular or temporal councils; 2. Ecclesiastical or spiritual: the king's extraordinary secular councils being the Houses of the Peers and of the Commons; and the extraordinary ecclesiastical, the Upper and Lower Houses of Convocation.
Some illustration of this may be perhaps found in the following extract from an appendix toA Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House of Convocation, published by T. Bennet, London, 1701, in whichPrelatesare Spiritual Lords, whether Bishops or Abbots; and the phrase "full Parliament" seems equivalent to the ones used in the Gunpowder Treason Service:—
"When the several Estates were assembled infull Parliament, and received the King's commands concerning the business which they were to consider, and were adjourned by him to another day offull Parliament, in which they were to meet, and give their answer: the Clergy, and Lords, and Commons consulted in the mean time separately, ... Instances of this are not necessary, but one may be seen among the Records in the appendix to a late book call'dEssays concerning the Balance of Power, &c., and 'tis this: 6 Edw. III. Part 3. N. 1., on Tuesday in Full Parliament the King charged the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other Great Men, and the Knights of the Shires, and the Commons, that having regard to the honor and profit of his Realm, they should give him their counsel. The which Prelates with the Clergy by themselves, and the Earls and Barons by themselves, and the knights and others of the counties and the Commons by themselves, treated and consulted till Friday next, the day assigned for the next session, and therein full Parliament, each by themselves and afterward all in common, answered."
The formation and development of Convocation, at least that of Canterbury, presents a great analogy to the English Parliament; as that of York does to the Scottish Parliament.
We must remember that before the Norman times, the clergy were exempt from all taxation; inasmuch as "they held in Frankalmoigne," that is, held their lands, &c., on free alms "in liberam eleemosynam." Littleton (lib. ii. c. 6. s. 135.) says:
"And they which hold in Frankalmoigne are bound of right before God to make orisons, prayers, masses, and other divine services for the soul of their grantor or feoffer, and for the souls of their heirs which are dead," &c.
The king's succeeding William the Conqueror tried to make the clergy contribute to the public exchequer, but were effectually resisted. In order to surmount the difficulty, King John (A.D. 1206) summoned all the priors and abbotsto parliament, and obtained from them a vote of athirteenth: and then wrote to the archdeacons to get the same from the clergy generally. Edward I. rendered this scheme for the taxation of the clergy complete. He applied to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to assemble, bytheir canonical authority, the convocations of each province; and these Metropolitans, moved by the King's writ (the same practice is settled now), summoned these bishops and clergy.
The earliest royal writ, summoning a provincial synod, is dated Nov. 24, 1282, and calling them to meet atNorthampton: "Venire ...coram nobisapud Northampton."
This Convocation assembled at Northampton; and we find another mandate from the Archbishop to the dean of the province, directing him to summon the bishops and clergy to a Convocation for the 9th of May, 1283, at theNew Temple(now the Inner and Middle Temples), pursuant to a resolution of the Convocation of Northampton. At this Convocation, the proctors of the clergy refused to pay the tenth. Eleven years after, we find Edward summoning the whole body of the bishops and clergy toWestminsteron St. Matthew's day, 1294. His writ orders "The dean and archdeacon to appear in their proper persons, the chapter by one, and the clergy of the diocese by two procurators." The clergy objected to this writ as uncanonical, and claimed to be convoked only by their Metropolitans; as tending to abolish their provincial synods convened by regular ecclesiastical authority, and to establish in their place a parliamentary chamber under secular authority. The King, finding them so opposed to his project of thus making them a part of the Third Estate, reverted to the established practice, and addressed his writs to the Archbishops; whereupon the Metropolitans issued their mandates, Convocations met, and subsidies were voted.
An important result followed this struggle (see 2 Lingard, p. 375.), viz., that the procurators of the common clergy of each diocese (in compliance with the direction on the Kings writ) were admitted asconstituent membersof these and all subsequent Convocations; the archdeacons, before this time, being considered as their representatives, who probably were furnished with letters of procuration from them.
The constitution of the English Convocation may be said to be finally established in the reign of Edward I., and it has so continued to the present day; except that in 1665 the clergy in Convocation gave up the privilege of self-taxation, and received in return that of voting for the House of Commons, losing thereby one distinctive sign of their being "an Estate of the Realm."
WILLIAMFRASER, B.C.L.
P.S. The error which my former note was intended to correct was not utterly a "cockney" one, as the following Proposition, condemned in 1683, by the University of Oxford, together with several others contained in the books of the time, as "damnable and destructive," will show:—
"The sovereignty of England is inthe Three Estates, viz. King, Lords, and Commons. The King has but a co-ordinate power, and may be overruled by the other two."Lex Rex. Hunter of a limited and mixed Monarchy.Baxter'sH. C. Polit. Catech.See Collier'sEccl. Hist., Part 2. Book ix.
The derivation of these terms, as applied to the two extreme parties in politics, is a much vexed question, which will probably never be satisfactorily settled. That staunch Tory, Roger North, in hisExamen, has referred the origin of the name of his party to their connexion with the Duke of York and his popish allies.
"It is easy (says North) to imagine how rampant these procurators of power, the Exclusioners, were under such circumstances of advantage as at that time prevailed; everywhere insulting and menacing the royalists, as was done in all the terms of common conversation, and the latter had the wind in their faces, the votes of the house and the rabble into the bargain. This trade, then not much opposed, naturally led to a common use of slighting and opprobrious names, such as Yorkist. That served for mere distinction, but did not scandalize or reflect enough. Then they came to Tantivy, which implied riding post to Rome. Observe, all the while the loyal church party were passive; the outrage lay wholly on the other side. These observing that the Duke favoured Irishmen, all his friends, or those accounted such by appearing against the Exclusion, were straight become Irish; thence bog-trotters, and in the copia of the factious language, the wordTorywas entertained, which signified the most despicable savages among the wild Irish; and being a vocal and clear sounding word, readily pronounced, it kept its hold, and took possession of the foul mouths of the faction."
Burton, in vol. ii. of hisParliamentary Diaryon the state of Ireland, under date of June 10, 1657, has the following passage:
"Tory is said to be the Irish wordToree, that is,Give me, which was the summons of surrender used by the banditti, to whom the name was originally applied."
In support of this assertion it may be as well to state that Tory or Terry Island, on the coast of Donegal, is said to have taken its name from the robbers by whom it was formerly infested. Dr. Johnson also supports Burton's derivation of the word; he calls it a cant term, which he supposed to be derived from an Irish word, signifying a savage. Mr. G. O. Borrow (alias Lavengro), who has devoted much attention to the Celtic dialect, in a paper which he contributed some years back to theNorfolk Chronicle, suggested that the etymology of the word Tory might be traced to the Irish adherents of Charles II. during the Cromwellian era; the wordsTar-a-Ri(pronounced Tory, and meaningCome, O King), having been so constantly in the mouths of the Royalists as to have become a by-word to designate them. So much for the wordTory, which from these premises is evidently of Irish origin. We now come to consider the derivation of the termWhig, concerning which there is not quite such a diversity of opinion. The first authority we will quote shall be Burnet, who says:
"The south-west counties of Scotland have seldom corn enough to serve them round the year; and the northern parts producing more than they need, those in the west come in the summer to buy at Leith the stores that came from the north; and from a word, Whiggam, used in driving their horses, all that drove were called Whiggamors, and shorter, the Whiggs. Now, in that year (i.e.1648), after the news came down of Duke Hamilton's defeat, the ministers animated their people to rise and march to Edinburgh; and they came up marching on the head of their parishes with an unheard-of fury, praying and preaching all the way as they came. The Marquis of Argyle and his party came and bearded them, they being about 6000. This was called the Whiggamors' inroad, and ever after that, all that opposed the court came in contempt to be called Whiggs; and from Scotland the word was brought into England, where it is now one of our unhappy terms of disunion."—Burnet'sHistory of his own Times, vol. i. p. 43.
Such is Burnet's account of the derivation of this word, in which he is followed by Samuel Johnson, who has transcribed the above passage in hisDictionary. Kirkton also, in hisHistory of the Church of Scotland, edited by C. K. Sharpe, Esq., in 1817, adheres to the same opinion: under the year 1667, he says:
"The poor people, who in contempt were called Whiggs, became name-fathers to all that owned one honest interest in Britain, who were called Whiggs after them, even at the court of England."
That the term Whig was originally from Scotland, I believe is a well-ascertained fact; but while some of our etymologists follow the opinion of Burton, others, with (as I think) greater show of reason, adhere to the opinion of Roger North and the historians Laing and Lingard, all of whom were of opinion that the original Scotch Whigs were called so, not, as Burnet supposes, from the word used by them in driving their horses, but from the word Whig being vernacular in Scotland for sour whey, which was a common drink with the people.
DAVIDSTEVENS.
Godalming.