1831.] The Privilege of Bouche at Court. the Household, were permitted to have eating in the hall," being expressly stipulated. I will select the paragraphs which relate to this important part of their privileges: "A Duke shall have etyng in the hall one knyghte, a chapleyn, iii esquyers, iii yoemen.' "A Marques shall have etyng in the King's hall one knyght, a chapleyn, iii esquiers, ii yomen besides hym that kepith still his chambre." "A Counte to have in the King's hall etyng, a chapleyn, or a knyght, ii esquiers, ii yomen." "A Bisshop Confessour shall have etyng in the hall, a chapleyn, one esquier, one yoman." "A Viscount shall have in the hall etyng one chapleyn, one esquier, one yoman.' "A Baron shall have etyng in the hall a gentilman and a yoman." "A Chamberlayn for the King in Household have etynge in the hall ii esquiers, ii yomen." may "The Knyghtes of Chaumbre," who were four Banneretts or Bachelor Knights that acted as Carvers and Cupbearers, "everych of them shall have a gentilman and yoman eatyng in the hall." Knyghts of Household, xii, whereof iiii to be continually abydyng and attending on the King's person in Courte, everyche of them shall have etyng in the hall" [i. e. for themselves], and their" iii yomen to ete dayly in the hall with the Chamberlaynes [yomen.]" "A Secretary shall have eting in the hall one gentilman." 66 Chapleyns, iiii, or more as it pleasith the Kinge; whereof ii alwayes in the chambre be sitting at meales, such as say the day matyns masse before the King for graces; that other ii in the hall with persones of like servyse. Item, eche of them hath eting in the hall a yoman at the Chaumberlaynes bourde." "A Surveyour for the Kyng eateth in the hall." "Gentylmen Usshers of Chaumbre, iiii, whereof one or ii contynually sittith at metes and sopers in the King's chaumbre, to see every thing don in dew order, and to kepe silence; that other to be etyng in the hall with a person of like servyse, so that one be walking at the recorde of the King's chaumbre." "Yeomen of Crowne, xxiiii. In the King's chaumbre be dayly sitting iiii messes of yeomen, and all the remanent etyng in the hall, sitting togeder above joyning to the Yeomen of Household." Of the ten Grooms of the Chamber some were to dyne and soupe in the hall with Yomen of Houshold." 307 "Children of Chapell, viii, etyn in the hall dayly at the chapell bourde, next the Yomen of Vestyary." "Clerke of Closette, eteth in the hall chappell gentylmen.” with the Sergeaunt of the Vestyary, by the "Maistyr of Gramer, taking his metę in the hall, sitting with the Sergeaunt of Vestyary and Clerk of Closett." "STYWARD OF HOUSHOLDE hath dayly in the hall etyng one chapleyn, two esquiers, four yomen." "Thesaurere of Householde hath dayly, whyles he is present in courte, one chapleyn, two esquires, two yomen, etyng in the halle." "Countroller of this Houshold Royall, whyles he is present in courte, hathe etyng in the halle, one gentylman, one yoman.' “Cofferer of the King's Houshold, hath etyng in the halle, one under Clerke contynually to wryte his resceytes and payments, &c." "Clerkys of Grene-clothe, tweyne; they etyn in the hall with a person of like servyce, or elles with some straunger of wurship to sitte with them." "Clerke of Controulment: his Under 308 The Privilege of Bouche at Court. Clerk ete in the hall, not served with trenchers, but as squyers." "Offyce of Countyng-House; one yoman called Messager of the Countynghouse, etyng in the hall." [With regard to this last named officer, we find the term “bouche oute of courte;" his wages when in the court were iiid., and "for bouch out of courte, in message, iid. more dayly." In the "Office of Aletakers" also, the Yeoman and Groom, when absent on purveyance, had dayly for bouche out of courte 1d. ob."] "Office of Bakehouse; the Sergeaunt etith in the hall;" and the "Clerk etyth in the halle with yomen; one yoman in this office for the King's mouthe,* other three Yeomen Purveyours, and one Yoman Furnour, had also the same privilege; as had also the Groome for the Mouthe, and Groome Garnetour, who were served with the Groomes of the Towell. Other vii groomes, called laborers, not etyng in the King's hall." Office of Panetry: the Sergeaunt etythe in the hall;" the Grooms were the servants employed as waiters at table. "Office of Waferes, hathe one Yoman making wafyrs; this yoman etithe in the hall;" as did the Groom. "Office of Purveyours of Wine, fower yomen; this [sic] yoman etynge in the halle with yomen. "Office of Sellar, a Yoman and Groom eating in the hall.” "Pycher-house and Cup-house; twoe yomen eate in the halle at the Towell." "Office of Ale-takers; a Yoman sitting in the halle with other Yomen of Houshold ;" and a Groom, who "eatyth in the halle at the Towell." "Officer of Greate Spycerye; the Chief Clerke eateth in the halle; a Secundary Clerke taketh servyce in the hall lyke gentyl men." "Office of Confectionarye;" a Serjeant, sitting with the other Serjeants in the hall. A "Groome eateth in the halle at the Towell." "Office of Chaundlerye; a Sergeant, three Yeomen, and two Grooms;" the same. "Office of Ewary and Napery;" a Serjeant, a Yeoman for the King's Mouth, a Groom for the same, two Yeomen Ewars and two Grooms, were fed in like manner." "Office of Lavendery; two Yeomen, who eat in the hall with the Yeomen of the Household." That is, who provided for the King's own eating. The care taken in this particular may afford matter for illustration on another occasion. [April, We here see the daily use made in the reign of Edward the Fourth of the magnificent Hall at Westminster; and can readily conceive that, at the time of Parliament, or when for other reasons the Sovereign summoned his peers around him, there might even in that spacious area be no unoccupied space. By the time of Henry the Eighth, however, some change in manners had taken place. The "hall" was not always "kept;" and when it was, it was found that many persons preferred privacy. In the ordinances made at Eltham in the 17th year of that Monarch, 1526, it is noticed "that sundry noblemen, gentlemen, and others, doe much delight and use to dyne in corners and secret places, not repairing to the King's chamber nor hall, nor to the head officers of the household when the hall is not kept, by reason whereof the good order of the chamber and household is greatly impaired, and the said officers oftentimes destitute of company at their boords, and such viand as is allowed to be spent in the King's house, appeareth not to be employed and dispensed to the King's honour;" fresh regulations were in consequence made for a better attendance in future.* At the end of the same Ordinances+ is "A declaration of Bouche of Courte," being a description of the several provisions and proportions "to be served to everie person being of the ordinary of the King's honourable house, accordinge to their degrees." The rank of the individual did not make much difference; and as a specimen of the whole, may be quoted the allowance to "The Queen's Maides. "Among them for their Bouch in the morning, one chet lofe [a loaf of inferior bread], one manchet [fine bread], one gallon of ale; for afternoones one manchett, one gallon of ale; for after supper, one chet lofe, one manchet, two gallons of ale, dim' pitcher of wyne; and from the last day of October unto the first day of Aprill three lynckes by the weeke, by the day six sises, one pound white lights, six talshides, six faggots, and .........................; amounting by the yeare to the sume of xxiiiil. xixs. xd.' This Bouche appears to have been in addition to the more substantial meals of dinner and supper. * See "Royal Household Ordinances," 1831.] Royal Hospitality in England.—The Celts. When King James the First made some reductions in his Household expenses in 1604, among the alterations were, that the Serjeant Porter, in lieu of his allowance of five dishes of meat at a meal, and bouch at court, should have 160l. per annum ; that the King's physician "Doctor Cragge, shall have for his diett continuance the sume of 160l. per annum ;" that "Dr Marbecke, Phisition to our Household, shall have for his diett 5 dishes at a meale, his bouge of court being notwithstanding served unto him, and receive the summe of 1341. 18. 8d. per annum;" and "George Sheares, our Apothecary for the Household, 60l. per annum, beside allowance of bouge of court."* "A declaration of bouge of court " follows, being a general allowance for every person, very similar to that already quoted; and then, the allow ances of meat, instead of "eating in the hall;" for the palace of Westminster was now deserted for Whitehall, where there was no apartment like the noble hall of Rufus. On the establishment of the Household of Henry Prince of Wales in 1610, the "diett " for himself and his severall officers was arranged; § for the latter only dinner and supper; but "for the Prince's Highnes' Breakfast: "Manchet 2, cheate fine 2, cheate 4, beere 3 gallons, wine 1 picher, beefe 1 service, mutton 1 service, chickennes 2. "For collation after supper, manchet 1, beere 2 gallons, wine 1 picher." This answered to "the Bouge of Court" of his dependants; the allowance of which, delivered "per diem," apparently only once a day, is subsequently described. This term, if not the hospitality of ancient days, now disappears; and in the Household Ordinances of Charles the Second there is no mention of Bouge, nor any service of provisions, except at the stated meals. ¶ 309 It may be mentioned, before we leave the subject, that one of Skelton's satires is "The Bouge of Court," which is there a name given to a ship; and that in one of Ben Jonson's Court Masques is introduced as a character, a Groom of the Revels, whose business is described as "to fetch bouge of court—a parcel of invisible bread and beer for the players (for they never see it), or to mis-take six torches from the Chandry, and give them one."-Masque of Augurs. To revert to the "Bougiers" of the Court of Chancery, which first gave rise to the present investigation, it may be remarked that neither they, nor the Masters in Chancery, have occurred in the records we have been examining, as having received diet at the King's palace; they were possibly entertained by the Lord Chancellor, in some degree at the King's expense. In Edward the Fourth's "Liber Niger "it is mentioned that the Chancellor was allowed, "for his own householde use, for everey of the kalender of the yere, a dolium of wyne, bothe for to shewe of wynes the more largesse unto the Maisters of Chancery, as to sewtors, straungers, and resorters to his householde." J.G. N. Mr. URBAN, Mere, March 4. IN your Feb. number (p. 117), you inserted a few reflections of mine elicited by the letter of your Correspondent W.S. B. on the Celts; and I now beg the favour of a place for some further observations connected with the same subject. Your Correspondent thinks that the ancient inhabitants of Gaul, Spain, and the British islands, were all families of the same nation (the Celts); and that the dialects now used by the Welsh, Irish, Highlanders, Bretons, Basques, &c. are all derived from the original Celtic language. This, as I stated in my last letter, may be questioned, from objections which cannot be easily put aside. Cæsar, in the beginning of his Commentaries, says positively that Gaul ple, the Belge, the Aquitani, and the was inhabited by three kinds of peo Celte or Galli; and he adds, "Hi omnes linguâ, institutis, legibus inter se differunt." Without doubt they did differ from each other, because I suppose the Belge were a Gothic tribe, 310 Observations on the Belga, Aquitani, and Celta. and spoke a language like high or low It is idle to object that the languages were once alike, but that they have been corrupted by time. If the derivative or compound words of a language are formed from simples of its own, it is an original language; whether spoken by an original nation, or by a race descended from them. Now, with regard to Basque and High Dutch, (from which Low Dutch or Belgic is a little corrupted) this is the case; and, however corrupted Basbreton may be, yet, if it cannot trace its compound words to simples in Basque or Dutch, it follows that Basque, Dutch, and Bas-breton, are wholly and originally different languages, belonging to wholly different nations. But Cæsar says that the Belga, Aquitani, and Celtæ, differed from each other not only in language, but in [April, manners and laws. Now, if they were one nation, they could not have gone off into different manners from living without intercourse with each other through distance, or from the influence of climate, because they were close together; and if a difference of language, manners, and laws, be not a proof of a difference of nation, it cannot be easily shown that the Germans, Tartars, or Romans, were not Celts. Having put down some reasons for thinking that the Belgæ, Aquitani, and Celta, were decidedly different nations, I will go back to my first propositions. And first, the Belge were a Gothic tribe, and spoke a language like High or Low Dutch. The modern Flemings, &c. are either the descendants of the Belge, or they are not. If they are, the Belga were undeniably a Gothic race; and if they are not, a Gothic nation must have come into the Netherlands, since the time of Cæsar, and so completely possessed the country, that there is not a trace of the Celtic language left in it: a thing that is not very likely, for the Goths that invaded Italy, France, and Normandy, did not plant their language there; nor did the Saxons wholly expel the Welsh and Gaelic from the British Islands. Secondly, The Aquitani were a race of the Vascones the other side of the Pyrenees, and spoke Vascuence or Basque. Part of Aquitania is now called Gascoigne, which, according to the French pronunciation of the word Gasconya, is evidently a corruption of Vasconia; the V being changed into G, as the French say le Prince des Galles, for the Prince of Wales; and the language of Gascogne is known to be a dialect of Vascuence or Basque. In addition to which, it is observed by Strabo, that the inhabitants of Aquitania were much more like the Spaniards than like the other Gauls; a proof, by the way, that the Vascones (Celts) of Spain were so unlike the Gauls, that there was room for an intermediate character between theirs, not strictly like that of either. Thirdly, The Celtæ or Galli were of one nation with the Britons, and spoke the language now used in Basse Bretagne and Wales: a proposition that I need not labour to prove, as it 1831.] Removal of the Inscriptions from the Monument defended. 311 is received by those who hold the theory of universal Celticism, as well as those who do not. I do not think that one can get much information about the original inhabitants of Belgium or Gaul from etymological researches on the Roman names of places in these countries. The Romans, like the Italians and others of our own time, called places by names that fitted the genius of their language, whether they were like the original ones or not. Who could trace the Dutch Antwerp through the Italian Anversa ? Deutschland through Germania? Sverge through Svezia? or the Italian Livorno through the English Leghorn? The next question that arises is, whether the Irish, Highlanders, and Welsh, are the same nation (Celts). The Irish and Highlands undoubtedly are; but the Welsh language is not a dialect of the Gaëlic. Dr. Shaw, the author of a Gaëlic Dictionary, lately told me that he could not understand a word of Welsh, though he could understand an Irishman as well as an inhabitant of the Western Islands of Scotland; and that he considered the Welsh and Gaelic races as wholly dif ferent nations. It may be asked, why then did the Romans, &c. call distinct nations by the very same name (Celta)? to which it may be answered, that if they did not do so, it follows that they called the very same nation by different names, as in the case of the three kinds of inhabitants in Gaul; and the latter is as great an impropriety as the former. W. BARNES. Mr. URBAN, IT was with no little astonishment that I perused in the Feb. number of your valuable Magazine, a letter under the signature of E. I. C. in which your Correspondent has thought proper to denounce, as the result of " a fit of affected liberality," the Resolution passed at a Court of Common Council of the City of London, held on the 6th of December last, directing the removal from the Latin inscription on the north face of the dado of the Monument the words "Sed furor Papisticus qui tam dira patravit nondum restinguitur," and also the inscription forming a continuous line on all the four sides of the plinth, the correct reading of which is as follows: "This Pillar was set up in perpetual remembrance of that most dreadful burning of this Protestant City begun and carried on by the treachery and malice of the Popish faction in the beginning of September in the year of our Lord 1666, in order to the carrying on their horrid plot for extirpating the Protestant religion and old English Liberty, and introducing Popery and Slavery." Now, Sir, how this resolution of the Common Council can be liable to the imputation thus cast upon it, I am at a loss to determine, and no less so, how your Correspondent can imagine that, "if this assembly had the government of Rome, we should see them directing the demolition of the arch of Titus, because it might give offence to the Jews." I am ready to admit that, if this resolution had been adopted only because the imputation it cast upon the Papists was untrue, there would be some propriety in the remark. I am, believe me, too much of an antiquary, -too sincerely devoted to that kind of knowledge of which your publication is so inestimable a store-house, to justify this proceeding on any such principle; if such a system were pursued, it requires no argument to prove that in the course of time, by the revolution of feelings and opinions, almost every record would become a sacrifice. If no better reason existed to authorize the destruction of which your Correspondent complains, I would have said of these inscriptions, let them remain to be frittered away by time, while we rejoice that the feelings which gave birth to them, have already been eradicated from that nobler monument, the human mind, by the omnipotent influence of truth. There is, however, a better reason, which I consider as not only sufficient to justify the measure, but to cause it to be lauded even by antiquaries; and when I consider the opinion entertained by your Correspondent, with regard to these inscriptions, I can only wonder that it should be necessary to remind him of it. It is evident by his letter, that he believes they were added in the year 1681 to the original inscriptions on the Monument; granting, then, this opinion to be correct, was not their erasure imperatively called for? Instead of the Common Council being repro |