« AnteriorContinuar »
almost inaccessible locality on the marshes, once so completely lost his reckoning of time that he donned his Sunday clothes, and went to church on Monday morning. Sutton is awarded its rather unflattering title from the tradition that its aged natives were wont to put their hands out of their bedroom windows to feel if it was daylight. The cleverness' of Catfield is imagined by some to arise from its 'eastward position' to Stalham (wise men came from the east), and from the old saying that if anything wonderful arose inquirers were requested to proceed to Catfield 'to know the truth of it.' The rawness' of Hempstead may possibly be attributed to its position on one of the bleakest portions of our eastern coast, and not from any want of polish on the part of its inhabitants. Many other parishes in our county have distinguishing names. It would be interesting, and possibly amusing, could some account be given of them." One is reminded of Shakspere's little excursion through "Piping Pebworth," &c., on the occasion when he fell asleep under a tree, a prey to Bacchus, one summer's day. A long list of these descriptive appellations might be made, many of which would be very amusing. Can any reader of N. & Q.' say how downright Dunstable" became an equivalent for being drunk? Norwich.
We must request correspondents desiring information on family matters of only private interest to affix their names and addresses to their queries, in order that the answers may be addressed to them direct.
MINIATURES BY GEORGE ENGLEHEART.-Can
any one inform me where I may meet with any of these ivories for the purpose of enumerating them in a catalogue that I am publishing of this artist's work, prefaced by a few remarks on those portraits that I have seen? Any information concerning his painting would be very interesting to the collectors, and especially to
H. L. D. E.
9, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C. PAINTING OF ELAINE' BY WALLIS.-Can any of your readers tell me what has become of Henry Wallis's painting 'Elaine'? It was painted for Mr. Flint, and sold in his collection at his death, but I do not know the dates.
GEO. G. T. TREHERNE.
THE HIPPODROME.-Where was this building situated in the London suburbs; when was it erected; and for what purposes? The Hippodrome at Constantinople was, according to Gibbon, one of the stateliest structures in the world. In the Brownrigg Papers,' by Douglas Jerrold, published originally in the New Monthly Magazine about 1839, the London structure is amusingly alluded to in a letter purporting to be written by "Miss Dorothy Nibs, of Mousehole, to Gustavus Nibs, Gent-at-Arms, Pimlico," her brother. The corrupting influence of it seems, according to the
letter, to have even affected a preparatory school for young gentlemen in the Bayswater Road, kept by a strict maiden lady named Miss Buddingbirch, and the small boys to have learnt the habit of gambling. Before its establishment they were accustomed to take their whippings from the birch of their governess in silence,
"but now, since the introduction of vicious racers near the school, not one of the children will receive even what she calls the most moderate physical remonstrance without considerable kicking." JOHN PICKFORD, M.A.
Newbourne Rectory, Woodbridge.
MONK FAMILY.-I should be much obliged if any correspondent of your valuable paper could afford information respecting the ancestry of John Monk, a cornet on half-pay of the 19th Light Dragoons (disbanded 1783-5). He wrote a work upon Farming in co. Leicester' in 1794 for the then New Board of Agriculture, and also compiled a 'Dictionary of Agriculture,' in five volumes. He was sent to Devon by the Board of Agriculture, where he married a Miss Prestwood Cove, and lived at Bearscombe and at Torquay. The date of his birth was January 22, 1762. Mr. John Monk had two brothers, viz., James and William, and seven sisters, Mary, Katherine, Elizabeth, Sarah, Hannah, Lydia, and Amelia. R. A. COLBECK.
38, Albert Street, Kennington Park. ENGRAVING.-I lately bought an engraving of Miss Nancy Walpole, and underneath were written the following lines :
Miss Nancy Walpole.
She became Mrs. Atkyns Ketteringham.
But living from her love.
COPPLESTONE FAMILY.-I shall be glad to be put on the track of this family. Can any one inform me whence Kingsley obtained the following couplet, which appears in his 'Westward Ho!' ?—
Crocker, Cruwys and Copplestone
When the Conqueror came were all at home. Is there any connexion between the village of Copplestone, in Devonshire, and this family? Was Barton of Warleck (or Warlake), in Devonshire, the family seat? S. W. R.
GAELIC. I find in the New Testament the form bhios (=bithidh), “shall be "; also chunnacas, fhuaras, for was seen," ". was found," instead of chunnacadh, jhuaradh. In such grammars as I
have this inflection in s is not noticed. Is it a provincialism? EZTAKIT.
LELY FAMILY.-I have acquired a very prettily executed pedigree, with armorial bearings, of this family, by that industrious herald, Robert Cooke, Clarencieux. It was probably a Lincolnshire family, as its members married into the following houses, most of which belong to that county: Angeville of Thethelthorpe, Fulnetby, Bretofts, Leake, Littlebury of Fellingham, Mussenden of Heling, Langholme of Cornsholme, Skepwith, Gelbey of Staynton, Gedney of Hudderley, Friskeney, Ormesby, Somercote, &c. connexion with the family of the great Court painter, It can have no as Sir Peter's name was originally Van der Vaes, and he did not come from Holland till the century after this pedigree was drawn up, which must have been before 1532, the date of Cooke's death. Can any one give me information as to the family? J. B. P.
ARMS OF YEOMEN.-I have seen it stated that, according to Guillim's Heraldry,' yeomen, as such, could bear coat armour sans crest. This surprises me, for I always supposed that when a yeoman received a grant of arms he became a gentleman; hence no man could receive arms and continue to be a yeoman. At what place in the several editions of Guillim's work does this assertion X.
WILLIAM ELAND published the seventh edition of 'A Tutor to Astrology' in 1694. reader of N. & Q.' say when the first edition appeared? Who was William Eland? Is anything known about him? JOHN ELAND.
HORACE.-Can any reader of 'N. & Q.' inform
Who with the pure dew laveth of Castaly
The oak forests, and the wood that bore him,
I fancy I remember being once told that it was
W. D. OLIVer.
any particulars concerning the father of Sir John PRATT.-Can any one give me the name of and Pratt, Knt., of Careswell Priory, Devon, ancestor of the present Marquis of Camden? Every authority I have consulted speaks of Sir John, grandson of Richard Pratt, but no mention is
made of Sir John's father that I can find. I wish to know his name, and the names of his brothers (if any), also whom they married and their issue. R. M. PRATT.
254, Cowbridge Road, Cardiff,
Rugby, by an old Rugboean" (London, 1848). 'RECOLLECTIONS OF RUGBY.'66 Recollections of Halkett and Laing put down this book to R. N. Hutton, on the authority of the Gentleman's Magazine. The book is avowedly by an old Rugbeian (as it is generally spelt now); but no such name occurs in the school register; nor apparently in book was printed at Cirencester. ADict. Nat. Biog.' Who was the author? The C. SAYLE.
12, New Court, Lincoln's Inn. MCBARNET AND MACKENZIE.-Can any of your readers help me to trace the connexion between the family of McBarnet and Mackenzie of Suddy? Family tradition states that the original name was Mackenzie, but was changed to McBarnet after the '45. Mackenzie of Suddy is supposed to be the branch of which this family is an offshoot. member of the family was born at Lochaber in 1780, and a brother of the latter fell at Tolosa in the Peninsular War. The McBarnet family until recently used the burning rock crest with "Luceo non uro motto. JACOBITE.
ATKINSON.-I should be greatly obliged if any one would kindly inform me of any family of the name of Atkinson, having a member named Juliana among them. Date about 1750 to 1770. E. TATOM.
Thomas Place, Norwood Road, S.E. "THE LAST PEPPERCORN BREAKS THE CAMEL'S BACK."-Are the above words the orthodox form of a popular proverb; or should "straw" be used
try Patmore; ed. 1892.-Can any one explain to 'THE CHILDREN'S GARLAND,' selected by Covenme why the warrior-minstrel in the title-page of with the hilt well up under the right arm? As I this volume wears his sword on the right side, share the general feminine ignorance of all matters relating to weapons and the art of self-defence, I may be in error, but it certainly seems to me that the gentleman in question would find himself in a "considerably tight place" were the blade needed for immediate action. SPINDLE.
me the favour of asking, in your next number of LATIN TRANSLATION WANTED.-Would you do
I have dressed thy cage with flowers,
'N. & Q.,' whether any of your readers can direct signified his pleasure that the House should adjourn for me where to find a Latin translation by, if I re-twenty-one days. To this the House assented, with very little observation, and no opposition, though many member rightly, the Rev. Mr. Drake, of Mrs. Members thought that so long or any adjournment was Hemans's lines to a bird escaped from its cage? unnecessary-that it would be found very inconvenient I remember seeing it, many years ago, in Black-in many other respects, and particularly distressing to wood's Magazine, in, I think, the Noctes Am- private business. With that part of the subject, howbrosianæ'; but on searching for it now in the ever, I do not mean to interfere. On the face of the proceeding, another proposition did obviously present latter (separate) publication, I have not succeeded itself, and ought not to have passed sub silentio; though in finding it. The ode by Mrs. Hemans begins : it might have been reserved for discussion at a more convenient day, of which notice should have been given. Return, return, my birdThe question I allude to relates solely and exclusively to Parliamentary privilege, which is in fact the right, the liberty, and the security of the whole Commons of this realm; and the wit of man, or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may be defied to attach a party motive, fairly and honestly, to the following discussion of it. A preliminary disclaimer of this sort I know looks like a defence without a charge. But so it is: the times we have fallen upon, and the society we live with, make it necessary for the surviving few who have seen other days and lived in better company, or who remember the commonwealth, not to urge any opinion in behalf of truth, or in defence of right, without submitting to make an apology for it. Of the English constitution, nothing but what is good ought to be said; but some of its forms have survived, and who knows that these forms may not help to remind posterity of the value of that substance which they were instituted to preserve?
In the heart of forest bowers, &c.
Jam redi, dilecta avis, ad puellam,
J. E. COWAN. LATREILLE.-Can any one refer me to information bearing on the domestic life and literary career of the celebrated French entomologist Latreille, other than that contained in the 'Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography'?
K. H. B.
THE LETTERS OF JUNIUS.
(8th S. ii. 481.)
The Message shall be given at length. For the present I confine myself to the first part of it, in which the Prince Regent signifies his pleasure that the Parliament should be adjourned. In other instances, the King signifies his will and pleasure. But it is still the King's pleasure, which, under a softer phrase, is a command, and equally coercive on those to whom it is addressed. It is satisfactory to see that the undying interest If not, and if nothing be meant but a request or recomattaching to "Junius" is now securing renewed mendation, the words used are nugatory or something worse, because they say what they do not mean; and recognition in "N. & Q." A few months ago the if that be admitted and defended, there is an end of the subject of Sir Philip Francis attracted considerable question, in the sense in which I wish to have it conattention in the Athenæum, and, so far as I recol-sidered. All I should then have to say to the compositor dect, his claims to the authorship were far from weakened by the discussion. The following contribution, though merely of indirect bearing on the question, may perhaps be added.
The Hon. Henry Gray Bennett, brother of Lord Tankerville, was a distinguished Whig senator when George III. was king, and I find among his papers which came into my hands the subjoined letter, addressed anonymously to the Morning Chronicle, but carefully endorsed in Bennett's It shows handwriting, "Sir Philip Francis." that Francis to the last continued true to the instincts and occupation of "Junius." This, of course, could not be known but for Bennett's casual identification and testimony, though made without any design of connecting him with Junius. The allusions of Francis to his former colleague Warren Hastings are interesting. I send the original of his well-studied historic letter, yellow with age :
On the 1st of this month, a Message from the Crown was delivered to the House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not in writing, as the custom is in other cases, but orally, by which the Prince Regent
would be, translate your Message into English, and tell us what you mean. Until we are better informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by some wiser person, I shall assume it as a proposition which cannot be disputed, that the King's pleasure, once signified to his subjects, is to be taken for a lawful command, which of course it would be unlawful to disobey. The supposition of an unlawful command is not yet in our contemplation or if it were, we should begin with the Minister, who advised, or who attempted to carry it into execution, and make him, in the first instance, as he ought to be, the principal object of animadversion. The King, or his representative, is the only person to whom the general maxim of law, qui facit per alium facit per se, cannot be legally applied. In his royal character he does every thing (except perhaps in changing the Ministry), by agents and nothing by himself.
In the present case, the Prince Regent has no more concern than yourself, though his name be formally used as that of his Majesty is in criminal prosecutions. Presuming then that the Minister of Finance intended, by the Message he delivered, to convey a lawful command, I submit the following question to the consideration of such Members of the House of Commons as may think that they deserve some attention.
1. Could the execution of a lawful command, on the part of the Crown, be subject to a debate, whether it should be obeyed or not?
In the year 1621, James I. declared to Parliament,
in answer to a petition of the House of Commons," That it seemed to be a derogation of his prerogative, who had the only power to call, adjourn, and determine Parliamente." This learned Monarch understood as much of the English constitution as he had heard of it in Scotland, where, as he asserted on another occasion, there was no such thing as common law, except the Jus Regis!* Yet, even in these miserable days, and under the growing despotism of the Stuarts, these extravagant pretensions were denied and resisted by many learned and resolute persons in Parliament. Sir Edward Coke, among others, said, "that it was a maxim in law that every Court must adjourn itself; and if there be a commission to adjourn the Parliament, then the adjournment is not good; but the commission should be to declare his Majesty's pleasure that we should adjourn."+
This last admission, now untenable, shews that the King's pleasure signified was at all times considered as a command. At a much later period, in the year 1677, his Majesty's pleasure for an adjournment was signified by the Speaker, Mr. Edward Seymour, and, on Mr. Powle's standing up to speak, the Speaker interrupted him, and said, "I must hear no man speak, now the King's pleasure of adjourning the House is signified." And so he did repeatedly. The result of the debates on this point was, that when the House of Commons met again, they called the Speaker severely to account for his conduct. From a direct censure he escaped, on a division for adjournment, of 131 against 121, but the House came to the following Resolutions:
"That Mr. Speaker shall not, at any time, adjourn the House, without a question first put, if it be insisted
That this Resolution be entered in the Journal, as a standing order of this House."‡
The rule of Parliament, contended for and acted on by the Speaker, was, that "after the King's command of adjournment, there could be no debate, or question put, and that he had nothing to do, but to declare the House adjourned, as he had done";-and certainly he had precedents enough to support that pretension. But precedents in Parliament relate chiefly to claims of privilege, or to forms of proceeding, and in that sense ought to be generally observed, and never departed from or set aside but on mature debate, and for reasons derived from some change of circumstances, which induce a necessity. For many a thing apparently harmless when it is done, may be the source of infinite mischief at a later period. But in no case, and on no pretence. are precedents to be set up against principles. lawyers will tell you, that a precedent that passes sub silentio, is of no validity, and Judge Vaughan says, in his Reporte, "that in cases which depend on fundamental principles, millions of precedents are to no purpose.'|| In questions of right and wrong, mere facts prove nothing, except what indeed requires no proof, that many crimes have been committed, and that many wrongs have been done; or, as an old acquaintance of mine delivered the same doctrine in better terms, in Bengal, about forty years ago, "Political Societies have existed too long to leave any abuse without an example." In matter of judicature in the courts below, the rule and the practice must be different. When there is no positive law to govern, the Judge must be guided by former decision, always taken from moderate times, and duly considered; were it otherwise the Judge would be arbitrary.
*King's Speech, 1607.
Parliamentary History,' vol. i. p. 1282.
'Journal of the House of Commons,' vol. ix. p. 560. 'Parliamentary Debates in 1677,' vol. i. p. 203.
In this way the power of adjourning the Houses of Parliament was assumed and exercised by the Crown before the Revolution. In Queen Anne's time another course was taken to answer the same purpose, viz. to defer the sitting of Parliament from time to time-and a proceeding resorted to, perhaps the most extraordinary in all our Parliamentary History. From the 8th of July 1712 to the 19th April 1713, both inclusive, the Parliament was prorogued twelve times. Why the use or object of these prorogations might not have been as effectually obtained, and with much greater ease and convenience, by short adjournments, does not appear, but it may be readily conjectured. Queen Anne, who was a Stuart, might be unwilling to surrender the power of adjournment, as it had been asserted by the four preceding Kings of her own family, and yet might have very sufficient reasons for not venturing to resume and exercise so doubtful and invidious a claim of their pretended prerogative, considering the state of her affairs at that period, and that the negociation for the peace of Utrecht was still in suspence. But the most singular precedent of all is the adjournment by command, which occurred in the second of George I. (September 21 1715) as delivered by the Chancellor to both Houses in the following words :
"It is his Majesty's royal will and pleasure that both Houses should forthwith severally adjourn themselves to Thursday the sixth of October next." The two Houses in fact gained nothing by adjourning themselves, as they did immediately. The King's command left them no option; or it was no lawful command. When was the form now observed first introduced, and for what reasons?
A due consideration of the terms and apparent principles of the late Message from the Crown, made it necessary to enter into a statement of the preceding facts and observations. The following is a copy of it from the Journals :
"HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 1, 1814.
"Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer acquainted the House, That, it being the pleasure of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, that the Parliament should be adjourned until Monday the 21st day of this instant March, his Royal Highness desires that this House will adjourn itself until Monday the 21st day of this instant March."
This Message, on the face of it, is a jumble of false or incompatible propositions, ending, as all efforts to reconcile contradictions must do, in pure falsehood or simple nonsense. Every man who knows the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see at once how unfit he was to be the chosen bearer of such a burden. In the first place, it is positively false that Parliament, as such, and taken collectively, can be adjourned. In true Parliamentary sense and construction the term indicates, and the constant form of proceeding proves, that adjournment relates to the two Houses of Parliament, and must be effected by two distinct acts or resolutions of those bodies, whether simultaneous or separate in point of time. One House may adjourn itself, while the other may continue to sit, as it often happens, when the state of public business requires it. Undoubtedly the King may protwo Houses, that if they will not consent to adjourn, the rogue, if he pleases, and his Ministers may threaten the Parliament shall be prorogued; and the said Houses may submit to be so threatened and so bullied. But even this unparliamentary menace is, or amounts to, an admission that the Crown, by its prerogative, can neither adjourn the Parliament nor either of the two component parts of Parliament. The Message then says, "That it is the pleasure of the Prince Regent that the Parliament should be adjourned," in the form in which the King's com
mands are invariably expressed. But if it be a command, it must either be obeyed or declared to be unlawful. To say that it is a lawful command, and that nobody is bound to obey it, is a proposition which it befits none to vindicate but the Minister himself. First, however, he ought to explain his meaning. If the Prince's pleasure, declared in the first part of the Message, means nothing but a request, then the desire expressed in the latter part of it, is only a nauseous repetition, vulgarly called tautology. There are the bundles. Let the Minister take his While on this subject I may mention that in 1856 I had a correspondence with Mr. Wodderspoon, of Norwich (who I fear is now dead). He
"On this subject my mind has been long made up. For some years I read manuscripts offered to one of our large London publishers, and decided on their worthiness for publication. While so engaged I had placed in my hands a pile of letters by Sir Philip Francis (many hundreds), and no sane person could doubt that the writer of the letters of Junius, of which facsimiles are published, was Sir Philip Francis. The letters I examined were not of sufficient public interest to bring before the world, and were therefore returned to the owner, and have never been published."
W. J. FITZPATRICK.
The claims of the new candidate for Junius honours will not, I venture to think, bear the test of close examination. It is true that, at first blush, the trenchant prose of the historian might be considered capable of conversion into the style of the famous writer of the philippics. But if one desires to know of what Gibbon is capable in that direction, let him turn to the pamphlets where he figures either as the attacking critic, as in his criticism on the sixth book of Virgil in answer to Warburton, or where he is defending himself from a number of assailants, as in his 'Defence of the Decline and Fall.' I have gone through these with a certain amount of care, and though both of them may be described as masterly and convincing, I am unable to cull examples which, in my opinion, are fit to compare with the biting invective, the stinging sarcasm, or the strong antitheses of the unknown author.
But, apart from the question of style, there are several pieces of evidence which would seem to preclude all idea of identifying Gibbon with Junius. If one fact more than another may be admitted with some certainty from the letters, it is that Junius was a man in easy circumstances, for not only did he refuse to participate in the profits arising from their publication, but time after time he bids Woodfall feel no anxiety on account of any expense he may incur by his prosecution, for that it will be reimbursed him. Now, what was Gibbon's position at that time? Here are his words: "My purse was always open [i. e., to his friend Deyverdun], but it was often empty; and I bitterly felt the want of riches and power," &c. Is it possible that Junius could ever have complained of want of "power"? What, how
ever, is certain is that up to his father's death in November, 1770, Gibbon was rather pressed for money than otherwise, and afterwards a diminished inheritance, if it kept him from indigence, equally far removed him from opulence.
Then, again, Gibbon's views on Christianity are well known, and if Junius's words may be trusted, difference between the two on the subject of as I see no reason to doubt, there was a wide religion. In his letter of August 26, 1771, Junius
writes: "As a man I am satisfied that he
[Junius] is a Christian upon the most sincere conviction," and he goes on to speak of the Christian life to defend." Could Gibbon have spoken thus ? "which it seems to be the purpose of his religion, Again, can we imagine Junius laying down his envenomed and biassed pen in 1772 and immediately reappearing in the garb of one of the most impartial historians (except on one disputed point) that the world has ever seen? Or, again, can we imagine the fiery censor reappearing as the lukewarm politician in the House of Commons, blessed with so little foresight as to be held up to ridicule by his biographer, and taking his rank among the ordinary place-hunters of the time? These would seem to be impossibilities, and I venture, therefore, to repeat that MR. EDGCUMBE's suggestion will not bear the test of HOLCOMBE INGLEBY.
article in a number of the Dublin University I was much impressed when I read it with an Magazine in the year 1852 in favour of the Earl Chatham wrote the letters, and Francis knew it, of Chatham, and no one else, being Junius. or in some cases was the amanuensis. argued strongly that a blind would have been part of the scheme of so consummate a master of concealment. Were circumstances of date and
place absolutely against the possibility of Chatham it. having been the author ?-if not, I prefer to believe R. S.
The authorship of Junius is a subject that "spreads out" illimitably. Sir David Brewster, as a scientist, could not know all its details, but took up the subject as a partisan, owing to his family connexion with the McLeans. The individual now in question supported the Government when Junius was in opposition; see Miscellaneous Letter,' No. xci., where Vindex, a pseudonym of Junius, exposes Mr. Laughlin McLean on the "Falkland" question, 1771, which was one of the bitterest subjects Junius ever took up. Sir David Brewster could not have known this fact. McLean went to India in 1772, accumulated a large fortune, and died in 1778. Boswell, in his 'Life of Johnson,' describes Capt. Lauchlan McLean, date October 4, 1773, as living in Col.
13, Paternoster Row.