vailed, because it was believed to have autographic authority. The principle was sound; and with superior information the result would have been critically correct. 3. SHAKSPERE. -This form has, with only three exceptions, the sanction of the Stratford Register from 1558 to 1623. It is that of the only distinct autograph of the poet-which was written in, or subsequently to, the year 1603; and it appears to be that of the signatures to his will in 1616. If, in behalf of truth, we can divest ourselves of the influence of early associations-if we can resolve to suppress the feelings of literary clanship and if we prepare ourselves to encounter the inconveniences of reform-the superior claims of this latter mode must inevitably be admitted. Whenever I ask you, Mr. Urban, to do me the favor to insert a communication, it is always converted into a favour! To this pertinacious habit on the part of compositors in some instances, and to imitation in others, I conceive we should ascribe it that the name of the bard of Stratford has been printed otherwise than William SHAKSPERE. Yours, &c. BOLTON CORNEY. MR. URBAN, : 18th March. SIR Frederick Madden's demand for "six genuine autographs" of the great Reformer of Lutterworth, (p. 264,) is ironical for who can expect the production of autographs of the fourteenth century? But, as I have been always puzzled in writing the name of that glorious individual, and (if I rightly remember) one of his biographers, Lewis or Baber, hath shown fourteen different ways of writing it, I beg leave to furnish a document, which seems to me to have as good a claim as any other to decide this doubtful point, by directing us to write "JOHN WYCLYFF." It is a copy (on which I have accidentally alighted at this moment) of an original account that I discovered, in the summer of 1837, among the Miscellaneous Records of the King's Remembrancer, at Westminster. I do not believe that the document is in the Reformer's handwriting; it having been the ancient practice of the clerks of the Exchequer to ingross the parcels for accountants in that court. The subjoined is a literal translation: the transcript I shall hand over to Sir Frederick, for use in a memoir of the first translator of the Bible into English, which (I presume) he will prefix to the version, now passing through the press, under his able superintendence. W. H. BLACK. (TRANSLATION). "Parcels of the account of Master JOHN WYCLYFF, Professor of Theology, of his receipts, wages and expenses, in going as the King's Envoy (eundo in Nuncium of Regis), toward the parts Flanders, for dispatching the King's affairs there in the 48th year. [48 Edw. III. A.D. 1374.] "The same rendereth account of 607. received by his own hands, at the Receipt of the Exchequer, from the Treasurer and Chamberlains, upon his wages, on the 31st day of July, in Easter term, in the 48th year. "Sum of receipt-607. "The same accounteth in his wages, at 20s. by the day, from the 27th day of July aforesaid, in the 48th year, on which day he took his journey from London toward the parts of Flanders, in the affairs aforesaid, unto the 14th day of September next following, on which day he returned thither; to wit, in going, tarrying, and returning, by 50 days, both days reckoned,-501. "And for his passage and repassage of the sea, in the same voyage, (viagio.)— 428. 3d. "Sum of expenses-521. 28. AS the last number of your Magazine is embellished with an engraving of Herne's Oak, I take the opportunity of making a short reply to some statements which have appeared as to the identity of that celebrated tree, since my letter on the subject inserted in your January number of last year. I allude more particularly to some remarks in Mr. Knight's delightfully illustrated edition of " Shakspere," when referring to Herne's Oak in the Merry Wives of Windsor, a play which has been embellished and commented upon in the happiest manner. I am ready to admit that I was in error respecting the old foot-paths across the Little Park at Windsor, but this circumstance does not, I think, weaken my argument as to the identity of the present tree. My argument rests upon the following facts, viz. That his late Majesty George the Fourth constantly asserted that Herne's Oak had not been cut down by order of George the Third, but that it was still standing. That I have been personally assured by a member of the Royal family, not only that Herne's Oak had not been cut down by command of George the Third, but that the King was in the constant habit of pointing out the present tree as the real Herne's Oak. That the communication made by Mr. Engall to me of the present oak having been placed under his charge by George the Third as the real Herne's Oak would appear conclusive as to the point in dispute, as this was not done during a season of afflicting malady, but at a time when the King's strong and retentive memory was in full force. Mr. Engall is incapable of inventing such a story, and the strongest reliance may be placed on his accuracy. Mr. Knight says he did not reside at Windsor forty years ago. I said about 40 years ago, repeating Mr. Engall's words which I wrote down at the time. They might imply generally 37 or 38 years. The exact date can be readily obtained. I might refer to the late Sir Herbert Taylor, the late Sir David Dundas and others (who had the best opportunities of ascertaining the facts) as constant assertors of the identity of the present Herne's Oak. I will, however, only refer to many aged and respectable inhabitants of Windsor who have assured me, that they, and their fathers and mothers before them, had always considered the tree in question as the one referred to by Shakespere. I readily admit that there might and probably were two or more Oaks in the Park, which were called "Herne's Oak," and whether one of these was cut down by order of George the Third or blown down is now of little consequence. I admit that an old oak was cut down near the picturesque dell, which Mr. Knight so feelingly aments should have been filled up, and that that oak was supposed by many persons to have been Herne's Oak. I admit the probability of George the Third having told Lady Ely that he had inadvertently given directions, when he was a young man, for having some unsightly old oaks in the Park cut down, and that he was afterwards sorry he had given such an order, because he found that, amongst the rest, the remains of Herne's Oak had been destroyed. But having made these admissions, I must again refer to the constant assertion of George the Fourth, viz. that George the Third thought that he had cut down Herne's Oak, but that he had not. It is, I think, evident that he was afterwards undeceived in this respect. Lady Ely told Mr. Nicholson that George the Third informed her he had caused the tree in question to be cut down when he was a young man. Now George the Third was born in 1738, and Mr. Knight says that Mr. Delamotte made a drawing of the tree from another drawing of it made by Mr. Ralph West, the eldest son of the President, some fifty or sixty years ago; so that George the Third could not then have been a young man, although Mr. Knight's Herne's Oak must have been standing at that time. I cannot think that Mr. Crofton Croker has added any weight to his friend Mr. Knight's arguments. It is, however, time for me to finish this hasty letter, which I wish to do by offering my thanks to Mr. Knight for the very agreeable and pleasing manner in which he has discussed this subject. At the same time I cannot but express my regret that, whether right or wrong, so much pains should have been taken in several quarters to destroy the interest, and, I might add, the enthusiasm which every lover of our immortal bard must feel in viewing Herne's Oak, even, should its identity have been left as a matter of doubt. Yours, &c. EDW. JESSE. the Regicide, was erroneous, and having also stated that Colonel John Jones, the Regicide, was not in any way connected with the family of Jones of Fonmon, I find by your number published on the first instant, that Mr. W. HARDWICK, of Bridgnorth, the writer as I presume of the Obituary, is still of opinion that the passage to which I have referred is correct. As I am quite sure that Mr. HARDWICK would not have stated that which he did not believe to be true, and although I have no reason to doubt that the parties whom he quotes in his letter might from some of the causes to which he refers, have been of opinion that a relationship between the families of Jones of Shrews. bury, Jones of Fonmon, and Jones the Regicide, did exist; still, you must be aware that no proof is produced by Mr. Hardwick to support that opinion, with the exception only, as to one fraction of it, that he quotes a passage in Mr. Malkin's work on South Wales, with reference to the Fonmon family, and which passage, unfortunately for Mr. Hardwick's theory, is utterly unfounded; for, so far from the present owner of Fonmon Castle being descended from John Jones, the Regicide, as Mr. Malkin asserts, he never had an ancestor of the name of John Jones, but is actually the descendant of Colonel Philip Jones, of Fonmon, who was a Privy Counsellor to both the Protectors, and one of Oliver's Lords of the Upper House, and who, having survived the Restoration, must have made his peace with the regal government, for he was in 1672 appointed High Sheriff of Glamorganshire; and this you will find confirmed in your own pages, in the Obituary of Robert Jones, Esq. of Fonmon Castle, published in the Gentleman's Magazine in 1834. That Colonel John Jones the Regicide was the representative in the Parliament of the Commonwealth for Merionethshire in 1640, and subsequently, and for the counties of Denbigh [not Derby, as Mr. Noble has it] and Merioneth in 1656, there can be no question; for in or about the year 1649, Robert Vaughan, Esq. of Hengwrt, Merionethshire, the celebrated antiquary, and who was him "Colonel John Jones, Esquire, a Member of Parliament, one of ye honourable Counsel of Estate of England." Mr. Vaughan also states his wife to be Margaret, daughter of John Edwards, of Stansty (near Wrexham), Esq. This lady was the first wife of the Regicide, and by her he had a son, John Jones, Esq. who was living at Wrexham in 1702. Dying without issue, his property passed or was bequeathed to the relatives of his mother, whose sister Catharine married Watkin Kyffin, Esq.of Glaswed; Anne, ried Thomas Edwardes, Esq. of Kilthe fifth daughter of Mr. Kyffin, marhendre, and the issue of this marriage being two daughters, the last of whom died unmarried in 1730, the estates of Mr. Edwardes, with many family documents, including the pedigree of the Regicide's family as written for him by Mr. Robert Vaughan, passed to the family of Merrall, Mr. Edwardes's sister Judith having married John Merrall, Esq. of Plas Yollen, co. Salop; in the possession of one of whose descendants, Cyrus Merrall, Esq. or o his brother, from whom I had the loan of it, the pedigree to which I have made reference, now remains. In the collection of Pedigrees made by Owen Salusbury, Esq. of Rûg, in the county of Merioneth, about the year 1640, and subsequently enlarged by John Salusbury, Esq. of Erbistock, in the county of Flint, about the year 1650, the descent of the family of Edwards of Stansty appears, and Marga. ret, the fifth daughter of John Edwards, Esq. is there stated to have married "John Jones, one of the Counsell of State ao 1649, and Colonell for the Parliament of England." Against which is written in another hand, "A Grand Rebel, one of the traitors executed at Tyburn." This collection of Pedigrees is now in the possession of Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, Bart. and is in the library at Wynnstay.-The MS. was lent to me by the late honoured Baro- the Regicide had no surname, Mr. Pennant, the historian, also states that Jones the Regicide was a Merionethshire man. If further proof were wanting that Colonel John Jones, of Maes-y- Garnedd, in Merionethshire, was the Colonel John Jones, who was executed as a Regicide on the 17th of October, 1660, it will be found in a curious 4to book of 88 pages, entitled "ENIAYTO TEPAΣTION, Mirabilis Annus," &c. which being printed and published in 1661, the year following the execution, and I need scarcely say without any reference to a dispute as to the Colonel's identity or connexions, must be admitted to be good evidence in the present case. In this book, at page 43, is the following passage: "In the county of Merioneth, in North-Wales, in a field or close which did belong to Colonel John Jones, who was executed at Charing Cross, Oct. 17, 1660, was seen by a tennant of his, going forth into the said field that morning or very near the time, a Crab-tree covered all over with blossomes. He was so astonished at it that he could not believe it was so till he came near to the tree, and cut off a bough of it, which he carried home with him and shewed to his familie and divers of his neighbours; severall other credible persons saw the tree; and many gentlemen that were near and heard of it, sent for boughs, which when they saw, they were convinced of the truth of the report. This relation we received first by letters from the aforesaid tennant, and a further confirmation we have since had of it by some very credible persons inhabitants there eye-witnesses, who coming up to London did here attest it viva voce." There can be no doubt, after what I have adduced, I think, that Jones the Regicide was a Merionethshire man, and this extract shows, if it proves nothing else, that he was well known to his contemporaries as being a man of that county. The Jones's of Shrewsbury were descended from Richard Jones, of Holt, in Denbighshire, who had adopted the surname of Jones so early as the reign of Henry the Seventh, and which afterwards continued to be the surname of his descendants. The surname of Jones was unknown in the Regicide's family, until taken by his father, who called himself Thomas Jones; the grandfather of but was called "John ap Evan, Gent. of Cwmcanol, in the county of Merioneth." The family of Jones of Fonmon were still later in adopting a surname. The celebrated Cromwellite of that family, Colonel Philip Jones before-mentioned, was the first of the line that adopted a surname, and in early life he was known himself in Wales as Philip David Philip, Gent. ;" his father having been previously known by and always used the name of “David Philip John, Gent." I trust I have now shown that I was right as to the facts averred by me in my former communication; and I remain, Yours, &c. JOSEPH MORRIS. MR. URBAN, March 18. YOUR correspondent CHARTULARIUS, whose communication was inserted in your last Magazine, has touched upon several very important subjects, but in a way which is likely to lead to conclusions both erroneous and detrimental to the public interests. Speaking solely with reference to the study of history, and to the mode in which ancient documents ought to be preserved, her Majesty's State Paper Office is an institution of a most anomalous and prejudicial character. It contains a large collection of papers which are said to be highly valuable as materials for history, but they are guarded with great jealousy; admission is procurable solely through the order of a Secretary of State, which is granted only for some specific and assigned purpose; and literary inquirers have no means, as far as I know, of previously ascertaining whether there is, or is not, anything in the office which will assist them. Amongst the persons who have lately obtained access to the office is the gentleman whose name is mentioned in your correspondent's letter. Taking advantage of the facility thus afforded to him, he has published various documents which he considers to be important; and if I may judge from the reviews of his work to which CHARTULARIUS has directed my attention, his estimate of their value is not disputed. Of the documents which he has published, some are derived from the Museum, and the rest from the State Paper Office. But it is asserted that his work contains various errors of transcription, some of which CHARTULARIUS has exhibited; and upon the ground of the existence of those errors you are requested to infer that such publication of documents by individuals is a thing which ought not to be allowed, nay, that it is a serious evil which is proposed to be remedied by the publication by the State Paper Commissioners of catalogues, calendars, or abstracts,-the documents themselves being still kept under what are termed "any due restrictions, or office copies being furnished to applicants under certain regulations." There is a good deal more in your correspondent's letter; but I believe I have stated its contents as far as they are applicable to the main subject. His reasoning is this; because the work of the gentleman referred to contains various errors of transcription, therefore it is right to publish abstracts upon authority, to restrict access to the originals, and to furnish only office copies. Now the errors which CHARTULARIUS has pointed out happen to be in documents derived not from the State Paper Office, but from the British Museum. The argument, therefore, stands thus: Because errors have been committed by an individual editor in printing documents derived from the British Museum, therefore the ancient documents in the State Paper Office ought to continue under restrictions. Whatever may be the intentions of the Commissioners, I am very certain that this is not the reasoning by which they will justify themselves; but my principal object is not to expose the singularity of your correspondent's argument, but to direct attention to the restrictive custody of the ancient documents in the State Paper Office, and to the asserted possibility of making abstracts of letters, and papers of that kind, which, for historical purposes, can answer the objects of the inquirer. The papers referred to are admitted to be of high historical value, but I do not fancy that it will be alleged they have value of any other kind. They are the property of her Majesty as a trustee for the nation; the establishment which mounts guard over them is paid for by the nation; they of relate to the business of the nation; why should the nation adopt another description of custody with respect to this property than it does with its other similar property preserved in the British Museum? Be it observed I confine my observations to ancient documents, say those anterior to the restoration of the House Stuart; and I ask your correspondent, or any other person, to point out any good purpose that is answered by shutting up documents of that age, under expensive and jealous restrictions; or what possible evil could result from their being placed under control similar to that exercised at the Museum, or being at once transferred to that repository? There they would be useful; where they are, they are almost useless. What reason can be given why we ought to be indebted to the courtesy of official persons for qualified permissions to use some part of our historical documents, when other documents of precisely the same kind are, with the greatest convenience and propriety, laid open to us and to all the world? I shall be very much surprised if any good answer can be given to these questions. As to the publication of abstracts, I entreat the Commissioners - if they entertain any such notion-to pause before they put it into execution. There are amongst them men well acquainted with all the minutie of historical investigations, and I appeal to them whether any abstracts, standing in the place of original authorities, would have enabled them to do what they have done? The most skilful maker of abstracts cannot divine all the uses to which a document may be put; or upon how many different arguments particular parts of it may throw light. The very words of a date are of value at one time and for one purpose, those of a superscription at another, those of some ambiguous, or ironical, or confident, or erroneous assertion, at others; and none can foreknow these various uses. All who have ever meddled in these matters must have been taught by their own experience that even the abstracts which a man makes for his own use are seldom, if ever, entirely satisfactory; and why should we imagine that persons could be found who would make abstracts |