mathematical impossibility. Were "between each" good grammar, the following would be correct "He put little vigour into each stroke, and paused between it." The solecism" between each" is wholly ignored by the N. E. D.,' though it abounds in all classes of literature, my most recent example being derived from Mr. Rider Haggard's writing.

As to the other phrase quoted by W. C. B., "They were neither of them," it may suffice, after what I have written of its companion, to say that the only accurate form is "Neither of them was." Writers have very loose ideas of "neither," examples of which as a word of plurality occur pretty frequently, and would be innumerable but for the antagonism of printers. I have met with the phrase "Neither of them are good shots"; and one writer, giving his opinion on the relative propriety of two modes of expression, informed me recently, "Neither are correct." My admiration would not have been heightened had he written "Neither form are correct," but I could not have taxed him with having loose ideas. F. ADAMS.

14, Eastlake Road, Camberwell, S.E.

finding without an adequate purpose. Had they been so, W. C. B. could, of course, insist that the parentheses should have contained "(each of them was)." But where the verb to be exists already in the plural were, to repeat it in was seems to me microscopical precision and worse than the original elision, if defect that be. Of course," both of them" might have been a little less quibbleable. If my side be worth anything, the next sentence, "They were neither of them on ground," &c., is just the same; only here the printer is more at fault, for he has not separated "neither of them" by even commas, as in the previous case he did.

If we are to be so very particular about full and complete accuracy of expression, you can father a mistake upon Dryden,

Yet both are for each other's use disposed. There is no sense in that line as it stands; each is quite unattached to use and to other's. If the printer here had made each other's one word it would have been right. But when it is understood so readily by every one, is it worth comment of any sort? As with most precision, it is nonsense to waste time to secure it, for secure it you cannot. W. C. B. has a right to his opinion that "They hints by, and not to convey exact realities. This Language is nothing but a mass of signs to convey were each of them" is "inelegant"; but is it fundamental condition at starting excludes pre"inexact"? To the question, "To what verb is cision. The sharpest hint and quickest does its 'each' the nominative ?" I suppose the reply of work the best. Definitions are the fool's-play of an examinee would be that "each of them" (equi-philosophers and choke sense. Remember Plato's valent to l'un et l'autre), and not "each," is the subject of the verb. I remember seeing in a Latin “Me miserum! Supply aspice or aspigrammar, cite"-one of those remarks which suggest that an idiom is only allowable when it will satisfy the rules of syntax. And I also remember Dean Alford's objecting (in his 'Plea for the Queen's English') to the to in "The cat jumped on to the chair," on the ground that the to was unneeded, and never used by any careful writer or speaker. Now a cat may jump while on a chair, after having jumped on to the chair. The to may, it is true, be suppressed; but on to is as good English as upon. While we are rightly jealous in guarding our language against useless and disfiguring innovations, are we not in danger of pruning it of idioms the loss of which would greatly impoverish

and weaken it?

Barnes.

HENRY ATTWELL.

W. C. B. requires a needless precision in language. It is not necessary to commend the above sentence, but I think it is over critical to designate it as "inelegant and inexact." There is neither beauty nor the want of it involved in the case, and a man has to go out of his way to find it inexact. 66 They were, each of them, in a condition to be......rolled up." In this sentence had "each of them" been in parentheses, instead of between commas, the question would never have been raised, and therefore I look upon it as fault

"plumeless biped," and smile or grin as broad as Πλάτων at it. Í think, at this stage, we may nothing amiss," or ovdev äтоTоν, nothing out of say, as to Mr. Kinglake, "this man hath done place. It is the over-precision becomes τò πрâyμa άтоTоν, the misplaced affair, here.

Chingford Hatch, E.

C. A. WARD.

is, of course, some danger in dealing with the "PROTESTANT" (8th S. vi. 147, 236, 251).—There history of this word. The feelings of many of our friends are not unnaturally sensitive regarding terms which are, or are thought to be, theological badges or nicknames. I will do my best to avoid saying anything that can be reasonably regarded as offensive. If I fail herein, I need not remind your readers that the Editor of 'N. & Q.' possesses a waste-paper basket.

The name Protestant was first applied, it is believed, to the Lutherans, who protested against the edict of Speyer in 1529. It thus became the common name given on the Continent to the Lutherans, while the followers of Calvin were called the Reformed. For upwards of a century this seems to have been the custom among nonCatholics, but there is reason for believing, I think, that among continental Catholics, Protestant was very soon employed as a designation for all those who had separated from the Roman obedience.

There can be no doubt that, in this country, Protestant at an early period became a term which included all those who did not accept the ancient teaching.

Your correspondent is right in stating that the word Protestant is not to be found in the Book of Common Prayer. It does, however, occur in the Coronation Service. The form issued in 1838 for use at the coronation of her present Majesty is given in Maskell's 'Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiæ Anglicana. One of the questions asked of the Sovereign during that ceremony by the Archbishop of Canterbury is :

"Will You to the utmost of Your Power maintain the Laws of God, the true Profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law?" To this the sovereign answers, "" All this I promise to do" (ed. 1847, vol. iii. p. 105).

tection, and an equal security under the laws. Beyond this was political power, and if he could not grant that, it was from a sincere apprehension for the safety of the Protestant establishment...... His great objection, however, was to the religious principle of the Catholice-to that which required, on their part, unlimited submission to a foreign authority-an authority which assumed unlimited dominion over the consciences, excluding from them all exercise of their own reason regarding all to regard all dissent in spiritual matters as rebellious matters of religion. It was a principle of that religion contumacy, and to require of its votaries the uniform advocacy of her interest and power. This was the genuine doctrine of the Catholic church, as avowed by her orthodox sons......This reservation was implied in all the oaths or obligations of Catholics, and it pervaded every part of their religious policy. The Protestant made no such reservation-his salvo was with his God, while that of the Catholic was alone with his church as a fixed rule and imperative measure of duty......The proposed Bill disallowed Catholicity to the king and his immediate representatives, while it allowed it to Catholic Governors of colonies, who must necessarily have considerable control over matters calculated to affect the

The word Protestant seems, indeed, to have been commonly used by nearly every one to designate the Church of England and the Non-Protestant church." Hansard,' April 16, 1821. conformist bodies, from the time of Queen Elizabeth until about sixty years ago. Archbishop Laud was the most prominent High Churchman of the seventeenth century. His controversy with Fisher, the Jesuit, is a remarkable book. It went through several editions. Laud, in this work, constantly employs the word Protestant as including himself and the body to which he belonged. As the work is common, and has been reprinted in the "Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology," I may be excused from taking up your space by giving extracts in proof of this point.

The next witness I shall call is Lord Eldon, who was Lord Chancellor under so many successive Tory Governments. Writing to Lady F. J. Bankes, on February 2, 1828, he said :—

It will not be contested, by any one conversant with the literature of the eighteenth century, that the writers on theological and political subjects during that time were wont to speak of the members of the Established Church and the Nonconformists as alike Protestants. That this continued to be the practice till some time after 1830 does not admit of doubt. In proof of this I proceed to give a few examples, which, were it needful, might be increased a hundred fold. The first authority I shall quote is William Howley, successively Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, Bishop of London from 1813 to 1828, and Archbishop of Canterbury from the latter date to the time of his death, February 11, 1848. His contemporaries regarded him as a learned theologian, a wise administrator, and a conscientious politician. I have not heard that in these latter times this judgment has been reversed.

In 1821 a Bill was brought forward for relieving Catholics from the pressure of the penal laws. It passed the Commons, but was rejected in the Upper House. The following is a part of Bishop Howley's speech on that occasion:

"To the Catholics he was always ready to grant the unfettered enjoyment of their form of worship, the free disposition of their property, the fullest personal pro

"Nobody can read the late speeches of Palmerston and Vesey FitzGerald, without being apprehensive that most dangerous concessions are about to be thought of to the Catholics, such as shortly and surely will shake Life of Eldon,' vol. iii. p. 33, quoted in J. A. Roebuck's the foundations of the Protestant church."-Twiss's Hist. of the Whig Ministry' of 1830, vol. i. p. 44, n.

I will conclude with an extract from a letter of written in 1843 :Miss Mary Russell Mitford, the poet and novelist,

taste, combined with an intelligence, a liberality, a "The Bishop [Dr. Baines] is the very incarnation of gracious indulgence most rare among Protestant clergymen, who, frequently excellent, are seldom charming...... One may love the good of every faith, and put the Catholic Bishop by the side of the Protestant Archbishop Life of M. R. Mitford, edited by Rev. A. G. L'Estrange, with no injury to any person, least of all to oneself.”— vol. iii. p. 175.

celior, and a popular writer of light literature of The testimony of an archbishop, a Lord Chanthe highest class, is sufficient to show how the word was used and understood in the days of our grandfathers.

I have

what used to be called "The Catholic Question'
I have recently read several articles relating to
which appeared in Blackwood's Magazine previous
to the passing of the relief Act of 1829.
make any extracts at the time, but I remember
not the volumes by me at present, neither did I
quite well that the word Protestant was bestowed,
over and over again, on the Established Church of
this country.
EDWARD PEACOCK,

Dunstan House, Kirton-in-Lindsey.

The term Protestant was given to those princes who in 1529, at the Diet of Speyer, protested

named John Cunliffe, is descended my own branch
of the family, and although, owing to an error
which has crept into most of the printed pedigrees
of the family, the Cunliffe-Lister branch is generally
supposed to be descended from Nicholas, the eldest
SOD, it is in reality also descended from this same
third son John. As for the Chislehurst branch, I
do not know whether there are any representatives
of it now in existence. I have, however, taken
some pains to trace out this portion of the pedi-
gree, and have succeeded in carrying it as far as
Ellis Cunliffe, formerly of Chislehurst, but after-
wards of County Carlow, Ireland, who died in the
year 1757, leaving a son John, and possibly
another son Edward; but of the subsequent career
of these two sons I know nothing, and should be
grateful for any information about them.
note is already sufficiently lengthy, so I will bring

and were received on their arrival by two hundred archers, clad in green, one of whom impersonated Robin Hood, as their captain. Their majesties were entertained by an exhibition of "feats of activity" by the assembled archers. C. P. HALE. "GRASS-WIDOW" (8th S. vi. 188, 256).-On referring to the 'Century Dictionary,' I find "grass-widow" therein described as a wife temporarily separated from her husband, as while he is travelling or residing at a distance on account of business; also often applied to a divorced woman, or to a wife who has been abandoned by her husband. In N. & Q.,' 6th S. x. 526, it is stated that grass-widows used to be women whose husbands were working for months together at long distances from home, and so only able at woman thus situated, whose conduct was not cirit to a close by assuring MR. OWEN of my willingness to give him such further information about cumspect, was said to be "out at grass." the Cunliffe family as I happen to possess, if he W. DOMETT STONE. will communicate with me directly and tell me It is very CUNLIFFE (8th S. vi. 288).- My attention has what it is that he wishes to find out. just been drawn to MR. MONTAGUE C. OWEN's possible that I may be able to help him, since, query as to Nicholas Cunliffe of Chislehurst. The owing to my having for some years past spent some statement in Blomefield's 'Norfolk,' vol. ii. p. 156, of my leisure hours in tracing the various ramiThere was only one Nicholas Cun-fications of the Cunliffe pedigree, my knowledge of the subject is, like Sam Weller's knowledge of London, "extensive and peculiar." J. WILLIAMS CUNLIFFE. 17, Inverness Terrace, Hyde Park, W.

intervals to visit their wives and families. A

is an error.

liffe of Chislehurst, and he never had more than
one wife, ie, the Margaret Scrogges of the in-
Ecription quoted by MR. OWEN. She was the only
child of John Scrogger, Esq., of Patmer Hall, in
the county of Hertford, by his first wife Elizabeth
Bancroft, daughter and heiress of Thomas Ban-
croft, of Santon, in Norfolk. It was, therefore, the
granddaughter of Thomas Bancroft whom Nicholas
Cunliffe married, not the daughter as alleged by
Blomefield. MR. OWEN will find a pedigree of the
Scrogges family in Cuesans's History of Hertford-
shire, vol. i., "The Hundred of Edwinstree,"
p. 162. In this pedigree the marriage of Margaret
Scrogges duly appears, but owing to a printer's
error the surname of the husband appears as "Cun-
tiffe."
The surname is, however, correctly spelt
in Clutterbuck's History of the same county.
As to Nicholas Cunliffe himself, the following
short particulars may be of interest to MR. OWEN.
He was the second, but only surviving son and
heir of Ellis Cunliffe, Esq., of Chislehurst, Alder-
man of the City of London, who was himself the
second son of John Cunliffe, of Hollins, otherwise
Woodhead, in the county of Lancaster, by his wife
Isabel, daughter of James Robinson, of Rough Lee,
in the Forest of Pendle. This John Cunliffe had
several other sons who left issue. From Nicholas,
the eldest son, who married Elizabeth Hartley, of
Wycoller Hall, were descended the Cunliffes of
Hollins and Wycoller now represented in the
female line by Mr. Edward Cunliffe-Owen, C.M.G.,
and in the male line by Sir Robert Cunliffe, Bart.
From John Cunliffe, the third son of the first-

This

IRON (8th S. v. 327, 474; vi. 56, 96, 290).—It might be useful to inquire, in this connexion, what dialect of English we are dealing with. Is it the London dialect?—which, of course, is the literary English pure and simple.

Again, we must take into account the fact that pronunciation is constantly changing, not by fits Under these circumand starts, but gradually. stances it is impossible to say what is the correct pronunciation of any word; we can only give the pronunciation which we use ourselves and hear repeated by others.

Again, there is another difficulty. The attempt to express pronunciation by means of an inefficient alphabet must lead to misconception. I imagine MR. MARSHALL, when he gave diremonds and virelets as phonetic transcripts of the pronunciation of these words, did not intend the sound r to be heard at all. If instead of the re he had put the turned e which merely represents a voice-glide, he would, I imagine, have expressed more clearly his In the same way pronunciation of the words. iron would be written aiǝn.

In my own pronunciation and the pronunciation I have been accustomed to hear (the educated speech of London), the r sound is never heard before another consonant sound. Nor is the sound heard at the end of a word unless the next