« EelmineJätka »
almost inaccessible locality on the marshes, once so com letter, to have even affected a preparatory school pletely lost his reckoning of time that he donned his for young gentlemen in the Bayswater Road, kept Sunday clothes, and went to church on Monday morning. Sutton is awarded its rather unflattering title from
by a strict maiden lady named Miss Buddingbirch, the tradition that its aged natives were wont to put their and the small boys to have learnt the habit of hands out of their bedroom windows to feel if it was day gambling. Before its establishment they were light. The 'cleverness' of Catfield is imagined by some accustomed to take their whippings from the birch to arise from its eastward position' to Stalbam (wise of their governess in silence, men came from the east), and from the old saying that if anything wonderful arose inquirers were requested to
" but now, since the introduction of vicious racers near proceed to Catfield 'to know the truth of it.' The
the school, not one of the children will receive even what 'rawness' of Hempstead may possibly be attributed to
| she calls the most moderate physical remonstrance its position on one of the bleakest portions of our eastern
without considerable kicking." coast, and not from any want of polish on the part of
John PICKFORD, M.A. its inhabitants. Many other parishes in our county Newbourne Rectory, Woodbridge. have distinguishing names. It would be interesting, and possibly amusing, could some account be given of them.” MONK FAMILY. I should be much obliged if
One is reminded of Shakspere's little excursion any correspondent of your valuable paper could through “Piping Pebworth, &c., on the occasion afford information respecting the ancestry of John when he fell asleep under a tree, a prey to Bacchus, Monk, a cornet on balf-pay of the 19th Light one summer's day. A long list of these descrip- Dragoons (disbanded 1783-5). He wrote a work tive appellations might be made, many of which upon Farming in co. Leicester' in 1794 for the would be very amusing. Can any reader of then New Board of Agriculture, and also com'N. & Q.' say how « downright Dunstable" piled a 'Dictionary of Agriculture,' in five volumes. became an equivalent for being drunk?
He was sent to Devon by the Board of Agriculture,
JAMES HOOPER. where he married a Miss Prestwood Cove, and Norwich.
lived at Bearscombe and at Torquay. The date
of his birth was January 22, 1762. Mr. John Queries.
Monk had two brothers, viz., James and William, We must request correspondents desiring information
and seven sisters, Mary, Katherine, Elizabeth, on family matters of only privato interest to affix their Sarah, Hannab, Lydia, and Amend. names and addresses to their queries, in order that the
R. A. COLBECK. answers may be addressed to them direct.
38, Albert Street, Kennington Park. MINIATURES BY GEORGE ENGLEHEART.-Can
ENGRAVING.-I lately bought an engraving of any one inform me where I may meet with any of Miss Nancy Walpole, and underneath were written these ivories for the purpose of enumerating them
em the following lines :in a catalogue that I am publishing of this artist's
Miss Nancy Walpole. work, prefaced by a few remarks on those por
She became Mrs. Atkyns Ketteringham. traits that I have seen ? Any information con
My Nancy leaves the rural plain
A camp's distress to prove, cerning his painting would be very interesting to
All other ills she can sustain the collectors, and especially to
But living from her love.
W. H. Bunbury, delin, and published 1780. 9, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
Can any one give me further particulars of this PAINTING OF 'ELAINE' BY WALLIS.-Can any print? I should be very grateful to know more of your readers tell me what bas become of Henry | about this lady.
D. N. Wallis's painting 'Elaine '? It was painted for Mr. Flint, and sold in his collection at his death,
COPPLESTONE Family.-I shall be glad to be but I do not know the dates.
put on the track of this family. Can any one Geo. G. T. TRENERNE. inform me whence Kingsley obtained the fol
lowing couplet, which appears in his “ Westward THE HIPPODROME.-Where was this building | Ho!'? situated in the London suburbs ; when was it
Crocker, Cruwys and Copplestone erected ; and for what purposes ? The Hippodrome
When the Conqut ror came were all at home. at Constantinople was, according to Gibbon, one Is there any connexion between the village of of the stateliest structures in the world. In the Copplestone, in Devonshire, and this family? * Brownrigg Papers,' by Douglas Jerrold, pub- Was Barton of Warleck (or Warlake), in Devonlished originally in the New Monthly Magazine shiro, the family seat ?
S. W. R. about 1839, the London structure is amusingly alluded to in a letter purporting to be written by GAELIC. — I find in the New Testament the “Miss Dorothy Nibs, of Mousehole, to Gustavus form bhios (=bithidh), “ shall be "; also chunnacas, Nibs, Gent-at-Arms, Pimlico,” her brother. The fhuaras, for " was seen," " was found," instead of corrupting influence of it seems, according to the chunnacadh, fhuaradh. In such grammars as I
have this inflection in s is not noticed. Is it a instead of “peppercorn"? In what collection can provincialism?
EZTAKIT. the above proverb be found ? I have looked for
it, but I have not found it, in Bohn's volumes, LELY FAMILY. I have acquired a very prettily
JAMES D. BUTLER. executed pedigree, with armorial bearings, of this Madison, Wis., U.S. family, by that industrious herald, Robert Cooke, Clarencieux. It was probably a Lincolnshire
Saas.—The place-Dame Saas is well known to family, as its members married into the following
Swiss tourists. What is the meaning? It varies to houses, most of which belong to that county :
Saaser as a prefix. I also find Saaz in Bohemia ; Angeville of Thetbelthorpe, Fulnetby, Bretofts,
Sasa in Hungary ; Sas in the Netherlands, apLeake, Littlebury of Fellingham, Mussenden of
parently a sluice or flood-gate; then the Sas and Heling, Langholme of Cornsbolme, Skepwith,
Sassen, so common in Germany—these approximate Gelbey of Staynton, Gedney of Hudderley, Friske
| very closely to Saxe and Saxon. Can all this conney, Ormesby, Somercote, &c. It can have noglomeration be disintegrated ? A. HALL. connexion with the family of the great Court painter, HORACE.Can any reader of N. & Q.’inform as Sir Peter's name was originally Van der Vaes, me who is the author of the following translation and he did not come from Holland till the century of Horace, Od. iii. 461-64?after this pedigree was drawn up, which must have
Who with the pure dew laveth of Castaly been before 1532, the date of Cooke's death. Can
His flowing locks, who boldeth of Lycia any one give me information as to the family ?
The oak forests, and the wood that bore him, J. B. P.
Delos and Patara's own Apollo. ARMS OF YEOMEN.- I have seen it stated that,
I fancy I remember being once told that it was according to Guillim's · Heraldry' veomen, as such? by A. H. Clough; but I have failed to find it could bear coat armour sans crest. This surprises *
among his poems.
W. D. OLIVER. me, for I always supposed that when a yeoman
| Comberford, Teignmouth. received a grant of arms he became a gentleman; Pratt.-Can any one give me the name of and hence no man could receive arms and continue to any particulars concerning the father of Sir John be a yeoman. At what place in the several
Pratt, Knt., of Careswell Priory, Devon, ancestor editions of Guillim's work does this assertion of the present Marquis of Camden ? Every occur?
X. authority I have consulted speaks of Sir John, WILLIAM ELAND published the seventh edition
grandson of Richard Pratt, but no mention is
made of Sir John's father that I can find. I wish of 'A Tutor to Astrology' in 1694. Can any reader of N. & Q.' say when the first edition
to know his name, and the names of his brothers appeared ? Who was William Eland ? Is any.
| (if any), also whom they married and their issue. thing known about him ?
R. M, PRATT. JOHN ELAND. 12, New Court, Lincoln's Inn.
254, Cowbridge Road, Cardiff.
RECOLLECTIONS OF RUGBY.'_“Recollections of McBARNET AND MACKENZIE.—Can any of your Rugby, by an old Rugbwean” (London, 1848). readers help me to trace the connexion between Halkett and Laing put down this book to R. N. the family of McBarnet and Mackenzie of Suddy ? Hutton, on the authority of the Gentleman's MagaFamily tradition states that the original name was zine. The book is avowedly by an old Rugbeian Mackenzie, but was changed to McBarnet after (as it is generally spelt now); but no such name the '45. Mackenzie of Suddy is supposed to be occurs in the school register ; nor apparently in the branch of which this family is an offshoot. A Dict. Nat. Biog. Who was the author ? The member of the family was born at Lochaber in book was printed at Cirencester. C. SAYLE. 1780, and a brother of the latter fell at Tolosa in the Peninsular War. The McBarnet family until | "THE CAILDREN'S GARLAND,' selected by Covenrecently used the burning rock crest with “ Luceo try Patmore ; ed. 1892. —Can any one explain to non uro” motto.
JACOBITE. me why the warrior-minstrel in the title-page of
this volume wears his sword on the right side, ATKINSON.-I should be greatly obliged if apy with the hilt well up under the right arm ? As I one would kindly inform me of any family of the share the general feminine ignorance of all matters name of Atkinson, having a member named relating to weapons and the art of self-defence, I Juliana among them. Date about 1750 to 1770. may be in error, but it certainly seems to me that
E. TATOM. the gentleman in question would find himself in & Thomas Place, Norwood Road, S.E.
“considerably tight place" were the blade needed “ THE LAST PEPPERCORN BREAKS THE CAMEL'S
for immediate action.
SPINDLE. BACK."— Are the above words the orthodox form LATIN TRANSLATION WANTED.—Would you do of a popular proverb; or should “straw" be used me the favour of asking, in your next number of
‘N. & Q.,’ whether any of your readers can direct me where to find a Latin translation by, if I remember rightly, the Rev. Mr. Drake, of Mrs. Hemans's lines to a bird escaped from its cage 2 I remember seeing it, many years ago, in Blackwood's Magazine, in, I think, the “Noctes Ambrosianae'; but on searching for it now in the latter (separate) publication, I have not succeeded in finding it. The ode by Mrs. Hemans begins: Return, return, my bird— I have dressed thy cage with flowers, 'Tis lovely as a violet bank In the heart of forest bowers, &c. And the translation commences:—
Jam redi, dilecta avis, ad puellam,
Flore quae multo decoravit aulam
Dulce frondosae ut violis, olentem, Abdita silvae.
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'?
§tglies, THE LETTERS OF JUNIUS. (8th S. ii. 481.) It is satisfactory to see that the undying interest attaching to “Junius” is now securing renewed ition in “N. & Q.” A few months ago the subject of Sir Philip Francis attracted considerable attention in the Athenaeum, and, so far as I recoldect, 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 handwriting, “Sir Philip Francis.” It shows 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 :ag March, 1814.
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
signified his pleasure that the House should adjourn for twenty-one days. To this the House assented, with very little, observation, and no opposition, though many Members thought that so long or any adjournment was unnecessary—that it would be found very inconvenient in many other respects, and particularly distressing to private business. With that part of the subject, however, I do not mean to interfere. On the face of the roceeding, another proposition did obviously present itself, and ought not to have passed sub silentio; though it might have been reserved for discussion at a more convenient day, of which notice should have been given. The 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 ś disclaimer of this sort I know looks like a efence 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? 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. If not, and if nothing be meant but a request or recommendation, the words used are nugatory or something worse, because they say what they do not mean; and if that be admitted and defended, there is an end of the uestion, in the sense in which I wish to have it considered. All I should then have to say to the compositor 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#"; 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 §. 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 Parliamen'
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 Parliaments.” 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 - 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.”f 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 F. 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.”f
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. All lawyers will tell you, that a precedent that passes sub silentio, is of no validity, and Judge Waughan says, in his Reports, “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
*King's Speech, 1607.
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 ; 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 prorogue, if he pleases, and his Ministers may threaten the two Houses, that if they will not consent to adjourn, 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 commands 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 choice. 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 writes:— “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 .# 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, as I see no reason to doubt, there was a wide difference between the two on the subject of 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 religion, “which it seems to be the purpose of his life to defend.” Could Gibbon have spoken thus? 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 7 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 close examination. Holcombe INGLEBY.
I was much impressed when I read it with an article in a number of the Dublin University Magazine in the year 1852 in favour of the Earl of Chatham, and no one else, being Junius. Chatham wrote the letters, and Francis knew it, or in some cases was the amanuensis. The writer 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 having been the author 7—if not, I prefer to believe it. 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 Windex, 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. A. HALL.
13, Paternoster Row.