Replies.

MORAVIAN HYMNS.
(Vol. iv., p. 502.)

I offer P. H. the best information I have. It is scanty, but as a few years ago there was much competition for Moravian hymn-books, probably some fortunate possessor of an editio princeps may be induced to tell us more about them.

Of the editions which I have seen, the later is always tamer than its predecessors. I have one entitled A Collection of Hymns, consisting chiefly of Translations from the German. Part 3. The Second Edition. London: printed for James Hutton, Bookseller in Fetter Lane, over against West Harding Street, MDCCXLIX. After the manner of German hymn-books, though in verse, it is printed as prose. I have never seen Part I. or II.; and though a book which had reached a second edition only a century ago cannot, under ordinary circumstances, be scarce, several booksellers and book-fanciers, who have seen mine, declare that they think it unique. It is probable that ridicule and misconstruction induced the heads of the congregation to make great alterations and omissions in fresh editions, and to recommend the destruction of the old, as a means of avoiding scandal. Very good reason they had for so doing, as the meaning of spiritual love is often so corporeally expressed as to make Tabitha's dream, in the New Bath Guide, fall far short of the intensity of the serious work. I cannot find the "chicken blessed," as cited by Anstey, but have no doubt that it is genuine, as well as those in the Oxford Magazine. At page 86. of my copy is a different version of that given by P. H. It is called the "Single Sister's Hymn." Tune: "How is my heart," &c.

"To you ye Jesu's Wounds!

We pay

A Thousand thankful tears this day,

That you have us presented

With many happy

Virgin-Rows,

Who without nunnery, are close to Jesu's heart cemented.

This is a bliss which is sure

To secure

Virgin-carriage,

In the state itself of marriage."

It is obvious that this is an amended version. I believe these hymns were translated by persons not very familiar with the English language. The versification is occasionally good and harmonious, but generally lame, and the language abounding with Hebraisms and Germanisms. The matter is often indescribably puerile; and, though composed bonâ fide, would look profane and licentious in quotation.

I have another edition, "chiefly extracted from the Larger Hymn-book," London, 1769. It has bad English, bad verse, and puerility; but is not indelicate.

H. B. C.

U. U. Club.

WADY MOKATTEB NOT MENTIONED IN NUM. XI. 26.
(Vol. iv., p. 481.)

MR. MARGOLIOUTH, in his communication on this subject, has not dealt fairly with the text which he quotes. It is as follows:

"But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other was Medad; and the Spirit rested upon them, and they were of them that were written, but they went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp."

The concluding clause, which I have printed in italics, has been omitted by MR. MARGOLIOUTH, although it is plainly an essential part of the passage, and necessary to the complete statement of the facts narrated.

MR. MARGOLIOUTH would translate the passage thus: "And the Spirit rested upon them, and they were in The Cethubrin (i.e. in Wady Mokatteb), but they went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp."

He does not, however, explain how Eldad and Medad were in Wady Mokatteb, more than Moses and the rest of the seventy. The camp itself was in Wady Mokatteb, according to MR. MARGOLIOUTH'S hypothesis, and therefore there is no opposition between Eldad and Medad being there, and yet remaining in the camp. But assuredly some opposition is evidently intended between Eldad and Medad being בכתובים amongst them that were written, and the clause (omitted by MR. MARGOLIOUTH) "but they went not out unto the tabernacle."

The authorized English version is in accordance with all the ancient versions, the Chaldee paraphrase, and the commentators, Jewish as well as Christian. And I think it gives also the common sense view of the passage.

Moses had complained of the great burden which rested upon him. "I am not able (he says) to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me." He was directed, therefore, to choose seventy men of the elders of Israel; and God promised him "I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not alone."

Accordingly Moses brought out the seventy chosen elders, and stationed them round the tabernacle, and they there received the spirit of prophecy in some visible manner, so as to make their divine commission publicly known among the people; but two of them, named Eldad and Medad (the text goes on to say) remained in the camp, and nevertheless they also received the spirit of prophecy, for they were of them that were written בכתובים (i.e. they were of the number of the seventy whom Moses had selected), although they went not out to the tabernacle with the others: "καὶ οὗτοι ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν καταγεγραμμένων, nam et ipsi descripti fuerant," are the versions of the LXX. and Latin Vulgate. And this is evidently the meaning of the passage; for if Eldad and Medad had not been of the chosen seventy, they would have had no right to go out with the others to the tabernacle, and the remark of the historian, "that they remained in the camp and went not out unto the tabernacle," would have been without point or meaning. MR. MARGOLIOUTH, therefore, was quite right to omit these words, as they completely overturn his hypothesis.

Why these two elders remained in the camp is not expressly stated in the inspired narrative. Raschi says,—

‪מאותן שנבחרו אמרו אין אנו כדאי לגדולה הזה׃

"They were of those who were chosen, but they said, we are not sufficient for this great thing."

He goes on to tell us that Moses being perplexed how to choose seventy elders out of the twelve tribes, without giving offence to some one tribe by choosing a smaller number out of it, selected six out of each tribe, which made seventy-two, and determined by lot the two who were to be omitted. Raschi does not say (as Lightfoot, and after him, Bishop Patrick, seem to have imagined) that the two rejected elders were Eldad and Medad, for this would be inconsistent with the words just quoted, where he ascribes their remaining behind to their humility and sense of insufficiency for so great a work; and I need scarcely say that the text of the Scripture gives no authority for the story of the seventy-two chosen, and the two rejected by lot. But even this story sufficiently proves that the ancient Jewish commentators understood the words ‪ומה כתובים as they are rendered by our English translators.

MR. MARGOLIOUTH'S conjecture, therefore, is totally without foundation; it is not supported by any authority, and is even inconsistent with the plain words of the text. I should be sorry to see "N. & Q." made the vehicle of such rash and unsound criticisms, and therefore I send you this refutation of it.

With respect to Wady Mokatteb, it would be very desirable to have the singular inscriptions there extant carefully copied by competent scholars. Hitherto we have been forced to content ourselves with the drawings sent home by chance travellers; would it not be possible to organize a caravan of competent persons, having some knowledge of oriental tongues and alphabets, to explore these interesting valleys, and bring home correct transcripts of their inscriptions? Many noblemen and gentlemen spend annually on travelling and yachting much more money than would be necessary to organize such an expedition as I am suggesting; and if a party put their funds together, and took with them artists to make the drawings, with a couple of well qualified scholars to assist in deciphering them, I think they might spend as pleasant, and certainly a much more profitable, summer, than in ascending Mont Blanc, or drinking sack in the Rhine steam-boats. Perhaps, also, the improvements in the daguerreotype and talbotype processes might be made available for securing absolute accuracy in the fac-similes of the inscriptions.

JAMES H. TODD.

Trinity Coll. Dublin.

In reference to these celebrated inscriptions, a remarkable statement occurs in the Journal Asiatique for 1836, tom. ii. p. 182., of which I annex a translation:—

"M. Fræhn has discovered in an Arabian author, Ibn-abi-Yakoub-el-Nedim, who wrote in 987, a passage stating that at that period the Russians already possessed the art of writing. This author has even preserved a specimen of Russian writing of the tenth century, which, he says, he received from an ambassador sent to Russia by one of the Princes of the Caucasus. These characters do not resemble the Greek alphabet, or the runes of the Scandinavian races. It would appear, therefore, that the first germ of civilisation in Russia preceded the establishment of Rurik and the Varangi in this country, instead of having been introduced by them. A circumstance of peculiar interest is, that these ancient Russian letters, so different from any other alphabet, have the greatest analogy with those inscriptions, yet unexplained, sculptured on the rocks of the desert between Suez and Mount Sinai, and noticed there in the sixth century of our æra. The analogy existing between these inscriptions placed on the confines of Africa and Asia, and others found in Siberia, had already been demonstrated by Tychsen. M. Fræhn is about to publish this interesting discovery."

Query, what ground is there for the above assertions, and what has been since published in support of such a statement?

μ.

BOILING TO DEATH AS A PUNISHMENT.
(Vol. ii., p. 519.)

L. H. K. gives an extract from Howe's Chronicle, detailing the punishment of one Richard Rose (as also of another person) in the above manner for the crime of poisoning, and inquires if this was a peculiar mode of punishing of cooks. No reply to this having yet appeared, and the subject being only incidentally mentioned at Vol. iii., p. 153., I venture to submit to you the following Notes I have made upon it.

The crime of poisoning was always considered as most detestable, "because it can, of all others, be the least prevented either by manhood or forethought." Nevertheless, prior to the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. c. 9. there was no peculiarity in the mode of punishment. The occurrence to which Howe refers, appears to have excited considerable attention, probably on account of the supposition that the life of the bishop was aimed at; so much so, that the extraordinary step was taken of passing an Act of Parliament, retrospective in its enactments as against the culprit (who is variously described as Rose, Roose, otherwise Cooke, and Rouse), prescribing the mode of punishment as above, and declaring the crime of poisoning to be treason for the future. The occurrence is thus related in a foot-note to Rapin, 2nd edit. vol. i. p. 792.:—

"During this Session of Parliament [1531] one Richard Rouse, a cook, on the 16th February poisoned some soop in the Bishop of Rochester's kitchen, with which seventeen persons were mortally infected; and one of the gentlemen died of it, and some poor people that were charitably fed with the remainder were also infected, one woman dying. The person was apprehended; and by Act of Parliament poisoning was declared treason, and Rouse was attainted and sentenced to be boiled to death, which was to be the punishment of poisoning for all times to come. The sentence was executed in Smithfield soon after."

This horrible punishment did not remain on the Statute Books for any very lengthened period, the above statute of Henry being repealed by statutes 1 Edw. VI. c. 12., and 1 Mary, stat. I. c. 1., by which all new treasons were abolished, since which the punishment has been the same as in other cases of murder. If within the reach of any correspondent, an extract from the statute of Henry would be interesting.

J. B. COLMAN.

Eye, Dec. 16. 1851.

[The Act of 22 Hen. VIII. c. 9. recites, that "nowe in the tyme of this presente parliament, that is to saye, in the xviijth daye of Februarye in the xxij yere of his moste victorious reygn, one Richard Roose late of Rouchester in the countie of Kent, coke, otherwyse called Richard Coke, of his moste wyked and dampnable dysposicyon dyd caste a certyne venym or poyson into a vessell replenysshed with yeste or barme stondyng in the kechyn of the Reverende Father in God John Bysshopp of Rochester at his place in Lamebyth Marsshe, wyth whych yeste or barme and other thynges convenyent porrage or gruel was forthwyth made for his famylye there beyng, wherby nat only the nombre of xvij persons of his said famylie whych dyd eate of that porrage were mortally enfected and poysoned, and one of them, that is to say, Benett Curwen gentylman therof is deceassed, but also certeyne pore people which resorted to the sayde Bysshops place and were there charytably fedde wyth the remayne of the saide porrage and other vytayles, were in lyke wyse infected, and one pore woman of them, that is to saye, Alyce Tryppytt wydowe, is also thereof now deceassed: our sayde Sovereign Lorde the Kynge of hys blessed disposicion inwardly abhorryng all such abhomynable offences because that in maner no persone can lyve in suertye out of daunger of death by that meane yf practyse therof should not be exchued, hath ordeyned and enacted by auctorytie of thys presente parlyament that the sayde poysonyng be adjudged and demed as high treason. And that the sayde Richard [Rose or Roose] for the sayd murder and poysonynge of the said two persones as is aforesayde by auctoritie of this presente parlyament shall stande and be attaynted of highe treason: And by cause that detestable offence nowe newly practysed and com̅ytted requyreth condign̅e punysshemente for the same; It is ordeyned and enacted by auctoritie of this present parlyament that the said Richard Roose shalbe therfore boyled to deathe withoute havynge any advauntage of his clargie. And that from hensforth every wylfull murder of any persone or persones by any whatsoever persone or persones herafter to be com̅ytted and done by meane or waye of poysonyng shalbe reputed, demed, and juged in the lawe to be highe treason; And that all and every persone or persones which hereafter shalbe lawfully indyted appeled and attaynted or condemned of such treson for any maner poysonyng shall not be admytted to the benefyte of hys or theyre clargye, but shalbe immedyatly committed to execucion of deth by boylynge for the same.]

THE ROMAN INDEX EXPURGATORIUS OF 1607.
(Vol. iv., p. 440.)

U. U. will be extremely sorry to hear that he has not any reason for persuading himself that his copy of this Index belongs to the original edition. On account of the difference of spaces observed in the reprint, each page, though containing only the same matter that appears in the earlier impression, has been elongated to the extent required for three lines. The Ratisbon octavo is generally about an inch taller, and a third part thicker, than the Roman volume. The woodcuts are totally distinct, and are better in the authentic book; and the beau papier, of which Clement speaks, at once eliminates the modern pretender.

I have been able to obtain two copies of the genuine Vatican Index as well as its Serpilian rival; and with respect to what your correspondent calls "the Bergomi" (more properly the Bergamo) "edition" of 1608, I beg to assure him that there is an "undoubted" exemplar likewise producible, and that I have dispersed a thousand facsimiles of it since the ear 1837.

U. U. has charged Mr. Mendham with having imagined that "Brasichellen" was a "complete" word. I happen to know very well, and many of your readers also know, that my excellent friend is not altogether such a simpleton; but he will most probably not take the trouble on this occasion to defend himself. The fact is, that the Serpilian counterfeit alone is without the full stop in the case of this word, which in the Bergamo titlepage ends at "Brasichell." The master of the sacred palace, with whom we are now concerned, is very rarely mentioned as Giovanni Maria da Brisighella, the designation which he rightly gives to himself in his Italian edicts; and the Latinized forms Brasichellanus and Brasichellensis easily arrive at English abridgments. In 1607, when the Vatican Expurgatory Index was first published, the Commissary-General of the Roman Inquisition was Agostino Galamini da Brisighella, and his name is sometimes found recorded, unstopped, as "Augustinus Galaminius Brasichellen."

R. G.

HOBBES'S "LEVIATHAN."
(Vol. iv., pp. 314. 487.)

I am surprised that your correspondent H. A. B., who appears by his expressions to be an admirer of the Leviathan, should think the frontispiece an absurd conceit, very unworthy of its author. The design may be regarded, I think, as a very remarkable embodiment of the thought expressed in the passage where the term Leviathan is first used. The civil body or commonwealth, derived from the union of individuals, is represented by Hobbes as the origin of all rights and duties. And this combination of men is (Leviathan, p. 87.) something more than consent and concord. It is the real unity of them all in one and the same person. The multitude, so united in one person, is called a Commonwealth. "This is the generation," he says, "of that great Leviathan, or, to speak more reverently" (that is, with the reverence due to it), "of that mortal God to which we owe (under the Immortal God) our peace and defence." This "mortal God," thus constituted, may very fitly be represented by the giant image, made up of thousands of individual forms, wielding the mighty sword and the magnificent crosier, and spreading its arms, with an air of sovereignty, over castles and churches, rivers and ports, fields and villages. The emblems then represent, as H. A. B. observes, the manifestations of civil and of ecclesiastical power; and the parallelisms there exhibited appear to me to be curious: the castle, with a piece of ordnance discharged from the walls; the church, with a figure of Faith on its roof; the coronet and the mitre; the cannon, the thunderbolt of war; and the spiritual fulmination, represented by the mythological thunderbolts; the arms of Logic, Syllogism, and Dilemma, and the like; and the arms of war, pikes, and swords, and muskets; and finally, the judiciary tribunal, and the tribunal of the battle field, the ultima ratio regum.

The frontispiece in the edition of 1651 is a much better print than that of 1750; and in the former, I think, the resemblance to Cromwell is undeniable. In this edition, the tablet at the bottom has the words, "London: Printed for Andrew Crooke, 1651." In the edition of 1750 there are on the tablet the words, "Written by Thos. Hobbs, 1651," as C. J. W. states.

W. W.

MAJOR-GEN. JAMES WOLFE.
(Vol. iv., pp. 271. 322. 438. 503.)

If the follows remarkable lines, described to me as having been placed many years ago under a bust of General Wolfe, in the Old Castle at Quebec, should not be well known, I think they merit a place in your pages. My friend who sent the verses could not supply the author's name, nor state whether they still remain in situ quo, though I have some idea that the Old Castle was burnt:

"Let no sad tear upon his tomb be shed.

A common tribute to the common dead.

But let the Good, the Generous, and the Brave,

With godlike envy, sigh for such a grave."

I may as well add, in reply to the Query in your 113th No., page 504., that my worthy friend and neighbour, Mr. Richard Birch Wolfe, the present representative of the Wolfes of North Essex, upon inquiry at the College of Arms, was unable to trace any relationship between his family and that of the General.

BRAYBROOKE.

Audley End.

Mrs. Wolfe's maiden name was Henrietta Thompson; she was of a Yorkshire family, and "own sister to my sister Apthorp," says Cole, "the wife of the Reverend Dr. Apthorp, Fellow of Eton College, so that my nieces Frances and Anne Apthorp were first cousins to the General." This lady died on Wednesday, Sept. 26, 1764, at her house in Greenwich, and is described as "the relict of Col. Edward Wolfe, and mother to the late heroic General Wolfe." (Public Advertiser, Sept. 28, 1764.) The official letter from General Wolfe, dated Sept. 9, 1759, is in print. On Nov. 18, in that year, his body was landed from the "Royal William" at Portsmouth. Three affecting letters of the bereaved mother to William Pitt, dated Nov. 6th, 27th, 30th, are likewise published. On March 26, 1759, she had been left a widow by her husband Edward, who was in 1745 Colonel of H. M. 8th regiment of infantry, and appointed Lieutenant-General in 1747. In 1758, General James Wolfe was Colonel of H.M. 67th regiment of foot. By her will, Mrs. Wolfe devised 500l. to the maintenance and repairs of Bromley College (Cambridge Chronicle, Sat. April 27, 1765); and, her debts and legacies being first paid, bequeathed the residue of her property to poor and deserving persons, with preference to the widows and families of soldiers who had served under her gallant son. The applicants were to send in their names to Jas. Gunter, attorney, of Tooley Street, Southwark, before Jan. 1, 1766 (Whitehall Even. Post, Thursday, Aug. 22, 1765). The monument to Gen. Wolfe's memory, in Westerham Church, is of white marble, and set up over the south door. The inscription has been given already in Vol. iv., p. 322.; but with the omission of any mention of a black tablet beneath, inscribed "I, decus, I, nostrum." He was baptized on Jan. 11, 1727. I subjoin an obituary, and other notices of persons of his name:

1764. "Wednesday, at Westminster, Dec. 28, Lady Anne Wolfe, aunt to the late General, a maiden lady."—The Gazetteer, Friday, Jan. 4, 1765.

1677. Oct. 14. Thomas Wolfe, D.M. Oxon, 1653.

1703. April 6. Sir John Wolfe, Knt., Ald. London.

1711. Dec. 10. Sir Joseph Wolfe, Knt., Ald. London.

1748. May 27. John Wolfe, Secretary to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

1755. Nov. 12. Mrs. Wolfe, of Queen's Square.

1759. Sept. 21. Jacob Wolfe, Consul at St. Petersburg.

1791. Feb. 25. Mrs.——, wife of Lewis Wolfe, Esq., Compt. at the Stationer's Office.

1793. Dec.—Rev. Thos. Wolfe of Howick, Northumberland.

1794. Aug. 2. Mrs.——, relict of the above, at Saffron Walden.

1795. Jan. 27. Robert Wolfe, of Cork.

—— May 18. Rev. B. Wolfe, Schoolmaster of Dillon.

—— June 25. Thomas Wolfe.

William Twenshow of Arclyd, co. Chester, born 1666, married Anne, sister of Edward Wolfe, Esq., of Hatherton.

Robert French, married Anne, daughter of Richard Wolfe, and niece of Theobald Wolfe of Baronsrath, co. Kildare.

Rev. James Jones, of Merrion Square, married Lydia, d. of Mr. Theobald Wolfe; she died in 1793.

MACKENZIE WALCOTT, M.A.

Jermyn Street.

In Vol. iv., p. 271., inquiry is made for the parentage of the mother of Gen. Wolfe. I have accidentally discovered, in turning over Burke's Landed Gentry (p. 1389.), that she was a Thompson. Sir Henry Thompson, who was three times married, had, by his first wife, Henry, M.P. for York, the grandfather of Jane, married to Sir Robert Lawley, by whom she was mother of Paul Beilby Thompson, late Lord Wenlock. By his third wife, Susanna Lovel, Sir Henry had a son Edward, who married a lady named Tindal, and had issue, Edward, also M.P. for York; Francis, a lieut.-colonel; Bradwarden, a captain; Mary, married to General Whetham; and "Henrietta, mar. Colonel Wolfe, and was mother of General Wolfe, killed at Quebec."

N.

Will it serve your correspondent Ȝ., to state that at Inversnaid, on the borders of Loch Lomond, where Wordsworth met his immortalised "Highland Girl," there is a ruined fort, erected in 1716 to keep the clan Gregor in order, and which was taken and retaken, repaired and dismantled, but which, after the rebellion of '45, was occupied by the king's troops? There is a tradition that General James Wolfe was, for a time, stationed here. This tradition is referred to in all the guide Books, but no precise date is given.

G. W.

In the United States Institution there is a pencil profile of General Wolfe. It was presented to that collection by the Duke of Northumberland (when Lord Prudhoe).

On the back of the sketch itself are written these words:

"This sketch belonged to Lieut.-Col. Gwillim, A.D. Camp to Genl. Wolfe when he was killed. It is supposed to have been sketched by Harvey Smith."

On the back of the frame there is a paper, with the following inscription:

"This portrait of General Wolfe, from which his bust was principally taken, was hastily sketched by Harvey Smith, one of his aid-de-camps, a very short time before that distinguished officer was killed on the plains of Abraham. It then came into the possession of Colonel Gwillim, another of the General's aid-de-camps, who died afterwards at Gibraltar; and from him to Mrs. Simcoe, the Colonel's only daughter and heiress; then to Major-General Darling (who was on General Simcoe's staff); and is now presented by him to his Grace the Duke of Northumberland.

"Alnwick, Jan. 23, 1832."

This interesting sketch hangs near the case containing the sword worn by Wolfe when he fell.

L. H. J. T.

"THERE IS NO MISTAKE."
(Vol. iv., p. 471.)

It may, perhaps, have puzzled others of your readers, as for some time it did myself, to account for your correspondent F. W. J. having undertaken to prove that the Duke of Wellington did not first use "those celebrated words" there is no mistake, in his "reply to Mr. Huskisson." F. W. J. shows that the Duke wrote "the sentence now so well known" is 1812. No doubt he did: and it may not unreasonably be assumed that he had used it many hundred times before under similar circumstances. F. W. J. evidently confounds those words used by the Duke in their natural sense with the slang phrase which has been current for some years, and owes its origin, I believe, to a character in a farce, "and no mistake." The slang phrase is used by way of binding or confirming; as, for instance, "I will be there at two o'clock, and no mistake,"—the latter words being equivalent to "You may depend on it:" if, indeed, it be possible to fix a precise meaning to words so improperly applied. It is hardly necessary to say, that in both the instances referred to by your correspondent, the Duke used the words in their natural and proper sense. F. W. J. is wrong in supposing that the Duke used the phrase in his "reply to Mrs. Huskisson;" it was to Lord Dudley his Grace addressed the words. Mr. Huskisson having voted against his colleagues on the question of transferring the franchise from East Retford to Birmingham, went straight from the House of Commons to his office in Downing Street, and wrote a letter to the Duke, then Prime Minister, announcing that he lost no time in affording his Grace an opportunity of placing his (Mr. Huskisson's) office in other hands, as the only means in his power of preventing the injury to the King's service which might ensue from the appearance of disunion in His Majesty's councils, &c. On receipt of Mr. Huskisson's note, the Duke wrote to that gentleman stating that he had deemed it his duty to lay his note before the King. It happened that the Duke's note reached Mr. Huskisson whilst he was engaged in conversation with Lord Dudley, to whom he had been describing his own note to the Duke, and speaking of it (strange enough) as if it had not been a tender of resignation. When Mr. Huskisson showed Lord Dudley the Duke's letter, which showed that his Grace took a different view of the matter, his Lordship, knowing what Mr. Huskisson had been telling him, naturally enough said that the Duke must be labouring under a mistake. But this incident was narrated with so much naïveté by Mr. Huskisson himself, that I am tempted to quote his words (spoken in the House of Commons) as they were reported in the Times, June 3, 1828:—

"Upon showing this (the Duke's) letter to Lord Dudley, so struck was he with the the different import which the Duke of Wellington attached to the matter from that which was impressed on himself by the previous conversation, that he remarked, 'Oh, I see the Duke has entirely mistaken your meaning: I will go and see him, and set the matter right.' (A laugh.) Lord Dudley returned shortly after seeing the Duke, and said, 'I am sorry to say I have not been successful. He (the Duke) says it is no mistake; it can be no mistake; and (if Mr. Huskisson's relation of the words were not imperfectly heard, for he let his voice drop repeatedly) it shall be no mistake." (Loud laughter.)

C. ROSS.

THE REV. MR. GAY.
(Vol. iv., p. 388.)

I am greatly obliged by the communication of your correspondent relative to the Gays connected with Sidney College. It was as from that quarter I expected light. The passage in Paley's Life of Law, which is to me of considerable interest, long ago attracted my attention, although it escaped notice at the moment when I ventured to send my first inquiry. It runs as follows:

"Our Bishop always spoke of this gentleman in terms of the greatest respect. In the Bible, and in the writings of Mr. Locke, no man, he used to say, was so well versed."

Thus I find the passage quoted from Paley in Nichols' Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, vol. ii. p. 66. Bishop Law also mentions him in a letter to Dr. Zach. Grey, editor of Hudibras: "Respects to honest Mr. Gay, and all friends in St. John's." The letter was written from Graystock, May 31, 1743. The full address of Dr. Grey unfortunately is not given where I find the letter, in the same vol. of Nichols, p. 535. But we may safely gather from it, that at that time "honest Mr. Gay" was at Cambridge, and in esteem; whether a resident, as should seem most likely from the manner of the notice, or a casual visitor, does not certainly appear. If a resident, this is not consistent with the idea of your correspondent, that he became vicar of Wilshamstead, Bedfordshire, and vacated his fellowship before 1732. I wish that the identity of the author of the Dissertation with the John Gay—first in the list of your correspondent—an identity to which my mind also inclines, could be more clearly made out. He was born, and partly educated, in Devonshire.

A private correspondent has very kindly furnished me with a few particulars relative to Nicholas Gay, the second mentioned in your correspondent's list, and father of the fourth, which Nicholas was vicar of Newton St. Cyres, near Exeter, and died, æt. seventy-five, in 1775; and to another, Richard Gay, rector of St. Leonard, near Exeter, who died in 1755. Of this Richard Gay, on a stone in the church of Frithelstock, near Torrington, it is said that—

"To great learning, he added a most exemplary life in constant faithful endeavours to support religion, to glorify God, and to do good to man. He was equalled by few, surpassed by none of the age he lived in."

To such a character, one would gladly attach the Dissertation in question, but no Richard Gay, it appears, is mentioned in the records of Sidney College. There were many Gays in Devonshire of the family of John Gay the poet.

Permit me to make another inquiry: Is there any tolerably good account in existence of the private or domestic life of the celebrated Lord North, minister and favourite of George III.? Of his political career, a pleasing sketch is given by Lord Brougham, in his Historical Sketches of Statesmen, and many delightful anecdotes of his incomparable temper and playful wit are known; but of his domestic history I cannot find a trace.

EDWARD TAGART.

Wildwood, Hampstead.

PARISH REGISTERS, RIGHT OF SEARCH.
(Vol. iv., p. 473.)

As the Query herein appears to be one which it is more the province of the lawyer to answer, I take the liberty of submitting the following for your correspondent's consideration.

The ecclesiastical mode of registration appears now to be regulated by 52 Geo. III. c. 146., which still remains in force (except with regard to marriages, which was repealed on the introduction of the civil method) as far as regards baptisms and burials; and by the 16th section of that act, a proviso is enacted, that nothing in that act should diminish or increase the fees theretofore payable, or of right due, to any minister for the performance of the before-mentioned duties, &c.

The before-mentioned duties here referred to were, that they (the officiating ministers) should keep the registers of public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials in books for that purpose provided by the parish, that they should as soon after the solemnisation of the ceremony as possible enter it in the register. That such Register Books should be kept in the custody of the minister in an iron chest, which was to be kept locked, except for the purpose of making the entries as above, or for the inspection of persons desirous to make search therein, or to obtain copies, or for production as evidence, or for inspection as to their condition, or for the purposes of that act. That, within a stated period, the ministers should make copies (annually) of the registers, verify them, and transmit the copies to the registrar of the diocese. Now these just mentioned are the duties referred to in the act, so far as they concern our inquiry; and the fees payable have been the fee of one guinea for keeping the registers, a fee allowed by the parish for sending copies of them to the registrar of the diocese; but I do not observe any fee for any person searching, or even obtaining copies of any entry of baptism or burial, if they feel so disposed.

The civil method of registration is regulated by the 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 86.; and by the 35th section it is enacted:

"That every rector, vicar, or curate, and every registrar, registering officer, and secretary who shall have the keeping for the time being of any Register Books of births, deaths, or marriages, shall at all reasonable times allow searches to be made of any Register Book in his keeping, and shall give a copy certified under his hand of any entry or entries in the same on payment of ... for every search extending over a period not more than one year, the sum of one shilling, and sixpence additional for every additional year; and the sum of two shillings and sixpence for every single certificate."

This will be seen to comprehend such Register Books as apply to births and deaths only, and not to those containing baptisms and burials (which latter are only in the custody of the officiating ministers); and although some doubts may arise from the words "allow searches to be made of any Register Book in his keeping," I am of opinion that "the Register Book" here meant "in his keeping" only applies to the description just preceding, viz. of "births and deaths." I am inclined to think that no fee is payable legally to the minister for searching the Register Books of baptisms or burials, nor even for making a copy of an entry therein by any persons if they feel disposed to take a copy themselves.

In the same act, sec. 49., a provision is enacted that nothing in that act shall affect the registration of baptisms or burials as then by law established, or the right of any officiating minister to receive the usual fees for the performance or registration of any baptism, burial, or marriage: so that there is nothing even in this controlling clause last quoted, that at all affects the right of persons to search without fee the registers of baptisms or burials, or even of making copies; for that clause simply refers to the fact of registering, and the fees payable for solemnising the same, and the registration, although I am not aware that there is a fee for registering a baptism, although it was so in William III.'s reign.

By the 12th sect. of the 52 Geo. III. c. 146. (the latter part of it), I find that the copies of the registers which are transmitted by the minister annually to the registrar of the diocese, are to be arranged, and an alphabetical list of names to be made by the registrar; and such copies and list to be open to public search at all reasonable times upon payment of their usual fees. This of course does not apply to the baptismal or burial registers in the custody of the minister; but it is quoted that your correspondent may be in possession of the whole facts, for it is undoubtedly most important to the genealogical or archæological inquirer. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to stand corrected on the error being pointed out.

JOHN NURSE CHADWICK.

King's Lynn, Dec. 15, 1851.