Replies.

NUMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.
(Vol. v., p. 11.)

Your correspondent ÆGROTUS sees a difficulty in the rapid increase of the Israelites in Egypt, and proposes to lessen it by doubling the time of their stay there, and including women in their census. His criticisms, however, seem to be as inadmissible as his difficulty is unreal.

For, first, in the place he quotes (Ex. xii. 37.), the number is said to be "nearly 600,000 that were men," where the Italics are intended to throw emphasis on men; because the Heb. גְּבָריִם means men as opposed to women, strong men, even soldiers. Also, from Numb. i. 2. 46. we see that the number 603,550 included only "every male ... from 20 years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war," thus excluding the tribe of Levi (v. 47.). Josephus, indeed, says (Antiq. III. viii. 2. and xii. 4.) that it included only the men between 20 and 50 years of age.

Then, as to the time that they were in Egypt: it is evident from Gal. iii. 17. that, going back 430 years from the Exode, we must come into the time of Abraham: so that the 430 years in Ex. xii. 40. must begin when Abraham first went into Egypt. And this is confirmed by the reading of the LXX there: κατῴκησαν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν, ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα. That they remained only 215 years in Egypt, is not merely the opinion of Professor Lee, as ÆGROTUS seems to think: it is given by Josephus (Antiq. II. xv. 2.), was received by the Jews and early Christians generally, and is now (at least almost) universally adopted.

Now, to come to the supposed difficulty itself: none such really exists, even if we take the higher number and the shorter time, as I think indeed we ought. The men being taken at about 600,000, we must reckon the whole people, at least, at 2,000,000. A calculation of no difficulty shows that if 70 persons increase in 215 years to 2,000,000, the number of the people must double itself every 14-1/2 years: or, if they increase to 3,000,000, the number must double every 14 years. Now, compare this with what we know about some other nations. Humboldt, in his Essai Politique sur le Royaume de la Nouvelle-Espagne (tom. i. p. 339.) says:

"The information which I have collected proves that, if the order of nature were not interrupted from time to time by some extraordinary and disturbing cause" [e.g. famine, pestilence], "the population of New Spain ought to double itself every nineteen years. [...] In the United States, since 1774, we have seen the population double itself in 22 years. The curious tables which M. Samuel Blodget has published in his Statistical Manual of the United States of America (1806, p. 73.), show that, for certain States, this cycle is only thirteen or fourteen years."

Again, Malthus, in his Essay on the Principles of Population, p. 6., says:

"According to a table of Euler, calculated on a mortality of 1 in 36, if the births be to the deaths in the proportion of 3 to 1, the period of doubling will be over 12 years and 4-5ths. And this supposition is not only a possible supposition, but has actually occurred for short periods in more countries than one. Sir William Petty (Polit. Arith., p. 14.) supposes a doubling, possible in so short a time as ten years."

What difficulty, then, can there be (knowing the promise in Gen. xvii. 6.) in believing that the number of the Israelites in Egypt doubled itself every fourteen years?

F. A.

P.S. Assuming what Malthus considers an ordinary rate of increase, when population is unchecked, viz. a doubling in 25 years, 70 persons in 430 years would increase to 10,539,000: which is what ÆGROTUS wishes to know.

At Vol. v., p. 11., ÆGROTUS suggests that the "600,000 men" of Ex. xii. 37. mean "men and women." He will find some valuable "Notes" on Hebrew statistics in the 1st and 2d chapters of Numbers, that appear to militate against his theory! (Numb. i. 1, 2, 3., ii. 32.)

A. A. D.

SERJEANTS' RINGS AND MOTTOES.
(Vol. v., pp. 59. 92. 110.)

The following will, I believe, be found to be a correct list of the Serjeants' mottoes during the last twenty years. The Law Reports not being probably accessible to all your readers to whom the subject may be one of interest, I have compiled this list with the view of preserving (in as brief a form as possible) in your pages, what is now scattered through many volumes.

Serjeants

1832.J. Gurney Justo secerne iniquum.
J. T. Coleridge
T. DenmanLex omnibus una.
1834.J. Williams Tutela legum.
1837. T. Coltman Jus suum cuique.
1838-9.T. Erskine Judicium parium.
1839. W. H. Maule Suum cuique.
R. M. Rolfe Suaviter fortiter.
1840.J. Manning
J. Halcomb
W. F. ChannellHonor nomenque manebunt.
W. Shee
D. C. Wrangham
W. Glover Regina et lege gaudet serviens.
S. Gaselee Nec temere nec timide.
1842.J. V. Thompson ?
F. S. Murphy Incidere Ludum.
H. G. Jones Bene Volens.
A. S. Dowling Onus allexit.
1843. N. R. Clarke Sapiens qui assiduus.
J. B. Byles Metuis secundus.
1844.E. Bellasis
J. A. Kinglake Paribus legibus.
C. C. Jones
W. Erle Tenax justitiæ.
1845. T. J. PlattLabor et fides.
R. Allen Hic per tot casus.
E. S. Bain A Deo et Regina.
C. Wilkins Non quo sed quomodo.
1847.E. N. Williams Legum servi ut libere.
1848.A. Wallinger Quid quandoque deceat.
1850. S. Martin Labore.
R. Miller Honeste niti.

N.B. The subsequent titles of those of the above learned Serjeants who have received promotion are omitted for brevity sake.

J. B. COLMAN.

Eye.

MR. FOSS is, I believe, mistaken in supposing that all the serjeants called at the same time have the same motto. That is the usual practice, but it has not been invariably observed. Sir John Walter, Sir Henry Yelverton, and Sir Thomas Trevor, were all called on the same day (May 10, 1 Car. I.). Sir John Walter and Sir Thomas Trevor gave the same motto on their rings, and Sir Henry Yelverton gave rings with a different motto. There are other instances of the like kind; that above referred to I take from the only old law-book I have now at hand (Croke's Reports).

C. H. COOPER.

Cambridge.

The following is probably the case referred to at p. 92. It is contained in 1 Modern Reports, case 30.:

"Seventeen serjeants being made the 14th day of November, a daye or two after, Serjeant Powis, the junior of them all, coming to the King's Bench bar, Lord Chief Justice Kelynge told him that he had something to say to him, viz., that the rings which he and the rest of the serjeants had given weighed but eighteen shillings apiece; whereas Fortescue, in his book De Laudibus Legum Angliæ, says, 'The rings given to the Chief Justices and to the Chief Baron ought to weigh twenty shillings apiece;' and that he spoke not this expecting a recompense, but that it might not be drawn into a precedent, and that the young gentlemen there might take notice of it."

W. H. LAMMIN.

Fulham.

MR. FOSS quotes what he considers the happiest of these mottoes. I think the following at least as happy, and certainly more classical. I believe (but am not sure) it was adopted by Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet. I need not point out its application:

"Antiquam exquirite matrem."

F. R.

LEARNED MEN OF THE NAME OF BACON.
(Vol. iii., pp. 41. 151.)

As no one appears inclined to follow up the suggestion of your correspondent with regard to the learned men of the name of Bacon, I have drawn up the following list, which I have met in the course of my reading, according to their dates.

1st. Robert Bacon, an eminent divine, born 1168, and died 1248. He studied at Oxford, and perfected his education at Paris; his principal work was the life of his friend and patron, Edmund, Archbishop of Canterbury, which was highly esteemed; he also wrote many other learned works.

2nd. Roger Bacon, the learned monk; of him it will suffice for me to mention the date of his birth and death, as none will dispute his right to a place in the list. He was born near Ilchester, in Somersetshire, 1214, and died at Oxford 1294.

3rd. John Bacon (surnamed the Resolute Doctor) was born at the latter end of the thirteenth century, in the little village of Baconthorpe, in Norfolk; from thence he is often called Baconthorpe. After some years spent in the Convent of Blackney, five miles from Walsingham, he removed to Oxford, and thence to Paris, where he was honoured by degrees both in law and divinity, and was considered the head of the Averroïsts. In 1333 he was invited by letters to Rome; and Paulus Pansa, writing of him from thence, says, "This one resolute doctor has furnished the Christian religion with armour against the Jews, stronger than any of Vulcan's," &c. He was held in great esteem all throughout Italy. He died in London, 1346.

4th. Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the great seal to Queen Elizabeth, was born at Chislehurst, in Kent, 1510, and educated at Cambridge. "As a statesman," says his historian, "he was remarkable for a clear head and deep counsels; he had much of that penetrating genius, solidity, and judgment, persuasive eloquence, and comprehensive knowledge of law and equity, which afterwards shone with so great a lustre in his son" (Francis Lord Verulam). He died Feb. 26th, 1578, equally lamented by the queen and her subjects; a monument was erected to him in St. Paul's, which was destroyed by the Great Fire, 1666. Sir Nicholas left several MSS., which have never been published.

5th. Anthony Bacon, the eldest son of Sir Nicholas by his first wife, born 1558, and educated at Cambridge. He was personally acquainted with most of the literati of that age. At Geneva he lodged in the house of the celebrated Theodore Beza. In 1585, he visited Henry of Navarre, then at Berne; here he became acquainted with the learned Lambert Danæus, who, as a mark of esteem, dedicated several of his works to him. In 1586, he formed an intimacy with the famous Philip Plessis de Mornay at Montaubon; 1591, he returned to England; from this time he carried on an extensive correspondence with the literati, and in 1596 he began a correspondence with Henry of Navarre, then Henry IV. of France. The time of his death is uncertain.

6th. Sir Francis Bacon, Viscount St. Albans, second son of Sir Nicholas, born 1560, educated at Trinity College, Cambridge; died April 9th, 1621. What can be a more concise and expressive notice of this great man than that of Walpole!—

"The Prophet of Arts which Newton was sent to reveal.... It would be impertinent to enter into an account of this amazing genius or his works; both will be universally admired so long as science exists."

7th. Sir Nathaniel Bacon, K.B., a younger son by his second wife of Sir Nicholas, was an excellent painter. He studied his art in Italy, but his style and colouring approach nearer to the Flemish school. I can find no date of his birth, &c.

8th. Phanuel Bacon, D.D., an admirable wit and poet. He died at Balden, Jan. 2nd, 1733.

9th. John Bacon, the celebrated sculptor, and possessed also of respectable literary talents; born in Southwark 1740, died 1799.

I hope you will not consider this list too long for insertion; but I thought it useless to give a long string of names without a short notice of each.

MYFANWY.

COLLAR OF SS.
(Vol. v., p. 81.)

Having only commenced subscribing to "N. & Q." at the beginning of the present year, I am not aware what has been said prior to this date, with reference to the Collar of SS.; but should not Mr. Boutell's remarks about this collar have been published, I beg to send them for the information of those interested:

"Next to the Garter itself, the most celebrated knightly decoration of this class is the Collar of SS. introduced by King Henry IV., apparently as a memorial of the success with which his aspiring ambition had been crowned: this letter S, repeated either in links of gold, or in gold embroidery, worked upon a fillet of blue, is the initial of the word 'Souveraine,' Henry's motto, which he bore while Earl of Derby, and which, as he afterwards became sovereign, appeared auspicious."

I dare say this idea of Mr. Boutell's may have been very ably refuted, by having pointed out the existence of the collar on a knight who is known for certain to have died prior to the reign of Henry IV.; but I must say that I have seen nothing in the Numbers of the current year which alters my opinion.

With reference to what MR. LEWIS EVANS says, at page 38., I beg to remark that he only assumes their dates from current report, for the dates are not on either of the tombs he mentions; and I think MR. EVANS is not a great studier of monumental effigies, otherwise he would not talk of a knight being dressed in "a coif de mailles and pointed helmet." I assume he means "a camail and pointed bascinet."

LLEWELLYN, at p. 81., makes mention of several, but of the only two upon which he ventures to fix a date, prior to Henry IV., one is "commonly ascribed," &c., and the other is "vulgarly called," &c., so that I place no reliance upon the truth of his deductions. Edwardus de la Hale, whom he mentions as No. 7., died, I think he will find, in 1431, and not 1421.

As regards the brass of Sir Thomas Peryent and lady, at Digswell, Herts, I may mention that although he wears a collar, yet I do not think it ought to be fixed as certain that it is that of the SS., for no letter, or portion of a letter, remains to prove it, although the collar which Lady Peryent wears is perfectly distinct.

I send you a list of a few more knights and ladies who wear this collar:

A.D.

1382. Sir Thomas Burton, at Little Casterton, Rutlandshire.

1407. Sir W. and Lady Bagot, at Baginton, Warwickshire.

1411. Sir John Drayton, at Dorchester, Oxfordshire.

1412. Sir Thomas Swynborne, at Little Horkesley, Essex.

1424. Lord and Lady Camoys, at Trotton, Sussex.

1430. Sir John Dyve, at St. Owens, Bromham, Beds.

1435. Lady Delamere (but not worn by her husband), at Hereford Cathedral.

As regards the brass of Sir Thomas Burton, although the date affixed to it is 1382, yet it is quite evident, from the style of armour worn by him, and the execution of the brass itself, that it was not executed till 1410, and that he died about that time, and his wife at the date mentioned.

H. L.

To MR. FOSS'S list of effigies bearing the Collar of SS. allow me to add the brass of Sir Thomas Peryent and his lady, at Digswell, Herts, both of whom wear this collar. Sir Thomas was a squire at arms to Henry IV., and died A.D. 1415.

At Arundel Church, also in Sussex, is a brass to Thomas Salmon and his lady. The figure of the knight is destroyed, but that of his lady bears the collar. Perhaps some of your readers can give some account of this knight.

Query, What persons are now entitled to wear it?

NEDLAM.

THE KÖNIGSMARKS.
(Vol. v., pp. 78. 115.)

A tragic destiny was that of most of the posterity of that John Christopher Königsmark, who commanded at the storm of the suburbs of Prague, the last deed of arms of the Thirty Years' War. John Christopher himself was born at Kotzlin in the Mark on Feb. 25, 1600, and from his brother descended the Königsmarks of the Mark. He fought first in the imperial service and in Italy, but afterwards joined the Swedes, and after the peace was Stadtholder of Bremen and Vredun, became Count and Royal Councillor (Reichsrath), and left behind him at his death in 1663 property worth 130,000 thalers yearly. He had three sons; the second, John Christopher, died in 1653 at Rottemburg, in Swabia, by a fall from his horse. The youngest, Count Otto Wilhelm, was born at Minden on June 3, 1639; studied under Esaias Pufendorf, and in 1654 was Rector Magnificus at Jena; served different powers as soldier and diplomatist; distinguished himself as general of the Venetians in the Morea; and died on September 16, 1688, of fever, when before Negropont. He was married to a Countess de la Gardie, of the well-known Swedish family. He probably was that Count Königsmark to whose protection John Leyser (Theophilus Alethaus) fled when he forfeited his offices of preacher and inspector at Pforta, which he had held since 1664, on account of, although himself chaste and virtuous, having defended polygamy; was pursued, taken, placed in prison, and died at Amsterdam in extreme poverty in 1684. The eldest son, Konrad, was first in the Swedish, then in the Dutch service, and fell a lieutenant-general at the siege of Bonn in 1673. He had married Marie Christine, daughter of Marshal Hermann Wrangel, and the Pfalzgravine Amalie Magdalene of Sulzbach, who bore him three sons and two daughters; one son died young. Which of the two others was the elder is doubtful. Certain it is that the one, Karl Johann, who is generally, though on no sufficient grounds, held to be the elder, was born in 1659, at Nieuburg on Fuhnen; studied till 1674 at Hamburg and Stade; then travelled in Holland, England, France, and Italy; fought so bravely on board the Maltese galleys, that on his departure in 1678 he, although a protestant, received the grand cross of the order. He then visited Rome, Florence, Genoa, Venice, Madrid, Paris, Holland, Hamburg, Stockholm, Windsor; set out in all haste when Tangiers was attacked, to take share in the battle; and, as the fleet was delayed by contrary winds, made his journey to Tangiers through France and Spain; from thence back again to Madrid and Paris; then again to Gibraltar, and three times to Africa; was with the English before Algiers; wandered round in Holland, England, and Germany; was with the French before Courtrai; and in Catalonia fought bravely under his uncle at Argos, and died in Greece on August 26, 1686.

The most mysterious episode of his life was brought on by his sueing for England's richest and highest heiress, Elizabeth, daughter of Josceline, second Earl of Northumberland.

The other brother, Count Philip Christopher, was involved in the well-known tale of the unfortunate wife of George I., the unhappy Sophia Dorothea of Zelle, afterwards Duchess of Ahlden, and met his death under circumstances of much mystery. According to the Duchess's assertion, he was the elder brother, as she states he was born in 1656.

The sisters were—Amalie Wilhelmina, and the well-known mistress of Augustus II., Maria Aurora, the mother of Marshal Saxe. Amalie married the Count Charles Gustavus of Löwenhaupt.

Extract from Von Bulau's Geheime Geschichten, vol. iii., article on "Count Löwenhaupt."

J. R. J.

BOILING CRIMINALS TO DEATH.
(Vol. v., pp. 32. 112.)

MR. JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS'S observations upon the reply you favoured me by publishing upon this subject, require from me some few observations in further support of it. When I wrote the article in question, I had not had an opportunity of consulting the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. itself. In making the assertion that, prior to the case of Roose, "there was no peculiarity in the mode of punishment," I did so principally on the authority of Blackstone, who says—

"Of all species of deaths the most detestable is that of poison, because it can of all others be the least prevented either by manhood or forethought, and therefore by the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. c. 9. it was made treason, and a more grievous and lingering kind of death was inflicted on it than the common law allowed, namely, boiling to death."

Upon a perusal of the statute (as published by you at p. 33.), I am confirmed in my opinion that the statute was "retrospective in its enactments as against" Roose, and was more extensive in its operation than (as MR. NICHOLS appears to consider) merely depriving the culprit of the "advantage of his clargie." The Act, after reciting the facts of the case, enacted that the particular act of poisoning should be deemed high treason; and that the said "Richard" should be attainted of high treason: and because that offence, then "newly practised," required condign punishment, it was further enacted, that the said Richard Roose should be boiled to death without benefit of clergy.

If this particular punishment already existed for the crime stated in the Act to be "new," why the necessity for thus particularising the mode of punishment? The conclusion of the Act (differing much in the verbiage from that part relating to Roose) confirms me in my opinion, for it enacts that all future poisoners should not only be adjudged guilty of high treason, and not be admitted to the benefit of clergy, but also provides for the punishment in the mode in question.

With regard to the case instanced by MR. NICHOLS, in the 13th Hen., I merely observe that it appears to have escaped the attention of Blackstone, and others who have written upon the subject. Assuming that case to have happened, a reference to the statutes of Henry of that period might probably show that an Act was passed for the punishment of that particular offence; but not extending further, it became necessary to pass another, both specific and general, upon the occurrence of Roose's case.

In support of my view as to the discontinuance of the punishment, vide Blackstone, vol. iv. p. 96.

N.B. The date "1524" (third line from the bottom of second column, p. 112.) appears a misprint for "1542".

J. B. COLMAN.

Eye.

The punishment of boiling criminals to death was not inflicted solely for such a crime as poisoning. It was a common punishment for coining. See Annales Dominicanarum Colmariensium in Urstisius, Ger. Illust. Script., vol. ii. p. 12.; and Ducange, in verb. Caldariis decoquere. I believe instances of it will also be found in Döpler, Theatrum Pœnarum; and it will be seen by a reference to Ayala, Cronica del Rey Don Pedro, that this was the favourite mode of putting to death all persons who had offended him, employed by that monarch, who is best, and, as I think, most truly, known in history as "Peter the Cruel."

W. B. MACCABE.

As the punishment of boiling has been a matter of investigation lately in your columns, perhaps the following contribution on the same subject may not be uninteresting to some of your readers. It appears that in the year 1392, when Florentius Wewelinghofen, or Wewelkofen, was Bishop of Utrecht, a certain Jacobus von Jülich, by means of forged credentials from the Pope, contrived to pass himself off, for a time, as suffragan to the same see. Upon the discovery of the cheat, however, Florentius summoned a synod of six bishops to Utrecht, who condemned the unfortunate pretender to be sodden to death in boiling water! Zedler, in his Universal Lexicon, tom. ix. col. 1282., alludes to the fact. Wilh. Heda, in his Hist. Episc. Ultraject. pp. 259, 260., gives the story thus:

"Circa hæc tempora, scilicet anno 1392 ... quidam ex professione Divi Francisci, sese pro Sacerdote et Episcopo gerens, et in Suffraganeum Episcopi Florentii assumptus, cum aliquandiu sacra omnia peregisset, inventus falso charactere atque literis usus, destituitur, et ferventibus aquis immergendus adjudicatur; impositus vero aquis (quia clamore suo Episcopum ad pietatem commovit) statim extrahitur et capite truncatus obtinuit sepulturam."

Perhaps the Cardinal, should this meet his eye, or any one of your readers equally skilled in Roman ecclesiastical archæology, can inform the public whether this may not be the origin of the phrases, "getting oneself into hot water," and "being sent to pot."

J. B. MCC.

British Museum.

"ADMONITION TO THE PARLIAMENT."
(Vol. v., p. 4.)

This is not at all an uncommon book. There are at least three copies in the University Library, Cambridge; one at Trinity College; besides others in other college libraries. There is also one at Lambeth; two in the Bodleian, Oxford; and copies are from time to time occurring at booksellers' for sale. There is not, however, one in the British Museum; and the first edition is exceedingly scarce. MR. PAYNE COLLIER is, I think, mistaken in the dates which he assigns to the Admonition and to Whitgift's Answer. He follows indeed Herbert's Ames, in which reference is made to Strype; but Strype would have furnished materials for a more accurate statement. Whitgift's Answer was first published towards the end of 1572; for the edition of that year does not contain "Certayne notes and properties of Anabaptistes," which Whitgift himself (Defense of the Aunswere, p. 33., and elsewhere) tells us he had introduced into the second edition. But these "notes" do appear in the edition dated 1573, which must therefore be only the second. Moreover, Thomas Norton wrote to Whitgift dissuading him from publishing his Answer. This letter was dated Oct. 20, 1572. In a subsequent letter to Archbishop Parker, dated Jan. 16, 1572 (1573), Norton speaks of his former epistle as having been written "before Mr. Whitgift's book came out." (See Strype; Whitgift, book I. chap. vi.; Parker, book IV. chap. xii.) The date of the Answer thus ascertained, we may the better conjecture the dates of the editions of the Admonition, which MR. COLLIER says he gathers "had been printed four times anterior to" 1572. Whitgift, it would seem, had written, if not published, his reply before more than a single edition of the Admonition was abroad; for he says (Answer, 1573, p. 189.), "After I had ended this confutation of the Admonition, there comes to my hand a new edition of the same, wherein some things be added," &c. He also says (Defense, p. 34.), "the Admonition was published after the Parliament, to the which it was dedicated, was ended ... it was not exhibited in Parliament, as it ought to have been," &c. Further, the Admonition itself, fol. A. viii., says, "immediately after the last Parliament holden at Westminster, begun in Anno 1570, and ended in Anno 1571," &c. This could hardly have been said earlier than 1572. For these reasons (I will not occupy space by alleging more) the Admonition could not, we may gather, have "been printed four times anterior to that year."

A. J. H.

"SIR EDWARD SEAWARD'S NARRATIVE."
(Vol. v., p. 10.)

The following is a copy of a letter addressed by Miss Porter to a relative of mine:—

"Esher, Jan. 30, 1832.

"Madam,—I hasten to express the pleasure with which I answer your favour on the subject of Sir Edward Seaward's Narrative, to the best indeed of my power, but, I regret to say, not as explicitly as I wish. However, with respect to the authenticity of the events, I have no reason to doubt them; the manner of the original MSS. coming into my hands having been precisely what my Preface to the work described.

"The same query that you have made has been put to me from various quarters; and I have communicated most of them to the owner of the MSS., but he invariably declines allowing me to give his name, or other proofs of the facts in the Narrative, saying, that 'since the public has done him the honour of putting his old heir-loom into mystery, even in the face of the editor's simply told Preface, he will not deprive himself of the amusement such unexpected doubts afford him.'

"Thus far his whimsical decision; nevertheless, as editor of the work, I cannot deny myself adding the sincere satisfaction I feel in the sympathy so universally expressed with the virtues of the truly amiable Seaward and his family; and the more so, as his lessons of piety and domestic concord in the most trying situations may well be considered his richest bequeathment.

"I have the honour to subscribe myself, Madam,

"Very much yours,

"JANE PORTER."

This corroborates the account given by W. W. E. J., and may be thought worthy of a place in "N. & Q."

W. H. LAMMIN.

Fulham.

If we may credit the inscription on the monument erected to the memory of the Porter family in Bristol Cathedral, the real author of Sir E. Seaward's Narrative was none other than Miss Porter's own brother, Dr. Wm. Ogilvie Porter, who within three months followed his sister to the grave, being the last survivor of that talented and distinguished family. Dr. Porter commenced his medical career as a surgeon in the navy, and was probably acquainted with the Caribbean Sea and its islands; for his first wife, who died in 1807, and was buried at St. Oswald, in the city of Durham, was a native of Jamaica. Whether he avowed himself the writer, when he entrusted the work to his sister for publication, seems doubtful. It is possible she may have been led to regard it as a genuine account of real transactions, whereas it is said to be an entirely fictitious and imaginary story, written solely for amusement.

May I take this opportunity of asking for information respecting the origin of the Porter family? Their father, who was a surgeon in the army, and died in early life, is said to have been of Irish extraction. Their mother was a Miss Blenkinsop, of the city of Durham. Any information respecting the families of Porter and Blenkinsop would be interesting. What is the name of the Russian nobleman or gentleman to whom the daughter of Sir R. K. Porter is married? If she is still alive, she is the sole representative of the Porters, it is believed.

E. H. A.

GENERAL WOLFE.
(Vol. v., pp. 34. 136.)

As a sequel to the inquiries suggested in your pages respecting General Wolfe, permit me to contribute the inscription on the obelisk erected by Lord Dalhousie, in 1827, in a conspicuous part of Quebec, in honour of the General and of his brave opponent Montcalm.[9] I give it in the precise form in which it was obligingly communicated to me by the present Bishop of Quebec, in reply to my suggestions, a year or two ago, of another inscription, which I also send:

"Mortem Virtus communem

Famam Historia

Monumentum Posteritas dedit."

"Hujusce

Monumenti in memoriam virorum illustrium

WOLFE et MONTCALM.

Fundamentum p. c. Georgius Comes de Dalhousie,

In Septentrionalibus Americæ partibus

Ad Britannos pertinentibus

Summam rerum administrans

(Quid duci egregio convenientius?)

Auctoritate promovens, exemplo stimulans

Munificentiâ fovens

Die Novembris XV. MDCCCXXVII

Georgi IV. Britanniarum Rege."

Suggested Inscription.

"Hoc in loco

JACOBUS WOLFE, Anglorum,

LUDOVICUS DE MONTCALM, Francogallorum,

Exercitibus præfecti,

Optimis belli pacisque artibus pares,

Vitæ exitu simili,

Dispari fortunâ,

Commissâ inter Anglos et Francogallos pugnâ,

Ille in amplexu victoriæ

Hic victus, sed invicto animo,

Vulneribus confossi

Satis honorificé defuncti sunt.

"Felices ambo!

Quorum ingenio, moribus, bellicæ virtuti,

Duarum amplissimarum gentium

Mutuo luctu lacrymisque

Parentatum."

[9] [An account of laying the first stone of the obelisk to Wolfe and Montcalm, on Nov. 20, 1827, will be found in Quebec and its Environs, 8vo. 1837.—ED.]

P.S.—I would add, in connexion with this subject, that an elegant and classical epitaph on Montcalm, printed in Popham's Illustrium Virorum Elogia Sepulchralia, ends as follows:

"Mortales optimi ducis exuvias in excavatâ humo,

Quam globus bellicus decidens dissiliensque defoderat,

Galli lugentes deposuerunt,

Et generosæ hostium fidei commendârunt."

Query, Where is this epitaph inscribed; and is the fact recorded in it noticed in any cotemporary history?

F. K.

Bath.

Under the impression that the following Note, with reference to the gallant General James Wolfe, may tend to illustrate some other fact connected with the later period of the life of that generally lamented individual, I send it at a venture.

General Jones Wolfe was (I am not aware of the military rank he then filled) at—

"An encampment on Bradford Heath. about two miles from the town of Dorchester, co. Dorset, in the year 1757. The encampment consisted of the following regiments, under the command of Lieut.-Gen. Sir John Mordaunt and Major-Gen. Conway; viz. Bland's Dragoons; the Old Buffs, two battalions; Kingsley's, two battalions; one company of the Train of Artillery—in all ten troops, six battalions. Generals Mordaunt and Conway, and a great part of these forces, being sent on the expedition against Rochford, the remainder was reinforced and commanded by Lieut.-Gen. John Campbell, afterwards Duke of Argyll, and Major-Gen. Mostyn."

The above is extracted from Hutchins's History of Dorset, 1st edition, vol. i. p. 375.

That General Wolfe was in the above encampment, I had the information from a gentlemen who knew him; and many years ago I accidentally met with a book with the autograph of the General, "James Wolfe," written on the fly-leaf, in a bold and gentlemanly style. The volume being on a military subject, was not taken any care of, and lost: it was left by the General in the hands of Messrs. Gould and Thorne, booksellers in Dorchester, from whose successors I had it.

G. F.

Weymouth.