An argument similar to the one used in the homily.
The insurrection, in fact, in the midland and north-eastern counties, began with an attempt to redress an agricultural grievance; according to Fox (E.H. vol. ii. p. 665. edit. 1641); "about plucking down of enclosures and enlarging of commons." The date of the homily itself offers no objection; for though it is said (Oxf. ed. Pref. p. v.) not to occur in any collected edition printed before 1571, yet there exists a separate edition of it printed in 4to. by Jugge and Cawood, probably earlier than A.D. 1563. Collier does not quote his authority for the statement about the banners, but probably it was either Camden or Holinshed, and a reference to these authors, which I regret I have no means of making, might established the particular point in question.
E.A.D.
"DEFENDER OF THE FAITH."
(Vol. ii., pp. 442. 481.)
I regret that my Note, inserted in your paper of Nov. 30th, was so ambiguously written as to elicit such a reply as it has been favoured with by MR. GIBSON of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
What I meant to say in my last Note was simply this—that two persons, viz. Messrs. Christopher Wren and Chamberlayne, have asserted that the title "Defender of the Faith" had been used by our monarchs anterior to 1521; and in support of their assertions, cite the Black Book of the order of the garter, and several charters granted to the University of Oxford: that is, each gives a distinct proof of his allegation.
Had MR. GIBSON understood my Note, as I trust he now will, he will see at once that the expression "untrue" is totally inapplicable to their statements, at least upon any showing upon his part; for he does not appear to me to have consulted either the Black Book or the charters, on which alone their assertions are based, to which alone we must in common honesty refer, and by which alone their veracity must be judged.
That their "startling" statements do not appear in Selden, nor in Luder's brief paper in the 19th vol. of the Archæologia, is conceded; but I think it might have occurred to the mind of one of less acumen than MR. GIBSON, that it was precisely because the allegations do not appear in these or any other writers or authorities that I considered them not unworthy of the attention of the readers of the "NOTES AND QUERIES". I am at a loss to reconcile MR. GIBSON'S expression "startling," as applied to the assertions of Messrs. Wren and Chamberlayne (and I need not add, that had they not been startling to myself as to him, they would never have found their way to your paper), with the following paragraph: