Mr. Round’s observations in his third paper are not of a character to make it necessary for me in any way to alter or modify anything that I have already said. Indeed, so far as his introduction of the authority of Mr. Freeman is concerned, he has contributed only to strengthen my position, for the passage which he quotes from Mr. Freeman’s “English Towns and Districts,” (a work which I have not enjoyed the advantage of seeing,) may, mutatis mutandis, be equally well applied to the word port-reeve.
If we merely substitute the word port for “name of the gate,” and in Port-reeve for “Nova Porta,” the sentence will read thus: “The abiding Latin port, in port-reeve, of itself goes far to show that there could have been no long gap between Roman or British and English occupation.” With this slight and quite legitimate alteration, (for the whole force of Mr. Freeman’s statement hangs on the presence of the word porta,) it would be difficult to express the point for which I have been contending in more apposite terms, and the circumstance that Mr. Round sees fit to question Mr. Freeman’s statement because he can “find no evidence for it,” is a matter regarding which I do not feel myself called upon to enter.
As Mr. Round now informs us that his paper is “to be continued,” and it appears to be uncertain when it will be brought to a conclusion, I deem it best no longer to defer forwarding this reply, more especially as he proposes to make some other words, with which I do not find myself in any way concerned, the subject of his future criticisms.
In conclusion, I would observe that the result of my former paper was to bring me many interesting communications on the subject of which it treats.
From the general tenor of these communications, as well as from other sources, I gather that the ancient office of port-reeve is rapidly falling into desuetude, though in some comparatively rare instances the Port-reeve still remains the chief officer of the borough, and is invested with considerable power and privileges. Thus, in an obliging communication which I received from the Port-Reeve of Tavistock, that gentleman is good enough to inform me that he not only still remains the returning officer of the borough, but that he also enjoys a seat on the County Bench, as J.P. for Devon, solely by right and in virtue of his office as Port-reeve, a fact which I conceive is sufficiently rare and interesting to merit being placed on record.
The Salic Law.
By Charles Mackay, LL.D., Author of “The Gaelic Etymology of the Languages of Western Europe.”
THE Salic law, which still prevails in some parts of Europe, is supposed to have been instituted in the sixth century by Clovis, or Pharamond, King of the Franks. In Shakespeare’s play of “King Henry V.,” Act i. Scene 2, King Henry, addressing the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely, thus asks them to expound the Salic Law:—
“My learned Lord, we pray you to proceed:
And justly and religiously unfold,
Why the law Salique, that they have in France
Or should, or should not, bar us in our claim.”