J. W.

Liverpool.

Derivation of News.

—It is just two years since the word News was stated to be derived from the initial letters of the cardinal points of the compass, as prefixed to early newspapers. I well remember the impression which the statement made on me: if written seriously, as a mark of credulity; if sportively, as rather out of place. Moreover, it was both stated as a fact, and as an ingenious etymology—a manifest inconsistency.

In the fierce and tiresome discussion which arose out of that announcement, the main points in support of the asserted derivation were never once introduced. Do such early newspapers exist? Is the derivation itself of early date? As to the first question, I must declare that no such newspapers ever came under my observation; but as to the second, it must be admitted that the derivation has been in print, with all the weight of evidence which belongs to it, above two centuries.

I shall assume, if not better informed, that it has no other authority than the subjoined epigram in Wits recreations, first published in 1640, and said to contain the finest fancies of the muses of those times. In default of the original edition of that rare work, I transcribe from the re-publication of it in 1817.

BOLTON CORNEY.

Passage in Troilus and Cressida.

—Would MR. J. PAYNE COLLIER, whose name I have often seen among your contributors, have the kindness to inform me whether any light is thrown, in the emendations inserted in his folio edition of Shakspeare, 1628, on a line which has always puzzled me in Ulysses' speech in council, in Scene 3. of Act I. of Troilus and Cressida? The passage runs thus:

It will be seen that the third line, according to the usual pronunciation of the last word, is defective in scanning; that, if derived from divido, the vowel in the penultimate syllable would be i and not a; and that, even if intended to express the word divided, as suggested by one of our commentators, would be too vague and inexpressive.

Might I suggest that the derivation is not from the word divido, but rather from a compound of the words divitiæ and do; the expression "riches-giving shores" not only completing the sense of the passage, but forming a compound not uncommon with our immortal bard.

W. S. D.

Bachelor's Buttons.

—That should be their name if they exist; but, if so, where are they to be got? I never heard of them. I should think a clever fellow might make a fortune by inventing some kind of substitute which a man without the time, skill, or materials necessary for sewing on a button, might put in the place of a deserter. If you do not insert this Query, may your brace buttons fly off next time you are dressing in a hurry to dine with the grandest people you know!

YOUR WELLWISHER.

Princes of Wales and Earls of Chester, eldest Sons of the Kings of England.

—In the New Memoirs of Literature, vol. iv., July, 1726, it was announced that Mr. Bush, one of the Clerks of the Record Office in the Tower, and late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, designed to print a Collection of Charters, Letters Patent, and other instruments concerning the creation and investiture of the eldest sons of the Kings of England as Princes of Wales, Dukes of Cornwall, Earls of Chester and Flint, &c. &c., from the time of Edward, the first Prince of Wales (afterwards King Edward II.), to the time of Edward IV.

Can any of your correspondents inform me whether such a work ever was published? and who was the editor of the monthly review entitled New Memoirs of Literature, which extended to six volumes 8vo.? It contains notices of many old and now rare works, and stopped in December, 1727.

G.

Authenticated Instances of Longevity.

O. C. D.

Minor Queries Answered.

Laud's Letters and Papers.

—Can any of your correspondents inform one where any unpublished letters or papers of Archbishop Laud are to be met with, besides those at Lambeth or in the British Museum?

Anthony à Wood mentions his speech against Nathanael Fiennes; and Wanley, in his Catalogue of English and Irish MSS., states that many of his writings, both political and theological, were extant at that time in private libraries.

B. J.

[Archbishop Laud's Works are now in the course of publication in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, and from the editor's valuable bibliographical prefaces to vols. i. and ii., we think it probable that some notices of these MSS. will be given in the subsequent volumes. Our correspondent may also consult Catalogi Librorum Manuscriptorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ, Oxon. 1697.]

Scot's Philomythie.

—Philomythie, or Philomythologie, wherein Outlandish Birds, Beasts, and Fishes are taught to speak true English plainlie, &c.

The same volume, a small quarto unpaged, contains "The Merrie American Philosopher, or Wise Man of the New World," and "Certaine Pieces of this Age Parabolized, viz. Duellum Britannicum; Regalis Justitia Jacobi; Aquignispicium; Antidotum Cecillianum; by Thomas Scot, Gentleman, 1616, with illustrative woodcuts."

Query: Is the book rare, and who was Thomas Scot?

L. S.

[But little appears to be known of the personal history of Thomas Scot. Sir S. Egerton Brydges, in his Censura Literaria, vol. iii. pp. 381-386., and vol. iv. p. 32., has given some account of his works, but no biographical notice of the author. The dedications to his poems being principally to the Norfolk and Suffolk gentry, it is probable he belonged to one of those counties. The first edition of Philomythie was published in 1610; the second in 1616; but some copies of the second edition, according to Lowndes, are dated 1622, others 1640. There is a third portion which our correspondent does not appear to possess, entitled The Second Part of Philomythie, or Philomythologie, containing Certaine Tales of true libertie, false friendship, power united, faction and ambition. By Thomas Scot, Gent. London, 1616, 1625. Thomas Park thought that, from the great disparity of merit between this and the preceding part, there is little reason to suppose them to be by the same author, though they bear the same name. Scot's works are considered rare, especially his first, entitled Four Paradoxes of Arte, of Lawe, of Warre, of Seruice: London, 1602, consisting of twenty-four leaves, in verse, dedicated to Ladie Helena, Marquesse of Northampton, which is marked in Bibl. Anglo. Poet. at 25l., and resold for 7l. 12s. (Hibbert, 7243.)]

Robin of Doncaster.

—Give me leave to ask for an explanation of the following enigmatical epitaph, which will be found in the History of Doncaster, by Dr. Edward Miller, p. 74.:

Dr. Johnson latinized a part of it thus:

In Magna Britannia et Hibernia, antiqua et nova, vol. vi. p. 429., it is stated that Robin of Doncaster gave Rossington Wood to that corporation. Perhaps some reader may be able to supply more of his biography.

☞ F.

Horæ Belgicæ.

—In what language is the second part of Hoffman von Fallersleben's Horæ Belgicæ written? This, from its title being written in Latin, may seem a foolish question, but it is also called (N. & Q., Vol. v., p. 7.) Holländische Volkslieder: and where can it be procured or seen?

W. S. S.

[Hoffman's work consists of six parts, of which the first—a bibliographical essay on old Flemish literature—is written in Latin. The second, to which our correspondent refers, is in German. Part III. contains the Flemish Floris ende Blancefloer, with a German Introduction; Part IV., the old Flemish Caerl ende Elegast, has a Latin preface; while Part V., containing Lantsloof ende die scone Sandrijn and Renout van Montalbaen, and Part VI., Altniederländische Schaubühne, a collection of early Flemish dramatic pieces, have German introductions. We believe the work may be procured of Williams and Norgate. If not, or our correspondent only wishes to refer to it, we shall be very happy to place our copy at his service for a few weeks.]

Dulcarnon.

—"I am at Dulcarnon." What is the origin of the above saying? I heard it used the other day by a person who, declaring he was at his wit's end, exclaimed, "Yes, indeed I am at Dulcarnon." Since that I have seen it in Boyer's French Dictionary, but in no English book.

H. CORVILLE WARDE.

Kidderminster.

[In addition to the note in our first Vol. p. 254, we may remark that Mr. Halliwell, in his Dictionary, says this word has set all editors of Chaucer at defiance. A clue to its meaning may be found in Stanihurst's Description of Ireland, p. 28.: "These sealie soules were (as all dulcarnanes for the most part are) more to be terrified from infidelitie through the paines of hell, than allured to Christianitie by the joies of heaven."]

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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

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."

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.)

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.)