LONDON, SATURDAY, JANUARY 2, 1897.

CONTENT S.-N° 262.
NOTES:-Parliamentary Writ of 25 Edward I.. 1 The
Times, 9 November, 1796, 2-British, 3-Wife Shod by her
Husband—“ Gallop"-"Dear knows"-Olney, 5-"Scrog-
moggling "—"Yaw" Mrs. Baddeley-" Gert "-Great-
Butler and Tennyson-" Yede”—Shakspeare and the Book

of Wisdom, 6.

of Baliol, and being under the necessity of continuing the French war with two armies, a southern in Gascony and a northern in Flanders, found himself with an exhausted treasury, and demanded a fifth from the clergy.

This demand was, in view at once of the gravity of the king's necessities and of the enormous and rapidly increasing wealth of the Church, a moderate But the Primate Winchelsey and the demand.

QUERIES:-William Hiseland-Everle: Gysburne-Water-
bury Thomas Proclus Taylor-Edward II.-Petworth
Gaol-Col. H. Slaughter-Stained Glass, 7-Flixton-Pope Boniface VIII. regarded the position of the
Burial-place of Capel Lofft-Nelson Relic - Mangles--
George Morland-John André - Colby Font-Hill-Sir king as a favourable one to promulgate the monstrous
Kenelm Digby, 8-London Directories-"Sones carnall" claim that Church property should pay no taxes to
-Vergilius-Authors Wanted, 9.
the king, but to the Pope alone.

REPLIES:-Galleries in Church Porches, 9-" God save the
To this end Winchelsey produced the celebrated
king," 10-Compound Adjective-Lord Monson-Sub-
stituted Portraits-Sheep-stealer Hanged-Astrological Bull by Boniface, known as "Clericis Laicos," for-
Signatures, 11-Churchwardens-Joseph Miller-Forest bidding the clergy to grant to laymen any part of
Cloth"-Peter of Colechurch-Squib, 12-'The Giaour'
the revenue of their benefices without the permis-
Saxon Pedigree-Robin and Dead Child-Cunobelinus or
In Convocation this
Cymbeline-"Fighting like devils," &c., 13-Stephen sion of the Holy See.
Duck-"Jolly"-Lines on Oxford and Cambridge, 14-attitude was supported with the dictum that
Aerolites-Breve and Crotchet-Motto-Eschuid-Change
of Religion-Pitt_Club, 15-Accents in French-Anec- obedience was due to their spiritual lord and to
dotes of Books-Fovilla-Simon Grynæus, 16-Laurence their temporal, but most to the spiritual: to which
Hyde-Topographical Collections-"Feer and Flet
Sir John Jervis, 17-Louis Philippe-Duke of Gloucester latter they ingenuously offered to submit the point

-The Man of Ghent-Early Newspapers, 18-Authors
Wanted, 19.

THE PARLIAMENTARY WRIT OF 25 EDWARD I. The writ of summons, dated 26 January, 25 Edward I. (1296/7), for a Parliament to meet at Salisbury, is invested with much interest from the fact that Francis Townsend, Windsor Herald, quoting, as it appears, John Vincent, raised a doubt as to the regularity of this writ.

The manner in which this doubt originated is very clearly set forth, in his 'Historic Peerage,' by William Courthope, Somerset, who gives with great fulness and perspicacity many details conBected with the writ, and he adds critical remarks which indicate that he was much impressed by the doubt raised; all of which may be found, as any one familiar with his valuable work knows under "Fitz-John."

The essence of the objection which has been thus taken to this writ is that it is addressed to the temporality only, and ignores the whole body of peers spiritual, not a single bishop or abbot being ncluded; and dealing for the present with this point only, it is not a little strange that Courthope, in his very careful statement of the case, makes no llusion to the unusual circumstances of the sclesiastical party at this particular time.

These circumstances are well known. King Edward having returned from the campaign in Scotland, the sacking of Berwick and the capture

at issue.

King Edward, thus involved both at home and abroad in the greatest difficulties, rose at this crisis to the height of his magnificent career. He proceeded to outlaw the whole clergy, saying, in effect, that if they would not obey the law they should take no benefit of the law. The Chief Justice, at Westminster, publicly announced in the plainest terms the position taken by the king.

All this happened at the end of 1296 and the beginning of 1297, the date of this writ of summons. If the king proposed to call a Parliament it is in the highest degree probable that the intention was to take counsel with the temporality concerning this Bull and the obduracy of the clergy. Their obduracy was, however, of no long standing, as the clergy soon fell away from Winchelsey to make their peace with the king and resume their allegiance. Many had thus been inlawed before the end of the summer, which may explain the facts noticed by Courthope, that various clerics were summoned later in the year.

The precise nature of the meeting at Salisbury has also been questioned, and it has been doubted whether this was a Parliament at all, independently of the validity of the writ of summons to it. Courthope quotes authorities for the date of assembly as Sunday, the feast of St. Matthew the Apostle, which he expands as 21 September, 25 Edw. I., 1297, and in a foot-note remarks that 21 September that year fell on a Saturday. This discrepancy might have suggested an error, even if the unusually long notice of nearly eight months had raised no surprise. The source of the confusion, however, presents no great difficulty.

The writ doubtless summoned the Parliament to meet on the feast of St. Matthias (not Mat

Ami des Lois and the Rédacteur in reference to a French invasion of England, are all very interesting; but to readers of to-day the advertisements will offer the greatest amount of attraction. George Washington, Pitt, and Fox are not nearly so much part and parcel of the old world as lotteries and patent cures for king's evil.

thew) the Apostle, viz., 24 February, 1296/7, at Drury Lane, and also the extracts from the which was a Sunday that year. The Parliament duly met on that date, and though little is known of its deliberations, the Earls of Norfolk and Hereford then refused to lead the campaign in Gascony, on the ground that the king was not going thither in person; and it was on this occasion that the supposed punning allusion to Bigot's name occurred. King Edward himself The advertisements number sixty-five, and the was still at Salisbury on 7 March, when the most remarkable one of all heads the first column. Archbishop Winchelsey had audience there to In large type we have the announcement of an discuss the situation, and on this occasion, it" extraordinary large reptile" which may be seems, a modus vivendi was arranged. inspected "with the greatest pleasure at 422, Reasonable consideration of these plain facts Oxford Street. The bite of this "largest and leads to the opinion that there was a Parliament most beautiful rattlesnake" ever imported into at Salisbury in response to the writ of summons this country "is attended with immediate disin question; that those who were omitted from solution," but the owner of this pleasant companion the summons were outlaws, and had conse- does not offer practical demonstrations of its power. quently no right to receive writs; that this There are four lottery advertisements, the special Parliament discussed the Bull and the general claims of each of which are urged with all the flowery situation; that King Edward, having taken eloquence of the quack and the cheap-jack. Patent counsel and heard the views of the lords tem- medicine advertisements take a very important poral, subsequently came to an informal under- place in the paper, and the income from these must standing, for the existence of which there is have been considerable. They range from Dr. good evidence, with the prime mover in the James's analeptic pill to nostrums for scald heads, matter, Archbishop Winchelsey; and that the and wind up with Dr. Solander's "Sanative Engsupposed Parliament at Salisbury of 21 Septem-lish Tea," for "nervous, bilious, consumptive, and ber, 1297, at which date the king was in relaxed constitutions," in packets at 2s. 9d., and in Flanders, is a myth arising from a mistake very canisters at 10s. 6d. each. The fact that it was in easily to be made. use "by several most noble and elevated of the nobility" was to be taken as an indisputable proof of its efficacy, but a few abridged testimonials from smaller fry, such as a corn-chandler, an apothecary, &c., are given. Mr. Moberly Bell's face would be an interesting study if some of these advertisements were now brought to him for insertion in the Times.

The great probability that this writ produced a Parliament has an important bearing on the regularity of the writ itself; especially so since those were present who would have been glad to take exception to the legality of the summons if they could have done so; and, duly regarded in all its bearings and its peculiar circumstances, the validity of this writ of 26 January, 25 Edw. I., notwithstanding the opinions of the eminent authorities named, seems to be more easily defended than opposed.

HAMILTON HALL.

THE TIMES, 9 NOVEMBER, 1796. The facsimile reprint of the Times of the above date is in many respects exceedingly interesting. It is of the 3,736th number, and it appeared simultaneously with the 30,043rd number. A greater contrast between the four-page sheet of 1796 and the sixteen-page issue of 1896 it would be impossible to instance. Of course the great interest of the issue of 9 November, 1796, lies in the announcement of Washington's resignation of the Presidency of the United States-a piece of information which then occupied seven weeks in transmission, whereas now news travels the same distance in about seven minutes. The intimation that "Mr. Fox will dine at Guildhall as well as Mr. Pitt"; that Mr. Kemble and Mrs. Siddons were playing the leading roles in 'Richard III.'

66 An

From a literary point of view, the most interesting advertisement in the paper relates to Asylum of Genius (where complete justice will be done to Literary works, and money occasionally advanced to the authors themselves, to advertise them)," which was just opened at 137, Fleet Street. Here we have one of the earliest appeals to the vanity of the amateur scribbler. Among the publications of this philanthropic institution were 'A Cat o' Nine Tails,' by the Nine Muses, at the low price of fourpence, and 'A Guide Spiritual and Temporal,' which contained "a variety of matter that comes home to men's hearts," and which may have been had for one shilling.

Auctioneers' advertisements, for which the newspapers of the day keenly competed, occupy nearly the whole of one page, Messrs. Skinner, Dyke & Skinner holding most of their sales at Garraway's Coffee House, the great mart of the day, their offices being in Aldersgate Street, whilst Mr. Christie's sales were chiefly conducted at his great room in Pall Mall, No. 125, adjoining the house in which Gainsborough set up his studio when he

arrived in London from Bath in 1774. The advertisements of Skinner, Dyke & Skinner, and James Christie are for the most part of country estates, of little general interest now; but at this period both firms were about equally well known as auctioneers of pictures and objects of art.

But quite the most interesting reflection which will be forced upon one in connexion with this facsimile is the exceedingly easy duties of the editor of a daily newspaper in 1796 as compared with those a century later. A pair of scissors, a pot of paste and one of beer were apparently the chief weapons of the editor of 1796, supplemented by an occasional paragraph or two written all out of his own head. In this particular issue of the Times there are fifty-two lines of the editor's own composition-the sum total of its original matter. There were in 1796 no early newspaper trains to catch, no leader-writers to supervise, no sporting intelligence to overlook, no slaving from 8 P.M. until 4 A.M. What a Golden Age for editors of daily newspapers ! W. ROBERTS.

Carlton Villa, Klea Avenue, Clapham Common,

BRITISH.

I am writing about Everard Digby, the author of 'De Arte Natandi,' the first book published in England on swimming in the year 1587, and I wanted to say (of course with pride) that he was an Englishman pure and simple, and not a Britisher. That is, he lived before the union of England and Scotland, when James I. came to the throne. At least that is my notion of a Britisher.* I have a bad habit now of looking out for the accepted (or rather dictionary) meaning of words to see if I am right-a bad habit, because, as will be seen by the following observations, it almost invariably leads one into endless searches, that take up time. So let us see what the authorities say about British, and, as I have a bad memory for dates, what was the date of this so-called union. Ah! Haydn's Dictionary of Dates' is sure to give me both under "British." No. All sorts of British institutions and British Museum. Under "Britain" we are told the kingdom merged into that of England 874; but that is a British or Britain that I am not concerning myself with now. Under "England" we get the date of James VI.'s accession to the English throne, 1603; but no explanation of British. Most of the institutions called British are not British at all, but purely English, unless the fact of Scotsmen coming to England, remaining permanently there, and joining these institutions makes them British. Ah! I see it is the English dictionary I must go to; but it is Sunday, and I have very few. Let

Though written some months ago, this note may be taken in some sort as a reply to that entitled Great Britain or England' (8th S. x. 455).

us try the largest first. Cassell's 'Encyclopædic' says, "British, of or pertaining to Britain." Well, that is no use, because we have no definition of Britain, which, like British, is the point; besides, Haydn told us Britain was merged into England.

Well, now Ogilvie's 'Imperial Dictionary,' 1882. It simply copies Cassell's, or vice versa. Now then, Nuttall (an edition of about 1880): "British, pertaining to Britain, or Great Britain, or its inhabitants"; but in another edition, 1893, the Rev. James Wood, the editor, seems to have had his suspicions, for he has left out the words "Britain or," unless this was simply done without reflection, to make it shorter.

So that an Irishman, a Frenchman, a German, or Chinese, if he is "an inhabitant," is a Britisher, which of course cannot be, for a man born in England must be an Englisher, one born in Wales a Welsher, &c.

Let us try Percy Smith's most useful' Glossary of Terms and Phrases,' 1889. No. Like Nuttall, it gives "British gum," and "British seas," and "British ship," "one owned by a British subject," but no definition.

Well, Dr. Brewer's Phrase and Fable' hardly ever fails one. He gives some interesting information about the British lion, but not what I want, though under "Britain" we get near it, for he says Great Britain consists of Britannia prima (England), Britannia secunda (Wales), and North Britain (Scotland). The natives of these countries, I apprehend, are all Britishers when they act in concert; but I want a book that tells me exactly. One more chance: Wharton's Law Lexicon.' No. It defines "bridge," and "brief," and "British Columbia," but plain "British" you are supposed to know.

Having exhausted my books, it is clear that I must wait until I can go to a library. In the mean time I may remark that I never use the word British if English will do. If I am abroad I call everything English-whether Scotch, Welsh, it to the country it belongs to if possible, or or Irish-if I am proud of it; but if bad I assign repudiate it as not English. Sometimes the result is curious, as in talking of one of the magnificent ships which you know are built in Scotland and hail, say, from Glasgow. An Englishman abroad is proud of her, so, in reply to what country she belongs to, "la belle Havraise" is informed she is English. You cannot go into details, and say, Well, probably she is built in Scotland by Irishmen and much of the materials and inventions are from England. What would a Scotsman answer? Would be reply British ("Breeteesh"), or Anglais, or Écossais?

At Marseilles there is a tradesman who has "British butcher" painted over his shop. This always puzzled me, even before I looked up this

question, because I thought a man must be either an Englishman or a Scotsman, unless spoken of collectively, such as in the navy or army, when, of course, English, Scotch, and Welsh are properly spoken of as British. He was, perhaps, acquainted with Scotch prejudices, and thought to catch Scots as well as English.

The French do not take to the word "British," ,"* probably because they have "Anglais," which formerly, I believe, included all English-speaking people; but of late years Americans have travelled in such numbers that it does not now include them.

I have referred above to the "so-called union." What kind of a union is it when each country has separate laws? For legal matters Scotland is as much a foreign country as France; for you cannot serve an English process in Scotland or France without leave of a judge. It is much better than it was some years ago, when a Scotsman could come to England, run up large bills, return to Scotland, and flip his fingers at his creditors. It is the same with Ireland; and yet, though we never conquered Scotland, we always pretend we did Ireland. It is not much of a conquest of a country when it still keeps its own laws. Of course, the above instance is only supposition--"make believe," as the children say-no one would suspect either Scotsmen or Irishmen of doing such a dishonest thing.

An English judgment solemnly pronounced by the most powerful lord we have is mere wastepaper in Scotland or Ireland, until it has gone through the required legal process to make it worth anything in those two countries respectively.

The Union I have been referring to is that of the accession of James I.; but I need not say that this was only a union of the two crowns, the "real" (?) union was not until the Act of 5 Anne, c. 8, 1 May, 1707; the latter is as much a sham as the former, so far as the law is concerned.

Probably one must not expect any explanation of a word from gazetteers-at all events, if you did you would not get it; still it is worth while seeing what they have to say.

I have the tenth edition, 1797, of R. Brooke's 'General Gazetteer'; it does not give British at all. In a subsequent new edition, 1869, we are informed in the preface that the "first edition was issued to British readers" in 1762. Under "British America" we are told that "this extensive territory will be found under ten heads, under the head of "British Empire." Under that heading

Nor do the English; they use the word more generally of late years, in consequence of a kind of boycotting threat from the Scotch-at least, so I have been informed. There was a long discussion in the Times some years ago, and the Scotch writers told us that if we did not use the term British they would leave off building our ships.

nothing of the kind is to be found;* but under "Great Britain" we are told it is divided into three parts-England, Scotland, and Wales.

The Gazetteer of the British Isles,' edited by John Bartholomew, Edin. (1893), gives no definition of British, Britain, nor British Isles.

I need not search further, as they are all about the same; but, lastly, let us see what an American says. Lippincott's 'Gazetteer of the World,' Philadelphia, 1880, under "British Empire," refers to Great Britain, where it says: Great Britain or Britain is England, Wales, and Scotland, but the "British Isles are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." This is not large enough, however; it should have added the isles of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, and Sark, for incidentally I may say that the legislature found it necessary to define British Islands, and in all Acts of Parlia ment passed after 31 Dec., 1889, those words mean the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man (Stroud's 'Judicial Dictionary,' 1890). It would thus appear that the editor of Nuttall was not right in leaving out "Britain or."

The whole thing seems to show that they none of them know much about, or at all events are not thoroughly certain about the matter. Let us suppose a man born in Ireland, or, better still, instead of supposing I will give an actual case, that of a valiant soldier who served his country faithfully for twenty years-John Leahy, taken from his own account in his 'Art of Swimming,' 1875. He is a Corker, having been born in the county of Cork, where at the age of seventeen he enlisted in our army ("our" neatly avoids English and British), and is brought to England, where he is forthwith attached to a Scotch regiment, 78th Highlanders, and for the rest of his military career poses before the natives of India as a Scotsman (I presume in Scots dress). He comes back to England, where he remains, an Irishman still (?), though if he met any of those Indian natives they would, of course, look upon him as a Scotsman in England. In 1868 he joined the Eton College Rifle Corps, when we find, from his book above referred to, he had left off the Highland dress, as he is represented teaching the college boys swimming, in layman's costume.+

*I thought I must have made some mistake, so I referred to an experienced literary friend, who confirmed me, with the observation that "there was hardly a page of any of our books of reference that could be relied on." I have thought this, but felt that people in glass houses must not throw stones, and prefer to let some one else say it.

I use the word "costume" in its ordinary sense here; it does not mean none, as it does at our swimming entertainments, where it means not a costume, but a tight-fitting body and double drawers, made according to the laws of the Amateur Swimming Association. I am quite prepared to find, in a few years' time, that the word will be solely applied in this latter meaning. The swim