Part 4

I have great pleasure in removing from the mind of your correspondent an erroneous impression which must materially affect his good opinion of a school to which I am sincerely attached. He asks if in any of the public schools there are libraries of books giving general information accessible to the scholars. Now my information only refers to one, that of Eton. There is a library at Eton consisting of some thousand volumes, filled with books of all kinds, ancient and modern, valuable and valueless. It is open to the 150 first in the school on payment of eighteen shillings per annum, and on their refusal the option of becoming subscribers descends to the next in gradation. The list, however, is never full. The money collected goes to the support of a librarian, and to buy pens, ink, and paper, and the surplus (necessarily small) to the purchase of books. The basis of the library is the set of Delphin classics, presented by George I. The late head master (now provost) has been a most munificent contributor; Prince Albert has also presented several valuable volumes. Whenever the Prince has come to Eton he has always visited the library, and taken great interest in its welfare; and on his last visit said to the provost that he should be quite ready and willing to obey the call whenever he was asked to lay the first stone of a museum in connexion with the library.

ETONENSIS.

The free grammar school at Macclesfield, Cheshire, has always had a library. It _did_ contain some rare volumes of the olden time; it was at various times more or less supported by a small payment from the scholars. Some years since Mr. Osborn, the then head master, solicited subscriptions from former pupils, and with some success. Of the present state of the school library I know nothing.

EDWARD HAWKINS.

At Winchester there are libraries for the commoners and scholars containing books for general reading: they are under the several charge of the commoner-prefects and the prefect of library, who lend them on application to the juniors.

MACKENZIE WALCOTT, M.A.

Christ's Hospital has a library such as inquired after by MR. WELD TAYLOR. The late Mr. Thackeray, of the Priory, Lewisham (who died about two years ago), bequeathed to this school his valuable library of books on general literature for the use of the boys. Previously to this bequest the collection of books was small.

N.

* * * * *

{299}

DR. JOHN TAYLOR.

(Vol. i., p. 466.)

My attention has been caught by some remarks in the early volumes of your work upon my learned ancestor Dr. John Taylor, minister at Norwich, and subsequently divinity tutor at Warrington. Whatever opinion may have been attributed to Dr. Parr concerning Dr. Taylor, this I know, that on revisiting Norwich he desired my father (the Dr.'s grandson) to show him the house inhabited by him while he was the minister of the Octagon Chapel.

Dr. Parr looked serious and solemn, and in his usual energetic manner pronounced, "He was a _great_ scholar."

Dr. John Taylor was buried at Kirkstead[4], Lancashire, where his tomb is distinguished by the following simple inscription:

"Near to this place lies interr'd what was mortal of IOHN TAYLOR, D.D.

Reader, Expect no eulogium from this Stone. Enquire amongst the friends of LEARNING, LIBERTY, AND TRUTH; These will do him justice. Whilst taking his natural rest, he fell asleep in JESUS, the 5th of March, 1761, Aged 66."

The following inscription, in Latin, was composed by Dr. Parr for a monumental stone erected by grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the Octagon Chapel, Norwich:

"Joanni Taylor, S.T.P. Langovici nato Albi ostii in agro Cumbriensi bonis disciplinis instituto Norvici Ad exequendum munus pastoris delecto A.D. 1733. Rigoduni quo in oppido Senex quotidie aliquid addiscens Theologiam et philosophiam moralem docuit Mortuo Tert. non. Mart. Anno Domini MDCCLXI. AEtat. LXVI. Viro integro innocenti pio Scriptori Graecis et Hebraicis litteris probe erudito Verbi divini gravissimo interpreti Religionis simplicis et incorruptae Acerrimo propugnatori Nepotes ejus et pronepotes In hac Capella Cujus ille fundamenta olim jecerat Monumentum hocce honorarium Poni curaverunt."

S. R.

[Footnote 4: His first appointment, as minister of the Gospel, was at Kirkstead Chapel.]

* * * * *

PORTRAIT OF SIR ANTHONY WINGFIELD.

(Vol. viii., p. 245.)

It is most likely that Q., who inquired relative to a picture of Sir Anthony Wingfield, may occasionally meet with an engraving of this worthy, though the depository of the original portrait is unknown. The tale told Horace Walpole by the housekeeper at the house of the Nauntons at Letheringham, Suffolk, is not correct. Sir Anthony was a favourite of the monarch, and was knighted by him for his brave conduct at Terouenne and Tournay. A private plate of Sir Anthony exists, the original portrait from which it was taken being at Letheringham at the time the engraving was made. The position of the hand in the girdle only indicates the fashion of portraiture at the time, and is akin to the frequent custom of placing one arm a-kimbo in modern paintings.

The Query of your correspondent opens a tale of despoliation perhaps unparalleled even in the days of iconoclastic fury, and but very imperfectly known.

The estate of Letheringham devolved, about the middle of the last century, upon William Leman, Esq., who, being obliged to maintain his right against claimants stating they descended from a branch of the Naunton family who had migrated into Normandy at the end of the preceding century, was placed in a position of considerable difficulty to defend his occupation of the house and lands. I will not say by whom, but in 1770 down came the residence in which the author of the well-known _Fragmenta Regalia_ had resided, and, what is far worse, the Priory Church, which, after the Dissolution, was made parochial, and which was filled with tombs, effigies, and brasses to members of the family--Bovilles, Wingfields, and Nauntons--was also levelled with the ground. It was stated at the time that the sacred edifice had only become dilapidated from age, and that the parishioners were therefore obliged to do something. What _was done_, however, was no re-edification of the fabric, but its entire destruction, and the erection of a new church. Fortunately, Horace Walpole saw the edifice before the contractor for the new building had cast his "desiring eyes" upon it, and has recorded his impressions in one of his letters. More fortunate still, the late Mr. Gough and Mr. Nichols visited it, and the former employed the well-known topographical draughtsman, the late James Johnson of Woodbridge, Suffolk, to copy some of the effigies, which were afterwards engraved and inserted in the second volume of the _Sepulchral Monuments_. The zeal of Johnson, however, led him to preserve, by his minute delineation, not only _every_ monument (only two, I think, are given by Gough), but also the interior and exterior of the church, with the {300} position of the tombs. The interior view may be seen among Craven Ord's drawings in the library of the British Museum; and I am happy to say I possess Johnson's original sketches of all the monuments, and of the exterior of the building. A fair idea of the extent of the destruction may be gained by the mention of the fact, that six hundred-weight of alabaster effigies were beaten into powder, and sold to line water-cisterns. Some of the figures were rescued by the late Dr. W. Clubbe, and erected into a pyramid in his garden at Brandeston Vicarage, with this inscription:

"_Fuimus._ Indignant Reader, these monumental remains are not (as thou mayest suppose) the ruins of Time, but were destroyed in an irruption of the Goths so late in the Christian era as the year 1789. _Credite posteri._"

JOHN WODDERSPOON.

Norwich.

William Naunton, son and heir of Thomas Naunton (temp. Hen. VII.), and Margery, daughter and heiress of Richard Busiarde, married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Anthony Wingfield. Their only child, Henry Naunton, was the father of two sons, viz. Robert the _secretary_ (temp. James I.), whose son died unmarried, and daughter, married to Paul Viscount Bayning, died without issue; and William Naunton (fil. 2^s). His son and heir, who married a Coke, had one daughter, Theophila, married to William Leman (ancestor of the family whose great estates are in search of an owner): their only issue, Theophila, married Thomas Rede, who thereby became possessed of Letheringham in Suffolk, and the whole of the Naunton property. His estates went to his son Robert, who, dying without issue in 1822, left them much diminished to his nephew, the Rev. Robert Rede Cooper, second son of the Rev. Samuel Lovick Cooper and Sarah Leman, youngest daughter, and eventually heiress, of the above Thomas Rede. The Rev. Robert Rede Rede (for he assumed that name) died a few years ago possessed of Ashmans Park, Suff., which was independent of the Naunton property, and of certain heir-looms, the sole remains of the great estates of the "Nauntons of Letheringham," which continue in the possession of the descendants of that family. It is at _Ashmans_ that the portrait inquired for by your correspondent Q. will probably be found. Whether that estate has already been sold by the daughters of the late possessor (four co-heiresses) I am unable to say.

H. C. K.

* * * * *

BARNACLES.

(Vol. viii., p. 223.)

In reference to the article on the barnacle bird in "N. & Q." as above, I send you a paper which I lately put in our local journal (_The Tralee Chronicle_), containing a collection of notices of the curious errors and _gradual_ correction of them, on the subject of the barnacle. I fear it may be long for your columns, but don't know how to shorten it; nor can I well omit another amusing notice of the subject, to which, since I published it, an intelligent friend called my attention; it is from the _Memoirs of Lady Fanshaw_:--

"When we came to Calais, we met the Earl of Strafford and Sir Kenelm Digby, with some others of our countrymen; we were all feasted at the Governor's of the castle, and much excellent discourse passed; but, as was reason, most share was Sir Kenelm Digby's, who had enlarged somewhat more in extraordinary stories than might be averred, and all of them passed with great applause and wonder of the French then at table; but the concluding one was--that barnacles, a bird in Jersey, was first a shell-fish to appearance, and from that sticking upon old wood, became in time a bird. After some consideration, they unanimously burst out into laughter, believing it altogether false, and, to say the truth, it was the only thing true he had discoursed with them!--that was his infirmity, tho' otherwise a person of most excellent parts, and a very free bred gentleman."--Lady Fanshaw's _Memoirs_, pp. 72-3.

A. B. R.

Belmont.

As a tail-piece to the curious information communicated respecting these strange creatures in Vol. i., pp. 117. 169. 254. 340., Vol. viii., pp. 124. 223., may be added an advertisement, extracted from the monthly compendium annexed to _La Belle Assemblee_, or Bell's _Court and Fashionable Magazine_, for June, 1807, in the following terms:

"Wonderful natural curiosity, called the Goose Tree, Barnacle Tree, or Tree bearing Geese, taken up at sea, on the 12th of January, 1807, by Captain Bytheway, and was more than twenty men could raise out of the water, which may be seen at the Exhibition Rooms, Spring Gardens, from ten o'clock in the morning till ten at night, every day. Admission, one shilling; children half-price.

"The Barnacles which form the present Exhibition, possess a neck upwards of two feet in length, resembling the windpipe of a chicken; each shell contains five pieces, and notwithstanding the many thousands which hang to eight inches of the tree, part of the fowl may be seen from each shell. Sir Robert Moxay, in the Wonders of Nature and Art, speaking of this singularly curious production, says, in every shell he opened he found a perfect sea-fowl, with a bill like that of a goose, feet like those of water-fowl, and the feathers all plainly formed.

"The above wonderful and almost indescribable curiosity, is the only exhibition of the kind in the world."

[mu].

* * * * *

{301}

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

_Precision in Photographic Processes._--I have for a long period observed, and been much annoyed at the circumstance, that many of your photographic correspondents are very remiss when they favour you with recipes for certain processes, in not stating the specific gravity of the articles used; also, in giving the quantities, in not stating if it is by weight or measure.

To illustrate my meaning more fully, I will refer to Vol. viii., p. 252., where a correspondent, in his albumen process, adds "chloride of barium, 7-1/4 dr." Now, as this article is prepared and sold both in crystals and in a liquid state, it would be desirable to know which of the two is meant before his disciples run the risk of spoiling their paper and losing their time.

How easy would it be to prefix the letter _f_ where fluid oz., dr., or other quantity is meant.

Trusting that this hint may in future induce your correspondents to be as explicit as possible on all points, believe me to be an

AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER.

_Tent for Collodion._--As I have frequently benefited from the hints of your correspondents, I in my turn hasten to communicate a very simple plan I have contrived for a portable tent for the collodion process, in the hope it may be found to answer with others as well as it has done with me: it is as follows.

Round the legs of my camera stand (a tripod one) I have made a covering for two of the sides, of a double lining of glazed yellow calico, with a few loops at the foot to stake to the ground; the third side is made of thick dark cloth, much wider and larger than to cover the side, which is fastened at one leg of the stand to the calico. The other side is provided with loops to fasten to corresponding buttons on the other leg, and by bending on my knees I can easily pull the dark cloth over my head and back, fasten the loops to the buttons, and then I can perfectly perform any manipulation required, without the risk of any ray of white light entering; and certainly nothing can be more _portable_.

The simplicity of the thing makes any farther description of it unnecessary, to say nothing of your valuable space.

JAN.

_Mr. Sisson's Developing Solution._--The REV. MR. SISSON, in a letter I received from him a few days ago, stated that he had been trying, at the recommendation of a gentleman who had written to him upon the subject, a stronger developing solution than that the formula for which he published some time back in your pages, and that it gave splendid positive pictures with very short exposure in the camera.

Since I received his letter I have been able to corroborate his testimony in favour of the stronger solution, and have much pleasure in sending you the formula for the benefit of your readers. It is this: 1-1/2 drachms of protosulphate of iron in five ounces of water, 1 drachm of nitrate of lead, letting it settle for some hours; pour off the clear liquid, and then add to it 2 drachms of acetic acid.

J. LEACHMAN.

20. Compton Terrace, Islington.

_Mr. Stewart's Pantograph._--Will some of your photographic readers, who may know the proper size of MR. STEWART'S pantograph, give a detailed description of it? We should have focal length of lens, size of box, and the length of the sliding, parts of it. Cannot the lens be made fast in the middle of the box, provided the frames can be adjusted for different-sized pictures?

R. ELLIOTT.

* * * * *

Replies to Minor Queries.

_George Browne of Shefford_ (Vol. viii., p. 243.).--I observe that in your interesting publication you have inserted the Query which I sent you long since. A somewhat similar Query of mine has already appeared, and been answered by your correspondents H. C. C. and T. HUGHES; the latter stating that my particulars are not strictly correct, inasmuch as the individual styled by me as "Sir George Browne, _Bart._," was in reality simple "George Browne, _Esq._" I admit this error; but if I was wrong, MR. HUGHES was so too, for George Browne's wife was Eleanor, and _not_ Elizabeth, Blount, as appears by his affidavit in the State Paper Office, wherein he deposes that he "had by _Ellinor_, his late wife, deceased daughter of Sir Richard Blount, eight sons, namely, George, Richard, Anthony, John, William, Henry, Francis, and Robert, and seven daughters."

The sons are thus disposed of:

1. George, created K. B. at the coronation of Charles II.; married Elizabeth Englefield; had issue two daughters; died 1678.

2. Richard, a captain in the king's army, 1649, and was dead in 1650.

3. Anthony, who was "preferred to the trade of a M_a_rchant," 1650.

4. John, a page to Prince Thomas, uncle to the Duke of Savoy; created Bart. 1665; married Mrs. Bradley; had issue.

5. William, had a "reversion of a copyhold in Shefford."

6. Henry, died unmarried, 1668; buried at Shefford.

7. Francis, nine years old in 1651; and

8. Robert, four years old in 1651.

In that year (1651) Henry, Francis, and Robert were living with their guardian, Mr. {302} Libb, of Hardwick, Oxon; and soon afterwards we find them placed under the care of a clergyman at Appleshaw. But here we seem to lose sight of them altogether.

MR. HUGHES says that the only sons who married were George, the heir, and John, the younger brother; but we have no evidence of this; and as it is probable that some of the others, namely, Richard, Anthony, William, Francis, and Robert, married, I wish to procure proof either that they did or did not. If any of these married, I wish to know which of them, to whom, and when and where.

Perhaps some of your correspondents can tell me where Richard, Anthony, and William resided, and what became of Francis and Robert after they had left their tutor, the minister of Appleshaw.

NEWBURIENSIS.

_Wheale_ (Vol. vi., p. 579.; Vol. vii., p. 96.).--Since this word is once more brought forward in "N. & Q." (Vol. viii., p. 208.), I will answer the Query respecting it. I was prepared to do so shortly after it first appeared, but I had reason to expect a reply from one more conversant with such archaisms. If the Querist, or either respondent, had examined the context, he could not have failed to discover a clue to the meaning, as the words "gall of dragons" instead of "wine," and "wheale" instead of "milk," are evidently translations of sound expressions in the preface of Pope Sixtus (or Xystus) V., to his edition of the Vulgate. The words there are "fel draconum pro vino, pro lacte sanies obtruderetur." Wheale more commonly signified, in later times, a pustule or boil; but it is from the Ang.-Sax. _hwele_, putrefaction. The bad taste of such language is too manifest to require farther comment.

If I were disposed to conclude with a Query, I might ask where Q. found that _wheale_ ever meant _whey_?

W. S. W.

Middle Temple.

_Sir Arthur Aston_ (Vol. viii., p. 126.).--He was appointed Governor of Reading, November 29, 1642; that his relative, Geo. Tattershall, Esq., was of Stapleford, Wilts, and only purchased the estate, West Court in Finchampstead, which went, on the marriage of his daughter, to the Hon. Chas. Howard, fourth son of the Earl of Arundel, and was sold by him.

A READER.

_"A Mockery," &c._ (Vol. viii., p. 244).--Thomas Lord Denman is the author of the phrase in question. That noble lord, in giving his judgment in the case of O'Connell and others against the Queen, in the House of Lords, September 4, 1844, thus alluded to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, overruling the challenge by the traversers to the array, on account of the fraudulent omission of fifty-nine names from the list of jurors of the county of the city of Dublin:

"If it is possible that such a practice as that which has taken place in the present instance should be allowed to pass without a remedy (and no other remedy has been suggested), trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will be _a delusion, a mockery, and a snare_."

See Clark and Finnelly's _Reports of Cases in the House of Lords_, vol. xi. p. 351.

C. H. COOPER.

Cambridge.

_Norman of Winster_ (Vol. viii., p. 126).--I do not know if W. is aware that there was a family of Norman who was possessed of a share of the manor of Beeley, in the parish of Ashford, Derbyshire, which came from the Savilles, the said manor having been purchased by Wm. Saville, Esq., 1687.

A READER.

_Arms of the See of York_ (Vol. viii., pp. 34. 111. 233.).--Thoroton has a curious note on this subject in his _History of Nottinghamshire_ (South Muskham, in the east window of the chancel), from which it would appear that neither Thoroton himself, nor his after-editor Thoresby, could be aware of the change that had taken place. The note, however, may help to complete the _catena_ of those incumbents of the see of York who (prior to Cardinal Wolsey) bore the same arms as the see of Canterbury:

"There are the arms of the see of _Canterbury_, impaling _Arg. three boars' heads erased and erected sable_, Booth, I doubt mistaken for the arms of _York_, as they are with Archbishop Lee's again in the same window; and in the hall window at _Newstede_ the see of _Canterbury_ impales _Savage_, who was Archbishop of _York_ also, but not of _Canterbury_ that I know of."--Vol. iii. p. 152., ed. Notts, 1796.

Can any of your antiquarian contributors say why the sees of Canterbury and York bore originally the same arms? Had it any relation to the struggle for precedence carried on for so many years between the two sees?

J. SANSOM.

Mr. Waller, in his volume on _Monumental Brasses_, in describing that of William de Grenfeld, Archbishop of York, says:

"The arms of the two archiepiscopal sees were formerly the same, and continued to be so till the Reformation, when the pall surmounting a crozier was retained by Canterbury, and the cross keys and tiara (emblematic of St. Peter, to whom the minster is dedicated), which until then had been used only for the church of York, were adopted as the armorial bearings of the see."

To the word "tiara" he appends a note:

"Or rather at this period a regal crown, the tiara having been superseded in the reign of Henry VIII."

{303}

He gives no authority for the statement, but the note appears contradictory, and implies two changes in the first to the cross-keys and tiara, which may corroborate the notion of its having been adopted by Cardinal Wolsey; secondly, the substitution of the crown for the tiara. Can this be proved?

F. H.

_Roger Wilbraham, Esq.'s, Cheshire Collection_ (Vol. viii., p. 270.).--It is probable these MSS. are still at the family seat of the Wilbrahams, Delamere Lodge, Northwitch. When Ormerod published his _History of Cheshire_, in 1819, they were in the custody of the family. He says (vol. iii. p. 232.):