Part 4

(Vol. v., p. 344.)

"When shall we three meet again?" Let no one smile at your correspondent's question, for the common mode of stating Newton's claim makes it natural enough to ask whether the ancients were aware that bodies fall to the earth, and to produce proof that they had such knowledge. But Cicero had more: he not only knew the fall of bodies, but he had a _medius locus mundi_, or _centrum mundi_, as it was afterwards called, to which bodies must fall. This was his law of gravitation, and that of his time. Without describing the successive stages of the existence of this centre, it may be enough here to state, that a part of Newton's world-wide renown arises from his having cashiered this immovable point from the solar system, and sent it on its travels in search of the real centre of gravity of the whole universe. Newton substituted, for the old law of gravitation _towards a centre_, his law of _universal_ gravitation, namely, that _every_ particle gravitates towards every other. There had been some idea of such a law in the minds of speculative men: it was Newton who showed that one particular law, namely, that of the inverse square of the distance, would entail upon a system, all whose particles are subject to it, those very motions which are observed in our system. Cicero would have been startled to know that, when a body falls towards the earth, the earth rises towards it, _medius locus_ and all: not quite so fast, it is true, nor so far. But it must not be supposed that we could move our earth any distance in course of time by continually dropping heavy weights upon it; for the truth is, that when the weight is raised the earth is a little lowered, or at least made to move the other way. Archimedes said that, with a place to stand on, he could move the earth; not aware that he was doing it at the time he spoke, by the motion of his arm.

M.

May I ask your correspondent S. E. B. where he has discovered that the _world-wide reputation_ of Newton was founded upon a notion of his being the first person who pointed out that bodies are attracted, or seem to be attracted, towards the centre of the earth? and, on the other hand, what traces there are in Cicero of the _real_ "law of gravity," which Newton _did_ discover, and with such immense labour demonstrate and illustrate, namely, that attraction (that is, not to the centre of the earth or world in particular, but between every particle of matter and the rest) varies inversely as the square of the distance?

To come to a minor question; your correspondent reads the passage _qua delata gravitate_--so I should read, decidedly. The whole sentence, which is a long one, is a series of questions (which, by-the-bye, is an additional reason against quoting it as an assertion).

"Inde est indagatio nata ... unde essent omnia orta ... quæque cujusque generis ... origo quæ vita, ... quæque ex alio in aliud vicissitudo ... unde terra, et quibus librata ponderibus, quibus cavernis maria sustineantur; qua omnia, delata gravitate, medium mundi locum semper expetant."

It is _in qua_ in Ernesti, unnoticed. _In_ was inserted by those who thought that _qua_ agreed with _terra_; which, if otherwise probable, is negatived by the use of the word _mundi_ in the clause.

C. B.

Sir Isaac Newton's discovery was the law of _universal_ gravitation, viz. that the solar system is kept together by the gravity of the heavenly bodies towards the sun. This was founded on _terrestrial_ gravitation, of which the falling apple _put him in mind_, applied first to the moon, and then _universally_ to the universe. (See _Penny Cyclopædia_, art. "Gravitation;" Biot, "Life of Newton," in the _Biographie Universelle_; or the translation of it in the "Life of Newton" in the _Library of Useful Knowledge_, p. 5.) This is very different from Cicero's words; in which[5] (_sc._ the earth) all things borne downwards by their weight ever seek to reach the middle point of the universe, which is also the lowest point in the earth (qui est idem infimus in rotundo).

[Footnote 5: Moser's text has _in qua_, &c. terra.]

ED. S. JACKSON.

Saffron Walden.

DEFERRED EXECUTIONS.

(Vol. iv., pp. 191. 243.)

Although your correspondent E. S. attempts to throw discredit on M. W. B.'s narration of a deferred execution at Winchester, and carps at the mention of a "warrant," as if that militated against the fact; yet doubtless, in times when carelessness among official personages was not uncommon, many deferred executions may have taken place.

It must be evident, that in the case of a convict _respited during pleasure_, that _an order_ must at last be formally made for such person's execution or commutation of punishment; during which interval the prisoner would remain in custody of the gaoler. This in effect would be tantamount to a warrant, and of course communicated to the unfortunate delinquent.

A case somewhat similar to the Winchester one was told me by an old and respectable inhabitant of Worcester, who was himself cognisant of the circumstance, and had frequently seen the convict. It occurred in the gaolership of the father of the present governor of the city gaol. A boy of only thirteen or fourteen had been convicted of some capital offence, but on account of his youth was respited indefinitely. He remained in the gaol, was found to be a docile lad, and much liberty was accorded to him; the authorities expecting that he would receive a pardon. Time flew on, many months--I think my informant said nearly two years elapsed, and his case seemed forgotten. If he was not actually sent on errands out of the gaol, so loose was his captivity, that he might easily have slipt away at any time, and been scarcely missed. In fact, he had the full run of the prison, and was a great favourite with the debtors, whose sports and amusements he joined in, for discipline was very lax in those days. He was playing at ball one day in the yard with some debtors, full of life and glee, when suddenly, to the utter astonishment of the gaoler, and the awe of his associates, there came an order from London for his execution. Why he had remained so long forgotten, or why such extreme severity fell on him so unexpectedly at last, none could tell; but his case was considered a very hard one, and was commiserated by the whole city. My informant saw the poor boy conducted to execution. The old citizen who gave me this account is dead, or I could have recovered the date of its occurrence.

AMBROSE FLORENCE.

Worcester.

I observe that the substance of M. W. B.'s Note has been reprinted in a mutilated form in several newspapers; his preliminary remark, and concluding Query, being omitted! The effect of this is to circulate as a _fact_ what your correspondent himself questions. My object however in this communication, is not so much to draw attention to the injurious effects of partial quotation, as to point out what, in my opinion, renders the occurrence of an execution under the circumstances detailed a manifest impossibility. I believe I am correct in stating that there never was, nor is there now (out of London), such a thing as a _warrant_ for the _execution of a criminal_. At the close of each Assize, a fair copy of the _Calendar_, with the sentences in the margin, is signed by the Judges, and left with the sheriff; this is the _only authority_ he has given him; and in the event of a sentence of death, he has no alternative but carrying it into effect; unless he receives from the Crown a pardon, a reprieve, or a warrant commuting the sentence. _Blackstone_ observes upon this:

"It may afford matter of speculation, that in civil causes there should be such a variety of writs of execution to recover a trifling debt, issued in the king's name, and under the seal of the court, without which the sheriff cannot legally stir one step; and yet that the _execution of a man_, the most important and terrible task of any, _should depend upon a marginal note_."

J. B. COLMAN.

Eye.

DUCHESS OF LANCASTER.

(Vol. v., p. 320.)

Your correspondent is alarmed lest the honour he claims for the Lancastrians should be denied them, because it has been "discovered that William III. never created himself Duke of Lancaster." Where is it asserted that either he or any other of our sovereigns ever did? When Henry of Bolingbroke merged the lesser name of duke in the greater name of king, he was no more Duke of Lancaster than he was Earl of Derby or Duke of Hereford; but the title of Duke of Lancaster he willed not to be lost altogether as the others were, and therefore by an act of parliament (1 Hen. IV., Art. 81.) it was enacted _Que le Prince porte le nom de Duc de Lancastre_. The act, after reciting that "our said Lord the King, considering how Almighty God of his great grace had placed him in the honorable Estate of King, and nevertheless he cannot yet for certain cause bear the name of Duke of Lancaster," then ordains that "Henry his eldest son should have and bear the name of Duke of Lancaster, and that he be named Prince of Wales, Duke of Aquitaine, of Lancaster, and of Cornwall, and Earl of Chester." The fact is, that the King or Queen of England cannot be Duke or Duchess in the realm of England. Our kings have held inferior titles drawn from other kingdoms, as Duke of Normandy and Earl of Anjou; but Lord Coke says the sovereign cannot be _rex_ and _dux_ in the same realm. The Queen, as queen, holds her palatinate of Lancaster, and the other duchy lands and franchises; but she holds them _jure ducatus_, so distinguished from those estates which she holds _jure coronæ_. She cannot however properly be styled Duchess of Lancaster.

W. H.

In your last Number (Vol. v., p. 320.) is an inquiry on the Duchess of Lancaster. The best answer to this is to be found in a book, 8vo., entitled _Harrison on Crown Revenues, or a Memoir, &c. respecting the Revenues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster_: no date or printer's name. I purchased a copy at a sale a short time ago. Everything will be ascertained here perhaps better than any where else.

J. D.

Is Queen Victoria the possessor of this title? It would appear so. Sir N. Harris Nicolas, in his _Synopsis of the Peerage_, speaking of the dukedom, says:

"1399. Henry Plantagenet, son and heir, ascended the throne 29th Sept. 1399; when this title, with all his other honours, became merged in the crown, in which it has ever since remained vested."

Your correspondent may be referred to _Blackstone_ (Introd. §4.), where is a very interesting account of the Palatinate and Duchy of Lancaster. We are there told that on his succession to the crown, Henry IV. was too prudent to suffer his Duchy of Lancaster to be united to the crown, and therefore he procured an act of parliament ordaining that this duchy and his other hereditary estates--

"Should remain to him and his heirs for ever, and should remain, descend, be administered, and governed in like manner as if he had never attained the regal dignity."

In the first of Edward IV., Henry VI. was attainted, and the Duchy of Lancaster declared forfeited to the crown. At the same time an act was passed to continue the county palatine, and to make the same part of the duchy; and to vest the whole in King Edward IV. and his heirs, _kings of England_, for ever. Blackstone then mentions that in the first Henry VII. an act was passed vesting the Duchy of Lancaster in that king and his heirs; and in a note examines the question whether the duchy vested in the natural or political person of the king. He then says:

"It seems to have been understood very early after the statute of Henry VII., that the Duchy of Lancaster was by no means thereby made a separate inheritance from the royal patrimony, since it descended, with the crown, to the half-blood in the instances of Queens Mary and Elizabeth; which it could not have done as the estate of a mere Duke of Lancaster in the common course of legal descent."

If, in saying that William III. never created himself Duke of Lancaster, your correspondent means that he caused no patent to issue granting himself that dignity, he is, I doubt not, correct. But if, after the above quotations, any doubt could remain on the subject, possibly the following extract from the act 1 Will. & Mar. sess. 2. cap. 2. ("An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown") will sufficiently dispel it:--

"And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons seriously considering, &c., do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare, that King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their Majesties having accepted the Crown and Royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, and are, and of right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign liege lord and lady the King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the Royal state, crown, and dignity of the said realms, with all _honours_, _styles_, _titles_, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining, are most rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed."

In conclusion, will you allow me to ask some correspondent to set forth at length the titles of our Sovereign Lady the Queen? In confessing that I do not know, I fancy that I state the case as regards the majority of the lieges of her Majesty. Indeed, a tale sometime ago went "the round of the papers," to the effect that the "Duke of Rothsay" was one day announced to his Royal Highness Prince Albert. The prince, who was not aware of the existence of such a personage, at length ordered him to be admitted, and was not a little astonished at beholding his eldest son! This, though doubtless the coinage of some ingenious but hungry penny-a-liner, pre-supposes so large an amount of general ignorance on the subject, that I hope some well-informed individual will, through your columns, enlighten the world on the point.

TEE BEE.

SURNAMES.

(Vol. v., pp. 290. 326.)

Variations of surnames occur much later than the close of the fourteenth century, the period cited by your correspondent COWGILL. I have seen a document of the date of Charles I., which names one Agnes Wilson, otherwise Randalson, widow of John, son of Randal Wilson; thus showing that the patronymic was liable to vary in every generation, even in the seventeenth century.

This is still the practice in the hill country of Lancashire, bordering upon Yorkshire, where people are seldom known by a family name. The individual is distinguished by the addition of the father's or mother's Christian name, and sometimes by the further addition of those of forefathers for a generation or two, as in the designation of Welshmen in times past. The abode sometimes varies the style.

As an example, I may mention that a few years ago I sought an heir-at-law in a town on the borders. I was referred to a man called "Dick o' Jenny's;" he being the son of a second marriage, the mother's name was used to distinguish him rather than his father's. Pursuing the inquiry I found the first wife had been a "sister of ould Tommy at top of th' huttock;" her daughter had married "John o' Bobby," and "John o' Bobby's lad" was the man I wanted. When I had made him out, it was with some difficulty that I ascertained (though amongst his kindred) that he bore the family name of "Shepherd."

W. L.

I perceive that your correspondents COWGILL and J. H. (p. 290.), and MR. MARK ANTONY LOWER (p. 326.), make use of the word _surname_ to signify "the permanent appellative of particular families."

Now, I have always considered that the English language, in this as in many other instances, possessed two words which, though alike in sound, were very different both in origin and meaning:--_surname_, i.e. _sur-nom_, the name added to the common appellation, for the purpose of distinguishing an individual; as Rufus, Coeur de Lion, Lackland, in the case of our early kings: and _sir-name_, or _sire-name_, being that which in recent times, and in most countries, every one born in wedlock has inherited from his sire, and which is the subject of the articles in "N. & Q."

As I do not suppose that your correspondents, the last of whom is of considerable authority on this subject, have used the term unadvisedly, I am anxious to know the grounds on which they would disallow my theory.

E. H. Y.

I am glad to perceive that MR. LOWER has on the stocks a systematic Dictionary of Surnames. For the reason stated by him, it is neither desirable nor possible that it should include _all_ English surnames. The majority derive their origin from places or districts of limited dimensions, and to enumerate them would be an interminable and very thankless task. MR. L. has therefore judiciously determined to exercise his discretion on this class of cases. Nor are the names derived from Christian names generally worth insertion, for every Christian name has, in some form, been converted into a surname, either with or without alteration. Those which originate in _extinct_ or _provincial_ employments and trades will supply an instructive and interesting collection, such as Tucker, Challoner, Tozer, Crowder, Berner, &c.; and will also afford scope for glossarial illustration.

I also trust that his etymological research will be successfully exercised on such names as--

Nettleship Moneypenny Peabody Sidebottom Sheepshanks Snodgrass Wiggins Figgins Higgins Wigglesworth Calcraft Lammercraft, and other crafts (crofts?) Pennefather Ocock Pocock Locock, and omne quod exit in cock, of which some forty or fifty are in use.

Let me also bring under his notice the singularly unattractive name of _Suckbitch_. It is used by more than one branch of a respectable and ancient family in the West of England, and I have traced its existence for at least five centuries. Instead of availing themselves of the recent opinions of some great lawyers, that a surname may be changed at will, this family rather pride themselves on a name that can boast an antiquity probably not surpassed by that of any family in England. The shape of it has, however, deviated from the ancient form, so as to become more significant, but certainly less graceful than it was; and the change is probably an illustration of a familiar fact: viz. that we are not generally the authors of our own surnames, but receive them from our neighbours, and that, to a certain extent, they continue to have the same character of instability which they originally possessed. The earliest form of it known to me is _Sokespic_,--a word which seems to indicate a Saxon origin. The _spic_, or bacon end of it has now generally become _spitch_ in the names of places; as in Spitchwick, a well-known seat in Devonshire. Whether the _soke_ or _suck_ end of it be from _sucan_, and the whole name equivalent to the modern _Chawbacon_, is a matter which I leave for the investigation of MR. LOWER. At all events, the old form will be a warning to the etymologist not to search for the origin of the name in any legend like that which ascribes the nutrition of the infant founders of Rome to a she-wolf.

I have met with many modern instances of the mutability of surnames among labouring people, and even in a class above them. In 1841 a person named _Duke_ was on the list of voters for Penryn, in Cornwall. His original name was _Rapson_; but the name being very common in his neighbourhood, people long distinguished him by the name of _Duke_, because he kept the "Duke of York's Arms:" and this last name has since become the permanent recognised family name. This is a fact which I have had satisfactory means of verifying.

E. S.

Replies to Minor Queries.

_Dyson's Collection of Proclamations_ (Vol. v., p. 371.).--DR. RIMBAULT will find, in the Grenville Collection in the British Museum, an extraordinary volume of proclamations published during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, "collected together by the industry of Humfrey Dyson, of the City of London, Publique Notary. London, 1618." The volume is fully described in _Bibliotheca Grenvilliana_, Part the Second, 1848, pp. 368-373.

H. F.

"_Up, Guards, and at them!_" (Vol. v., p. 396.).--I know not what your correspondent A. A. D. may mean by asking "whether the battle of Waterloo was not a myth!" but I am glad to be able to state, from the very best authority, the circumstance of the celebrated order to the Guards on that day. It was at all times the Duke of Wellington's habit to cover as much as possible troops exposed to the fire of cannon, by taking advantage of any irregularity of ground, and making them sit or lie down, the better to cover them from fire till the moment of attack; and the Duke's common practice was, just as the enemy came close, and was on the point of attacking him, he attacked them. What he may have said on this occasion, and _probably did say_, was, "_Stand up, Guards_;" and then gave the commanding officers the order to attack. One would not pledge oneself to the very syllables of such a command on such an occasion; but what I have stated is the recollection of one who was present, and it is _equivalent_ at least to the popular version of "_Up, Guards, and at them!_"

C.

[Our correspondent's doubt, whether Waterloo itself is not a myth, was intended, we presume, as a hit at the historical scepticism of the present day.]

_Bawderich, and Bells_ (Vol. iii., pp. 328. 435. 503.).--May I be allowed to call the attention of your readers who are curious in such matters, to a _cut_ of the Bawderich and its Gear, engraved in the 13th and 14th Numbers of Willis's _Current Notes_, about which there have already been several notices in your interesting periodical?

I would also request any gentlemen who have access to old parish records, to see what entries they can find relating to the _item_ in question, and anything about the "_wheles_" of the _belles_. It is desirable to find out by whom, and when, the present whole wheel was introduced. Originally a half-wheel only was used, and such may still be found in some towers. In Dorsetshire the half-wheel is common; and there being no "_fillet_" nor "_ground truck_," "peals of changes" cannot be rung as they are in other towers.

H. T. E.

_Algernon Sydney_ (Vol. v., p. 318.).--MR. HEPWORTH DIXON invites your readers to furnish him with references to any works which may throw light on the history of Algernon Sydney. May I suggest to him to look at the article on Macaulay's _History of England_ which appeared in the _Quarterly Review_ two or three years ago, wherein there are statements, from cited authorities, which seem to prove that that "illustrious patriot" was no exception to the famous rule, that "every man has his price."

C. E. D.

"_History is Philosophy teaching by Examples_" (Vol. v., p. 153.).--If your correspondent T., who cannot find this passage in any of Lord Bolingbroke's writings, will turn to the second letter of that nobleman, "On the Study and Use of History," he will perceive that the sentence is there quoted from Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The writer in the _Encyclopædia Metropolitana_ evidently takes it at second-hand from this work; and there can be no doubt that the currency of the quotation is entirely attributable to Lord Bolingbroke's use of it. This sentence is the text which he illustrates at much length in his historical essay.

JOSHUA G. FITCH.

_On a Passage in Pope_ (Vol. i., p. 201.).--P. C. S. S. has an inquiry respecting the interpretation of these lines in Pope's Imitation of Horace's "Epistle to Augustus:"