the time of Philip and Mary; and, if so, when it became extinct. It was a
reality much later than that, as several cases in the books will show.
Dyer, who was appointed chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas in 1559,
settled several in which man claimed property in his fellow-man, hearing
arguments and giving judgment on the point whether one should be a "villein
regardant" or a "villein in gross." Lord Campbell, in his _Lives of the
Chief Justices_, gives the following, tried before Dyer, _C.J._:
"A. B., seised in fee of a manor to which a villein was regardant, made
a feoffment of one acre of the manor by these words: 'I have given one
acre, &c., and further I have given and granted, &c., John S., my
villein.' Question, 'Does the villein pass to the grantee as a villein
in gross, or as a villein appendant to that acre?' The Court being
equally divided in opinion, no judgment seems to have been
given."--_Dyer_, 48 b. pl. 2.
Another action was brought before him under these circumstances:--Butler,
Lord of the Manor of Badminton, in the county of Gloucester, contending
that Crouch was his villein regardant, entered into certain lands, which
Crouch had purchased in Somersetshire, and leased them to Fleyer. Crouch
thereupon disseised Fleyer, who brought his action against Crouch, pleading
that Butler and his ancestors were seised of Crouch and his ancestors as of
villeins regardant, from time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the
contrary. The jury found that Butler and his ancestors were seised of
Crouch and his ancestors until the first year of the reign of Henry VII.;
but, confessing themselves ignorant whether in point of law such seisin be
an actual seisin of the defendant, prayed the opinion of the Court thereon.
Dyer, _C.J._, and the other judges agreed upon this to a verdict for the
defendant, for "the lord having let an hundred years pass without redeeming
the villein or his issue, cannot, after that, claim them." (_Dyer_, 266.
pl. 11.)
When Holt was chief justice of the King's Bench, an action was tried before
him to recover the price of a slave who had been sold in Virginia. The
verdict went for the plaintiff. In deciding upon a motion made in arrest of
judgment, Holt, _C.J._, said,--"As soon as a negro comes into England he is
free: one may be a villein in England, but not a slave." (_Cases temp.
Holt_, 405.)
As to the period at which villenage in England became extinct, we find in
_Litt_. (sec. 185.):--
"Villenage is supposed to have finally disappeared in the reign of
James I., but there is great difficulty in saying when it ceased to be
lawful, for there has been no statute to abolish it; and by the old
law, if any freeman acknowledged himself in a court of record to be a
villein, he and all his after-born issue and their descendants were
villeins."
Even so late as the middle of the eighteenth century, when the great Lord
Mansfield adorned {411} the bench, it was pleaded "that villenage, or
slavery, had been permitted in England by the common law; that no statute
had ever passed to abolish this _status_;" and that "although _de facto_
villenage by birth had ceased, a man might still make himself a villein by
acknowledgment in a court of record." This was in the celebrated case of
the negro Somersett, in which Lord Mansfield first established that "the
air of England had long been too pure for a slave." In his judgment he
says,--
"... Then what ground is there for saying that the _status_ of slavery
is now recognised by the law of England?... At any rate, villenage has
ceased in England, and it cannot be revived."--_St. Tr._, vol. xx. pp.
1-82.
And Macaulay, in his admirable _History of England_, speaking of the
gradual and silent extinction of villenage, then, towards the close of the
Tudor period, fast approaching completion, says:
"Some faint traces of the institution of villenage were detected by the
curious as late as the days of the Stuarts; nor has that institution
ever to this hour been abolished by statute."
TEE BEE.
_Villenage_ (Vol. iii., p. 327.).--In reply to the question put by H. C., I
beg to say that in Burton's _Leicestershire_ (published in 1622), a copy of
which is now before me, some curious remarks occur on this subject. Burton
says, under the head of "Houghton-on-the-Hill," that the last case he could
find in print, concerning the claim to a villein, was in Mich. 9 & 10 Eliz.
(_Dyer_, 266. b.), where one Butler, Lord of the Manor of Badminton in
Gloucestershire, did claim one Crouch for his villein regardant to his said
manor, and made an entry upon Crouch's lands in Somersetshire. Upon an
answer made by Crouch, an _ejectione firmae_ was brought in the King's
Bench; and upon the evidence it was moved, that as no seizure of the body
had been made, or claim set up by the lord, for sixty years preceding, none
could then be made. The Court held, in accordance with this, that no
seizure could be made. I do not know what the reference means; perhaps some
of your legal correspondents may do so.
JAYTEE.
* * * * *
MACLEAN NOT JUNIUS.
(Vol. iii., p. 378.)
Your correspondent AEGROTUS (_ante_, p. 378.) is not justified in writing
so confidently on a subject respecting which he is so little informed. He
is evidently not even aware that the claims of Maclean have been ably and
elaborately set forth by Sir David Brewster, and, as I think, conclusively,
on the evidence, set aside in the _Athenaeum_. He has, however, been
pleased to new vamp some old stories, to which he gives something of
novelty by telling them "with a difference." I remember, indeed, four or
five years since, to have seen a letter on this subject, written by Mr.
Pickering, the bookseller, to the late Sir Harris Nicolas, in which the
same statements were made, supported by the same authorities,--which, in
fact, corresponded so exactly with the communication of AEGROTUS, that I
must believe either that your correspondent has seen that letter, or that
both writers had their information from a common story-teller.
Respecting the "vellum-bound copy" locked up in the ebony cabinet in
possession of the late Marquis of Lansdowne, Mr. Pickering's version came
nearer to the authority; for he said, "_My informant saw_ the bound volumes
and the cabinet _when a boy_." The proof then rests on the recollection of
an Anonymous, who speaks positively as to what took place nearly half a
century since; and this anonymous boy, we are to believe, was already so
interested about Junius as to notice the fact at the time, and remember it
ever after. Against the probabilities of this we might urge, that the
present Marquis--who was born in 1780, and came to the title in 1809, is
probably as old, or older than Anonymous; as much interested in a question
believed by many persons, AEGROTUS amongst them, intimately to concern his
father, and quite as precocious, for he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in
1805--never saw or heard of either the volumes or the cabinet; and, as
AEGROTUS admits, after a search expressly made by his order, they could not
be found. Further, allow me to remind you, that it is not more than six
weeks since it was recorded in "NOTES AND QUERIES" that a "vellum-bound"
Junius was lately sold at Stowe; and it is about two months since I learnt,
on the same authority, that a Mr. Cramp had asserted that vellum-bound
copies were so common, that the printer must have taken the Junius copy as
a pattern; so that, if AEGROTUS'S facts be admitted, they would prove
nothing. There is one circumstance, however, bearing on this question,
which perhaps AEGROTUS himself will think entitled to some weight. It was
not until 1812, when George Woodfall published the private letters of
Junius, that the public first heard about "a vellum-bound" copy. If
therefore the Anonymous knew before 1809 that some special interest did or
would attach more to one vellum-bound book than another, he must be Junius
himself; for Sampson Woodfall was dead, and when living had said nothing
about it.
AEGROTUS then favours us with the anecdote about "old Mr. Cox" the printer,
and that Maclean corrected the proofs of _Junius' Letters_ at his
printing-office. Of course, persons acquainted with the subject have heard
the story before, though not with all the circumstantialities now given.
Where, I might ask, is the authority for {412} this story? Who is
responsible for it? But the emphatic question which common sense will ask
is this: Why should Junius go to Mr. Cox's printing-office to correct his
proofs? Where he wrote the letters he might surely have corrected the
proofs. Why, after all his trouble, anxiety, and mystification to keep the
secret, should he needlessly go to anybody's printing-office to correct the
proofs, and thus wantonly risk the consequences?--in fact, go there and
betray himself, as we are expected to believe he did? The story is absurd,
on the face of it. But what authority has AEGROTUS for asserting that
Junius corrected proofs at all? Strong presumptive evidence leads me to
believe that he did not: in some instances he could not. In one instance he
specially desired to have a proof; but it was, as we now know, for the
purpose of forwarding it to Lord Chatham. Junius was also anxious to have
proofs of the Dedication and Preface, but it is by no means certain that he
had them; the evidence tends to show that they were, at Woodfall's request,
and to remove from his own shoulders the threatened responsibility, read by
Wilkes: and the collected edition was printed from Wheble's edition, so far
as it went, and the remainder from slips cut from the _Public Advertiser_,
both corrected by Junius; but we have no reason to believe that Junius ever
saw a proof, even of the collected edition,--many reasons that tend
strongly to the contrary opinion. Under these circumstances, we are
required to believe an anonymous story, which runs counter to all evidence,
that we may superadd an absurdity.
Mr. Pickering further referred to Mr. Raphael West, as one who "could tell
much on the subject." Here AEGROTUS enlarges on the original, and tells us
what this "much" consisted of. The story, professedly told by Benjamin
West, about Maclean and Junius, on which Sir David Brewster founded his
theory, may be found in Galt's _Life of West_. But Galt himself, in his
subsequent autobiography, admits that the story told by West "does not
relate the actual circumstances of the case correctly;" that is to say,
Galt had found out, in the interval, that it was open to contradiction and
disproof, and it has since been disproved in the _Athenaeum_. So much for a
story discredited by the narrator himself. Of these facts AEGROTUS is
entirely ignorant, and therefore proceeds by the following extraordinary
circumstantialities to uphold it. "The late President of the Royal Academy
knew Maclean; and his son, the late Raphael West, _told the writer of these
remarks_ [AEGROTUS himself] that _when a young man_ he had seen him
[Maclean] in the evening at his father's house in Newman Street, and _once
heard him repeat a passage in one of the letters which was not then
published_;" and AEGROTUS adds, "a more correct and veracious man than Mr.
R. West could not be." So be it. Still it is strange that the President,
who was said to have told his anecdote expressly to show that Maclean was
Junius, never thought to confirm it by the conclusive proof of having read
the letters before they were published! Further,--and we leave the question
of extreme accuracy and _veraciousness_ to be settled by AEGROTUS,--the
President West was born in 1738; he embarked from America for Italy in
1759; on his return he visited England in 1763, and such was the patronage
with which he was welcomed, that his friends recommended him to take up his
residence in London. This he was willing to do, provided a young American
lady to whom he was attached would come to England. She consented; his
father accompanied her, and they were married on the 2nd of September,
1765, at St. Martin's Church. Now Maclean embarked for India in December,
1773, or January, 1774, and was lost at sea, when "the young man," Master
Raphael, could not have been more than seven years of age,--nay, to speak
by the card, as Master Raphael heard one of Junius' letters read before it
was published, and as the last was published in January, 1772, it follows,
assuming that he was the eldest child, born in nine months to the hour, and
that it was the very last letter that he heard read, he _may have been_
five years and seven months old--a very "young man" indeed; or rather, all
circumstances considered, as precocious a youth as he who found out the
vellum-bound copy years before it was known to be in existence.
I regret to have occupied so much of your space. But speculation on this
subject is just now the fashion. "NOTES AND QUERIES" is likely hereafter to
become an authority, and if these circumstantial statements are admitted
into its columns, they must be as circumstantially disproved.
M. J.
* * * * *
Replies to Minor Queries.
_The Ten Commandments_ (Vol. iii., p. 166.).--The controversy on the
division of the Ten Commandments between the Romanists and Lutherans on the
one side, and the Reformers or Calvinists on the other, has been discussed
in the following works--1. Goth (Cardinalis), _Vera Ecclesia, &c._, Venet.,
1750 (Art. xvi. s. 7.); 2. Chamieri _Panstratia_ (tom i. l. xxi. c. viii.);
3. Riveti _Opera_ (tom. i. p. 1227., and tom. iii. _Apologeticus pro vera
Pace Ecclesiastica contra H. Grotii Votum_.); 4. Bohlii _Vera divisio
Decalogi ex infallibili principio accentuationis_; 5. Hackspanii _Notae
Philologicae in varia loca S. Scripturae_; 6. Pfeifferi _Opera_ (Cent. i.
Loc. 96.); 7. Ussher's _Answer to a Jesuit's Challenge (of Images) and his
Serm. at Westminster before the House of Commons, out of Deuteronomy, chap.
iv. ver_. 15, 16., _and Romans, chap. i. ver._ 23.; 8. Stillingfleet's
_Controversies with Godden, Author of "Catholics no Idolaters," and_ {413}
_with Gother, Author of "The Papist Misrepresented," &c._
The earliest notices of the division of the Decalogue, are those of
Josephus, lib. iii. c. 5. s. 5.; Philo-Judaeus _de Decem Oraculis_; and the
Chaldaic Paraphrase of Jonathan. According to these, the third verse of
Exod. xx. contains the first commandment; the fourth, fifth, and sixth, the
second. The same distinction was adopted by the following early
writers:--Origen (_Homil. viii. in Exod._), Greg. Nazienzen (_Carmina Mosis
Decalogus_), Irenaeus (lib. iii. c. 42.), Athanasius (_in Synopsi S.
Scripturae_), Ambrose (_in Ep. ad Ephes. c. vi._).
It was first abandoned by Augustine, who was instigated to introduce this
innovation by the unwarranted representation of the doctrine of the Trinity
by the First Tablet containing three commandments. The schoolmen followed
his example, and accommodated the words of God to the legislative
requirements of their new divinity, progressive development, which
terminated in the Church of Rome, in compelling them to command what He
strictly prohibits (See Ussher's _Answer_.)
"Hath God himself any where declared this to be only an explication of
the first commandment? Have the prophets or Christ and His apostles
ever done it? How then can any man's conscience be safe in this matter?
For it is not a trifling controversy whether it be a distinct
commandment or an explication of the first; but the lawfulness or
unlawfulness of the worship of images depends very much upon it, for if
it be only an explication of the first, then, unless one takes images
to be gods, their worship is lawful, and so the heathens were excused
in it, who were not such idiots; but if it be a new and distinct
precept, then the worshipping any image or similitude becomes a
grievous sin, and exposes men to the wrath of God in that severe manner
mentioned in the end of it. And it is a great confirmation that this is
the true meaning of it, because all the primitive writers[20] of the
Christian Church not only thought it a sin against this commandment,
but insisted upon the force of it against those heathens who denied
that they took their images for gods; and, therefore, this is a very
insufficient account of leaving out the second commandment (that the
people are in no danger of superstition or idolatry by
it.)."--Stillingfleet's _Doctrines of the Church of Rome, 25. Of the
Second Commandment_.
"If God allow the worship of the represented by the representation, he
would never have forbidden that worship absolutely, which is unlawful
only in a certain respect."--Ibid. _Answer to the Conclusion_.
With your permission I shall return to this subject, not of Images, but of
the Second Commandment, in reply to MR. GATTY'S Queries on the division at
present adopted by the Jews, &c.
T. JONES.
Chetham's Library, Manchester.
[Footnote 20: Thus St. Augustine himself: "In the first commandment, any
similitude of God in the figments of men is forbidden to be worshipped, not
because God hath not an image, but because no image of Him ought to be
worshipped, but that which is the same thing that He is, nor yet that for
Him but with Him."--See what is further cited from Augustine by Ussher in
his _Answer_.]
_Mounds, Munts, Mount_ (Vol. iii., p. 187.).--If R. W. B. will refer to Mr.
Lower's paper on the "Iron Works of the County of Sussex" in the second
volume of the _Sussex Archaelogical Collections_, he will find that iron
works were carried on in the parish of Maresfield in 1724, and probably
much later. It is therefore probable that the lands which he mentions have
derived their names from the pit-mounts round the mouths of the pits
through which the iron ore was raised to the surface. In Staffordshire and
Shropshire the term _munt_ is used to denote fire-clay of an inferior kind,
which makes a large part of every coal-pit mount in those counties. If the
same kind of fire-clay was found in the iron mines of Sussex, it is not
necessary to suggest the derivation of the word _munt_.
I take this opportunity of suggesting to MR. ALBERT WAY that the utensil
figured in page 179. of the above-mentioned work is not an ancient
mustard-mill, but the upper part of an iron mould in which cannon-shot were
cast. The iron tongs, of which a drawing is given in page 179., were
probably useful for the purpose of drawing along a floor recently cast shot
while they were too hot to be handled.
V. X. Y.
_San Graal_ (Vol. iii., pp 224. 281.).--Roquefort's article of nine columns
in his _Glos. de la L. Rom._, is decisive of the word being derived from
_Sancta Cratera;_ of _Graal, Greal_, always having meant a vessel or dish
and of all the old romancers having understood the expression in the same
meaning, namely, _Sancta Cratera, le Saint Graal, the Holy Cup or Vessel_,
because, according to the legend, Christ used it at the Paschal Supper; and
Joseph of Arimathea afterwards employed it to catch the blood flowing from
his wounds. Many cities formerly claimed the honour of possessing this
fabulous relic. Of course, as Price shows, it was an old Oriental
magic-dish legend, imitated in the West.
GEORGE STEPHENS.
Stockholm.
_Epitaph on the Countess of Pembroke_ (Vol. iii., pp 262. 307.).--It has
been asserted that the second part of this epitaph was written by Lady
Pembroke's son; among whose poems, which were published in 1660, the whole
piece was included. (Park's _Walpole_, ii. 203. _note_; Gifford's _Ben
Jonson_, viii. 337.) But it is notorious, that no confidence whatever can
be placed in that volume (see this shown in detail in Mr. Hannah's edit. of
Poems by Wotton and Raleigh, pp. 61. 63.); nor have we any right to
distribute the two parts between different authors. There are at least
_four_ {414} old copies of the whole; two in MSS. which are referred to by
Mr. Hannah; the one in Pembroke's _Poems_; and the one in that Lansdowne
MS., where it is ascribed to William Browne. Brydges assigned it to Browne,
when he published his _Original Poems_ from that MS. at the Lee Priory
Press in 1815, p. 5. Upon the whole, there seems to be more direct evidence
for Browne than any other person.
R.
* * * * *
MISCELLANEOUS.
NOTES ON BOOKS, SALES, CATALOGUES, ETC.
_A History of the Articles of Religion: to which is added a Series of
Documents from_ A.D. _1536 to_ A.D. _1615; together with Illustrations from
Contemporary Sources_, by Charles Hardwick, M.A., is the title of an octavo
volume, in which the author seeks to supply a want long felt, especially by
students for Holy Orders; namely, a work which should show not the
_doctrine_ but the _history_ of the Articles. For, as he well observes,
while many have enriched our literature by expositions of the _doctrine_ of
the Articles, "no regular attempt has been made to illustrate the framing
of the Formulary itself, either by viewing it in connection with the
kindred publications of an earlier and a later date, or still more in its
relation to the period out of which it originally grew." This attempt Mr.
Hardwick has now made very successfully; and it is because his book is
historical and not polemical, that we feel called upon to notice it, and to
bear our testimony to its interest, and its value to that "large class of
readers who, anxious to be accurately informed upon the subject, are
precluded from consulting the voluminous collectors, such as Strype, Le
Plat, or Wilkins." Such readers will find Mr. Hardwick's volume a most
valuable handbook.
A practical illustration that "union is strength," is shown by a volume
which has just reached us, entitled, _Reports and Papers read at the
Meetings of the Architectural Societies of the Archdeaconry of Northampton,
the Counties of York and Lincoln, and of the Architectural and
Archaeological Societies of Bedfordshire and St. Alban's during the Year
_MDCCCL. _Presented gratuitously to the Members._ Had each of these
Societies, instead of joining with its fellows, put forth a separate
Report, the probability is, it would not only have involved such Society in
an expense far beyond what it would be justified in incurring, but the
Report itself would not have excited half the interest which will now be
created by a comparison of its papers with those of its associate
Societies; while, with the reduced expense, the benefit of a larger
circulation is secured. The volume is one highly creditable to the
Societies, and to the authors of the various communications which are to be
found in it.
Messrs. Puttick and Simpson (191. Piccadilly) will be engaged on Monday and
two following days in the Sale of a Library rich in works on every branch
of what is now known as Folk Lore and Popular Antiquities, and which may
certainly, and with great propriety, be styled "a very curious collection."
The mere enumeration of the various subjects on the title-page of the
Catalogue, ranging, as they do, from Mesmerism and Magic, to Celestial
Influences, Phrenology, Physiognomy, &c., might serve for the Table of
Contents to a History of Human Weakness.
BOOKS RECEIVED.--_Neander's History of the Planting and Training of the
Christian Church by the Apostles, translated from the third edition of the
original German by J. E. Ryland_, is the fourth volume of the Standard
Library which Mr. Bohn has devoted to translations of the writings of
Neander; the first and second being his _Church History_, in two volumes,
and the third his _Life of Christ_.--_Cosmos, a Sketch of the Physical
Description of the Universe by Alexander Von Humboldt, translated from the
German by E. C. Otte_, vol. iii., is the new volume of Bohn's Scientific
Library, and completes his edition of the translation of the great work of
the Prussian philosopher.
CATALOGUES RECEIVED.--Adam Holden's (60. High Street, Exeter) Catalogue
Part XXXI. of Books in every Department of Literature; J. Wheldon's (4.
Paternoster Row) Catalogue Part III. for 1851, of a valuable Collection of
Topographical Books; J. Rowsell's (28. Great Queen Street) Catalogue No.
XLIII. of a select Collection of Second-hand Books.
* * * * *
BOOKS AND ODD VOLUMES WANTED TO PURCHASE.