_Chiming, Tolling, and Pealing_ (Vol. iii., p. 339).--Though the
following has not, I fear, _canonical_ authority, nor is it of _remote_
antiquity, still, as they are not lines of yesterday, they may serve as
one Reply to Mr. GATTY'S late Query on _Chiming, tolling, and
pealing_:--
"To call the folk to church in time
We _chime_,
When joy and mirth are on the wing
We _ring_,
When we mourn a departed soul
We _toll_."
I think it probable (though I have no direct proof of it) that the great
bell, or tenor, was always RUNG when a sermon was to be _preached_,
which was not the case when there was to be only prayers. I believe it
is so at this day at St. Mary's, Oxford; it is very certain that the
great bell, being so rung, is in some places called the _Sermon_ Bell,
though I remember two legends on tenor bells, which seem to imply that
they were intended to call to prayers, viz.:--
"Come when I call,
To serve God all."
"For Christ, his flock, I aloud do call,
To confess their sins, and be pardoned all."
The difference between ringing the tenor (or any bell for prayers), and
ringing it as a knell, is, that in the latter case the bell is set at
every pull or stroke, which causes a solemnity in the sound very
different from that produced by the very reverse mode of ringing it. Oh!
what language there is in bells. In _ringing_, the bell is swung round;
in _tolling_, it is swung merely sufficiently for the clapper to strike
the side. _Chiming_ is when more bells than one are _tolled_ in harmony;
if this be correct, to _toll_ can be applied only when _one_ bell is
sounded, and Horne Tooke's definition of the word, from _tollere_, to
_raise up_, must be wrong (humiliter loquor).
With regard to the present use of the old Sanctus Bell, which is called
at Ecclesfield _Tom Tinkler_, the same is often called the _Ting Tang_.
H. T. ELLACOMBE.
Clyd St. George.
* * * * *
_Extraordinary North Briton_ (Vol. iii., p. 409.).--In answer to the
inquiries of the reviewer in the _Athenæum_ of May 17, and your
correspondent, the writer of the _Extraordinary North Briton_ appears to
have been an individual of the name of William Moore, not, as apparently
supposed, the poet William Mason. I have, amongst a complete series of
the London newspapers of the day, a set of the _Extraordinary North
Briton_, beginning Tuesday (May 10, 1768) and terminating with the 91st
No. (Saturday, January 27, 1770). Whether it was continued further I do
not know. The early numbers are published by Staples Steare, 93. Fleet
Street, and the subsequent ones by T. Peat, 22. Fleet Street, and by
William Moore, 55., opposite Hatton Garden, Holborn. The second and
subsequent numbers are entitled, _The Extraordinary North Briton_, by
W---- M----. In the last three numbers the W---- M---- is altered to
William Moore, and at the end of each is "London, printed and sold by
the author, W. Moore, No. 22., near St. Dunstan's Church, Fleet Street."
In the 90th number is the following advertisement:
"Mr. Moore thinks it highly incumbent on him to acquaint the public,
that Thomas Brayne (who was his shopman all last winter) is now
publishing a spurious paper under the same title in Holborn; that they
may not be deceived, Mr. Moore's name will be in front of every paper
he writes. He begs leave further to add, that Brayne sold several
papers last week in his name, and told those who purchased them, that
they were wrote by Mr. Moore, and that he published for him. In order
that the public may not be deceived by such low artifice, an affidavit
of Brayne's proceedings in this respect, will appear in the public
papers some time next week."
I have also the papers published by Brayne, which are advertised at the
end to be "Printed and Published by T. Brayne, No. 55., opposite Hatton
Garden, Holborn."
I have referred to No. 4, for Friday, June 3, 1768, addressed to Lord
Mansfield, noticed in the _Athenæum_; but, with all due respect to the
opinion of the reviewer, I cannot see the slightest similitude to the
style of Junius. It appears to me to be a very feeble performance, and
by a very inferior person. Indeed, the entire series of the
_Extraordinary North Briton_ seems poor and flat when compared with its
predecessor, the original and famous _North Briton_.
The attempt to show Mason to be Junius is amusing and ingenious; but the
reviewer has evidently failed in persuading himself, and therefore,
amidst the many startling improbabilities by which such an attempt is
encompassed, is scarcely likely to gain many converts to such a theory.