(Vol. vi., p. 578.)

Mrs. Mary Mackey was "a real person," and the widow of a conveyancer in good practice. Of him she says (Scraps of Nature, p. 362.):

"The husband of poor Nature was a gentleman and an honest man, made a fortune and spent it nearly, in which his wife had no share, for that he governed and ruled the roast is well known to many: he had a noble and generous soul, but always kept poor Nature's talents under a bushel, where they shall never go again. He was old enough to be her father, and ever treated her like a child."

He left only enough to purchase for her a small annuity. She was uneducated, as she says, p. 274.:

but laboured under the illusion that she was a poetess. She sought an interview with Hewson Clarke by inviting him to meet a lady who admired his writings in White Conduit Fields. He went, and was somewhat mortified to find a matron of about forty-five, who placed her MS. in his hand, and requested his candid opinion on a future day. She was lady-like and sensible upon all matters except her own poems. Of course his opinion was easily formed; but he assured her that, though the poems were very good, they would not suit the public taste, and that she would be rash in publishing. She took his advice, but unfortunately happened to know Peter Pindar, who had been one of her husband's friends. She devotes a "scrap" to a kiss which he gave her (p. 215.). He was blind, but on hearing some of her poems read, he exclaimed, "Oh, my God, madam, there is nothing like this in Shakspeare!" Such a compliment turned her head; she sold her annuity to publish her book, and was reduced to extreme distress and misery. This is stated in a notice of the book in The British Stage, Sept. 1817, p. 210. The article, which is signed K., was written by the editor, Mr. Jones Broughton of the India House, a friend of Hewson Clarke, and once editor of The Theatrical Inquisitor.

I agree with G. C. that the "scraps" are niaiseries; as literature nothing can be worse; but they are curious and, I think, deeply interesting as genuine expressions of feeling. Mary Mackey was vain and weak, but true-hearted, generous, and affectionate; she conceals nothing, and lays bare her poverty and her wish to marry again. She advertises herself under the form of a pony for sale:

Again, she says:

She complains of a refusal from one to whom she wrote "to beg or solicit some bacon," and says:

Some one, probably Clarke, wrote an anonymous letter to dissuade her from publishing. This she answers indignantly in prose, concluding:

"Should he be tempted to write again, let him sign his name, or where a letter may find the kind-hearted creature, who has such a love for Nature. His stinging advice was to run down the widow's soul's delight, her dear scraps, which not a block in Nature can suppress"—P. 366.

Throughout the silliness run veins of feeling, respect for her husband, gratitude for the smallest acts of kindness, and cheerfulness under want. In some lines to a cat, apparently written during her husband's sickness, she says:

Truly Mary Mackey must have been a good wife and friend, and I hope I may claim some credit for extracting evidence thereof from perhaps the weakest verses ever written. Her own opinion was different, and is thus expressed in her

"Preface or no Preface.—No preface can be to the Scraps of Nature, for God gave none when He formed creation, nor was there ever a book sent into the world like the volume of Nature, since the creation of the world, nor ever so bold an undertaking. It has never been seen by any eye, nor corrected by any hand, but the eye and hand of the writer. No volume has more humour," &c.

G. C.'s copy is defective. Mine has a portrait of Mrs. Mary Mackey, which indicates considerable beauty, despite of very poor drawing and engraving, and the execrable thin curls and short waist of 1809. The "falling tear is visible;" but, had not the authoress told us what it was, it might be taken for a mole or a wart. As the face is perfectly cheerful, and the "scrap" is headed "Compliment to the Engraver," I hazard the conjecture that he was instructed to add the tear to a miniature painted before she had been compelled to shed tears on her own account.

H. B. C.

U. U. Club.

---

MAP OF CEYLON.

(Vol. vii., p. 65.)

Your correspondent Ajax asks information of me as to the best, or even a tolerable, map of Ceylon. I am not surprised at the inquiry, as no satisfactory map of that island exists to my knowledge. It may illustrate this assertion to mention, that in 1849 I travelled through the vast and interesting district of Neura Kalawa, to the north of the Kandyan range; and I carried with me the map of "India and Ceylon," then published, and since reprinted in 1852, by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. In that map the country I was passing through appears as a large blank, with the words "Unknown mountainous region." But I found it abounding in prosperous villages, and tracts of land cultivated both for rice and dry grain. So far from being "unknown," its forests have a numerous though scattered population; and as to its being "mountainous," there is scarcely a hill in the entire "region." There is a meagre map of Ceylon, drawn by George Atkinson, who was civil engineer and surveyor-general of the colony, and published by Wylde in 1836. It is more correct than others, but sadly deficient in information.

Mr. Arrowsmith, of Soho Square, published in 1845 an admirable map of what is called the Kandy Zone, being the central province of the island, prepared by the Deputy Quarter-Master-General, Colonel Frazer; assisted by Captain Gallwey and Major Skinner, of the Ceylon Civil Service. Col. Frazer has since placed in Mr. Arrowsmith's hands a map of the entire island: it has not yet appeared; but when published it will be found to be as nearly perfect in its details as any map can be.

In reply to the inquiry of Ajax as to the publication of my own work on the history and topography of Ceylon, it is still in hand; but the pressure of official and parliamentary duties has sadly retarded its preparation for the press.

J. Emerson Tennent.

66. Warwick Square, Belgravia.

---

"AM, HAVE, AND WILL BE:" HENRY VIII., ACT III. SC. 2.

(Vol. vii., p.5.)

Independently of the obvious probability that Shakspeare, in these three words, intended to embody the present, the past, and the future, there is another reason why we can by no means part with have, or suffer it to be changed into any other word; and that is, because it is open to one of those parallel analogies which I have so often upheld as sure guides to the true reading. Only a few lines before, in a previous speech of Wolsey's, he makes use of a precisely similar elliptical coupling together of the verbs have and be:

Here we have, in "has and shall be," the identical combination which, in the case of "have and will be," has given rise to so much doubt; so that we have only to understand the one phrase as we do the other, and make the slight addition of the personal pronoun I (not before, but after am), to render Wolsey's exclamation not only intelligible, but full of emphasis and meaning.

But in the first place the King's speech to Wolsey might be more intelligibly pointed if the words "your bond of duty" were made a parenthetical explanation of that. The "bond of duty" is the mere matter-of-course duty to be expected from every subject; but the King says that, over and above that, Wolsey ought, "as 'twere in loves particular," to be more! Thereupon Wolsey exclaims—

Here he pauses, and then immediately continues his protestation in the fine passage, the meaning of which has been so much disputed; suddenly reverting to what the King had just said he ought to be, he exclaims:

Still less can it be permitted to change "crack their duty" into "lack their duty." Setting aside all consideration of the comparative force of the two words, and the circumstance that crack is frequently used by Shakspeare in the sense of sever by violence—the adoption of lack would be to attribute to Shakspeare an absolute blunder, for how could "all the world" throw from their soul that which they lacked?

With reference to another alteration ("capable" into "palpable," in As You Like It, Act III. Sc. 5.), notwithstanding that it seems so obvious, and has been declared so self-evident, "as to be lauded needs but to be seen," I, for one, enter my protest against it, being of opinion that the conservation of capable is absolutely essential to the context.

Capable may be, and has been, defended upon various grounds; but there is one consideration which, with me, is all-sufficient, viz., it is necessary for the explanation and defence of the accompanying word "cicatrice." Capable is concave, and has reference to the lipped shape of the impression, and cicatrice is a lipped scar; therefore one word supports and explains the other. And it is not a little singular that cicatrice should, in its turn, have been condemned as an improper expression by the very critic (Dr. Johnson) who, without perceiving this very cogent reason for so doing, nevertheless explains "capable impressure" as a hollow mark.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

---

SIR HENRY WOTTON'S LETTER TO MILTON.

(Vol. vi., p. 5.; Vol. vii., p. 7.)

I desire to speak with the greatest deference to Mr. Bolton Corney's superior judgment, but still I cannot help saying that Thomas Warton's remarks upon "our common friend Mr. R." and "the late R.'s poems" do not seem to be supported by the facts. Randolph's poems were printed at Oxford in 1638, but in which month we are not told. The first question then is this, Were they printed before or after the 13th of April, when Wotton's letter was written? If after the 13th, or even the 6th of April, when Milton's presentation copy of Comus was forwarded, of course the matter is decided. But, allowing for the present that they were printed before the 13th of April in the year 1638, I must ask, in the second place, Could Sir H. Wotton predicate of any volume printed in that year before that date (or rather of Comus stitched up with that volume), that he had viewed it some long time before with singular delight? I certainly think not, but shall be very happy to have my objections overruled.

Then, again, if we admit Mr. Bolton Corney's "novel conjecture" (which I freely allow to be a great improvement upon that of Thomas Warton), how comes it the Sir H. Wotton knew nothing of "the true artificer" of Comus until he was let into the secret by Milton himself? If Robert Randolph was the "common friend" of Wotton and Milton, was he not likely to have known something of the authorship of Comus, and to have enlightened Sir Henry thereon? My principal objection remains. Thomas Randolph was far too popular a poet to have been contemptuously alluded to by Wotton or any one else in that age, and, making all due allowance for laudation and compliment, Wotton does disparage the poems to which Milton's Masque was appended.

I think that quaint old Winstanley gives the general opinion of Randolph. He says:

"He was one of such a pregnant wit that the Muses may seem not only to have smiled, but to have been tickled at his nativity, such the festivity of his poems of all sorts."—Lives of English Poets, p. 142., Lond. 1687.

We must therefore, perhaps, look out for some more obscure and worthless poet, whose "principal" Milton's "accessory" was to "help out."

When writing on this subject before, I said that Samuel Hartlib had not settled in England at the time of Sir H. Wotton's letter to Milton (Vol. vi., p. 5.). I am indebted to Warton for that mistake. He fixes the date of his coming hither to "about the year 1640." (Illustrations of Milton's Minor Poems, p. 596.: Lond. 1775.)

Samuel Hartlib figures amongst the correspondents of Joseph Mede in March, 1634, and even then dated from London. (Mede's Works, vol. ii. lib. iv. p. 1058.: Lond. 1664, fol.)

Amongst the Letters and Despatches of Lord Strafforde are two letters from Sir Henry Wotton, which do not appear in the ReliquiÆ (vide vol. i. pp. 45-48.: Dublin, 1740, fol.), though some sentences in the former of the two may be found at p. 373. of said work. I often find it a pleasant employment to fill up the gaps and trace out the allusions in Wotton's correspondence.

May I give a short specimen of one of his letters filled up? It was written, I suppose, to Nicholas Pey:

"My dear Nic,

"More than a voluntary motion doth now carry me towards Suffolk, especially that I may confer by the way with an excellent physician at B., whom I brought myself from Venice."—ReliquiÆ, p. 359.

By "B." is meant St. Edmund's Bury, and by the "excellent physician" no less than Gaspero Despotine, who, together with Mark Anthony de Dominis, accompanied Sir H. Wotton and his chaplain Bedell from Italy.

However, he was very unlike the archbishop of whom Dr. Crakanthorp used to say, that he was well called "De Dominis in the plural, for he could serve two masters, or twenty if they would all pay him wages." (Hacket's Life of Williams, part i. p. 103.: Lond. 1693, fol.) Despotine left Italy that he might at the same time leave the communion of the Church of Rome, and when Bedell was appointed to the living of St. Edmund's Bury, he accompanied him thither. One of Wotton's very interesting letters announces the event. (ReliquiÆ, p. 400.) Under the fostering care of the saintly Bedell, Despotine rose to eminence in his profession at St. Edmund's Bury, and kept up a kind correspondence with his guide and patron after his promotion to the Provostship of Trinity College, Dublin, and the sees of Ardagh and Kilmore. (Burnet's Life of Bishop Bedell, ad init.)

In another letter (ReliquiÆ, p. 356.) Wotton speaks of having given also to Michael Brainthwaite and the young Lord Scudamore the advice of Alberto Scipioni to himself, to "keep his eyes open and his mouth shut," which Milton sadly disregarded.

Rt.

Warmington.

---

SKULL-CAPS VERSUS SKULL-CUPS.

(Vol. vi., pp. 441. 565.)

Your correspondent James Graves seems to consider cooking in a skull impossible. I certainly have never tried it, nor do I wish to express an opinion as to the taste of the Irish or their invaders, A.D. 1315, though methinks those who relished the "flesh" need not have demurred to the pot. But as to the possibility, in Ewbank on Hydraulic Machines, book i. cap. 3., I find the following mention of

"Primitive Boilers.—The gourd is probably the original vessel for heating water, &c. &c., its exterior being kept moistened by water while on the fire, as still practised by some people, while others apply a coating of clay to protect it from the effects of flame."

He then quotes Kotzebue as finding "the Radack Islanders boiling something in cocoa-shells." A primitive Sumatran vessel for boiling rice is the bamboo, which is still used; by the time the rice is dressed the vessel is nearly destroyed by the fire. This destructibility needs hardly to be considered an objection to the "starving fugitives," as plenty of the same kind must have been at hand, and even an Irishman's skull is probably as little inflammable as gourds, cocoa-sells, or bamboos.

J. P. O.

Should the following extract not be considered as bearing on the question, we must admit that it is a remarkable bit of folk lore.

The quotation is second-hand, being taken from the Chronicles of London Bridge, Family Library, p. 436.; the authority is, however, there given. The passage refers to some parties engaged to refine the coinage, and who were taken ill, affected probably by the fumes of arsenic.

"—— the mooste of them in meltinge fell sycke to deathe, w^th the sauoure, so as they were advised to drynke in a dead man's skull for theyre recure.

"Whereupon he w^th others who had thovergyght of that worke, procured a warrant from the Counsaile to take of the heades vppon London Bridge and make cuppes thereof, whereof they dranke and founde some reliefe, althoughe the moost of them dyed."

This is supposed to have been about 1560 or 1561.

Thomas Lawrence.

Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

---

INEDITED POEM BY POPE.

(Vol. vii., p. 57.)

This, which is headed "Note," ought to have been headed Query: and it affords an instance of ignorance on the part of some of our correspondents; and of, I fear I must add, inattention on that of our worthy Editor, which I think it right to notice as a warning to all parties for the future: and I appeal to the candour of our Editor himself to give my protest a place.

The first step in this curious affair is to be found in "N. & Q.," Vol. ii., p. 7., where "the Editor of Bishop Warburton's Literary Remains" produced, as attributed to Mr. Charles Yorke, a kind of epitaph of sixteen lines, beginning—

That the "editor of Bishop Warburton's Literary Remains," and his friend "an eminent critic," should have been at a loss to know where these well-known verses were to be found, and should have countenanced their having been Charles Yorke's, seems the more wonderful: for the verses are given in Warburton's own letters as Pope's, and were printed near a hundred years ago in Ruffhead's Life of Pope, as Pope's; and in the MS. copy furnished by Mr. Yorke, they are marked as "Mr. Pope's."

The next error is, that this mention of Mr. Yorke's name—though his MS. bore the name of Pope—seems to have given rise to the idea that he was the author, which Lord Campbell has so fully adopted as to have reprinted, in his Lives of the Chancellors (vol. v. p. 428.), the verses as the composition of Charles Yorke.

We next find in "N. & Q.," Vol. iii., p. 43., a reply of W. S. to the Query of Warburton's editor, stating "that the verses were by Pope," and lately republished in a miscellany by James Tayler, with a statement that they were not inserted in any edition of Pope's works. The fact being, that they have been inserted in Warton's edition, 1797; and in Bowles', and in all subsequent editions that I have seen: and it seems strange that W. S. did not take the trouble of verifying, by a reference to any edition of Pope, the statement that he quoted.

Next we have, in the same (3rd) volume of "N. & Q.," a communication from Mr. Crossley, which states correctly all the foregoing circumstances, with the addition, that the verses appeared as Aaron Hill's in an edition of his works as early as 1753. Thence arises another discussion; were they Pope's or Hill's? Roscoe thought they were Hill's; Mr. Crossley thinks they were Pope's. I think, both from external and internal evidence, that they were not Pope's. But that has little to do with my present object, which is to show how often the matter has been already discussed in "N. & Q." I must observe, however, that Mr. Crossley has fallen into a slight anachronism. He says that the verses were "transferred from Ruffhead into Bowles' edition;" whereas they, as I have stated, were transferred into Warton's many years earlier.

After all this disquisition comes a recent Number of "N. & Q.," of which a column and a quarter is wasted by a correspondent A. T. W., who confesses that he (or she) has not a modern edition of Pope within reach, and begs to know whether these verses (repeated in extenso) "have been yet introduced to the public?"

Surely "N. & Q." should beware of correspondents that write to inquire about Pope, without having an edition of his works; and I cannot but wonder that this crambe, which had been served up thrice before, and so fully by Mr. Crossley, should have been recocta, and introduced as a new theme, entitled to a special attention.

C.

---

CIBBER'S "LIVES OF THE POETS."

(Vol. v., p. 161.)

Allow me to draw your attention to a curious letter which I transcribe, with reference to the above. It appears to have escaped the notice of Mr. Croker, although it corroborates his statements. It was written by the bookseller himself who published the Lives, and would seem to set the matter as to their authorship completely at rest. Griffiths appears to have been also the editor of the Monthly Review; and Cartwright, the inventor of the power-loom, to whom the letter is addressed, to have been one of his contributors.

"MR. GRIFFITH to MR. CARTWRIGHT.

"Turnham Green, 16th June [1781?].

"Dear Sir,

"I have sent you a feast! Johnson's new volumes of the Lives of the Poets. You will observe that Savage's Life is one of the volumes. I suppose it is the same which he published about thirty years ago, and therefore you will not be obliged to notice it otherwise than in the course of enumeration. In the account of Hammond, my good friend Samuel has stumbled on a material circumstance in the publication of Cibber's Lives of the Poets. He intimates that Cibber never saw the work. This is a reflection on the bookseller, your humble servant. The bookseller has now in his possession Theophilus Cibber's receipt for twenty guineas (Johnson says ten), in consideration of which he engaged to 'revise, correct, and improve the work, and also to affix his name in the title-page.' Mr. Cibber did accordingly very punctually revise every sheet; he made numerous corrections, and added many improvements: particularly in those lives which came down to his own times, and brought him within the circle of his own and his father's literary acquaintance, especially in the dramatic line. To the best of my recollection, he gave some entire lives, besides inserting abundance of paragraphs, of notes, anecdotes, and remarks, in those which were compiled by Shiells and other writers. I say other, because many of the best pieces of biography in that collection were not written by Shiells, but by superior hands. In short, the engagement of Cibber, or some other Englishman, to superintend what Shiells in particular should offer, was a measure absolutely necessary, not only to guard against his Scotticisms, and other defects of expression, but his virulent Jacobitism, which inclined him to abuse every Whig character that came in his way. This, indeed, he would have done; but Cibber (a stanch Williamite) opposed and prevented him, insomuch that a violent quarrel arose on the subject. By the way, it seems to me, that Shiell's Jacobitism has been the only circumstance that has procured him the regard of Mr. Johnson, and the favourable mention that he has made of Shiell's 'virtuous life and pious end'—expressions that must draw a smile from every one who knows, as I did, the real character of Robert Shiells. And now, what think you of noticing this matter in regard to truth, and the fair fame of the honest bookseller?"—Memoir of the Life, Writings, and Mechanical Inventions of Edmund Cartwright, D.D., F.R.S.: Saunders & Otley.

W. L. Nichols.

Lansdown Place, Bath.

---

ENGLISH COMEDIANS IN THE NETHERLANDS.

(Vol. ii., pp. 184. 459.; Vol. iii., p. 21.)

From the following extract from the Thes. Rek. (Treasury Accounts) of Utrecht, it appears that English actors performed there:

"Schenkelwyn, 31 July, 1597. Sekere Engelsche Comedianten, voor hore speelen op ten Stadhuyse, 8 q. Fransche wyns."—(To certain English Comedians, for their playing at the town-hall, eight quarts of French wine.)

In the Gerechtsdagboecken (Minutes of the Council) of Leyden appear several requests of English comedians to perform there in 1614; these I hope soon to have in hand. I can now give the decision of the Council on the request of the Englishman W. Pedel:

"Op te Requeste daerby den voorn. Willem Pedel, versochte aen die van de Gerechte der stadt Leyden omme te mogen speelen verscheyde fraeye ende eerlicke spelen mettet lichaem, sonder eenige woorden te gebruycken, stont geappostileert: Die van de Gerechte deser stadt Leyden hebben voor zoe veel in hem es, den thoonder toegelaten ende geconsenteert, laten toe ende consenteren mits desen binnen dezer stede inde Kercke vant Bagynhoff te mogen spelen voor de gemeente ende syne speelen verthoonen, mits dat hy hem daervan zalt onthouden geduyrende tdoen van de predicatien van Gods woorts, en dat de arme Weesen alhier zullen genieten de gerechte helfte van de incomende proffyten, en dat zulex int geheel zullen werden ontfangen en gecollecteert by een persoon daertoe bij M^ren van de Arme Weesen te stellen ende committeeren.

"Aldus gedaen op ten xviij Nov. 1608."

(Translation.)

On the request by which the aforesaid W. Pedel petitioned the authorities of the city of Leyden to allow him to exhibit various beautiful and chaste performances with his body, without using any words, was determined: The authorities of this city of Leyden have consented and allowed the exhibitor to perform in the church of the Bagynhoff within this city, provided he cease during the preaching of God's word, and that the poor orphans here have half the profits, and that they be received and collected by a person appointed by the masters of the poor orphans.

Done on the 18th November, 1608.

In 1656 English comedians came to Dordrecht, but were soon obliged to withdraw. About 1600 some appeared in Germany, who considerably diminished the taste for biblical and moral pieces. See Dr. Schotel, Blik in de Gesch. v.h. tooneel.; Gervinus, Neuere Geschichte der poetischen Nationalliteratur der Deutschen, vol. iii. pp. 96-100.—From the Navorscher.

W. D. V.

---

LA BRUYÈRE.

(Vol. vii., p. 38.)

I am unable to reply to Ursula's questions; but I would ask permission to solicit from such of your better-informed correspondents as may become votaries to Ursula, that they would extend the range of their genealogical pilgrimage so far as to pay a visit to the ruins of Tor Abbey. I should be glad to learn whether either William Lord Briewere or William de la Bruere (both of whom were connected with the foundation of that religious house) were of the same family as Thibault de la BruyÈre, the Crusader, who is one of the subjects of Ursula's inquiry. Dr. Oliver (Monast. Exon., note at p. 179.) thinks that these two William Brewers may have represented families originally distinct from each other:

"There is some doubt," he says, "whether the family De Brueri or BruerÂ, which was settled in Devon at the time of the Domesday, and then held some of the lands afterwards given by W. Briwere to Torr Abbey, was the same as that of the founder. In this cartulary the two names are spelt differently, and Briwere seems to have been a purchaser of De BruerÂ. See, upon this subject, Dugdale's Baronage, vol. i. p. 700., and Lysons' Devonshire, vol. i. p. 106. The names of Brieguerre and De Bruera existed contemporaneously in Normandy. See Rot. Scacc. Norm. Indices."

Whether these two William Brewers represented distinct families or not, it appears that they became closely allied by marriage. At fol. 81. of an "Abstract of the Tor Cartulary, at Trinity College, Dublin," given by Oliver, p. 187., the following grants occur; viz.:

"Grant from William Briewere to William de la BrueriÂ, of four librates of land in Wodeberi, with Engelesia his sister, in liberum maritagium, &c.

"Grant from said William de la Bruera, with the assent of Engelesia his wife, of all their land in Grendle to William Briewere, brother of the said Engelesia, &c.

"Confirmation thereof by said Engelesia."

Both families appear to have given the name of Brewer to their places of residence.

"The tything of Teign Grace," says Risdon, "anciently Teign Brewer, was in the time of King Henry the Second the land of Anthony de la Brewer, whom divers knights of that race succeeded. Sir William de la Brewer, the last of the male line, left this inheritance among co-heirs, Eva, wife of Thomas le Grace, and Isabel, &c.... Concerning which lands these lines I found in the leger-book of the Abbey of Torr: 'Galfridus de Breweria dominus de Teigne pro salut. animÆ Will. de Breweria & Argalesia uxor ejus conc. abbat. de Torr liberum transitum in Teigne.'"—P. 135.

Buckland Brewer, on the other hand, derived its name (according to the same authority) from the family of which William Lord Brewer was the representative.

The Brewers appear to have founded other religious houses, and to have held possessions in other parts of England. It was from Welbeck Abbey, in Nottinghamshire, that William Lord Briwere obtained subjects for his abbey at Tor; and Bruern, or Temple Bruer, in Lincolnshire, belonging to the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, Clerkenwell (see Dugdale's Monast., new edition, vol. vi. par. ii. p. 801.), would seem to owe its name to some connexion with the Brewer family, as did also, perhaps, Bruera in Chester, &c.

Mention is made of a William de la Bruera in the History of Northamptonshire (edit. Oxon., 1791, tom. i. p. 233.), in connexion with the township of Grafton, to which manor Joane, his wife, and her sister Bruna, appear to have been co-heirs, as daughters of Ralph de S. Samson, temp. Henry III.

William Brewer, Bishop of Exeter (brother of the William Lord Briewere already mentioned), was "put in trust" by King Henry III. "to conduct his sister, the Lady Isabella, into Germany, to her intended marriage with the Emperor Frederic." See Jenkins's History of Exeter, 1806, p. 252.

"This Bishop Brewer also went into the Holy Land (transfretavit, cruce signat.) the eleventh of Henry the Third."—Risdon, edit. Lond., 1811, p. 137.

There was another William Brewer, a son of William Lord Brewer; but he died without male issue.

I fear these few notices bear no very precise relation to Ursula's inquiries. Still I send them, in the hope of discovering, by the kindness of some of your erudite contributors, what is the difference (if any) between the names La BruyÈre, De la Bruere, and Briewere; and also whether, originally, these names belonged to two or three distinct families, or only to so many different branches of the same family.

J. Sansom.

P.S.—The name Bruere is probably not yet extinct, either in France or in England. In the Bodleian Library there is a letter, addressed by John Bruere to the clergy of the diocese of Oxford, written within the last century, and bearing date "May 19, 1793," "Odington, near Islip," of which place the author was probably the rector. And in the British Museum Catalogue, under the name of (M. de la) Bruere, is mentioned Histoire du RÈgne de Charlemagne, 2 tom. 12^o; Paris, 1745.

---

SOUTHEY'S CRITICISM UPON ST. MATHIAS' DAY IN LEAP-YEAR.

(Vol. vii., p. 58.)

Mr. Yarrum's exposÉ of Southey's singular blunder is perfectly just; but it does not include the whole truth, a consideration of which renders the lapsus even more notable and unaccountable than if it arose only from a want of acquaintance with the distribution of Roman Catholic FeriÆ.

The allegation of error against the historians, because they had "fixed the appointed day on the eve of Mathias," would seem to imply that they might have fixed upon some other feast-day with more correctness; whereas there is no other in the calendar which could by any possibility be affected by leap-year: but the most extraordinary part of the mistake is, the ignorance it displays (scarcely credible in Southey) of the origin and etymology of the bissextile institution—the very subject he was criticising.

Because the name "bissextile," as every body knows, arose from the repetition in leap-year of the identical day in question: the sixth of the kalends of March; the 24th of February; the feast of the Regifugium amongst the Romans; and of its substitute, that of St. Mathias, amongst the Christians.

It is clear, that since the Regifugium was held upon the sixth day before the 1st of March (both inclusive), that day must, according to our reckoning, be the 24th of February in common years, and the 25th in leap-years: therefore, the supernumerary or superfluous day, added on account of leap-year, was considered to be the 24th of February, and not the 25th; which latter, in those years, became the true "Sixth before the Kalends." Indeed, it is highly probable, although it cannot be supported by direct evidence, that the first day of the double sextile was distinguished from its name-fellow of the following day by having the word "bis" prefixed to sextum; so that, in leap-years, the 24th of February would be expressed as follows: "Ante diem bis-VI Calend. Martias;" while the following day, or the 25th of February (being considered the real Simon Pure), would retain the usual designation of "A.D. VI Calend. Mar." Such an hypothesis offers a reasonable explanation of the seeming reversal in terms of calling the day which first arrived posterior, and that which succeeded it prior.

Although the Church of England Calendar now places the feast of Saint Mathias invariably on the 24th of February in all years, yet the earlier copies of the Book of Common Prayer allocated it to "The Sixth of the Kalends of March," without any direction as to which of the two days, bearing that name in leap-years, it should be appropriated. The modern Reformed Church Calendar therefore repudiates the usage of the Romans themselves, rather than that of the Roman Catholics.

A. E. B.

Leeds.

---

PHOTOGRAPHIC NOTES AND QUERIES.

Portable Camera for Travellers.—Your correspondent E. S. asks for a clear description of a camera that will supersede the necessity of a dark room. Mr. Stokes has invented one; and in the early part of the photographic exhibition at the Society of Arts it was exhibited. The weight of the camera is only nine pounds, including focussing-glass, lens, shutter, &c. The shutter is so arranged that it will contain from twelve to twenty pieces of prepared paper, each piece between separate sheets of blotting-paper. Light and air are completely excluded, by the paper being pressed by the front portion of the shutter. When required for use, the first piece of paper is placed at the back of the glass. By the assistance of a small hood, the impression is then taken; and, by removing the millboard, the paper will fall back into its place. At the same time another piece can be brought forward, ready for a second picture, before focussing, and so on to the end. The hood is made of India rubber cloth, and answers the purpose of a focussing cloth, without the trouble of removing it from the camera throughout the day. The size of the pictures that can be taken by it is 9½ by 12 inches. It has been tried during the latter part of the last year, and proved most successful.

Philip H. Delamotte.

Bayswater.

The Albumen Process.—I shall be greatly obliged to Dr. Diamond, or any other photographer, by their kindly communicating through your medium their experience with albumenized glass. I have Thornthwaite's Guide to Photography.

I should like answers to the following Queries:

Must the albumen be poured off from the plate after it is spread over the surface, in the same manner as collodion?

Is the plate (while roasting, according to the process of Messrs. Thompson and Ross) nearly perpendicular in the process?

Will the iodized albumen, for giving the film, keep; and how long?

How long will the plate retain its sensitiveness after exciting?

May the same sensitive bath be used for a number of plates without renewing, in the same way as silver bath for collodion?

In conclusion, what is the average time with single achromatic lens, six or seven inch focus, to allow to get a good picture?

Will photographers who are chemists turn their attention to obtain sensitive dry glass plates? for I think there can scarcely be any doubt of the advantage of glass over paper for small pictures (weight, expense, &c., are perhaps drawbacks for pictures larger than 5 × 4 inches); but the desideratum is a sensitiveness nearly equal to collodion, and a plate that can be used dry.

Thos. Lawrence.

Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

Black Tints of French Photographers.—Can you inform me, through the medium of your valuable periodical, how those beautiful black tints, so much prized in the French prints from photographic negatives, are obtained? By so doing you will give great pleasure to several excellent amateur photographers, and especially your constant reader,

Philophotog.

Originator of the Collodion Process.—As some think the credit of the invention of the collodion process a matter of dispute, will you allow me to remind your correspondents that the truth will be much easier to discover if they will confine themselves to actual facts?

In No. 167., p. 47., G. C. first recklessly accuses Mr. Archer of untruth, and then tests his own claim to truth by quoting from Le Gray's edition of 1852, to prove Le Gray's edition of 1850. Why did he not go back at once to the 1850 edition; and if that contains anything like an intelligible process, why is it altogether omitted from Le Gray's edition of 1851, which was the one Mr. Archer spoke of, and correctly?

The history of collodion is (as far as I know) this. In September, 1850, Dr. Diamond invited me to meet Mr. Archer at his house, and for the first time Mr. Archer produced some prepared collodion, a portion of which identical sample Dr. Diamond now has in his possession.

Mr. Archer had then been trying it some five or six weeks. His experiments then went on, and in March, 1851, he published it in the Chemist. Let any of your readers procure that Number, and compare Mr. Archer's claim with Le Gray's, who, in 1852, states that he published it in 1850, and gave "the best method that has been discovered up to the present time;" and yet, singularly enough, in his edition of 1851, leaves out this best method entirely.

W. Brown.

Ewell.

Developing Paper Pictures with Pyrogallic Acid, &c.—Have any of your photographic correspondents tried developing their paper negatives with pyrogallic acid? If so, perhaps he would favour the readers of "N. & Q." with the result of his experiments.

In Dr. Diamond's process for paper negatives, he says the paper, after the iodizing solution has been applied, must be dried before soaking in water. I wish to ask whether it may be dried quickly by the fire, or must it be dried spontaneously by suspension, &c.? Again, how long must the paper remain on the sensitive mixture: must it be placed on the sensitive solution, and immediately taken off and blotted, or placed on the sensitive solution, and after some time (what time?) taken off and immediately blotted?

Have any of your readers substituted iodide of ammonium for iodide of potassium, in preparing paper, collodion, &c., and with what success? And have they substituted nitrate of zinc for glacial acetic acid, as recommended in a French work, with any success?

R. J. F.

---