(Vol. viii., pp.220. 395. 498.)

When I mentioned the above subject in "N. & Q.," I admit that my meaning may have taken too wide a signification. I, however, wrote advisedly, my object being to draw the attention of those schools that were in fault, and in the hope of benefiting those that desired to do more. I suppose I must exonerate Tonbridge, therefore, from any aspersion; and as it appears they are well provided, from Bacon and Newton to Punch and the Family Friend, I am at a loss to know how I can be of service.

Of the defects in popular education I am as sensible as the rest of the multitude appear to be, and my particular view of the case would, I fear, be too lengthy a subject for these columns. It is quite clear, however, that education is partial, and in some sort a monopoly; its valuable branches being altogether out of the reach of more than half the population, and the staple industry of the people not sufficiently represented,—as, for instance, the steam-engine. In them there is not sufficient concentration, if I may use the term, of instruction; and the requirements of many arts and trades insufficiently carried out; the old schools and old colleges much too classical and mathematical. If this position is untrue, no popular scheme can be adopted at present; but it appears more than probable that before long the subject will be brought before the House of Commons, and education made accessible to all. As to the money for the purpose, the country will never grudge that. The obstacle appears to lie more in persuading the endless religious sects into which we are divided to shake hands over the matter.

At present my only desire is, that boys at public schools should have plenty of books, being assured that reading while we are young leaves a very strong and permanent impression, and cannot be estimated too highly; besides which, if a youth has access to works suited to his natural bent, he will unconsciously lay in a store of valuable information adapted to his future career.

Weld Taylor.

When I was at the College school, Gloucester, in 1794, there was a considerable library in a room adjoining the upper school. I never knew the books used by the boys, though the room was unlocked: in fact, it was used by the upper master as a place of chastisement; for there was kept the block (as it was called) on which the unfortunate culprits were horsed and whipped. The library, no doubt, contained many valuable and excellent works; but the only book of which I know the name as having been in it (and that only by a report in the newspapers of the day) was Oldham's Poems, which, after a fire which occurred in the school-room, was said to have been the only book returned of the many which had been taken away.

P. H. Fisher.

Stroud.

In Knight's Life of Dean Colet (8vo., London, 1724), founder of St. Paul's School, there is a catalogue of the books in the library of the school at the date specified. The number of the volumes is added up at the end of the catalogue, in MS., and the total amount is 663 volumes. The latest purchases bear the date of 1723, and are:—Pierson (sic) On the Creed, Greenwood's English Grammar, and Terentius In usum Delphini. The books for the most part are of a highly valuable and standard character. Does the library still exist? have many additions been made to it up to the present time? and is there a printed catalogue of it?

J. M.

Oxford.

TRENCH ON PROVERBS.

(Vol. viii., pp.387. 519.)

The error, which Luther was the first to fall into, in departing from the anciently received version of Ps. cxxvii. 2., Mendelsohn adopted; but no translator of eminence has followed these two Hebraists; although some critics have been carried away by their authority to the proper Jewish notion of "gain," and not sleep, being the subject. Luther's version—"Denn seinen Freunden gibt er es schlafend"—was certainly before the revisers of our authorised version of James I.; but was rejected, I consider, as ungrammatical and false: ungrammatical, because the transitive verb "give" (gibt) has no accusative noun; and false, because he supplies, without authority, the place of the missing noun by the pronoun "it" (es), there being no antecedent to which this it refers. Mendelsohn omits the it in his Hebrew comment, supplied however unauthorisedly by Mr. Margoliouth in his translation of such comment. But Mendelsohn introduces the "es" (it), in his German version (Berlin, 1788, dedicated to Ramler), without however any authority from the Hebrew original of this Psalm. He is therefore at variance with himself. And, farther, he has omitted altogether the important word ????? (so or thus), rendered "denn" (for) by Luther.

As to the "unintelligible authorised version," I must premise that no version has yet had so large an amount of learning bestowed on it as the English one; indeed it has fairly beaten out of the field all the versions of all other sections of Christians. The difficulty of the English version arises from its close adherence to the oriental letter; but if we put the scope of this Psalm into the vernacular, such difficulty is eliminated.

Solomon says, in this Psalm: "Without Jehovah's support, my house will fall: if He keep this city, the watch, with its early-risings, late-resting, and ill-feeding, is useless: thus He (by so keeping or watching the city himself) gives sleep to him whom He loves." The remainder of the Psalm refers to the increase of population as Jehovah's gift, wherein Solomon considers the strength of the city to consist. The words in Italics correspond precisely in sense with those of the authorised version—"For so He giveth His beloved sleep;" and the latter is supported fully by all the ancient versions, and, as far as I can at present ascertain, by all the best modern ones.

T. J. Buckton.

Lichfield.

What is there unintelligible in the authorised translation of Psalm cxxvii. 2., "He giveth His beloved sleep?" It is a literal translation of three very plain words, of the simplest grammatical construction, made in accordance with all the ancient versions. A difficulty there does indeed exist in the passage, viz. in the commencing word ???; but this word, though capable of many intelligible meanings, does not enter into the present question. Since the great majority of critics have been contented to see no objection to the received translations, it is perfectly allowable to maintain that the proposed rendering makes, instead of removing, a difficulty, and obscures a passage which, as generally understood, is sufficiently lucid. Hengstenberg's difficulty is, that the subject is not about the sleep, but the gain. But is not sleep a gain? Can we forget the ?p??? d???? of Homer? that is, sufficient, undisturbed sleep, rest. Hengstenberg's remark, that all, even the beloved, must labour, is a mere truism. The Psalmist evidently opposes excessive and over-anxious labours, interfering with natural rest, to ordinary labour accompanied with refreshing sleep. The object of his censure is precisely the ????a which forms the subject of our Lord's warning; who censures not due care and providence, but over-anxiety. Burkius rightly remarks, that ???? is antithetical to surgere, sedere, dolorum. Hammond observes, with far more clearness and good sense than Hengstenberg,

"For as to the former of these, wicked men that incessantly moil, and cark, and drudge for the acquiring of it, and never enjoy any of the comforts of this life, through the vehement pursuit of riches, are generally frustrated and disappointed in their aims: whereas, on the contrary, those who have God's blessing thrive insensibly, become very prosperous, and yet never lose any sleep in the pursuit of it."

Bishop Horne agrees; his remarks having evident reference to Hammond's. So Bishop Horsley, more briefly, but with his usual force: "You take all this trouble for your security in vain, whilst He gives His beloved sleep." Dr. French and Mr. Skinner adhere to the same sense in their translation, and pertinently refer to Psalms iii. and iv., in which the Psalmist, though beset by enemies, lies down and takes his rest, defended by God his Keeper. So far, indeed, from seeing anything unintelligible, I see no obscurity, either of expression or connexion, in this view, but very great obscurity in the double ellipsis now proposed. In the received translation we have a transitive verb, and a noun, obviously its accusative, according to the natural sequence and simple construction of the Hebrew language. In the proposed rendering we must understand an accusative case after giveth (i.e. bread, as RosenmÜller and others observe), and a particle before sleep. The transitive verb has no subject; the noun nothing to govern it. We must guess at both.

As for the alleged instances of ellipses, I maintain they are not analogous. I cannot call to mind any which are; and if any of your correspondents would show some they would do good service. Hengstenberg's examples of ????, ????, &c. are surely not in point. We have a similar ellipsis, often used in idiomatic English, morning, noon, and night; but who would say sleep, instead of in sleep, or while asleep? The ellipses in the Psalms, in the Songs of Degrees themselves, are very numerous, but they are of a different nature; and neither the position nor the nature of the word ???? warrants that now defended, as far I can remember.

May I remark, by the way, that the Psalm falls rather into three strophes than into two. The first speaks of the raising up of the house, and of the city (an aggregation of houses), protected by the Almighty. The last is in parallelism to the first, though, as often happens, expanded; and speaks of the raising up of the family, and of the family arrived at maturity, the defenders of the city, through the same protecting Providence. The central portion is the main and cardinal sentiment, viz. the vanity of mere human labour, and the peace of those who are beloved of God.

John Jebb.

There is a proverb which foretells peril to such as interpose in the quarrels of others. But as neither Mr. Trench, nor E.M.B., nor Mr. Margoliouth, have as yet betrayed any disposition to quarrel about the question in dispute, a looker-on need not be afraid of interposing.

The Query, about the solution of which they differ, is the proper mode of rendering the last clause of v.2. Ps.cxxvii. In our Liturgy and Bible it is rendered, "For so He giveth His beloved sleep;" of which E.M.B. says, "It seems to me to be correct;" though he justly observes that "He will give" would be more close. Mr. Trench appears to have rendered it, "He giveth His beloved in their sleep." Mr. Margoliouth says "the words should be, He will give to His beloved whilst he [the beloved] is asleep." In each case the Italics, as usual, designate words not existing in the Hebrew text.

When expositors would get through a difficult passage, their readers have, not unfrequently, the vexation of finding that a word of some importance has been ignored. Such has been the case here with the little word ???, which introduces the clause. Its ordinary meaning is so; and the office of the word so, in such a position, is to lead the remind to revert to what has been previously said, as necessary to the proper application of what follows. Now, the Psalmist's theme was the vanity of all care and labour, unless the Lord both provide for and watch over His people; for so He will give His beloved sleep—that happy, confiding repose which the solicitude of the worldly cannot procure. This is, surely, intelligible enough and even if ??? may be translated for (which Noldius, in his Concordantia Particularum, affirms that it here may, adducing however but one dubious instance of its being so used elsewhere, viz. Jeremiah xiv. 10.), or if the various reading, ???, be accepted, which would mean for, our version of the clause will be quite compatible with either alteration.

In this concentrated proposition are contained, the mode of giving, so; the character of the recipient, his beloved; and we reasonably expect to be next told what the Lord will give, and the text accordingly proceeds to say, sleep. Whereas, if either Mr. Trench's or Mr. Margoliouth's version of the clause could properly be accepted, the gift would remain entirely unmentioned; after attention had been called to the giver, to his mode of giving, and to the recipient who might expect his bounty. But whilst Mr. Trench is constrained to interpolate in their, apparently unconscious that the Hebrew requires beloved to be in the singular number, Mr. Margoliouth translates ????? as if it were a participle, which Luther seems also to have heedlessly done. Yet unless ????? be a noun, derived with a little irregularity from ?????, he slept, it has nothing to do with sleep. It cannot be the participle of ?????, for that verb has a participle in the usual form, not wanting the initial ??, which occurs in several places in the Old Testament, and is used by Mendelsohn in the very sentence Mr. Margoliouth has quoted from that Jewish expositor. The critic who will not acknowledge ????? to be a noun in this clause, is therefore tied up to translating it as either the participle or the preterite of ?????, to change, or to repeal, and would thus make the clause really unintelligible.

Henry Walter.

N. B. inquires, whether the translation of Psalm cxxvii. 2. adopted by Mr. Trench has the sanction of any version but that of Luther. I beg leave to inform him that the passage was translated in the same manner by Coverdale: "For look, to whom it pleaseth Him He giveth it in sleep." De Wette also, in modern times, has "Giebt er seinen Geliebten im Schlafe."

Vatablus, in his Annotations, approves of such a rendering: "Dabit in somno dilectis suis." It has also been suggested in the notes of several modern critics.

Not one of the ancient versions sanctions this translation.

The sense of the passage will be much the same whichever of these translations be adopted. But the common rendering appears to me to harmonise best with the preceding portion of it.

S. D.

MAJOR ANDRÉ.

(Vol. viii., pp. 174. 604.)

The following extracts and cuttings from newspapers, relative to the unfortunate Major AndrÉ, may interest your correspondent Serviens. I believe I have some others, which I will send when I can lay my hand upon them. I inclose a pencil copy of the scarce print of a sketch from a pen-and-ink drawing, made by AndrÉ himself on Oct. 1, 1780, of his crossing the river when he was taken:

"Visit to the Grave of AndrÉ.—We stopped at Piermont, on the widest part of Tappan Bay, where the Hudson extends itself to the width of three miles. On the opposite side, in full view from the hotel, is Tarrytown, where poor AndrÉ was captured. Tradition says that a very large white-wood tree, under which he was taken, was struck by lightning on the very day that news of AndrÉ's death was received at Tarrytown. As I sat gazing on the opposite woods, dark in the shadows of moonlight, I thought upon how very slight a circumstance often depends the fate of individuals and the destiny of nations. In the autumn of 1780, a farmer chanced to be making cider at a mill on the east bank of the Hudson, near that part of Haverstraw Bay called 'Mother's Lap.' Two young men, carrying muskets, as usual in those troubled times, stopped for a draught of sweet cider, and seated themselves on a log to wait for it. The farmer found them looking very intently on some distant object, and inquired what they saw. 'Hush, hush!' they replied; 'the red coats are yonder, just within the Lap,' pointing to an English gun-boat, with twenty-four men, lying on their oars. Behind the shelter of a rock, they fired into the boat, and killed two persons. The British returned a random shot; but ignorant of the number of their opponents, and seeing that it was useless to waste ammunition on a hidden foe, they returned whence they came with all possible speed. This boat had been sent to convey Major AndrÉ to the British sloop-of-war Vulture, then lying at anchor off Teller's Point. Shortly after AndrÉ arrived, and finding the boat gone, he, in attempting to pass through the interior, was captured. Had not those men stopped to drink sweet cider, it is probable that AndrÉ would not have been hung; the American revolution might have terminated in quite a different fashion; men now deified as heroes might have been handed down to posterity as traitors; our citizens might be proud of claiming descent from Tories, and slavery have been abolished eight years ago, by virtue of our being British Colonies. So much may depend on a draught of cider! But would England herself have abolished slavery had it not been for the impulse given to free principles by the American revolution? Probably not. It is not easy to calculate the consequences involved even in a draught of cider, for no fact stands alone; each has infinite relations. A very pleasant ride at sunset brought us to Orange Town, to the lone field where Major AndrÉ was executed. It is planted with potatoes, but the plough spares the spot on which was once his gallows and his grave. A rude heap of stones, with the remains of a dead fir tree in the midst, are all that mark it; but tree and stones are covered with names. It is on an eminence commanding a view of the country for miles. I gazed on the surrounding woods, and remembered that on this selfsame spot, the beautiful and accomplished young man walked back and forth, a few minutes preceding his execution, taking an earnest farewell look of earth and sky. My heart was sad within me. Our guide pointed to a house in full view, at half a mile's distance, which he told us was at that time the head-quarters of General Washington. I turned my back suddenly upon it. The last place on earth where I would wish to think of Washington is at the grave of AndrÉ. I know that military men not only sanction but applaud the deed; and, reasoning according to the maxims of war, I am well aware how much can be said in his defence. That Washington considered it a duty, the discharge of which was most painful to him, I doubt not. But, thank God, the instincts of any childhood are unvitiated by any such maxims. From the first hour I read of the deed, until the present day, I never did, and never could, look upon it as otherwise than cool, deliberate murder. That the theory and practice of war commends the transaction, only serves to prove the infernal nature of war itself.... A few years ago, the Duke of York requested the British Consul to send the remains of Major AndrÉ to England. At that time two thriving firs were found near the grave, and a peach-tree; which a lady in the neighbourhood had planted there, in the kindness of her heart. The farmers who came to witness the interesting ceremony generally evinced the most respectful tenderness for the memory of the unfortunate dead, and many of the children wept. A few idlers, educated by militia trainings and Fourth of July declaration, began to murmur that the memory of General Washington was insulted by any respect shown to the remains of AndrÉ; but the offer of a treat lured them to the tavern, where they soon became too drunk to guard the character of Washington. It was a beautiful day, and these disturbing spirits being removed, the impressive ceremony proceeded in solemn silence. The coffin was in good preservation, and contained all the bones, with a small quantity of dust. The roots of the peach-tree had entirely interwoven the skull with their fine network. His hair, so much praised for its uncommon beauty, was tied, on the day of his execution, according to the fashion of the times. When his grave was opened, half a century afterwards, the riband was found in perfect preservation, and sent to his sister in England. When it was known that the sarcophagus containing his remains had arrived in New York, for London, many ladies sent garlands and emblematic devices, to be wreathed around it, in memory of the 'beloved and lamented AndrÉ.' In their compassionate hearts, the teachings of nature were unperverted by maxims of war, or that selfish jealousy which dignifies itself with the name of patriotism. Blessed be God, that custom forbids women to electioneer or fight. May the sentiment remain till war and politics have passed away! Had not women and children been kept free from their polluting influence, the medium of communication between earth and heaven would have been completely cut off. At the foot of the eminence where the gallows had been erected, we found an old Dutch farm-house, occupied by a man who witnessed the execution, and whose father often sold peaches to the unhappy prisoner. He confirmed the account of AndrÉ's uncommon personal beauty, and had a vivid remembrance of the pale but calm heroism with which he met his untimely death."—From Miss Child's Letters from New York.

"AndrÉ.—At the little town of Tappan, the unfortunate Major AndrÉ, condemned by the council of war as a spy, was executed and buried. His remains were disinterred a few years ago, by order of the English Government, carried to England, and, if I mistake not, deposited in Westminster Abbey; whilst the remains of General Frazer, who fell like a hero, at the head of the King's troops, lie without a monument in the old redoubt near Still Water. The tree that grew over AndrÉ's grave was likewise sent to England; and, as I was told, planted in the King's Garden, behind Carlton Palace."—Duke of Weimar's Travels.

"Disinterment of Major AndrÉ.—This event took place at Tappan on Friday, 10th inst., at one p.m., amidst a considerable concourse of ladies and gentlemen that assembled to witness this interesting ceremony. The British Consul, with several gentlemen, accompanied by the proprietor of the ground and his labourers, commenced their operations at eleven o'clock, by removing the heap of loose stones that surrounded and partly covered the grave. Great caution was observed in taking up a small peach-tree that was growing out of the grave, as the Consul stated his intention of sending it to his Majesty, to be placed in one of the Royal Gardens. Considerable anxiety was felt lest the coffin could not be found, as various rumours existed of its having been removed many years ago. However, when at the depth of three feet, the labourers came to it. The lid was broken in the centre, and had partly fallen in, but was kept up by resting on the skull. The lid being raised, the skeleton of the brave AndrÉ appeared entire; bone to bone, each in its place, without a vestige of any other part of his remains, save some of his hair, which appeared in small tufts; and the only part of his dress was the leather string which tied it.

"As soon as the curiosity of the spectators was gratified, a large circle was formed; when Mr. Eggleso, the undertaker, with his assistants, uncovered the sarcophagus, into which the remains were carefully removed. This superb depository, in imitation of those used in Europe for the remains of the illustrious dead, was made by Mr. Eggleso, of Broadway, of mahogany; the pannels covered with rich crimson velvet, surrounded by a gold bordering; the rings of deep burnished gold; the pannel also crimson velvet, edged with gold; the inside lined with black velvet; the whole supported by four gilt balls.

"The sarcophagus, with the remains, has been removed on board his Majesty's packet; where, it is understood, as soon as some repairs on board are completed, an opportunity will be afforded of viewing it."—From the New York Evening Post of Aug. 11.

"The remains of the lamented Major AndrÉ have (as our readers already know) been lately removed from the spot where they were originally interred in the year 1780, at Tappan, New York, and brought to England in the PhÆton frigate by order of his Royal Highness the Duke of York. Yesterday the sarcophagus was deposited in front of the cenotaph in Westminster Abbey, which was erected by his late Majesty to the memory of this gallant officer. The reinterment took place in the most private manner, the Dean of Westminster superintending in person, Major-Gen. Sir Herbert Taylor attending on the part of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief and Mr. Locker, Secretary to Greenwich Hospital, on behalf of the three surviving sisters of the deceased."—From newspaper of which the name and date have not been preserved.

G. C.

With many thanks for the obliging replies to my Query for information concerning this gentleman, I would desire to repeat it in a more specific form. Can none of your readers inform me whether there do not remain papers, &c. of or concerning Major AndrÉ, which might without impropriety be at this late day given to the world; and if so, by what means access could be had thereto? Are there none such in the British Museum, or in the State Paper Offices? My name and address are placed with the Editor of this journal, at the service of any correspondent who may prefer to communicate with me privately.

Serviens.

Major AndrÉ occupied Dr. Franklin's house when the British army was in Philadelphia in 1777 and 1778. When it evacuated the city, AndrÉ carried off with him a portrait of the Doctor, which has never been heard of since. The British officers amused themselves with amateur theatricals at the South Street Theatre in Southwark, then the only one in Philadelphia, theatres being prohibited in the city. The tradition here is, that AndrÉ painted the scenes. They were destroyed with the theatre by fire about thirty-two years ago.

M. E.

Philadelphia.

PASSAGE IN WHISTON.

(Vol. viii., pp. 244. 397.)

The book for which J.T. inquires is:

"The Important Doctrines of Original Sin, Justification by Faith and Regeneration, clearly stated from Scripture and Reason, and vindicated from the Doctrines of the Methodists; with Remarks on Mr. Law's late Tract on New Birth. By Thomas Whiston, A.B. Printed for John Whiston, at the Boyle's Head, Fleet Street. Pp.70."

I do not know who the author was. Perhaps a son of the celebrated William Whiston, six of whose works are advertised on the back of the title-page; and whose Memoirs, Lond. 1749, are "sold by Mr. Whiston in Fleet Street." If the passage cited by J.T. is all that Taylor says of Thomas Whiston, it conveys an erroneous notion of his pamphlet, which from pp.49. to 70. is occupied by the question of regeneration. I think his doctrine may be shortly stated thus: Regeneration accompanies the baptism of adults, and follows that of infants. In the latter case, the time is uncertain; but the fact is ascertainable by the recipients becoming spiritually minded.

Afterwards he says:

"I cannot dismiss this subject without observing another sense of regeneration in the Gospel. However, this makes no alteration in the doctrine I have before established; because, with us, regeneration and new birth are terms that bear the same exact meaning. What I before delivered of the spiritual new birth or regeneration is strictly true, though the word regeneration is sometimes used in another sense. It is not to be there understood of a spiritual or figurative birth, but of a literal and actual revival of the body from corruption. But this is not that new birth we have before inquired after, but only the assured and certain consequence of our preserving ourselves to the end in that spiritual state or birth we have entered into in this world. That I do not represent the sense of the word regeneration unfairly, may be gathered from Matt. xix. 28., rightly pointed and distinguished:

"'And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me (in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of his glory), ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' Here regeneration is not to be understood in the same sense as the new birth or regeneration mentioned by our Saviour (John iii.), from whence the new birth is to be derived and stated; but, as I before observed, must be referred to a literal restoration to life, i.e. either to the general resurrection, or rather to the Millennium, when Christ is to reign upon earth over the Saints for a thousand years, after the dissolution of the present form of it. I make no doubt that this latter opinion is the genuine sense of the text I have quoted from St. Matthew; and consequently, that regeneration, in this passage, is to be applied to the first resurrection of the dead, or to the supposed Millennium."—Pp.67, 68.

The above will show that Thomas Whiston did not "maintain that regeneration is a literal and physical being born again," in the sense which the passage quoted by J.T. conveys. I have not seen Taylor's work with the date 1746. As the name is common, and the pamphlets and sermons of that time on original sin are innumerable, many Taylors may have written besides the one mentioned by ???e??. J.T.'s Taylor cannot be excused even on the ground of having read only a part of the book he misrepresented: for he refers to p.68., from which he must have seen that Thomas Whiston there explained only an isolated passage.

H. B. C.

Garrick Club.

HELMETS.

(Vol. viii., p. 538.)

The following observations upon the helmet, by Stephen Martin Leake, Esq., Garter, may be acceptable to your querist S.N.

"The helmet, called galea by the Greeks, cassis by the Romans, is called helm (which signifies the head) by the Germans; whence the French heaume, and our helmet. It is of great account with the Germans: the helm and crest deriving their use from tournaments, whence arms took their origin; and this being with them the most essential mark of noblesse, neither the Germans nor French allow a new made gentleman to bear a helmet, but only a wreath of his colours; and when he is a gentleman of three descents, to bear a helmet with three barrs for his three descents (Menestrier, AbrÉgÉ mÉthodique des Armoiries, 1672, p.28.; Origine des Ornemens des Armoiries, p.2.). Tymbre is the general word used for the casque or helm by the French. Menestrier, in his Origine des Ornemens des Armoiries, p.13., says the modern heralds observe three things with regard to the tymbre: the matter, the form, and the situation. That kings should have their helmets of gold open, and in full front; princes and lords of silver, and somewhat turned with a certain number of barrs, according to their degree; gentlemen to have their helmets of steel, and in profile. Colombiere assigns a knight a helmet bordered with silver, barons with gold, counts and viscounts the like, and the barrs gold; marquisses the helm same, and damasked with gold; dukes and princes the gold helmet, damasked. And as to the barrs, new gentlemen without any; gentlemen of three descents, three barrs; knights and ancient gentlemen, five; barons seven; counts and viscounts nine; marquisses eleven. But Moreau, who first propagated these inventions (Origine des Ornemens des Armoiries, p.17.), assigns to an emperor or king eleven, a prince or duke nine, a marquis and count seven, a baron five: whence it seems there is no certain rule or uniform practice observed herein, unless in the situation of the helmet, wherein both the Germans and French account it more noble to bear an open helmet than a close one; but these are novel distinctions. Anciently, the helmets were all turned to the right, and close; and it is but some years since, says Menestrier (AbrÉgÉ MÉthodique, 1672, p.28.), that they began to observe the number of grilles or barrs, to distinguish the different degrees. But however ingenious these inventions are, it is certain that they are useless (as gold and silver helmets would be) because every rank of nobility is distinguished by the coronet proper to his degree. Whatever honour may be attributed to the helmet, the use of it with the arms is but modern; and upon the coins of kings and sovereign princes, where they are chiefly to be met with, the helmets are barred, and either full or in profile, as best suited the occasion; and upon the Garter plates of Christian Duke of Brunswick (1625), Gustavus Adolphus King of Sweden (1628), and Charles Count Palatine of the Rhine (1633 and 1680), they are full fronted with seven barrs.

"In Great Britain we have but four kinds of helmets, according to the four different degrees in the state—the king, the nobility, knights, and gentry. The sovereign helmet full fronted, having seven barrs or guards, visure without any bever; the nobilities the same, but half turned to the right, and usually showing four barrs; the knight's helmet full fronted, with the bever turned up; and the gentleman's in profile, the bever or visor close; using steel helmets for all as the only proper metal for a helmet common to all. Foreigners condemn us for attributing that helmet to a knight, which they give to a king; and more proper, says Mackensie, for a king without guard-visure than for a knight (Science of Heraldry, p.87.), because knights are in danger, and have less need to command. But it must be observed, the knight's helmet has a visor, and no barrs; the sovereign's barrs, because no visor. And this kind of helmet, with barrs instead of a visor, seems to have been contrived for princes and great commanders, who would have been incommoded by the visor, and too much exposed without anything, therefore had barrs: whereas knights being, according to Mackensie, in more danger and having less need to command, had their helmet for action; and are represented with the bever up, ready to receive the king or general's command. As to the resemblance of the one to the other, both being in full front, the connexion was not anciently so remote as seems at this day. Knighthood is the first and most ancient military honour, and therefore at this day sovereign princes and knights are the only two honours universally acknowledged. Knighthood is the source of all honours, and of all military glory, and an honour esteemed by and conferred upon kings; without which they were heretofore thought incomplete, and could not confer that honour on others, no more than ordination could be conferred by one unordained: so that there was a very near connexion between sovereignty and knighthood. And besides, the propriety of the open helmet with a visor for a knight, and the helmet guard-visure for a king, the latter is more ornamental, especially if, according to the modern practice, the barrs are gold. As the king's helmet is without a visor, and barred, so is that of the nobility in imitation of it, but turned to the right as a proper distinction as, in like manner, that of the gentry differs from the knights. As there are in fact but two orders of men, nobility of which the king is the first degree, and gentry of which knights are the first, so they are by this means sufficiently distinguished according to their respective orders and degrees: the first order distinguished by the barred helmet, the gentry by the visored helmet with proper differences of the second degrees of each class from the first; and all other distinctions more than this are unnecessary and useless.

"The helmet does not seem to have been formerly used but in a military way, and affairs of chivalry. I do not find any helmets upon the monuments of our Kings of England, nor upon other ancient monuments, nor upon any of the Great Seals, coins, or medals. Upon the plates of the Knights of the Garter at Windsor, all degrees used the old profile close helmet till about 1588, some few excepted; and soon after, the helmet with barrs came into fashion, and was used for all degrees of nobility, and it has continued ever since; and the same has been used for all degrees of nobility upon the plates of the Knights of the Bath, those that are knights only using a knight's helmet. And the same may be observed in Sir Edward Walker's Books of the Nobility from the Restoration to the Revolution, wherein all degrees have the helmet turned towards the right, showing four barrs; the sovereign's being full with seven barrs."

G.

HAMPDEN'S DEATH.

(Vol. viii., p. 495.)

"On the 21st of July, 1828, the corpse of John Hampden was disinterred by the late Lord Nugent for the purpose of settling the disputed point of history as to the manner in which the patriot received his death-wound. The examination seems to have been conducted after a somewhat bungling fashion for a scientific object, and the facts disclosed were these: 'On lifting up the right arm we found that it was dispossessed of its hand. We might therefore naturally conjecture that it had been amputated, as the bone presented a perfectly flat appearance, as if sawn off by some sharp instrument. On searching under the cloths, to our no small astonishment we found the hand, or rather a number of small bones, inclosed in a separate cloth. For about six inches up the arm the flesh had wasted away, being evidently smaller than the lower part of the left arm, to which the hand was very firmly united, and which presented no symptoms of decay further than the two bones of the forefinger loose. Even the nails remained entire, of which we saw no appearance in the cloth containing the remains of the right hand.... The clavicle of the right shoulder was firmly united to the scapula, nor did there appear any contusion or indentation that evinced symptoms of any wound ever having been inflicted. The left shoulder, on the contrary, was smaller and sunken in, as if the clavicle had been displaced. To remove all doubts, it was adjudged necessary to remove the arms, which were amputated with a penknife (!). The socket of the left (sic) arm was perfectly white and healthy, and the clavicle firmly united to the scapula, nor was there the least appearance of contusion or wound. The socket of the right (sic) shoulder, on the contrary, was of a brownish cast, and the clavicle being found quite loose and disunited from the scapula, proved that dislocation had taken place. The bones, however, were quite perfect.' These appearances indicated that injuries had been received both in the hand and shoulder, the former justifying the belief in Sir Robert Pye's statement to the Harleys, that the pistol which had been presented to him by Sir Robert, his son-in-law, had burst and shattered his hand in a terrible manner at the action of Chalgrave Field; the latter indicating that he had either been wounded in the shoulder by a spent ball, or had received an injury there by falling from his horse after his hand was shattered. Of these wounds he died three or four days after, according to Sir Philip Warwick. According to Clarendon, 'three weeks after being shot into the shoulder with a brace of bullets, which broke the bone.' The bone, however, was not found broken, and the 'brace of bullets' is equally imaginary."

This account is from a newspaper cutting of The News, August 3, 1828.

W. S.

Northiam.

PETER ALLAN.

(Vol. viii., pp. 539. 630.)

Peter Allan deserves more than a brief notice. His history is so full of romance, the relics of his name and fame are so many, and he is withal so little known, that I presume I may on this occasion trespass on more than the ordinary space allotted to a "minor," but which should be a "major" Query.

Peter Allan was born at Selkirk (?) in the year 1798. His parents were peasants, and Peter in early life became valet to Mr. Williamson, brother of Sir Hedworth Williamson. He afterwards became gamekeeper to the Marquis of Londonderry, and in that capacity acquired a reputation as an unerring shot, and a man of unusual physical strength and courage. He afterwards married, and became a publican at Whitburn, and in the course of few years purchased a little property, and occupied himself in the superintendence of dock works and stone quarries. In this latter capacity he acquired the skill in quarrying, on which his fame chiefly rests. Having a turn for a romantic life, he conceived the strange project of founding a colony at Marsden, a wild, rocky bay below the mouth of the Tyne, five miles from Sunderland, and three from South Shields. The spot chosen by Peter as his future home had been colonised some years before by one "Jack the Blaster," who had performed a series of excavations, and amongst them a huge round perforation from the high land above to the beach below, through which it is said many a cargo has passed ashore without being entered in the books of the excise. Here the cliff is formed of hard magnesian limestone, and rises perpendicularly from the beach more than a hundred feet. When Peter set to work, the only habitable portions were two wild caves opening to the sea, into which at high tide the breakers tumbled, and where during rough weather it was impossible to continue with safety. On the face of the rock Peter built a homestead of timber, and set up farm and tavern. In the rock itself he excavated fifteen rooms, to each of which he gave an appropriate name; the most interesting are the "Gaol Room," the "Devil's Chamber," the "Circular Room," the "Dining Room," and the "Ball Room." The height of the entire excavation is twenty feet, its breadth thirty, and its length, from the ball room to the cottage, one hundred and twenty. Several parts of the cave are lighted by windows hewn in the face of the rock, and these give the cave a picturesque appearance as viewed frown the beach below. In addition to these labours, Peter took possession of a huge table-rock, which stands some distance from the cliffs opposite to the grotto. By dint of extraordinary exertions he excavated a passage from the land side of this rock through its substance to the surface, and by placing scaling ladders against its face, made provision for ascent and descent at high water. The three-quarters of an acre of surface he colonised with rabbits, and built a shanty for himself and companions, where they dwelt for some time thinning the wild fowl with their deadly shots, and raising many an echo with their shouts of revelry.

To describe the strange scene presented by the grotto itself, the farm-buildings on the face of the cliff, the huge table-rock and flagstaff, the many quaint blocks, pillars and wild escarpments, and the numerous domestic animals, such as mastiffs, pigs, ravens, and goats, all congregated together in a small bay, and literally separated from the world by the barren waste land above, and the huge cliffs and restless sea below, would be beyond the scope of "N. & Q.," though it is worth a note in passing, that for the tourist a visit to Marsden would be highly remunerative.

Peter Allan endured many hardships in his cave at Marsden. He was accused of smuggling, and annoyed by the excise. He and his family were once shut in for six weeks by the snow, during the whole of which time it was impossible for any human being to approach them. Yet in spite of many hardships, Peter reared in the grotto a family of eight children, three daughters and five sons, all of whom are living and prospering in the world. The grotto is still kept by his widow, his eldest son William, and one daughter, assisting Mrs. Allan in the management The son William is an experienced blaster, and occupies himself in excavations and improvements; the daughter, a brunette, is a first-rate shot, and a girl of extraordinary spirit and gaiety. She is the Grace Darling of the neighbourhood, and both her and her mother have saved many lives by their dexterity in boating and extraordinary courage. Peter himself was a bold, determined, and honest man, fond of a joke, and passionately devoted to bees, birds, pigs, and dogs, many of whom (pigs especially) used to follow him to Shields and Sunderland, when he went thither. After twenty-two years' possession of the caverns, the proprietor of the adjoining land served him with a process of ejectment; Peter refused to leave the habitation which he had formed by twenty years' unremitting toil, and which he had actually won from the sea, without encroachment on an inch of the mainland. After a tedious law-suit, judgment was given in his favour, but he had to pay costs. The anxieties of this lawsuit broke his heart, and he never recovered either health or spirits. He died on the 31st of August, 1849, in the 51st year of his age, leaving his wife and eight children to lament him. He was buried in Whitburn churchyard, and over his grave was placed a stone with the inscription:

"The Lord is my rock and my salvation."