(Vol. ix., p. 496.)

In an article contained in the Number of "N. & Q." for May the 27th last, and signed C. Mansfield Ingleby, an inconsiderate, not to say a coarse attack has been made upon me, which might have been spared had the writer sought a private explanation of the matters upon which he has founded his charge.

He asks, "How has Mr. Green discharged the duties of his solemn trust? Has he made any attempt to give publicity to the Logic, the 'great work' on Philosophy, the work on the Old and New Testaments, to be called The Assertion of Religion, or the History of Philosophy, all of which are in his custody, and of which the first is, on the testimony of Coleridge himself, a finished work?... For the four works enumerated above, Mr. Green is responsible."

Now, though, by the terms of Coleridge's will, I do not hold myself "responsible" in the sense which the writer attaches to the term, and though I have acted throughout with the cognizance, and I believe with the approbation of Coleridge's family, yet I am willing, and shall now proceed to give such explanations as an admirer of Coleridge's writings may desire, or think he has a right to expect.

Of the four works in question, the Logic—as will be seen by turning to the passage in the Letters, vol. ii. p. 150., to which the writer refers as "the testimony of Coleridge himself"—is described as nearly ready for the press, though as yet unfinished; and I apprehend it may be proved by reference to Mr. Stutfield's notes, the gentleman to whom it is there said they were dictated, and who possesses the original copy, that the work never was finished. Of the three parts mentioned as the components of the work, the Criterion and Organon do not to my knowledge exist; and with regard to the other parts of the manuscript, including the Canon, I believe that I have exercised a sound discretion in not publishing them in their present form and unfinished state.

Of the alleged work on the Old and New Testaments, to be called The Assertion of Religion, I have no knowledge. There exist, doubtless, in Coleridge's handwriting, many notes, detached fragments and marginalia, which contain criticisms on the Scriptures. Many of these have been published, some have lost their interest by the recent advances in biblical criticism, and some may hereafter appear; though, as many of them were evidently not intended for publication, they await a final judgment with respect to the time, form, and occasion of their appearance. But no work with the title above stated, no work with any similar object—except the Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit—is, as far as I know, in existence.

The work to which I suppose the writer alludes as the History of Philosophy, is in my possession. It was presented to me by the late J. Hookham Frere, and consists of notes, taken for him by an eminent shorthand writer, of the course of lectures delivered by Coleridge on that subject. Unfortunately, however, these notes are wholly unfit for publication, as indeed may be inferred from the fact, communicated to me by Coleridge, that the person employed confessed after the first lecture that he was unable to follow the lecturer in consequence of becoming perplexed and delayed by the novelty of thought and language, for which he was wholly unprepared by the ordinary exercise of his art. If this History of Philosophy is to be published in an intelligible form, it will require to be re-written; and I would willingly undertake the task, had I not, in connexion with Coleridge's views, other and more pressing objects to accomplish.

I come now to the fourth work, the "great work" on Philosophy. Touching this the writer quotes from one of Coleridge's letters:

"Of this work something more than a volume has been dictated by me, so as to exist fit for the press."

I need not here ask whether the conclusion is correct, that because "something more than a volume" is fit for the press, I am therefore responsible for the whole work, of which the "something more than a volume" is a part? But—shaping my answer with reference to the real point at issue—I have to state, for the information of Coleridge's readers, that, although in the materials for the volume there are introductions and intercalations on subjects of speculative interest, such as to entitle them to appear in print, the main portion of the work is a philosophical Cosmogony, which I fear is scarcely adapted for scientific readers, or corresponds to the requirements of modern science. At all events, I do not hesitate to say that the completion of the whole would be requisite for the intelligibility of the part which exists in manuscript.

I leave it then to any candid person to decide whether I should have acted wisely in risking its committal to the press in its present shape. Whatever may be, however, the opinion of others, I have decided, according to my own conscientious conviction of the issue, against the experiment.

But should some farther explanation be expected of me on this interesting topic, I will freely own that, having enjoyed the high privilege of communion with one of the most enlightened philosophers of the age—and in accordance with his wishes the responsibility rests with me, as far as my ability extends, of completing his labours,—in pursuance of this trust I have devoted more than the leisure of a life to a work in which I hope to present the philosophic views of my "great master" in a systematic form of unity—in a form which may best concentrate to a focus and principle of unity the light diffused in his writings, and which may again reflect it on all departments of human knowledge, so that truths may become intelligible in the one light of Divine truth.

Meanwhile I can assure the friends and admirers of Coleridge that nothing now exists in manuscript which would add materially to the elucidation of his philosophical doctrines; and that in any farther publication of his literary remains I shall be guided, as I have been, by the duty which I owe to the memory and fame of my revered teacher.

Joseph Henry Green.

Hadley.

KING JAMES'S IRISH ARMY LIST, 1689.

(Vol. ix., pp. 30, 31. 401.)

I was much pleased at Mr. D'Alton's announcement of his work; and I should have responded to it sooner, if I could have had any idea that he did not possess King's State of the Protestants in Ireland; but his inquiry about Colonel Sheldon, in Vol. ix., p. 401., shows that he has not consulted that work, where (p. 341.) he will find that Dominick Sheldon was "Lieutenant-General of the Horse." But after the enumeration of the General Staff, there follows a list of the field officers of eight regiments of horse, seven of dragoons, and fifty of infantry. In Tyrconnel's regiment of horse, Dominick Sheldon appears as lieutenant-colonel. This must have been, I suppose, a Sheldon junior, son or nephew of the lieutenant-general of horse. This reference to King's work has suggested to me an idea which I venture to suggest to Mr. D'Alton as a preliminary to the larger work on Irish family genealogies which he is about, and for which we shall have I fear to wait too long. I mean an immediate reprint (in a separate shape) of the several lists of gentlemen of both parties which are given in King's work. This might be done with very little trouble, and, I think, without any pecuniary loss, if not with actual profit. It would be little more than pamphlet size. The first and most important list would be of the names and designations of all the persons included in the acts of attainder passed in King James's Irish Parliament of May, 1689. They are, I think, about two thousand names, with their residences and personal designations; and it is interesting to find that a great many of the same families are still seated in the same places. These names I think I should place alphabetically in one list, with their designations and residences; and any short notes that Mr. D'Alton might think necessary to correct clerical error, or explain doubtful names: longer notes would perhaps lead too far into family history for the limited object I propose.

In a second list, I would give the names of King James's parliament, privy council, army, civil and judicial departments, as we find them in King, adding to them an alphabetical index of names. The whole would then exhibit a synopsis of the names, residences, and politics of a considerable portion of the gentry of Ireland at that important period.

C.

BARRELL'S REGIMENT.

(Vol. ix., pp. 63. 159.)

Your correspondent H. B. C. is undoubtedly correct in his statement that "Ten times a day whip the Barrels," is a regimental parody on the song "He that has the best Wife," sung in Charles Coffey's musical farce of The Devil to Pay, published in 1731. Popular songs have been made the subject of political or personal parodies from time immemorial; and no more fruitful locality for parodies can be found than a barrack, where the individual traits of character are so fully developed, and afford so full a scope to the talents of a satirist. Indeed, I knew an officer, who has recently retired from the service, who seized on every popular ballad, and parodied it, in connexion with regimental affairs, to the delight of his brother officers; and in many instances his parodies were far more witty than the original comic songs whence they were taken.

As regards the regiment known as Barrell's, at the period assigned as the date of the song relative to that corps, i. e. circa 1747, there can be no doubt as to what corps is alluded to. Barrell's regiment, now the 4th, or King's Own, regiment of infantry, is the only corps that was ever known in the British army as Barrell's; for although Colonel William Barrell was colonel of the present 28th regiment from Sept. 27, 1715, to August 25, 1730, and of the present 22nd regiment from the latter date to August 8, 1734, yet neither of these regiments appears to have seen any war-service during the periods that they were commanded by him, or to have been known in military history as Barrell's regiments. He was appointed to the 4th regiment of infantry August 8, 1734, and retained the command of that distinguished corps exactly fifteen years, for he died August 9, 1749. While he commanded the regiment it embarked for Flanders, and served the campaign of 1744, under Field-Marshal Wade. It remained in Flanders until the rebellion broke out in Scotland, when it returned to England, and marched from Newcastle-on-Tyne to Scotland in January, 1746, arriving on the 10th of that month at Edinburgh. The regiment was engaged at the battle of Falkirk, Jan. 17, 1746, where its conduct is thus noticed in the General Advertiser: "The regiments which distinguished themselves were Barrell's (King's Own), and Ligonier's foot." Ligonier's regiment is now the glorious 48th regiment, of Albuera fame.

At the battle of Culloden Barrell's regiment gained the greatest reputation imaginable; the battle was so desperate that the soldiers' bayonets were stained with blood to the muzzles of their muskets; there was scarce an officer or soldier of the regiment, and of that part of Munro's (now 37th regiment) which engaged the rebels, that did not kill one or two men each with their bayonets. (Particulars of the Battle, published 1746.) Now it will be remembered that your correspondent E. H., Vol. ix., p. 159., represents a drummer of the regiment interceding with the colonel for the prisoner, by stating that "he behaved well at Culloden." And this leads me to the question, Who was the colonel against whom this caricature was directed? It is proved ("N. & Q.," Vol. vii., p. 242.) that regiments were known by the names of their colonels, whether commanded personally by the colonel or not, until July 1, 1751, and indeed for several subsequent years.

Now the reference to Culloden renders it probable that the colonel appealed to was present at that battle, and perhaps an eye-witness of the personal bravery on that occasion of the soldier who was subsequently flogged. But although Colonel Barrell retained the colonelcy of the 4th Infantry until August, 1749, yet he was promoted to major-general in 1735, after which time he would have commanded a division, not a regiment. In 1739 he was farther promoted to lieut.-general, and appointed the same year Governor of Pendennis Castle, which office would necessarily remove him from the personal command of his regiment. He was not present at the battle of Culloden, April 16, 1746, where his regiment was commanded by Lieut.-Colonel Robert Rich, who was wounded on that occasion. As to the epithet of "Colonel," used by the drummer, that term is always used in conversation when addressing a lieutenant-colonel, or even a brevet lieutenant-colonel, and its use only proves, therefore, that the officer in command of the parade held a higher rank than major. After Culloden, the 4th regiment moved to the Highlands, and in 1747 returned to Stirling. In 1749 General Barrell died, and the colonelcy of the regiment was given to Lieut.-Colonel Rich, whom I suspect to be the officer alluded to in the caricature. I have searched the military records of the 4th regiment, but can find no mention of the places at which it was stationed from 1747 to 1754, in the spring of which year it embarked from Great Britain for the Mediterranean, just as it is now doing in the spring of 1854. I am inclined to fix the date of the print as 1749 (not 1747), when "Old Scourge" returned to his regiment as colonel, at the decease of General Barrell. Colonel Rich was not promoted to major-general until Jan. 17, 1758, and his commission as colonel is dated Aug. 22, 1749, the day on which he became colonel of the 4th regiment. He died in 1785, but retired from the service between the years 1771 and 1776: he succeeded his father as a baronet in 1768.

G. L. S.

CLAY TOBACCO-PIPES.

(Vol. ix., p. 372.)

I was much pleased at reading Mr. H. T. Riley's Note on this neglected subject, in which I take no small interest, and feel happy in communicating the little amount of information I possess regarding it. I have long thought that the habit of smoking, I do not say tobacco, but some other herb, is of much greater antiquity than is generally supposed. Tobacco appears to have been introduced amongst us about 1586 by Captain R. Greenfield and Sir Francis Drake (vide Brand's Popular Antiquities); but I have seen pipe-bowls of English manufacture, which had been found beneath the encaustic pavement of Buildwas Abbey in Shropshire, which gives a much earlier date to the practice of smoking something. I remember an old man, a perfect Dominie Sampson in his way, who had been in turn gaoler, pedagogue, and postmaster, at St. Briavel's, near Tintern Abbey, habitually smoking the leaves of coltsfoot, which he cultivated on purpose; he told me that he could seldom afford to use tobacco. The pipes found in such abundance in the bed of the Thames, and everywhere in and about London, I believe to be of Dutch manufacture; they are identical with those which Teniers and Ostade put into the mouths of their boors, and have for the most part a small pointed heel, a well-defined milled ring around the lip, and bear no mark or name of the maker. Such were the pipes used by the soldiers of the Parliament, to be found wherever they encamped. I will only instance Barton, near Abingdon, on the property of G. Bowyer, Esq., M.P., where I have seen scores while shooting in the fields around the ruins of the old fortified mansion. The English pipes, on the contrary, have a very broad and flat heel, on which they may rest in an upright position, so that the ashes might not fall out prematurely; and on this heel the potter's name or device is usually stamped, generally in raised characters, though sometimes they are incised. Occasionally the mark is to be found on the side of the bowl. A short time ago I exhibited a series of some five-and-twenty different types at the ArchÆological Institution, and my collection has been enlarged considerably since. These were principally found in Shropshire and Staffordshire, and appear for the most part to have been made at Broseley. They are of a very hard and compact clay, which retains the impress of the milled ring and the stamp in all its original freshness. I shall feel much obliged by receiving any additional information upon this subject.

W. J. Bernhard Smith.

Temple.

MADAME DE STAËL.

(Vol. ix., p. 451.)

I cannot direct R. A. to the passage in Madame de StaËl's works. The German book for which he inquires is not by Schlegel assisted by Fichte, but—

"Friedrich Nicolai's Leben und sonderbare Meinungen. Ein Beitrag zur Literatur-Geschichte des vergangenen und zur PÄdagogik des angehenden Jahrhunderts, von Johan Gottlieb Fichte. Herausgegeben von A. W. Schlegel: Tubingen, 1801, 8^o, pp. 130."

There certainly is no ground for the charge that Fichte attacked Nicolai when he was too old to reply. Nicolai was born in 1733, and died in 1811; so that he was sixty-eight when this pamphlet was published. His Leben Sempronius Gundiberts was published in 1798; and your correspondent H. C. R. (Vol. vii., p. 20.) partook of his hospitality in Berlin in 1803.

As to the provocation, Fichte (at p. 82.) gives an account of attacks on his personal honour; the worst of which seems to be the imputation of seeking favourable notices in the Literary Gazette of Jena. In Gundibert Fichte's writings were severely handled, but no personal imputation was made. I do not know what was said of him in the Neue Deutsche Bibliothek, but I can hardly imagine any justification for so furious an attack as this on Nicolai. I also concur with Madame de StaËl in thinking the book dull: "Non est jocus esse malignum." It begins with an attempt at grave burlesque, but speedily degenerates into mere scolding. Take one example:

"Es war sehr wahr, dass aus seinen (Nicolais) HÄnden alles beschmutzt und verdreht herausging; aber es war nicht wahr, das er beschmutzen und verdrehen wollte. Es ward ihm nur so durch die Eigenschaft seiner Natur. Wer mÖchte ein Stinkthier beschuldigen, dass es bohafter Weise alles was es zu sich nehme, in Gestank,—oder die Natter, das sie es in Gift verwandle. Diese Thiere sind daran sehr unschuldig; sie folgen nur ihrer Natur. Eben so unser Held, der nun einmal zum literarischen Stinkthier und der Natter des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts bestimmt war, verbreitete stank um sich, und spritze Gift, nicht aus Bosheit, sondern lediglich durch seine Bestimmung getrieben."—P. 78.

The charge of defiling all he touched will be appreciated by those who have read Sebaldus Nothanker and Sempronius Gundibert, two of the purest as well as of the cleverest novels of the last century.

H. B. C.

U. U. Club.

CRANMER'S MARTYRDOM.

(Vol. ix., p. 392.)

The long-received account of a very striking act in the martyrdom of Cranmer is declared to involve an "impossibility." The question is an important one in various ways, for it involves moral and religious, as well as literary and physiological, considerations of deep interest; but as I think the pages of "N. & Q." not the most appropriate vehicle for discussion on the former heads, I shall pass them over at present with a mere expression of regret that such a subject should have been so mooted there. With reference, then, to the literary evidence in favour of the fact, that the noble martyr voluntarily put forth his hand into the hottest part of the fire which was raging about him, and burnt it first, the historians quoted are entirely agreed, differing as they do only in such details as might seem rather to imply independent testimony than discrepant authority. But the action is declared to be "utterly impossible, because," &c. Why beg the question in this way? "Because," says H. B. C., "the laws of physiology and combustion show that he could not have gone beyond the attempt;" adding, "If the hand were chained over the fire, the shock would produce death." Leaving the hypothetical reasoning in both cases to go for what it is worth, it would surely be easy to produce facts of almost every week from the evidence given in coroners' inquests, in which persons have had their limbs burnt off—to say nothing of farther injury—without the shock "producing death." The only question then which I think can fairly arise, is, whether a person in Cranmer's position could voluntarily endure that amount of mutilation by fire which many others have accidentally suffered? This may be matter of opinion, but I have no doubt, and I suppose no truly Christian philosopher will have any, that the man who has faith to "give his body to be burned," and to endure heroically such a form of martyrdom, would be quite able to do what is attributed to Cranmer, and to Hooper too, "high medical authority" to the contrary notwithstanding. I might, indeed, adduce what might be called "high medical authority" for my view, i. e. the historical evidence of the fact, but I think the bandying of opinions on such a subject undesirable. It would be more to the point, especially if there really existed any ground for "historic doubt" on the subject, or if there was any good reason for creating one, to cite cotemporaneous evidence against that usually received. With respect to the heart of the martyr being "entire and unconsumed among the ashes," I must be permitted to say that, neither on physiological nor other grounds, does even this alleged fact, taken in its plain and obvious meaning, strike me as forming one of the "impossibilities of history."

J. H.

Rotherfield.

Your correspondent H. B. C. doubts the possibility of the story about Cranmer's hand, and says that "if a furnace were so constructed that a man might hold his hand in the flame without burning his body, the shock to the nervous system would deprive him of all command over muscular action before the skin could be entirely consumed. If the hand were chained over the fire, the shock would produce death." Now, this last assertion I doubt. The following is an extract from the account of Ravaillac's execution, given with wonderfully minute details by an eye-witness, and published in Cimber's Archives Curieux de l'Histoire de France, vol. xv. p. 103.:

"On le couche sur l'eschaffaut, on attache les chevaux aux mains et aux pieds. Sa main droite percÉe d'un cousteau fut bruslÉe À feu de souphre. Ce misÉrable, pour veoir comme ceste exÉcrable main rotissoit, eut le courage de hausser la teste et de la secouer pour abattre une Étincelle de feu qui se prenoit À sa barbe."

So far was this from killing him that he was torn with red-hot pincers, had melted lead, &c. poured into his wounds, and he was then "longuement tirÉ, retirÉ, et promenÉ de tous costez" by four horses:

"S'il y eut quelque pause, ce ne fut que pour donner temps au bourreau de respirer, au patient de se sentir mourir, aux thÉologiens de l'exhorter À dire la vÉritÉ."

And still:

"Sa vie estoit forte et vigoureuse; telle que retirant une fois une des jambes, il arresta le cheval qui le tiroit."

I fear your correspondent underrates the power of the human body in enduring torture. I have seen a similar account of the execution of Damiens, with which I will not shock your readers. The subject is a revolting one, but the truth ought to be known, as it is (most humanely, I fully believe) questioned.

G. W. R.

Oxford and Cambridge Club.

PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.

Difficulties in making soluble Cotton.—In making soluble cotton according to the formula given by Mr. Hadow in the Photographic Journal, and again by Mr. Shadbolt in "N. & Q.," I have been subject to the most provoking failures, and should feel obliged if Mr. Shadbolt or any other of your correspondents could explain the causes of my failures, which I will endeavour to describe.

1st. In using nitrate of potash and sulphuric acid, with a certain quantity of water as given, I have invariably found that on adding the cotton to the mixture it became completely dissolved, and the mass began to effervesce violently, throwing off dense volumes of deep red fumes, and the whole appearing of a similar colour. I at first thought it might be the fault of the sulphuric acid; but on trying some fresh, procured at another place, the same effects were produced.

Again, in using the mixed acids (which I tried, not being successful with the other method) I found, on following Mr. Hadow's plan, that the cotton was also entirely dissolved.

How is the proper temperature at which the cotton is to be immersed to be arrived at? Are there any thermometers constructed for the purpose? as, if one of the ordinary ones, mounted on wood or metal, was used, the acids would attack it, and, I should imagine, prove injurious to the liquids.

At the same time I would ask the reason why all the negative calotypes I have taken lately, both on Turner's and Sandford's papers, iodized according to Dr. Diamond's plan, are never intense, especially the skies, by transmitted light, although by reflected light they look of a beautiful black and white. I never used formerly to meet with such a failure; but at that time I used always to wet the plate glass and attach the paper to it, making it adhere by pressing with blotting-paper, and then exciting with a buckles brush and dilute gallo-nitrate. But the inconvenience attending that plan was, that I was compelled to take out as many double slides as I wished to take pictures, which made me abandon it and take to Dr. Diamond's plan of exciting them and placing them in a portfolio for use. I imagine the cause of their not being so intense is the not exposing them while wet.

A bag made of yellow calico, single thickness, has been recommended for changing the papers in the open air. I am satisfied it will not do, especially if the sun is shining; it may do in some shady places, but I have never yet seen any yellow calico so fine in texture as not to allow of the rays of light passing through it, unless two or three times doubled. I have proved to my own satisfaction that the papers will not bear exposure in a bag of single thickness, without browning over immediately the developing fluid is applied.

With regard to the using of thin collodion, as recommended by Mr. Hardwick in the last Number of the Photographic Journal, I am satisfied it is the only plan of producing thoroughly good positives; and I have been in the habit of thinning down collodion in the same manner for a long time, finding that I produced much better pictures with about half the time of exposure necessary for a thick collodion.

H. U.

Light in Cameras.—I cannot sufficiently express my acknowledgments to "N. & Q." for the photographic benefits I have derived from its perusal, more especially from the communication in No. 240. of Lux in Camera. Since I took up the art some months ago, I have had (with two or three exceptions) nothing but a succession of failures, principally from the browning of the negatives, and on examining my camera, as recommended by Lux in Camera, I find it lets in a blaze of light from the cause he mentions^[3], and thence doubtless my disappointments. But why inflict this history upon you? I inclose for your acceptance the best photograph I have yet produced from Dr. Diamond's "Simplicity of the Calotype." Printed from Delamotte's directions:—

First preparation, 5 oz. of aq. dist.; ¼ oz. of muriate of ammonia.

Second process, floating on solution 60 grains of nitrate of silver, 1 ounce of distilled water.

Is there any better plan than the above?

Charles K. Probert.

P.S.—The view inclosed is the porch and transept of Newport Church, Essex, from the Parsonage garden. Is it printed too dark? I wish I could get the grey and white tints I saw in the Photographic Exhibition.^[4] Had your readers behaved with ordinary gratitude, your photographic portfolio ought to have overflowed by this time.

It was an expensive one, bought of one of the principal houses for the supply of photographic apparatus, &c.