(Vol. iii., p. 106.)

Your correspondent and querist, J. D. A., asks for some information respecting the coat of arms surmounted by a cardinal's hat, sculptured and affixed to one of the pillars of the south transept in St. Saviour's Church, Southwark. I send in reply an extract from a now scarce book, Arthur Tiler's History and Antiquities of St. Saviour's, 1765, with which all the later historians of the church agree:—

"Anno 1400. 2 Hen. IV.

"The whole church was new built about this time; Henry Beaufort (second son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, son of Edward III.), Cardinal of St. Eusebius, and Bishop of Winchester from the year 1405 to the time of his death in 1447, might have contributed towards the building, being a man of great wealth, for which he was called the rich Cardinal, as the arms of the Beauforts are carved in stone on a pillar in the south cross aisle; and by the remaining sculpture on each side it appears to be done for strings pendant from a Cardinal's hat placed over them. The arms are quarterly France and England, a border compone argent and azure."

When the transepts were rebuilt, some years since, the cardinal's hat, which till that time was nearly defaced, was then restored, and the coat of arms newly emblazoned.

W. B.

With reference to the Query of J. D. A. (p. 106. antÈ), it would appear that the cardinal's hat, but with a difference in the number of rows of tassels, is sometimes seen on the monuments of men who never were raised to that dignity.

In the Cathedral of St. Canice, Kilkenny, are two monuments placed there during the rule of the Confederate Catholics, viz., that of James Cleere, "Protonotarius et Rector ecclesiÆ D. Joannis Dioecesis oporiensis," who died A.D. 1643, Nov. 14; and David Rothe, intrusive Roman Catholic Bishop of Ossery, who died some years after—on both of which the arms of the individual are surmounted by a cardinal's hat. It is quite certain that neither of these ecclesiastics had a right to this distinction as cardinals. For the right of Bishops and Prothonotaries to wear hats or caps of the same shape as the cardinals, with their colours and peculiarities, see Glossary of Heraldry (Oxford), under "Cap-Cardinals." Any further examples will oblige

J. Graves.

The Cardinal's hat, with arms beneath, on a pillar near the poet Gower's monument, in St. Saviour's, Southwark, refers directly to the beneficence of that busy cardinal and very remarkable man, Cardinal Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, and who in that capacity resided in the adjoining palace; indirectly it refers to the marriage of James V. of Scotland with Jane Beaufort, the Cardinal's niece: and it is something to the honour of St. Mary Overies, (the church in question,) to add that it was within its walls that the ceremony took place. Besides Gower, the parish registers state that Edmond Shakspeare ob. 1607 (one of the brothers of the great dramatist), John Fletcher ob. 1625, and Philip Massinger ob. 1640. (See Mr. Knight's Old England, eng. 548. p. 147.)

Blowen.

A cardinal's hat is differenced by colour and the number of its tassels, not by its shape, which is the same for all clergymen. Thus, for simple priests, a black hat, with one tassel on either side; for a bishop, a green hat with three tassels; for a cardinal, a crimson hat with five or seven tassels. What the reason may be for the variation in the number of the tassels amongst cardinals, I should be glad to learn.

W. D-n.

In Ciaconius (VitÆ et Res GestÆ Pontificum, Rome, 1630), there is a list of all the cardinals created up to that date, with their armorial bearings; and the only instances of France and England quarterly (which is, no doubt, what is intended), are those of Cardinal Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, and Cardinal Hallum, Bishop of Salisbury. I can find no mention anywhere of the family of Cardinal Hallum, or Hallam; and should be glad to know who he was descended from, and why he had those arms assigned to him by Ciaconius, who is tolerably correct.

A. W. M.

BOOTY'S CASE.

(Vol. iii., p. 40.)

I cannot refer Demonologist to an authentic report of Booty's case, but I believe none is more so, than that in Kirby's Wonderful and Eccentric Museum, vol. ii. p. 247.

The following extract is given from the journal of Mr. Spinks:—

"Friday, 15th May, 1687. We had the observation of Mr. Booty this day. Captain Barrisby, Captain Bristowe, Captain Brown, I, and Mr. Ball, merchant, went on shore in Captain Barnaby's boat, to shoot rabbits upon Stromboli; and when we had done we called all our men together by us, and about half an hour and fourteen minutes after three in the afternoon, to our great surprise, we all of us saw two men come running towards us with such swiftness that no living man could run half so fast as they did run, when all of us heard Captain Barnaby say, 'Lord bless me, the foremost is old Booty, my next-door neighbour;' but he said he did not know the other that run behind: he was in black clothes, and the foremost was in grey. Then Captain Barnaby desired all of us to take an account of the time, and put it down in our pocket-books, and when we got on board we wrote it in our journals; for we saw them into the flames of fire, and there was a great noise which greatly affrighted us all; for we none of us ever saw or heard the like before. Captain Barnaby said he was certain it was old Booty, which he saw running over Stromboli and into the flames of Hell. It is stated that Captain Barnaby told his wife, and she told somebody else, and that it was afterward told to Mrs. Booty, who arrested Captain Barnaby in a thousand pound action, for what he had said of her husband. Captain Barnaby gave bail to it, and it came on to a trial in the Court of King's Bench, and they had Mr. Booty's wearing apparel brought into court, and the sexton of the parish, and the people that were with him when he died; and we swore to our journals, and it came to the same time within two minutes; ten of our men swore to the buttons on his coat, and that they were covered with the same sort of cloth his coat was made of, and so it proved. The jury asked Mr. Spinks if he knew Mr. Booty. He answered, 'I never saw him till he ran by me on the burning mountain.'"

The chief justice from April, 1687, to February, 1689, was Sir Robert Wright. His name is not given in the report, but the judge said—

"Lord have mercy upon me, and grant that I may never see what you have seen: one, two, or three may be mistaken, but thirty never can be mistaken. So the widow lost her suit."

An action for slander of a deceased husband, brought by the widow, and the defendant held to bail, is a remarkable beginning. The plea of justification, that Booty ran into Hell, is hardly supported by evidence that he ran into the flames at Stromboli. The evidence was, that the defendant said that one of the two runners was Booty; it does not appear that the other witnesses knew him. The witnesses must have kept a good look to observe the buttons of Booty's coat when he ran more than twice as fast as any living man could run. Finally, as the time of the death and the observation "came to the same within two minutes," and Stromboli is about 15° east of Gravesend, Booty must have run to Hell before he died.

I have no doubt that "the case is well known in the navy." The facts are of the sort usually reported to the marines; but the law such as was unknown before 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95.

H. B. C.

THE CONQUEST.

(Vol. ii., p. 440.; Vol. iii., p. 92.)

I question the position of S. K., that the phrase "post conquestum" is used in the deed he cites (Vol. ii., p. 92.) for the accession of the king. "Post conquestum" was, in records and deeds, applied with more or less frequency to all our kings, from Edward III. to Henry VIII. To show this I give the following references to the pages of Madox's Formulare Anglicanum:—

Edward III. 12. 19. 92. 94. 120. 121. 139. 140. 166. 167. 168. 201. 203. 228. 229. 230. 264. 282. 283. 318. 322. 349. 361. 362. 386. 387. 388. 389. 402. 403.

Richard II. 66. 96. 122. 123. 140. 141. 169. 203. 268. 284. 323. 325. 326. 327. 362. 390. 404. 405. 410.

Henry IV. 67. 97. 98. 124. 125. 142. 172. 204. 205. 269. 270. 284. 285. 328. 329. 330. 350. 391. 405. 407.

Henry V. 67. 68. 126. 143. 144. 206. 285. 331. 391. 408. 420.

Henry VI. 18. 34. 100. 101. 103. 104. 126. 127. 145. 147. 148. 206. 207. 208. 233. 270. 271. 286. 331. 332. 333. 334. 351. 364. 392. 393. 394. 409. 410. 434.

Edward IV. 128. 148. 209. 234. 286. 335. 352. 365. 394. 395.

Richard III. 108. 209. 212. 411.

Henry VII. 71. 214. 235. 339. 352. 365. 396. 412. 438.

Henry VIII. 235. 236. 273. 343. 396. 414.

I believe "post conquestum" was also applied to Edward V.; but the records and deeds of his short reign are necessarily but few.

I conjecture that the use of the term "post conquestum" thus originated.

As we had Kings of England of the name of Edward before the Conquest, Edward the First was distinguished from these monarchs by being styled "King Edward, the son of King Henry" (his father was called "King Henry, the son of King John"). In like manner, Edward II. was distinguished from his father by being called "King Edward, the son of King Edward;" but Edward III. could not thus be distinguished from his father; he was therefore called King Edward III.; but, as there were Kings Edward before the Conquest, the third was qualified by the addition of the phrase in question, "post conquestum." To Richard II. generally, and to his successors up to Henry VIII. either generally or occasionally, the same phrase, "post conquestum," was also applied; but, if we except Edward IV. and V., this phrase was not at all required, or applicable in their cases, inasmuch as no King of England before the Conquest was named either Richard or Henry.

C. H. Cooper.

DESCENT OF HENRY IV.

(Vol. ii., p. 375.; Vol. iii., p. 120.)

Upon the deposition of Richard II., 30th September, 1399, Henry IV., then Duke of Lancaster, claimed the crown in the following terms:

"In the name of the Fader, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, I, Henry of Lancastre, chalenge this Rewme of Ynglonde and the Croune, with all the Membres and the appurtenances, als I that am descendit be ryght lyne of the Blode comyng fro the gude Lord King Henry thirde, and thorghe that ryght that God of his grace hath sent me with helpe of my kyn and of my friendes to recover it: the which Rewme was in poynt to be ondone for defaut of Governance, and undoying of the gude Lawes."

Rapin observes upon this (vol. i. p. 476.):—

"It was not without reason that he affected to make use of obscure expressions, which left undetermined the foundation upon which he built his pretended right. If he seemed to derive his title from Henry III. rather than from Edward III., his grandfather, it was because there was a rumour that Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, surnamed Crouch-back, was eldest son of Henry III.; but by reason of his deformity Edward I., his younger brother, was placed on the throne. According to this supposition, the Duke would have made the ignorant believe he could ground his title upon being son of Blanch of Lancaster, granddaughter of Edmund Crouch-back, and heiress of that family. But as he was sensible everybody could not be imposed upon by so gross a forgery, he added certain expressions, intimating that he built his right also upon the service he had just done the state. This is the meaning of the claim, expressed in such obscure terms. As it was resolved to adjudge the crown to the Duke, the Parliament took care not to examine his claim too closely, but were very willing to suppose it uncontestable. Thus, without any regard to the just rights of the Earl of March, it was decreed that Henry should be proclaimed king, which was done that very day," &c.

It would seem, however, that Henry was to a certain extent compelled to make his claim to the crown in the form he did (Hales, Hist. C. L. c. 5.), notwithstanding his desire to do so as a conqueror. (Seld. Tit. Hon. l. 3.)

J. B. Colman.