short years are worth myriads of ages of monkish slumber, and one such victory as Salamis or Bannockburn is of more value than the innumerable triumphs of the vulgar herd of conquerors."

The words in italics are a counterpart of the thought which is expressed in the poem, and if ever read by the Laureate may have unconsciously germinated in the more antithetical form in which they reappear in his poem. W. E. BUCKLEY.

A PROCLAMATION BY MONTROSE."God Saue The King. A Declaration of the Right Honourable James Marques of Montrose his Excellencie. It were more (I am confident) then superfluous to express from what invincible necessitie his Sacred Majestie, after all essayes, hath been at last constrained to set his service a foot here in this Kingdom: Our Reason, His Majesties severall Proclamations, and our own Consciences may convince; Nay, the miraculous dealings of Almightie God, sufficienlie confirm vnto vs Alwayes, such haue been the obstinacie of some, and Ignorance of others, in their own pernicious and blind Resolutions, as they would rather hazard to plead guiltie of that Sinne, which can not bee pardoned, Er to forgo their horrid or superstitious Courses, still stryving the more to cover their own wickedness or absurditie, to tax his Sacred Majestie, and brand his service with all the desperate Calumnies, (which I abhorre to remember) that Hell or Malice could fashion: Wherefore, To justifie the Duetie and Conscience of his Majesties service, and satisfie all his faythfull and Loyall-hearted Subjects; I, in his Majesties Name and Authoritie, solemnie declare, That the Ground and Intention of his Majesties service here in this Kingdom (according to our own Solemn and Nationall Oath and Covenant) only is, for the Defence and Maintenance of the True Protestant Religion, his Majesties just and Sacred Authoritie, the fundamentall Lawes and Priviledges of Parliaments, the Peace and Freedom of the Opprest and Thralled Subject; And that in thus far, and no more doeth his Majestie requyre the service and assistance of his Faythfull and Loving-hearted Subjects; Not wishing them longer to continue their obedience, then hee persisteth to maintain & adhere to those ends: And the further yet to remoue all possibilitie of scruple, lest (whylst from so much Duetie and Conscience, I am protesting for the Justice and integritie of his Majesties service) I my self should bee vnjustly mistaken (as, no doubt, I haue hitherto been, and still am) I do agayn most solemn declare; That knew I not perfectly his Majesties intentions to bee such and so Reall, as is already expressed, I should never at all have embarked my self in this service; Nay, did I but see the least appearance of his Majesties change from those Resolutions, or any of them, should I ever longer continue my faythfull endevours in it; Which I am confident will proue sufficient agaynst all Unjust and Prejudicate Malice, & able to satisfie all true Christians, and Loyall-hearted Subjects, & Countrey-men, who desyre to serue their God, Honour their Prince, and enjoy their own Happie Peace and Quyet. "MONTROSE."

The proclamation of which the above is a copy is undated. Can any student of Scotch history inform me where Montrose was when this was issued, and the precise date? J. P. EDMOND.

64, Bonaccord Street, Aberdeen.

EXPENSES AT OXFORD IN 1618.-Here is gentleman-commoner's bill at Oxford in 1618.

a

I

THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH IN 1659.-I have not seen the following curious parallel anywhere alluded to as an instance that "history repeats itself." Ludlow here describes his troubles over the oath in Richard Cromwell's Parliament :

"Those that governed at Whitehall had ordered an Oath to be administered to all such as should be admitted to sit in the House, whereby the Members were to oblige themselves not to mention anything against the Protector. This Oath I was unwilling to take, and......tho' I had heard divers arguments for taking the Oath, yet my doubts not being fully satisfied by them, I had hitherto abstained......I went in, and the House being at prayers, I stood amongst the rest of the Members till they were ended, and then went up to the Speaker's Chamber, where, and in the gallery, I sat with as much privacy as I could...... Within a day or two a Member informed me of an Intention in some to complain to the House against me for sitting amongst them without the qualification of the Oath. To which I answered that it was no more than I expected. And accordingly one of the Members......the same day pressed to be heard concernthe House; having been informed that there sat a Person ing a matter which he said concerned the very being of amongst them who had not taken the Oath...... He therefore moved the House to enquire into it......This motion less importance than many other things that were bewas opposed by some, who alledged that it was of far fore them. But Mr. John Trevor, a leading man of the Court Party, seconded the former motion, though with much civility and respect, urging that he could not but think it very seasonable and of consequence......So the debate was entred upon, and divers gave their Opinions that the Oath should be peremptorily required. But Mr. Weaver and some others opposed them, alledging that for the most part, Oaths proved only snares to honest Men, it being generally observed that those who were least conscientious in keeping an Oath were the most forward to take it......This Debate, continuing for two or three hours, was at length interrupted by the discovery of a person sitting in the House, who had not been elected to do so......By this means the Assembly was diverted from resolving to impose the Oath; and tho' they were much inclined to get rid of my Company,...... they were discouraged from resuming that Debate for

the future, tho' they did sometimes mention it by way of Reflection when I moved anything displeasing to them." J. H. ROUND.

Brighton.

Queries.

We must request correspondents desiring information ou family matters of only private interest, to affix their names and addresses to their queries, in order that the answers may be addressed to them direct.

VACHELL FAMILY.-I shall be much obliged if any of your readers can give me some information upon the following point. I am just completing, from the year 1309, a pedigree of the Vachell family. Lysons, in his Magna Britannia, p. 180, speaks of the family thus: "The Vachells, the most ancient family in Berkshire"; and again, at p. 340: "The Vachells of Coley, near Reading, are an ancient family who resided at Reading as far back as 1309. John Vachell was one of the Knights of the Shire in 1324. His grandson settled at Coley, and the estate continued in the family until the death of Tanfield Vachell, one of the representatives in Parliament of the borough, in 1705." In another part of the same book is an account of how "King Charles marched with his

army from Newbury, and stayed at Coley, the

seat of the Vachells."

Ashmole's Berkshire, Coates's Reading, Lipscombe's Buckinghamshire, Cole's manuscripts, and other genealogical works containing information respecting the family, show that it was one of the leading families of Berkshire from the end of the thirteenth to the commencement of the eighteenth century, most of the Vachells of that period being buried in the Vachell aisle of St. Mary's Church, Reading, but that "about the year 1725 the Vachells left Berkshire altogether," the Coley property being first heavily encumbered by the then owner, and finally disentailed and sold.

To complete the pedigree, I wish to discover the parentage of a William Vachell who died at Bath on Nov. 26, 1789. I have strong grounds for believing that this William Vachell (whose death is referred to in the Gentleman's Magazine, and who is there described as "Pumper of the City of Bath") was a nephew of Tanfield Vachell, M.P. for Reading and High Sheriff of Berks, who died in 1705. Warner, in his History of Bath, says that the "Pumper" held his appointment under the corporation; that the office was usually given to some professional inhabitant of the city in reduced circumstances; that the appointment entitled the holder to occupy the Pump Rooms for three years, on payment of an annual rent of eight hundred guineas; and that the Pumper was generally enabled to lay by enough during this time for his future support. William Vachell died at Bath in 1789, and was buried there at

St. Michael's Church. His eldest son was a man of letters, and was one of those who, at a dinner given by Sir Joshua Reynolds to the friends of Goldsmith, signed with Edmund Burke, Sheridan, Gibbon, and others the well-known literary curiosity, the round robin addressed to Dr. Johnson, asking that the epitaph for Goldsmith's monument in Westminster Abbey should be written in English, and not in Latin. If from any of the readers of "N. & Q." I can obtain the information I require, I shall be greatly obliged. IVOR VACHELL.

Hôtel Garibondy, near Cannes.

DOMESDAY BOOK.-Will any reader oblige me with information on the following points?1. What trees are mentioned specially in. Domesday Book? Murray's Handbook states that an oak is noticed in Domesday Book as standing at Berkeley.

Book? Knight's Penny Cyclopædia states that 2. What parks are mentioned in Domesday the Conqueror possessed 68 forests, 13 chaces, and 781 parks. I should be thankful to have a few of these specified as mentioned in Domesday Book. 3. What is the meaning of "Radchenistres hertes"? These two words occur together reR. GEE, D.D.

peatedly.

The Vicarage, Windsor.

ENGLISH KINGS NAMED EDWARD.-Why is it that we English have so far knocked under to the Norman as to ignore the series of our early kings, and reckon our great line of Edwards from 1272 instead of from 901? On this let me quote Mr. Freeman's very just observations from his paper on "The Place of Carlisle in English History the Contemporary Review for September, 1882, read at the annual meeting of the Archæological Institute at Carlisle, August 1, 1882, at the opening of the Historical Section :

" in

"While Hull may boast herself as the creation of

Edward I., the Carlisle that now is can claim no worthier founder than William the Red. I give the founder of Hull his conventional number under protest. Lawyers and courtiers have taught us to forget the worthies of day better knew his place in history; they counted him, our own stock; but the men of the great Edward's own by a truer and worthier reckoning, as Edward III, and Edward IV., fourth among the kings of the English, third among the emperors of Britain."

This misreckoning seems the more extraordinary as each of the early Edwards was distinguished by some special title-Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, and Edward the Confessor. I presume that Egberht is reckoned the first emperor, and Edward the Elder the second, "as the kings of Wales, those of Northumbria, the kings also of Scotland and Strathclyde, acknowledged King Edward as their father and lord, and concluded a firm alliance with him" (Lappenberg, Anglo-Saxon Hist., ii. 97, from the Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 924).

example of a sculptured "ancona," viz., that from San Girolamo in Fiesole, by A. Ferrucci. C. A. C. AUTHORS OF QUOTATIONS WANTED.— "Laughing to scorn, with lips divine, the falsehood of extremes." H. J.

"suggestion" he claims credit for making (quoted by MR. RANDOLPH, ante, p. 251), he only seems to make for the sake of registering the counter argument.

"With pomp of waters unwithstood.""

THE FESTIVAL OF THE POPE'S CHAIR. (6th S. vii. 47, 72, 90, 110, 151, 210, 249.) I am quite at a loss to know to what lines of my reply MR. NESBITT refers when he charges me with introducing "personalities"; it is a fault of which I had thought myself as incapable as of his other charge of " inaccuracy," and as I am certain I am of that of "misquoting." If I have said anything which can be deemed a "personality," I readily apologize for it. The "misquoting" and the "inaccuracy" I can disprove in a few lines. 1. The line which MR. NESBITT says I"misquoted from his Memoir" was not taken thence, but from his reply, and it will be found there word for word, ante, p. 110, 11. 6-3 from the bottom of col. 2. 2. The charge of inaccuracy seems to arise through MR. NESBITT'S wishing what he said against a living tradition" to be limited to the (as he calls them) "attached pieces" of the chair. But it was impossible to understand it so; no one could think of a separate tradition for these, as they had never been considered separately. Besides, ante, p. 151, he does not so limit it. He there calls it "the living tradition of Messrs. Brownlow and Northcote," and that their tradition alluded to the whole can be seen in their appendix, p. 396. Further, the Roman archeologists certainly do treat the chair and the pieces as one whole. Garrucci's words are, "Nulladimeno resta vero verissimo che con questa sedia di Carlo il Calvo assistono uniti gli avanzi della vera sedia gestatoria che tutta l'antichità senza interruzione alcuna ha riconosciuta e venerata per la Cattedra di S. Pietro." De Rossi also (quoted in MR. NESBITT'S monograph, p. 20, 1. 11 from the bottom) speaks of "the interior parts of the chair adorned with ivory, and the exterior undecorated parts"; and Padre Franco (Simon Pietro e Simon Mago, note 54) says, "D'entrambi queste parti si forma un tutto, una cattedra sola." It is incomprehensible, therefore, that MR. NESBITT can charge me with inaccuracy in saying that these archæologists are of opinion that the remnants of the old chair had been incorporated or worked into the actual one. I may further remark here, in passing, that the

a polished way of saying "than a woman, who can have no opinion on such a matter"; for it is impossible MR. NESBITT should know whether the study of Byzantine art is "new" to me, and as a matter of fact, however imperfect, it is not much newer than a quarter of a century. But, of course, the professional is always intolerant of lay opinion; and yet the leisure with which the lay person can live among the productions of art so accessible in Southern Europe affords many advantages which are denied to the professional, whose acquaintance with the same is often based on a hurried holiday tour, undertaken with an overworked brain, perhaps even antecedently directed to follow up a theory preconceived from somebody else's writings.

The more any are conversant with an obscure subject, the less inclined they must be to be positive about it. MR. MASKELL's candid reniarks (ante, p. 152), and the changes I observed in some of the tickets on a recent visit (March 20) to South Kensington, are a proof of this; and I, of course, never pretended to dogmatize about the chair or its adornments. I have endeavoured that the observations the controversy has drawn from me should be as well supported as those of anybody else, and I only offer them for what they are worth to the consideration of others. MR. NESBITT'S theory may to some extent be right, but the facts certainly admit of the other being, at least, worthy of consideration. I cannot either see that a person's private religious opinions need have anything to do with such a discussion.

Now, to sum up: all I have suggested is that the tradition, living and written, the fact of the chair's present existence and of its sumptuous surroundings, as well as the abstract probabilities of the case,† tend to support a hypothesis that a chair used by the apostle Peter‡ was preserved

* On reading this over I perceive there might be a desire, therefore, to say it is simply a general remark, that case in which this might be reckoned a "personality"; I has been forced upon me in the course of frequent residences in the South.

MR. NESBITT says it is futile to enter into the quesbability is a very important consideration in the case, tion of probabilities, but I think it will be allowed probecause in the absence of any great improbability the fact of the chair's existence in such a site, without any record of its original construction, does make it "prove itself," like the well-known homely story of "the man in the stocks."

been in the house of Pudens, MR. NESBITT has no doubt With regard to the kinds of chairs that might have much greater facility for classical reference than I.