Notes and Queries, Number 07, December 15, 1849

I have often wished to know whether the tribunal of the Inquisition was ever established elsewhere in France than at Toulouse. Can any of your correspondents enlighten me on the point, and give me references in proof?

    D.

[The work of Reinerius Saccho was first published by the Jesuit Gretser in 1613, and has since been reprinted in the different editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum. It has never been translated into English.]

Whelps.

The following extracts from the Travels of Sir William Brereton may answer the inquiry respecting the ships called "Whelps":—

"Waterford, 25 July, 1635. About six hour I went aboard one of the kings ships, called the ninth whelp, which is in the king's books 215 ton and tonnage in kings books. She carries sixteen pieces of ordinance, two brass rakers, six iron demiculverin drakes, four iron whole culverin drakes, and four iron demicannon drakes. They are called drakes. They are taper-bored in the camber, and are tempered with extraordinary metal to carry that shot; these are narrower where the powder is put in, and wider where the shot is put in, and with this kind of ordinance his majesty is much affected. This ship is manned with sixty men."—p. 164.

"1627. This 26th of February, attending the officers of the navy at Sir Sackville Crowes house by Charing Cross, Sir John Pennington came thither to acquaint them with a warrant from the Lord Duke (of Buckingham) directed to him and myself, for present bargaining with the yard keepers of the river for the building of ten small vessels, for the enterprise of Rochel, of some 120 tons a piece, with one deck and quarter only, to row as well as sail. The 28th of the same month we concluded our bargains with the general yard keepers, and drew convenants between us, and delivered to them accordingly. In this business I was employed till the latter end of July that the ships set sail to Portsmouth. My son John was placed captain in the sixth whelp, built by my kinsman Peter Pett. Having liberty from my lord Duke to make choice from among them all, I chose that pinnace before the rest, supposing she would have proved the best, which fell out afterwards cleane contrary. The 4th September my son John took leave of me in the evening, and went on board his ship, whom I never saw after, being unfortunately cast away in the return from Rochel.

"1628. In this interim I received certain intelligence of the great loss of my son John, his ship and all his company, who foundered in the sea about the Seames in a great storm, about the beginning of November; not one man saved to bring the doleful news, nor no ship near them to deliver the certainty but a small pinnace belonging to the fleet that was within ken of her, and saw her shoot nine pieces of ordinance hoping of succour."—Journal of Phineas Pett. MSS. in Brit. Mus. 9298.

"At the return of this fleet (from Rochel) two of the whelps were cast away, and three ships more, and some five ships who had some of those great stones, that were brought to build Pauls, for ballast and for other uses within them, which could promise no good success, for I never heard of any thing that prospered which being once designed for the honour of God was alienated from that use."—Howel's Letters, sect. v. lett. 9.

The name whelp was probably given them facetiously in reference to their designation as barks.

    EDW. HAWKINS.

Cowley or Cowleas.

Your correspondent W. asks the etymon of "Cowley;"—probably "Cow leas," or Cow pasture. In ancient records it is written "Couelee." I have before me a survey or "extent" of the Hospitalers' lands in England, including those formerly belonging to the Templars. In this record, as in most that I have seen, it is written, "Templecouelee," and it is entered as a limb of the commandry of Saunford or Sandford.

    L.B.L.

Cowley or Coverley—Statistics of Roman Catholic Church—Whelps—Discovery of America.

I can answer pretty confidently the query II. in Number 4., p. 59., about the etymon of Cowley, for I have, on a farm of my own, two denominations of land, called Ox-ley and Cow-ley, and I believe that both these names are common all through England. Like Horseley, Ashley, Oakley and a thousand other leas or leys distinguished from each other by some local characteristic. Coverley was probably not Cowley, but, like Woodley, Orchardleigh, &c., derived from its local position.

In answer to the query as to the statistics of the Roman Catholic Church, p. 61. Number 4., I think I may say there is no such general work, though the Propaganda of Rome was said to register something of that sort. The information is only to be picked up from various and (as far as I know) all imperfect publications. The least so that I can just now refer to is the Statistics of the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, in Thom's Dublin Almanack—a very curious and useful compilation.

In reply to the inquiry as to a priest's wife, p. 77. Number 5., I would suggest that married persons may have separated, and retired each into the celibacy of a convent, yet might join, when necessary, in a legal conveyance; but I should examine closely the word deciphered clericus.

To J.J., who inquires about "Whelps," and refers to Howell's Letters, sect. 5. p. 9., I beg leave to suggest more precision in his future references. The passage is in one (viz. the viii.) of the 42 letters of the 5th section; but in the last and best edition (Lond. 1754) it is p. 204. I note this to inculcate the necessity of accurate references and mention of the edition quoted. As to the query itself, I can answer that the "whelps" were a class, perhaps I might say a litter, of light men-of-war of the fifth rate, which were so called, perhaps, after one named the "Lion's Whelp," in Queen Elizabeth's navy, and distinguished by numbers, as "1st Whelp," "2nd Whelp," and so on to at least "10th Whelp," which is to be found in a list of the navy in 1651. She was of 180 tons, and carried 18 guns and 60 men. It seems not easy to account for this class of vessels having been rated so high as 5th rates, but I suppose they were a favourite and favoured class.

In reference to the discovery of America by Madoc, pp. 7. 12. 25. 57., it may amuse your readers to be informed that Seneca shadows forth such a discovery:—

"Venient annis sæcula seris
Quibus Oceanus vincula rerum
Laxet, et ingens pateat tellus,
Ichthysque novos deteget orbes;
Nec sit terris ultima Thule."

    Medea, act ii, ad finem, v. 375.
"A vaticination," says the commentator, "of the Spanish discovery of America." It is certainly a curious passage.

    C.

QUERIES

BERKELEY'S THEORY OF VISION VINDICATED

In Mr. Dugald Stewart's Dissertation on the Progress of Metaphysical Philosophy he says of Lord Shaftesbury's work entitled Characteristics—

"It seemed to have the power of changing the temper of its critics. It provoked the amiable Berkeley to a harshness equally unwonted and unwarranted; while it softened the rugged Warburton so far as to dispose the fierce, yet not altogether ungenerous, polemic to price an enemy in the very heat of conflict."

To this passage is appended the following note:—

"Berkeley's Minute Philosopher, Dialogue 3.; but especially his Theory of Vision Vindicated, London, 1733 (not republished in the quarto edition of his works), where this most excellent man sinks for a moment to the level of a railing polemic."

Can you or any of your readers do me the favour to inform me whether the tract here referred to has been included in any subsequent edition of the Bishop's works, and, if not, where it is to be met with?

    B.G.

DR. JOHNSON AND PROFESSOR DE MORGAN

Mr. Editor,—Although your cleverly conceived publication may be considered as more applicable to men of letters than to men of figures, yet I doubt not you will entertain the subject I am about to propound: because, in the first place, "whole generations of men of letters" are implicated in the criticism; and, in the next place, because however great, as a man of figures, the critic may be, the man of letters criticised was assuredly greater.

Professor de Morgan has discovered a flaw in the great Johnson! and, in obedience to your epigraph, "when found make a note of it," he has made a note of it at the foot of page 7, of The Companion to the Almanac for 1850,—eccola:—

"The following will show that a palpable absurdity will pass before the eyes of generations of men of letters without notice. In Boswell's Life of Johnson (chapter viii. of the edition with chapters), there is given a conversation between Dr. Adams and Johnson, in which the latter asserts that he could finish his Dictionary in three years.

"ADAMS. 'But the French Academy, which consists of forty members, took forty years to compile their Dictionary.'—JOHNSON. 'Sir, thus it is. This is the proportion. Let me see: forty times forty is sixteen hundred, so is the proportion of an Englishman to a Frenchman.'

No one of the numerous editors of Boswell has made a note upon this, although many things as slight have been commented upon: it was certainly not Johnson's mistake, for he was a clear-headed arithmetician. How many of our readers will stare and wonder what we are talking about, and what the mistake is!"

Certes, I for one, plead guilty to staring, and wondering what the Professor is talking about.

I cannot for a moment imagine it possible, that he could base such a criticism, so announced, upon no better foundation than that mere verbal transposition of the words Englishman and Frenchman.

The inversion deceives no person, and it is almost more appropriate to the colloquial jocularity of the great Lexicographer's bombast than if the enunciation had been more strictly according to rule. Besides, the correctness of the expression, even as it stand, is capable of defence. Let the third and fourth terms be understood as referring to time instead of to power, and the proportion becomes "as three to sixteen hundred, so is" (the time required by) "an Englishman to" (that required for the same work by) "a Frenchman."

Or, if natives be referred to in the plural,—then, as three to sixteen hundred, so are

Englishmen to Frenchmen;

that is, such is the number of each required for the same amount of work.

But I repeat that I cannot conceive a criticism so trifling and questionable can have been the true aim of professor de Morgan's note, and as I am unable to discover any other flaw in the Doctor's proportion, according to the premises, my query, Mr. Editor, has for its object to learn

"What the mistake is?"

    B.

CARACCIOLLI'S LIFE OF LORD CLIVE